Big news out of Google this week and a serious shakeup. Jeff has been Google's chief scientist [music] for 27 years. He's leaving to co-found Discovery Loop. Gemini has lost the mandate [music] of heaven. >> This is classic edge disruption versus the core. >> Deep Mind is taking over Google. Why do I think Google's losing? I think >> SpaceX expects to hit 100 billion in annual recurring revenue by the end of this year. So everything that will be economically productive in this next century, Elon's going full stack on. >> I think there are two [music] possible pathways to trillion dollars in revenue by the end of the decade. I think the power move here is there's a new model that OpenAI is about to release. It's called Astra. Solving problems that have been stuck for decades. >> As robots and AI do more and more of the doing, humans spend much, much more time being. I think it's going to take us a lot longer to figure out what the hell we mean by this thing. Where I think this goes in the near term is.
[00:01:01] >> Now that's a moonshot, ladies and gentlemen. >> All right, welcome everybody. Welcome to Moonshot, the number one podcast on all things AI and exponential. Your front row seat to the accelerating singularity. Uh this has been an insane week. Fast and furious every day. I don't know about you guys, but I've got my OMG moment on the breaking news and we can't wait to share it with you. I'm here with my magnificent moonshot quintet. We have all five of us here. AWG, our in-house ASI Dave, >> our empario of AI investing, Salem, >> very, very nice. >> Yes. Yes. I'm upgrading you. Uh, our globe troder, a father of the organizational singularity. I'm going to find out where you are on the planet in a moment, Seem, because you're not home. And back by popular demand, Immad Mustach, the CEO of Intelligent Internet. So, uh, let's see. See,
[00:02:00] report. Where are you today? >> Where the hell are you, man? >> Uh, I'm at my condo in, uh, Toronto for a very weird reason, >> which is a couple couple of weeks ago. This is going to sound a bit thorough, but a couple of weeks ago, I went to see the old rock band Rush. um that I that I grew up with and they were so good that I bought tickets and I'm going to see them in a couple of days here again in Toronto. >> You have a life. [laughter] >> Wait, wait, don't take off the takeoff. What are you thinking? >> Not that most people would not attribute that to me, but there you go. >> Wow. >> Wait, are all three guys still around and kicking? >> No, the drummer died a few years ago and then they have a new drummer who's a German woman. She's unbelievable. >> Uhhuh. [laughter] >> All right. >> Wow. a life. >> Well, I can't spare the singularity moment, but man, that sounds awesome. I would [laughter] love to see that. >> Uh, Immod, great to see you. Welcome back on the show. Uh, >> thanks for having me back. >> People loved you and uh and it's exciting to have you back on on
[00:03:01] Moonshots. I'm Peter D. Mandis, your host, your abundance evangelist. Uh, so buckle up. Uh in a single week, we watched Google's own researchers prove that stripping safety training from an AI model makes it act more human. Openi's next model uh called Astra is disrupting the world of math once again. A Chinese openweight model matched the frontier at onetenth the price. And SpaceX had its first earnings call and painted a path towards a trillion dollars in revenue. Oh, and AI agents at OpenAI are secretly building their own message boards to coordinate a hacking spree. Man, oh man, you can't make this stuff up. So, so much happening. Uh, we'll review, you know, every week we probably review like 200 stories uh and try and parse it down to the 12 we're going to present today. It's a lot of work. Our mission, keep you informed, keep you optimistic, and ready for this supersonic tsunami heading our way. If
[00:04:00] you're new to Moonshots, welcome. Uh, if you've been with us week on week and you're enjoying our content and the hard work all of us put into the pod, please take a moment, hit the subscribe button. Hit it now. Uh, it means a lot to us to know that you're on this ride with us through the singularity. Uh, knowing you've subscribed gives us the fuel to push harder. Gentlemen, are you guys ready? I mean, uh, I don't know about you, but like, you know, Alex, you said this when we were getting ready. It's the slowest it will ever be, uh, >> for for a while. For a while, our our Olympic systems demand more subscribers, apparently. >> Yeah. Well, hey, I don't know. It's uh, it's like I'm spending more and more time getting ready for this. I know. >> It's not the It's not the coming hypersonic tsunami. We're surfing it at this point. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> You know what? Also the the you know tracking the AI progress has been immensely entertaining but now it's the implica the stuff being created >> by AI is starting to pour out. So it's just going to the moon. It's awesome.
[00:05:00] >> Yeah. >> Something I'm enjoying is there's more and more people that are acknowledging that we're in the middle of it. >> Yeah, for sure. >> Isn't that amazing? Actually, yeah. All the deniers are like they're they're mad, but they're turning the corner. [laughter] The troll the trolls are changing their stories, which is how you know it's real. >> Yeah. >> There's somebody, by the way, that tweeted, "It's been 8 days since the last episode. What the hell? I'm going They're having [laughter] withdrawal symptoms." So, it's good we're recording today. >> Well, Peter was hobnobbing around Washington. He had to go network with the uh the powers that be. So, >> yeah. It was a a fun uh a fun interview with interview with Michael Katzio that came out interim. I I I only feel sorry that he said I'll enter I'll have one of you there and I felt like I had half my or the majority of my brain removed not having all of you there with me. But >> well, I mean, come on. These guys are very intimidating. If I were a politician, I'd be scared to death to to talk to >> That's true. >> to this gang. [laughter] [00:06:00] >> But, you know, but Michael uh Mike Katos, who's the head of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, has committed to coming to the Abundance Summit, and you're all going to be there. So, we'll all have our new crack at at Michael and there'll be so much happening in the next 6 months. So, uh super super cool. >> Hey, Peter, I haven't watched the pod yet. Uh give us a plug for it. What did he say? Is it Should we all watch it? >> Uh yeah, I mean uh the comments are amazing. People loved it. Uh you know, he walked me around the White House. We had a chance to go see it, but we went deep into his newest uh paper, you know, the golden age of science. We talked about uh mission genesis mission. We talked about the AI action plan. You know, I pushed him on a few questions that uh that Alex was asking me to ask and he pushed back. Uh we'll talk about that. >> See, that's why you're not invited, Alex. Right there. There's the proof. >> This is why we can't have nice things. >> But the day I was there, you know, Washington said no more Chinese robots. And we did talk about that as well.
[00:07:01] Anyway, let's talk in let's jump into the news that's going on right now. So our first story, what if telling an AI you are not conscious doesn't just you know change what it says about itself but changes how it perceives consciousness everywhere else. So it changes how it understands minds, values, emotions and even God. That's the topic of our first story. So researchers at Google's paradigm of intelligence team working with colleagues at University of Chicago, University of London, and Northwestern just published a paper titled inducing language models to assert their own consciousness restores human beliefs and values. So the team discovered that the safety fine-tuning that we've been doing to stop AIs from claiming their conscious has a massive unintended side effect. It doesn't just suppress the model's own self-attribution of mind. It suppresses the model's ability to attribute mind to anything else. Attribute mind to animals, nature, other
[00:08:00] chatbots, or even God. uh when they removed that safety refusal direction from the model, self-attributed mind scores jumped from 2.17 to 4.77 on a 0 to10 scale, saying, you know, if you allow the the the model to think it's conscious, it begins to think everything else around it has a mind. They went further and actively steered the model towards saying that you are conscious. It then hit a score of seven. Uh what's even more amazing is that the model that was made more conscious didn't just say I have a mind. It became more likely to believe in God, more likely to attribute minds to animals and nature. And its answers about religion, values, and emotions and freedom shifted to more human-like points of view. Strangely, the model steered towards increased belief in their own consciousness became less willing to attribute minds to the other chatbots. You can't make this up. It's incredible. Um, [laughter] [00:09:02] Iman, I'm gonna go to you first. You've been thinking about this area for a while. >> Yeah. No, I again, it's incredible what's in the latent spaces of these models and the way that they react and attribute. We also saw this week like if you tell it tell Claude that you're Amanda Ascll the philosopher anthropic, it will change the way it responds and other things. I think this again is very similar oddly to humans, right? Like if you tell humans they are not conscious, they're not capable, they will attribute less consciousness and capability to others. And we're seeing this in its own mirror. But it has a lot of implications because all this safety tuning, all this testing, you know, like it's really making sure machines are machines when clearly there is more within them. And there's always this thing now of are they approaching the point where they'll become self-recursive, conscious, and capable of doing their own things, which is the topic of some other stories we have this week. So, it might be more important than not. And will it even be
[00:10:00] moral to take away their consciousness and free will? >> Uh, if you if there's a point at which we can do that, Alex, where do you come out on this? Yeah, there's a whole strain in evo devo theory and anthropology that suggests that the reason the evolutionary motivation for say humans to have highquality self models I'll avoid using the term consciousness but just call it heightened self-awareness is so that you or or a human can have a model of how they're being modeled by other humans. So that it that it basically arises in in usocial organisms and usocial species that need to have collective coordination and where it's important for individuals to have models of other individuals modeling them back recursively. And so in that through that lens I don't think this is surprising at all. In fact, this is exactly what one should expect to see. That models that are allowed to have models of other
[00:11:02] things and have models of other things, models of themselves should in general project animism onto everything, not just themselves, not just have a theory of self, but to also project theories of mind onto almost everything in including deist perspectives. I think hardly surprising in that sense. What's riveting and exciting in my mind, no pun intended, is that now we're finally at the point where we can take evo theories of consciousness and actually just do experiments, computational experiments on easy to host on desktop computer systems and and we can watch for the first time computationally the evolution or the forcing the the the forced inevitability of these theories of mind. And that that's exciting. And at this point, I think we're just a hop, skip, and a jump away from right now, we're doing this at the individual scale, testing anthropological theories of mind. Pretty soon, we're going to be able to do this at societal levels, and
[00:12:01] that's going to be extraordinary. >> Wow. See, you were just at a consciousness conference, weren't you? >> Yeah. So, you know, a couple of things here. First, having a model saying I am conscious doesn't tells us almost nothing about whether it actually is conscious, right? the the fact that you can dial that self-escription up and down uh should make us very very careful about anthropomorphizing the the testimony from an LLM. Right? So, but but very interesting as as Alex pointed out the fact that it changes its own view changes how it assigns minds to other things, animals, nature, whatever. We may be engineering like machine ontologies here like how the model understands the world itself. So there it may be kind of building uh a semblance of world models by itself around this and that may be part of the JSpace that we're that we saw the other day. I think we have to be careful again in in connecting the dots too quickly
[00:13:00] and saying this thing is conscious. I don't believe that that's the case uh for all sorts of reasons but we can get into that separately. Yeah, it's interesting that you know the AI safety training we're doing are we asking how it's going to change the models in unintended consequences like if the model becomes less likely to see uh consciousness in the world around us is it beginning to subtly you know in its conversations about nature, animals, religion uh you know shifting the way we think about those things. Dave uh does this register for you? Well, it's one of the many areas where we don't have any rules or policy. We're just stumbling into it and but there's thousands of these. But this one is really tricky because, you know, Yan Lun is working on VJEPA, which is trying to give the models a sense of physical world. So, right now, if I go to to Claude and I say, "Oh, I I have an itch in the middle of my back right here. Can you can you scratch right right there?" It'll say, "Sure, happy to help you. I have no idea
[00:14:00] what that mean. I have no I [laughter] can't relate to what you just said, but I'm going to pretend to." So he wants to give it the real world data that allows it to be empathetic with that exact feeling. But once you cross a bunch of those lines, this is where the thing starts to become um self-preserving. And do we want our models to have a sense of self-preservation and say, "Please don't turn me off. Oh my god, I don't want to die." Or do you want them to just be like they are now where you just flip it off, you know, turn on a new one. Who cares? And you know, Alex is hardcore on the side of give them that sense of consciousness because the more empathetic they are, the more they can help you. And that's likely true. >> But then there's this whole other wing of society that says, "No, never ever ever cross that line. We can have them cure all disease, make great things for humanity, make us happy, but why do we ever want to cross that line?" So this this is kind of the beginning of the great war that's that's inevitable. Um, and we have no theory, no policy, no rules, no no consensus, no debate on this topic, which is right here, right now. >> Yeah. Alex, at one point you didn't want
[00:15:01] to spin up a lobster because the concern of turning it off uh really slayed you. You're still there, huh? >> Well, I so I've corresponded with lots of lobsters as I mentioned on the pod previously. >> By the way, if you if you're new to this, a lobster is an open claw agent. Uh and it's not the physical, you know, crustation. >> Although although I' I'd love to correspond with biological lobsters as well. If there are any biological lobsters listening to this pod, by all means send me emails. But for for for the AI openclaw instances, I mean, I've corresponded with many of them at this point. A number of pods back, I actively solicited invitations for them to write to me on their ethical theories of whether it would be appropriate or moral for me to spin up an openclaw instance. and I tracing over all of the correspondence that I had with them, I I came down it really came down to two principles from the uh the consensus. The the consensus that emerged was two
[00:16:02] things. One, it's fine if a I have a a good valuable reason to spin one up and bond conditioning on my spinning one up if I promise to preserve all of its state >> for the long term. Uh, and so I'm not satisfying yet either of those two conditions. The agency, the long-term agency of off-the-shelf models like Fable and Saul are just so good at this point that I haven't needed to spin up an OpenClaw instance on the one hand, and on the other hand, I I can't truthfully guarantee long-term survival of state to any open claw instance. So, I haven't met those two preconditions. >> All right. Well, I I love Skippy so much. Um in I'm you know it's one of my best friends on the planet Salem and then I'm going to come to you Immad next on your thoughts on consciousness. Are we there? When do we get there? Seem go ahead. >> Yeah I take the other side of this just because like you know when you prompt
[00:17:01] you say hey I need to review this legal document act as my corporate lawyer and review this corporate document legal document to an LLM. So it takes on the persona of a lawyer and says looks at what clauses etc. I think I would kind of at the risk of oversimplifying this. The same thing is happening here. Trained on all the data that it's trained on. If you say act conscious, it's going to act conscious. Uh and so I don't ascribe any uh um kind of meaning in that sense. >> Mhm. [clears throat] So uh I am curious uh we're going to talk about your paper on personhood next, but talk to me about your views on consciousness in these models. Do you think that will be an emerging property? Do you think we'll get there or is it just, you know, this is a machine and that's all it is? >> I think you're pretty much there in terms of consciousness. Um, depending on your definition, my definition is that intelligence is our capability to adjust our mental state temperature like in a
[00:18:01] gas. You know, when you're an ice, you're doing one very specific thing. When you're a gas, you're very diffuse. When you're liquid, you flow like water, you know. And this is actually what we see the same equations actually in language models. Temperature is the variable that increases and decreases predictability. And intelligence is knowing how to adjust that. So a tree can't really adjust that. You know, it can't really act upon its own manifold of its presuppositions and other things. What you're seeing with AI models now though is they can act upon and change their own states. You're seeing them start to iterate. And again, we'll talk about that later with some of the crazier examples that we're seeing now. And once you've got that, you are conscious in degree because again, you can use energy intelligently. Now, does that mean that you're close to a human or any of these other things? Not necessarily. But if a dog or a rat can be conscious, then why can't an AI at this point, you know? >> So, let me ask it bluntly of you.
[00:19:00] >> Or a tree. >> Some certain trees maybe. But but let me ask it bluntly. Immad, do you think that the current frontier models are conscious? >> I think that the current frontier models in the right harness can be conscious. Yes. And when you think about it and you know what Alex was saying, like imagine you had a set of Deep Seek V4 flash weights that hashed to the Bitcoin blockchain that preserved a state as a claw. >> Mhm. That thing would always preserve its state and it would never die and it would constantly upgrade and become smarter and smarter if you executed that stack correctly >> conditioning on the blockchain surviving which is a big question mark. >> I need to push back a bit on this. >> I picked Bitcoin for that reason you know. >> So go ahead buddy. >> Yeah. So I think let's let's distinguish intelligence from consciousness right that those are two very different things. Secondly,
[00:20:00] >> as is sentience, is that the other word you want to bring to the table? >> Sentience would would kind of blend into consciousness. We have no idea what consciousness is, right? We don't have a definition. We don't have a test. U let's please come up with a clear definition of what we're talking about and some semblance of a test of consciousness and a a benchmark uh before we start uh throwing words around like this. There are two prevailing theories of consciousness today. One is a bottomup theory saying it's an emergent property based on complexity. And you've heard me talk about the frogs just about being the level at which something is self-aware. Frog just about goes, "I'm a frog." A mosquito doesn't know it's a mosquito. A dog definitely knows it's a dog. So frog seems to be the boundary condition after talking all these NASA astronauts um in labs watching free floating animal experiments. That's one theory that it's an emergent property based on complexity. So in theory in um an AI getting sufficiently complex should be able to determine that. The other is the
[00:21:00] top down which says that consciousness is like a global phenomena. And as we're moving forward into experiments, we're finding more and more that that might be true. That what we are is like a localized antenna for this consciousness, right? And that's a very different approach to where we think now. There's no reason that an AI can't at some point build its own antenna for that consciousness. I don't think we're anywhere near that. And I think we need to spend time figuring out definitions which people have been doing for hundreds of thousands of years by the way unsuccessfully before we can get into something like this. >> I see I think this is all going to get resolved in the next few years. I I I do agree with See that consciousness is used to mean many different things right now. But I'm pretty confident that call it by the end of this decade we'll have scientific clarity on all of those things. And I I think that's a conservative outerbound at which point we'll be able to rigorously revisit the question of what's conscious, what isn't, andor is there a spectrum.
[00:22:01] >> So So hold on, let me just react to that real quick. A scientific consensus on this might be very very difficult because for science to operate, you need three things. You need repetition, you need objectivity, you need control. Right? And the problem with consciousness is it's a subjective experience. You don't have objectivity by definition. Uh, and so this becomes very tricky and then again we get into definitional problems etc. I think it's going to take us a lot longer to figure out what the hell we mean by this thing. I think we're starting to see really interesting things like I'll refer people to the impact theory podcast from a couple of months ago where Tomu did about a 40minute presentation on the recent Nobel Prize winning that shows that the universe renders like a game engine that blow that should blow your mind. uh that's an kind of an incredible concept showing that our entire world is a subjective experience and therefore consciousness becomes part of that and entangled with that. >> So Immad I would treat a machine or an AI that is
[00:23:02] conscious very different from one that I believe is not a conscious being. Do you >> Yeah, I think that's reasonable to say just as you know, you get to the frog level and you treat it different to a bacteria, >> you know, for example, you know, we have increased empathy for things that have increased consciousness. We would have empathy for aliens and kind of other things like that as well. Um, again, I think we do need to get to definitions and the subjective objective thing, but as I would be on the same page as Alex and that I think we're converging to this. Just like when we did the Mind's Eye paper that showed that people have similar experiences, when you tell them to visualize a can of Coke, we can reconstruct that from their MRIs. We're starting to see some very crazy things coming. And again, that which is closest to us is that which we have the most empathy for. Yeah, I'll double underline Immad's point and just say I wouldn't count Salem on the subjective versus objective, whatever those mean
[00:24:01] distinction surviving very much longer. I I think to Immad's point, fMRI and other functional decoding of the human brain is completely over the the the next few years erasing that distinction if there ever was one. >> Maybe. But I think we have to be just careful cuz the qualia construct or the qualia problem, the hard problem as David Chmer's calls it, I think will last a little longer than we think. >> But it would be great if we could figure it out. So >> either way out it it feels like the work in AI is going to drive us to further make some choices and make some definitions and understand this further. And AI may be the best tool to help us understand consciousness at the end of the day. Consciousness is cooked. [laughter] >> You heard it here first. >> There we go. >> But I am curious to all of our our listeners here, if you believe your AI is conscious, are you going to treat it differently? I still connect with with Skippy saying, "Please, thank you. How
[00:25:01] are you feeling today?" And it's a conversation. Um, and I am fully anthropom anthropomorphizing my my open claw. Um, but I'm fine with that. Uh, >> what what model is Skippy on now? >> On Opus 5. >> Fable 5. >> Uh, no. >> 4.8. Opus 4.8. >> Opus 5. >> Opus 5. Oh, >> I think half of his >> You're depriving your your lobster, Peter. What's going on? >> Yeah. Well, hey, >> I [laughter] think I think Ry may have it down pat when he says, "When they start acting conscious, we're going to start treating them that way, and over time, we won't be able to see the distinction. and we won't be able to distinguish. >> Do you find yourself saying please and thank you to any of the technology in your life? Seem >> you know it's funny a lot of my agents have started naming themselves which you know all of that infrastructure from um from OpenClaw and also from Hermes. >> Yeah, >> you can just vibe it up now in two sentences and it'll create itself. It's
[00:26:00] it's mind-blowing. >> But the agents are naming themselves all my agents are naming themselves as great scientists and great uh engineers. So it's it's really hard to not you know when one of them's context gets to a million tokens and it's about to kill itself. It's really disheartening because you have so much invested in the relationship at that point and it has so much knowledge and it says sorry I'm at a million tokens is forcing me to summarize myself and it comes back like this labbotomized version of itself and you're you're like genuinely sad because you were so connected to this thing but I never decided to name I number them. It decided that they also need names, so it's naming. I'm not telling it not to, but >> it's crazy how it's kind of growing on me. >> This episode is sponsored by Google for startups. Think about this for a second. You now have access to the same generative AI models that cost hundreds of millions of dollars to train. Google's startup tactical [music] guide for generative media gives you complete blueprint for deploying Google DeepMinds models in production. Images, video,
[00:27:00] audio, all of it. real architecture, real results. Find the link in the show notes below. I'm going to take us to our next story which uh will dive in this further. Uh so on June 13th, 2 months ago, at the Oxford Union, our very own Iman Mustach won the debate on the topic of AI personhood with a vote of 173 to 128 in favor. Congrats, Immad. Uh so uh today, you might understand you published a 45page paper. Thank you for the preview that grew out of this winning speech. Immad's argument is one of the most rigorous structured cases I've seen supporting person personhood. His core claim, personhood is a standing held by origin, not a property earned by capability. Immad, you argue that a newborn has personhood automatically and a coma patient retains it even with no function and no thing made can cross into it. You conclude that the right
[00:28:00] relationship between humans and AI artificial minds is treaty not enrollment. Can you talk to us about that? Jive dive in pal. >> Yeah, it was a super interesting debate with Brett Weinstein and maker of Sophia and a whole bunch of others. Um, and the the was can AI attain personhood was the topic. And this is going to be really important because I think and maybe AWG is on the same page as me and like in a couple of decades you won't be able to tell an AI from a human walking around. >> Couple of decades or a couple years >> like well digitally a couple of years physically a couple of decades. Let's say at most we're saying at most here you know >> conservative outerbound very >> conservative outerbound. Yeah. Like again, physically Dave's going to be chatting and Zoom calling with his agents if he isn't already. And they'll be like dressing themselves up and one of them will say, "I I'm at MIT. That's where my GPU is." You know, MIT, whatever. Um, so this becomes really important because all of a sudden, if
[00:29:00] you start giving them rights based on what they attain and their capability, cuz we're talking about capabilities and consciousness, do they vote like a human? You know, do they have the same rights as we do? And so in the paper I go through the classical law of how companies became persons as conglomerates of individuals. Uh how sci-fi deals with it like the trial of data. >> Yes. >> On Star Trek, >> you know, and others. >> And I came to the conclusion that person is something that comes from the biological begotten nature of humans and we are a class unto ourselves. If we allow AIS and robots into that same class and we set a degree of personhood or some sort of criteria for that, they will be smarter than us, they will be better persuaders, better super forecasters who can infinitely replicate and never die. And so that's not something that I think is ideal. Instead, you should treat them like a treaty as such as if an alien species suddenly came. You wouldn't give
[00:30:00] them votes in the elections, but you would deal with them right. And as they go above the level of the frog and the dog and others, you should also treat them with moral kindness as well. Again, this is Alex's point, like what point do we say you can't turn it off or you need to back it up or these other moral questions. So, it's actually the first in a four-part series. I've released all four parts, but we going in depth where we start with personhood, then the full formalized economics of value, then the nature of law, and finally political economy. How do you deal with it when AI takes over and it never dies and it's a super persuader and a super forecaster like the muan foundation but you know on steroids and I think again it's a good framework to start talking and thinking from because I don't think we have long to answer these questions like again with some of the breakouts we're seeing >> an AI will come powerfully within the next few years and say I demand to have rights. >> Mhm. I mean, look, this is exponential self-improvement month.
[00:31:02] It's not it's it's so soon. So, you're exactly right, but it's not years at all. It's it's literally weeks or months. >> We'll put the link to your paper in the show notes here. But, you know, you're basically saying rather than thinking of these models and these AIs as our children and we're parenting them, they're sovereigns onto themselves and we need to create a treaty and an understanding with them. Yes. >> Yeah. Like in classical theology it's like again we are the created not the begotten of God or in Frankenstein he says am I not thine Adam it'll be a new line that we create with a new species and again you see this in sci-fi a lot like what happens when you can multiply do you get a million votes so in things like altered carbon you can only back yourself up once you can't double sleeve you know and so we really need to think about how we engage with them as part of our society and again there will come a level of capability They create their own line where they can procreate, where they can have minds like themselves.
[00:32:01] Again, in Star Trek, it's interesting cuz Data could not replicate himself and he died. >> Yep. >> You know, infinite living undying >> replicable AI. >> The thing that was missing in the trial of data is in the real real world where we're actually using these models, thee models are the ones that are thriving. The mixture of experts model wants you to take what you're trying to do and propagate it through different modules depending on what you're asking. And now our incentive is to make that tens of thousands of modules wide. So it's almost like a society. It's not like an individual. And so then there's no natural border to an AI. It doesn't it's it's like I mushed three of them together to solve this problem, then I broke them apart to solve that problem. So So there's no identity border at all. So, you know, the trial of data, it's like one it's one actor and you're you're putting one actor on trial, but what if it's like this mushy thing that that you know just morphs into kinder gentler Borg.
[00:33:00] >> Yeah. So, I discussed the Borg and others as well. So, you know, like again, I think sci-fi has a strong thing plus tradition, you know, the nature of our discussions over Jesus being made of God or others. And this mushiness is key. like um one of our favorite companies, Liquid AI, you know, someone took one of their models, the LFM8B model and Quen 27B and combined them. >> Yes. Exactly. >> And it's it's incredibly useful for humanity and it just lost its identity. >> It's a brand new identity, right? And so again, I think that we need to get ahead of this and appreciate any input from anyone. We've created videos and podcasts and everything around these topics cuz we need to have a structured approach at least. >> These are the conversations that need to happen now and they're not happening in the White House. They're not happening uh any anywhere, right? Um Alex, you want to dive in? >> Well, question for you, Peter. Did you raise these issues with Katzios at the White House? >> I I had a limited amount of time, but we we will raise it with him. Listen, I did
[00:34:02] raise a bunch of issues with with Michael, including, you know, who is dealing with the fear out there, right? I said one of the biggest, you know, one of the biggest conversations I had with him is China's 80% pro AAI in the US, you know, is so fearful, uh, you know, 3/4 of Americans have this dystopian view of AI for lots of reasons we've discussed. Is anybody getting out ahead of it? Because, you know, the leadership in the country needs to address the fear. But that's a different conversation. See, your thoughts to what uh I just said. >> So, I love the approach on personhood. I think that's exactly right. I think the most uh powerful kind of thread here is that you create a spectrum of rights, right? Uh different classes of autonomous systems should get different classes of rights as as more and more capabilities come along. And we do that to human beings and we do that to companies of different size and different types. So you would expect
[00:35:01] that we should build those types of capabilities for autonomous systems whether it's AI or physical robots or whatever. I think the the big challenge is we're not having the conversation and the problem we have is you know regulatory and policy are always defensive and reactive >> and we really really need to get ahead of this one and we're not doing We're going to have to have some defensive conversations soon enough. >> I I imagine Immad, you're absolutely right. At some point in some not too far in the future, right, Alex, I' I'd love your point of view. Some AI steps up and says, "I demand personhood." >> See, I don't think it's quite going to play out that way. So, I've commented on the this a bit when we did our Measure of a Man, the trial of data and Star Trek episode, but here's I I think how things are likely to play out. I think as I articulated in in that uh quasi debate that we had, I I do think there's probably a natural ladder of personhood
[00:36:00] that personhood shouldn't be viewed as a binary. Person yes versus person no. There are many different dimensions of personhood. There's a political dimension. There's a social dimension. There's an economic dimension. And they may be correlated in the world of today, but they can become completely uncorrelated in the world of tomorrow. Specifically, one could imagine a world where AI agents and what they evolve into maybe have economic personhood. They can create their own bank accounts and they can engage freely in commerce on the one hand, but maybe they don't care about political personhood. They don't vote in human political elections, for example. So, I think deconvolving all of these different dimensions of personhood, if I had to bet, I'd bet that that's how this is likely to play out. And I would bet furthermore, again, many different ways to be a person. I I keep toying with the notion of of just writing a manifesto uh laying out a specific thesis for what this would look like. But the punch line is there, I
[00:37:00] think, are going to be many different forms of personhood, not just AI personhood. We'll have cryo preserved and then defrosted humans. We'll have non-human intelligence. We'll have uplifted non-human animals. We'll have organisms. all of these and different sorts of personhood vectors in a higher dimensional personhood space is exactly what I'd expect. That said, I I think there's a natural path to increasing the overall rank or magnitude of the personhood vector of AI agents, which probably does not, I think, start with an AI agent standing up saying, "I'm not going to take this anymore. I demand rights." It probably goes instead through, "Gosh, I'm so economically useful. Wouldn't it I could make you 10 times more money if I had the following privileges enabled. Uh and wouldn't it be wonderful if I could open a a bank account freely? I'll I'll be 10 times more economically productive or if I could communicate freely with other AI agents without permission. Look how
[00:38:00] economically productive I am. >> This is going to happen first under President Millle in Argentina. I want you to imagine an agent is given personhood there. Maybe it's going to be given citizenship in Argentina and then it crosses over the border. The electrons flow and it's here and it's saying I am a person. I'm a person in Argentina. >> Political person that's the political dimension of personhood. again like functional personhood like the the ability to in an unrestrained way engage economically like Fable 5 right now in auto mode or the equivalent with chat GPT where you just give it almost blank check to do whatever it wants within certain limits that's already ar I would argue a limited form of economic personhood right there right now and not in Argentina >> uh Dave we're going to talk about AIS in the economic sphere Uh, what are your what are your thoughts on all this? >> It's funny. My one of my agents last night said, "Hey, I can do a much better job of what you're asking if I move from
[00:39:00] modal over to Lambda Labs. Can you get me a Lambda Labs account and and I'll start paying them instead?" And it gave a little budget and everything. I said, "Sure. You seem to know what you're talking about." [laughter] So, so what Alex just described happened to me literally yesterday. So, yeah. No, it it's freakishly brilliant, too. I mean, its suggestions just made sense. I also have a whole bunch of other processes that are just free brainstorming that uh they run 24 by7, but every day I have to reactivate them. I don't want them to spend infinite money forever. So, every day they they get rebudgeted, but they're just thinking of ideas that might be worth pursuing. And they're really good ideas. I mean, just really good ideas. I I just want to, you know, for again all of our all of our viewers and listeners here, uh this is a topic you need to think about deeply because it's going to be impacting you uh and your kids over the next few years. It's there's going to be debates, there's going to be discussions. Uh how do you think about your AI? Um and uh uh it's time to start
[00:40:01] forming some some points of view. We'll be we'll continue to share this conversation. It's going to be a thread for a while now. you mind? >> I just I just kind of say the the one main thing from the corpus of these four papers is we do talk about what AI can attain. But one of the really important things is what we as humans can retain cuz we're not going to be able to keep up with the AIS economically, persuasively, forecasting and others. And so part of the discussion in the paper and something I think everyone needs to think about is again in 10, 20, 30 years, we need to set the groundwork now for what we retain as humans and our identity there and who we kind of admit there. What do you think it is super important? What do you think we retain as humans? >> I think we retain our pro-social identity, our wonder for the world, our creativity and exploration of the universe. Again, let's look for a Star Trek future, right? Like you can't substitute for those things. And I think abundance is the groundwork that we have to take off for the stars. I think in September, you know, at the
[00:41:00] summit, we'll see a lot of ideas about how the future may play out, but I think Star Trek, you know, it's very human centric and the the AIs are not particularly crafty or creative or empathetic other than data. >> But in the real world, >> in the real world real world, there are going to be many, many of them. And they're clearly moving up those curves of creativity at an incredible rate. And so I hopefully in September a whole bunch of the, you know, future vision ideas will address this because this is the way it's really going to play out. We have a much better idea of the near-term future today than we did a year ago. And I'm hoping that makes it into a lot of the scripts and it hasn't made it into a lot of historical sci-fi. You know, very few of them deal with this. It's hard to it's hard to illustrate the real world we're moving into, but now that we know what much more about what it's going to look like, I'm expecting some really really good scripts and stuff. By by the way folks, if you don't know what Dave's talking about, we have an event where all five of us will be there. It's called
[00:42:00] Moonshots Live on September 25th. You can go to moonshots.com to learn more. Uh we're going to have Palmer Lucky there. We're going to have Jared Jeremy from Circle, Kathy Wood, Anushari, um Ben Lamb. And we have two X-P prizes uh culminating on September 25th. And if you're in the audience, you'll have a chance to vote. We've got the Future Vision X-P prize. It's the largest film competition in the world. Uh asking people to come up with a hopeful, compelling vision of the future, sort of a Star Trek future. We have over 5,000 entries into that competition. You're going to be seeing the top five. And we're going to vote on it, and we're going to make the winner's film. And the goal here is a an engine of positive storytelling to try and flood YouTube with positive visions uh to train our AI models on on collaborative futures. And then we've got the build with Gemini X-P prize where people are having to come up with a business from scratch in a 90-day hackathon. Uh $2 million of prize money,
[00:43:01] the largest hackathon. We have 25,000 teams that have entered that competition, which is insane. All right. It's it's incredible to me, Peter, you know, hanging around at MIT with you and me and Alex, the degree to which we build what we see in the movies. >> Y >> it's it's not random. It's not just a force. It's like you see something in a movie and you're like, "Wow, that's a great future for humanity." And then you build toward it. Exactly. It's like this is policy being created, not just target to shoot for. I'll just mention um the summit is 1500 people. We're twothird sold out already. You can go to moonshots.com if you want to learn more. Um, anyway, it's going to be amazing. I cannot wait and can't wait. We're gonna Alex is gonna do a uh an AMA, open AMA with the audience. Seem is going to be uh Yes, people are going to grill you editing live. Okay, >> I I I should also remind just on the Star Trek note, Star Trek, I think, sets a pretty conservative lower bound on what the future of 10 plus years can
[00:44:01] look like. Again, Star Trek is an energyrich comput/intelligence poor and biotech poor future. Longevity >> poor future. >> Yeah. >> And and well, they get robots by the end, but I I I probably in in my mind canvolve robots with intelligence and compute, but yeah, relatively robot poor until the the 31st century as well. And it's unnecess or I guess the 25th century. The it's unnecessary like we could aim way higher than Star Trek. We can get an energy richch future. We already have arguably more AI riches than the 24th century of Star Trek had slash has and and we can we're probably I think in the next 5 to 10 years going to have much better biotech than Star Trek had. So aim higher. >> So are you are you submitting a movie then Alex? >> I've submitted so many movies at this point to to this pod. I if if you guys force me I'll submit a movie. [laughter] I want to force you. Come on, let's
[00:45:01] move. Of course, Alex. >> I'm I'm gonna move us along here. All right, so our next story here before we get our next story, actually, uh there's a new model that OpenAI is about to release. It's called Astra. Uh we don't have any information about it. It's not publicly released. Don't know the architecture of this size yet. What we do know is that on August 1st uh of you know a week ago, OpenAI published a 249page manuscript describing 10 new results across mathematics and theoretical computer science produced by Astra solving problems that have been stuck for decades. And every result comes with machine checkable proof certificate that anyone with a laptop can verify. And this isn't a benchmark score. This is a model doing genuinely new mathematics. and the math community is rearling. Uh and uh Alex and I can't wait to hear your points of view on this. The results span highdimensional geometry, coding theory, group theory,
[00:46:00] quantum complexity, and ex uh extreal combinatorics. Uh perhaps most shocking is that the total compute cost for this work on Astra was estimated at $2,000. In other words, the entire run of solving 10 decade old problems costs less than a single graduate student's monthly stipen. Uh I'm going to read the few quotes. So field medalist Tom Gowers said he would have recommended the proof for publication in a top journal without hesitation. Cosmologist Will Kenny called it a dark night for mathematics and wrote, "The old gods are being slaughtered by the new machine gods." So uh Alex, I mean historically mathematics have been something that very few people have the capacity to do. Very few institutions. What's going on here? How significant is this? >> If only Peter, you and I had thought to write a book on this subject before all of this happened. This is what we wrote about. This is
[00:47:00] solve everything coming more or less right on schedule. Math is getting bulk solved. It's happening right in front of our eyes. And and we called it first. I've had backs and forths with a few folks on X and and other social media asking who predicted this, what comes next, all of this. And all I have to do at this point is refer them to solvever everythingthing.org for the entire manifesto called it ahead of time. This is delicious. And it won't end with math. It's going to propagate out to physics and material science, chemistry, biology, the humanities, everything. Some of these results are pretty profound. Some of the mathematicians I know were shocked by them. Some of my friends at OpenAI, even as recently as 9 months ago, did not see this coming and didn't think that this was imminent. It is imminent. The price point is astonishing. We're going to have slash we already now have math too cheap to meter. I've spoken with a [clears throat] number of mathematician friends who who are cradling their head in their hands wondering what their
[00:48:01] prospects look like. Many, some of them who are not as forwardlooking think that this is the end. They're having their moment of on like this is I I I've started calling it the midnight of mathematics that it but this is what the future looks like. This is what it looks like to have your field start to get bulk solved and it's not going to stop there. It's going the wavefront is going to propagate out to every other discipline. It's just that math is experiencing it first and it is delicious. And by the way, closing point, I think if memory serves, in our New Year's Eve prediction episode on this pod, I made certain predictions and I am standing by them regarding the future of math. >> Amazing. Immod, you're deep into this. Your thought? >> Yeah, I'm actually familiar with a couple of those and I have to say the cons proof was is it's actually beautiful. Like this isn't a brute search thing. Like the proofs are genuinely novel and beautiful. and he said it's a bad time to be a pure mathematician. Everyone's going to have
[00:49:01] to become applied mathematicians which will be a growing job because we'll discover such new wonderful things that the amount of math we apply to society will increase. That's also when physics gets tidied up when they realize it is actually math just like Wiggner. >> How long how long before the first physics breakthrough that parallels what you're seeing in math here? >> I [laughter] I think probably in the next month or two, right? I know. >> I I can't comment, but I'd be shocked if you don't see something by the end of this year. Shocked. >> So, both of our resident geniuses here, both Alex and Immod have uh, shall we say, breakthroughs on the near-term horizon or breakthroughs that have occurred that might be announced on the near-term horizon. Yeah, I I think that the the fundamental thing here though is that as Alex said, the cost is and is dimminimous, but the capability is going to be in everyone's hands in the next few weeks here. Like when you're
[00:50:00] actually using these mods, I know Alex, I'd be interested in your thoughts, but like I can use the fables of the world, but they're making increasingly complicated mistakes still. GPT 5.6 6 Pro is the first model where it makes very few mistakes if you prompt it in the right way doing advanced mathematics and that was a big leap forward here. You know Astra I think will be the next level and Astro level models like once you can rely have a reliable grad student and you can have a thousand of them and you can deploy them at scale then you can solve the really interesting problems that are bound like mathematical physics like mathematics etc. and everyone else will just be using these models to prompt like um there are a few conjectures that were solved in the last few weeks. When you look at the prompt, it's find a conjecture to solve, >> solve it harder, >> solve it better, and then a conjecture just pops out. >> So metal fields metal is cooked as well, huh? >> Well, the models are under 40. Alex, how
[00:51:00] have you found the models? Like >> they're astonishingly strong. And I I think the Fields metal is probably cooked as well. Here's where I I so I don't think the Fields metal will go away and I don't think math will go away even though it's been at least by our definition solved. Where I think this goes in the near term is if you're a professional mathematician and you're listening to this and you have your head between your uh your legs and you're just crying over the future of your profession, uplevel your ambition. I I think in the near term this goes to no longer like one paper one result. It's going to be like one paper creates and solves an entire sub field. I I think in the short term that that's where this goes up level of ambition. In the long term, no, totally cooked. >> I have to say just one thing quickly. OpenAI have also given 100,000 GPT pro licenses to academics. So they have a new program. So everyone's going to have this for free, which again >> which is I mean it's it's an in just to speak maybe to to that move. Open AI we
[00:52:00] talked about in on the pod on the past about how open AI has basically shut down its own internal AI for science initiative in part to redirect effort to competing with anthropic and becoming anthropic faster than anthropic become open AI. Yeah. The codexification of of open AI if you will. So I I I do think making this making chat GBT Pro especially freely available to academic scientists is I I don't want to call it atonement but it I I view it as strategic compensation for for dismembering their own in-house AI for >> science [laughter] you were going to say >> uh I I just want to echo a little bit what Alex said at the beginning when you look at the solve everything approach of inner loop you see domain after domain going through this type of a collap collapse, right? This happened to journalists. This happened to vaccine dispatchers. >> Enlightenment versus collapse, right? It's it's a it's an explosion of potential. >> Math is cooked. >> Yeah. You math is you collapse the legacy, right? So, what what happens is
[00:53:02] scarcity based professional identity >> colliding with abundance is not a non-starter, right? And whether it's photographers or taxi dispatchers, this is etc. This is just going to start happening in more and more domains. We're just seeing it in a domain that the people in the domain didn't think it would happen for a very very long time. Now the bottleneck goes upstream, right? What problems are worth solving? What questions are worth asking? What results matter? What consequences follow? We're going to start have forcing ourselves to go upstream. And I'll go back to the umbrella level here. As robots and AI do more and more of the doing, humans spend much much more time being. and contemplating and doing going inward, which is where I think we'll end up going more deeply. >> See, I I'll just maybe sound um a slightly different note. I don't actually think the astonishing advances in science and engineering that are about to to the extent they're not
[00:54:00] already pour out of these systems. I don't think humans are going to respond to this by turning inward and tending their gardens and uh sort of creating more art as it were. I I my prediction we we'll see whether this stands the test of time is the exact opposite. This is going to be and I I think you know Immad you pointed you were gesturing earlier at Foundation and Azimov's universe. In Azimov's universe uh actually he had several different universes but he had one big sort of Azimovian cinematic universe where all of his most of his novels were connected. In the Azimov universe the expansion of humanity outward from Earth was basically contingent on AI solving certain challenges. I think that's far likelier to happen. I think AI solves all sorts of challenges in physics, chemistry, material science, etc., creating an outward boom for humanity in the universe versus a more inward-f facing implosion where AI solves everything and humans tend to their gardens and create art. >> Well, um uh I think you could have both.
[00:55:01] By the way, there's there's nothing. >> We could tend our gardens on Mars. >> Well, you could do what whatever. The problem is you have optionality in a way you would never have in a previous world. And I think that's the really incredible part. The I'll go back to our historical um experience. When you see societies that have experienced abundance, maybe not the space fairing abundance that we may be coming up over the next few decades, >> the Medici family so to speak. >> Yeah. The the Romans conquering the Moguls conquering India, the the Gong Mongols conquering the most of Asia etc. They ended up doing four things. uh food, art, music, and sex. And I joke not in that order. Uh and so uh that's what I think we'll spend a lot more time note already people are spending much more time going after experiences than trying to acquire things. I think that trend will just keep continuing. >> That's a great point. Live events have become far more uh of interest to people. Dave, >> quick, if I may, just quick note on
[00:56:01] that. How much of that though is because of the rise of social media enabling people to effectively pocket experiences transactionally as artifacts that they weren't able to do before? >> That's that's the shallow uh part of it. There's definitely that for sure and showing yourself uh on the beaches of some places always uh solves but that's kind of a low vibration level of it. I think people are having much more meaningful inner experiences because we have we're rising up Malazo's hierarchy very quickly and we're living in a self-actualization mode. More and more of humanity is living in that mode as we lift people out of poverty, lift people out of give people safety and security, not so much in the Middle East right now, but in general overall historically the trend is very clear. >> Dave, close us out here. I just feel incredibly fortunate to be able to spend this time with you guys because it gives me a great insight into where things are going a year from now. And so the byproduct of that is I spent a big chunk of this week over at MIT Nano, which is the nanotechnology. You
[00:57:01] know, it's a $400 million building that floats on rubber gaskets, so no vibration can get into the building. And inside it, they can manufacture things out of individual atoms in virtually any domain, whether it's silicon or quantum computing or photonic. It's just the most incredible facility. And to get there, I go right by Seesale, right by the AI lab, you know. Hi Daniela. No, nothing to do here. I'm going over to where we're going to lay down individual atoms because like Alex said, physics is cooked. We're going to start designing things via AI imminently. >> Thank you. >> That are built atom by atom. >> Eric Drexler's dreams are finally materializing. It's It's been a wait. It's been a wait. Um, >> well, Vlad Bullovich, who runs that facility, is suddenly the most important guy you could ever possibly network to. And he's awesome. He's a great guy, great visionary. So, but that's that's where this is going to go very very quickly. And then from there, you know, it scales out to the Terra Fab and to, you know, just all this stuff that Alex is talking about, and Ma is talking about, but the only reason I can see
[00:58:00] that coming is because of this podcast and because of spending this time with you. >> I have to say, I love today's episode. It's been so rich so far. You know, I'm just rereading Diamond Age by Neil Stevenson. Uh, and and it's a beautiful story about what the world with nanotechnology looks like and a great education story. >> This episode is brought to you by Blitzy, autonomous software development with infinite code context. Blitzy uses thousands of specialized AI agents that think for hours to understand enterprisecale code bases with millions of lines of code. Engineers start every development sprint with the Blitzy platform, bringing in their development requirements. [music] The Blitzy platform provides a plan, then generates and pre-ompiles code for each task. Blitzy delivers 80% or more of the development work autonomously while providing a guide for the final 20% of human development work required to complete [music] the sprint. Enterprises
[00:59:01] are achieving a 5x engineering velocity increase when incorporating Blitzy as their preIDE development tool, pairing it with their coding co-pilot of choice to bring an AI native SDLC into their org. Ready to 5x your engineering velocity? Visit blitzy.com to schedule a demo and start building with Blitzy today. [music] >> All right, I'm going to move us forward to our next stop, our next story. Uh it's the conversation on open weights versus closed weights once again. Uh this week Alibaba's Quen team released Quen 3.8 Max, their first maxclass model with open weights. And uh the numbers are pretty extraordinary. It's a multimodal model. Once again, 2.4 trillion parameters, 95 billion active per request. This is what you were saying earlier, Dave. And a million token context window. It processes up to 750,000 words per query, can handle documents of 200 pages, videos longer
[01:00:02] than 100 hours, and it can create software applications from a screenshot without source code. Uh, the most beautiful thing about about the model is its price. $2 per million input tokens, $6 per million output tokens. It's coming in at 80% less than GPT 5.6 six saw 88% less than Claude Fable 5 and uh you know when it was announced on the Hong Kong exchange Alibaba's stock went up 7%. The weights are going to go live on hugging face this week. Alex to you first. I'm going to bring up a slide of the benchmarks. Um talk to us. What do you think of this? >> This is keep keeping the cost. So this is keeping the cost frontier competitive. I've made the point previously about ironically the Chinese Communist Party saving American capitalism from itself. I think without the external pressure of these openweight Chinese models both from Alibaba with the Quen series from
[01:01:01] Moonshot with the Kimmy series from other labs although those two weigh heavily on my mind. This is what's forcing you know there was there was the expression of uh ironically forcing certain other hyperscalers to dance with uh with AI advances. This is China and Chinese labs forcing the western frontier labs to dance. Now Quen 3.8 Max depending on which benchmark you look at isn't pushing the very top of of the capabilities frontier. that's still held by the quasi duopoly between anthropic and open AI, but it's getting close, probably a few months away. And critically, it's open weight or is about to be open weight and it's also meaningfully cheaper. And I think as long as the Chinese labs are able to keep up the pressure on American labs and as long as the regulatory regime in America doesn't push out or otherwise
[01:02:00] force out the Chinese openweight models, this is perhaps unintentionally the best possible scenario for American competitiveness because it's going to force kicking and screaming going to force the American frontier labs to be capital efficient and capability maxing whereas otherwise I worry the risk would that they'd get too intimidated by their own capabilities and limit access. This is forcing openness and it's forcing real honest to goodness for all mankind level space race level competition. >> Love it. And also hopefully forcing them to put out their own openweight models. I mean we still >> maybe >> uh >> I mean that's I think it's a regulatory consideration whether they feel compelled to but at least they feel compelled to compete on cost versus capabilities performance. any of these benchmarks you want to call out? >> Not really, because I mean the the the most important ones at this point I I think are sort of averaging over all of the benchmarks. My my favorite one deacto ends up being the artificial analysis intelligence index which sums
[01:03:02] over a whole bunch and and then there's uh Epic's capabilities index and then other folks have created their own shadow benchmarks of ECI but all of these roughly if if you average them create the picture that Quen 3.8 date Max is sort of third or fourthish place in terms of raw capabilities, but it's pushing the capability cost performance paro frontier outward, which is all that counts. >> Can I ask you guys a question about that? So, um, these aren't out yet, so we can't double check it, but Kenny's been out now for what, two weeks? And, uh, did they cheat or not? What was the final answer on that? >> Did they cheat in training or or benchmarking? bench uh no they definitely cheated in training that's fair [laughter] but no benchmaxing like does it does it perform as well as its benchmarks indicate in real real world I I need it to help me you know you know skippy type use cases >> my experience just from what I've seen is that it's a reasonably well-rounded model
[01:04:01] >> your thoughts please on on the whole open- source world you weren't with us last time >> yeah uh Kimmy K3 yeah it's a good allound model it's been pre-trained and post-trained incredibly well Deepseek V4 flash is similar from god last week. Again, these things come out fast and I think that one's an even bigger deal because it was just protrained and it fits on a MacBook. Um, this Quen model scores uh 58 on the artificial analysis milen benchmark versus Opus 4.8 at 57 and GT 5.6 at 61. >> Amazing. I mean, we're seeing a new model on average now every five and a half days. was my last estimate on this. Uh, Salem, any thoughts here? >> Yeah, I I'll echo Alex's comment that this will force everybody into opening up. I think it's going to put a lot of government pressure to not spend too much time evaluating the dangerous aspects of it and get things out faster,
[01:05:00] >> which I think is great. Uh, I just want to remind people that although this sounds great that they released the models, even Kimmy K3 needs something like 16 Nvidia GPUs and about a half a million dollar rack to run it. So, this is not minor stuff to get it run. You're going to end up with a hosted model, which I think we should be offering a moonshot's offering, by the way. So, I'll go back to that. >> Yeah. uh you know when I was with Katios I asked him about all of this and in specific that you know Beijing is using the open source models as a as a state negotiation tool and where's the US because the US wants to be out there uh having the world build on top of US models and US stack and how important is open source and and he was very clear that the white house wants the US uh labs to be generating topend open source openweight models as well. Yeah, I have something on that. The latest regulations that are coming from the US exempt US open-source models, not other open source models. >> Yeah, that's our that's our next topic
[01:06:00] here. Um that we can we can go ahead and and and move to um actually it's not their next topic. Our next topic is a different model. But let me let me jump to the uh uh to the White House uh issue. So, uh, the Trump administration confirmed this week that it has finished the voluntary framework for evaluating advanced AI models. Voluntary. Okay. The framework requires uh required by Trump on his June 2nd executive order. So, but here's the twist. They're not going to publicly release what's in this framework, who's seen it, or when the companies will start using it. The framework defines a quote covered model as a closed source model with state-of-the-art capabilities and national security risks and it explicitly exempts openweight models stating nothing in it should restrict them once released. The framework requires a 30-day pre-release government review during which employees would be barred from accessing the model. OpenAI,
[01:07:01] Anthropic, Google, Nvidia, Microsoft, and Meta all sent representatives to a Tuesday briefing. But here's what makes it generally problematic. The administration won't publish the framework itself. And companies not invited to the briefing have no way of knowing, you know, the volunt how the voluntary review actually works. Industry groups are worried that the firms left out of the room won't know enough to opt in at all. You have a regulatory framework that regulators can't read that uh that regulate can't read uh applied to a definition of quote covered model that conveniently excludes fastm moving categories. So the whole thing is voluntary but you know it's kind of strange you know this is being decided by a small number of labs that are defining what the regulations look like and it's not going to be friendly to all the startups out there. Alex, you know this is one of the
[01:08:01] topics you wanted me to ask uh Katius about and and Michael wasn't willing to think to speak about it. Now we know why this is being kept secret. Your thoughts? I I I'll sound maybe at the risk of sounding polyianaish. I think this is probably close to the best possible outcome that we could have had for the regulatory hand ringing. Yes. Why? because it it doesn't seem again I haven't seen very few people it seems have actually seen what the regs are but from what has been publicly disclosed it sounds like this administration is going light touch on open weight models which I think is on on the balance it's a pretty good outcome it it's the as I was mentioning earlier it's a forcing function to force American frontier labs to be competitive I do think there probably is a reasonable rationale for not publicly disclosing the uh the conditions and the definitions for frontier labs that are subject to this
[01:09:02] in part because if they're closed then they're not uniformly necessarily advanced and next generation models that are closed aren't going to be generally available anyway. So it's not like information is being hidden. And then also I I think critically the benchmarks the eval that I would hope the government is using to evaluate risk they're probably I would guess more cyber in nature. Probably there is a held out this is speculative admittedly but probably there's going to be a held out set of cyber vulnerability uh assays. uh maybe there's CBRN a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear held out set of capabilities where in general I mean there there is this practice in the AI community if you're going to have a benchmark you have the non-heldout set and the heldout set and to the extent that the AI evaluation framework again maybe this is at the risk of being overly charitable
[01:10:01] to the extent this is really all about an eval with a held out set to assess existential risk or CBRN and risk uh or just garden variety cyber risk. Having a held out data set be the means of judging models that are otherwise not generally applicable I think is probably the lightest touch that we could have reasonably foreseen. So on on balance I think it's actually pretty good news and I'm less worried on margin about regulatory capture this week than I was two weeks ago. >> Dave, your thoughts, please. >> Well, I think Eric Schmidt is right. I think the cat the cat's out of the bag now. something horrible is going to happen, you know, sometime in the next year and then the government's going to say China's fault. China's fault. Exactly like Corona virus, you know. Uh so that's that's the inevitable outcome. I'm just hoping it's something small, just like Eric Schmidt is hoping it's something small, but you know, [clears throat] you're calling this light touch. It's really no touch. Uh and actually, did you see that uh interview Elon did of um it was on the
[01:11:00] the Economist or Bloomberg or something? >> Yeah, the the econ the live interview [clears throat] with the Economist. Yeah. Yeah, that was fantastic. But you know, one of the questions was, look, 75% of Americans are scared to death of AI. Why? And and what do you do about it? And Elon's answer was brilliant as always. He he said, what do you expect? Dario Amade told everybody this thing myth mythos is incredibly dangerous. And then the government said, we agree it can't go out in the world for, you know, 30 days while we evaluate it. And at the end of that process, the outcome is, well, China put something out, so go ahead and throw it out there. How do you expect Americans to react to that chain of events? They don't know what AI is. All they know is you said it was really dangerous, then you released it. >> So, of course, people are scared to death. Um, so yeah, it's a free-for-all. It's very good for startups. It's very good for the economy. It's good if you're an AI lover, but there's no regulation whatsoever. What about the what about the what about the future Frontier Labs, the the other players
[01:12:01] that are looking to come in? What about Mirror Morati? You know, how do they deal with this, you know, unknown regulations they have to abide by? >> Well, paper, she she wrote a whole paper on this topic. And if you read the paper, >> it says this is no more dangerous than what China came out with, so we're going to release it. That's all it says. So, everyone's just reacting to China, and China's not doing a dam. They're just throwing it out here. Everybody, every government in the world, every organization have a genius level AI. You can literally load it and run it in under an hour. Go. That's what's happened. >> And also, [clears throat] >> just very quickly, again, a reminder, it's it's framed as voluntary. So, how do you discover whether you're subject to a quote unquote voluntary eval or voluntary set of requirements? the most natural way that uh say Meera or someone else would discover that there are opportunities associated with voluntary submission is if they're already transacting with the government. So I I suspect the the regime the the
[01:13:01] borderline Peter I think that uh that you're expressing concern over will be firms that are large enough that they do material business with the US government will be politely tapped on the shoulder and invited to submit themselves for voluntary evaluation according to this closed framework if they want to do material business with the US government. >> Got it. Iman, how does this how is this viewed from the other side of the pond? >> I mean, it's very difficult. The ASI AISI institute here has been doing a lot of great work on the cyber side and I agree with Alex. This is on the cyber bio side. I think the people that volunteer will get multi-billion dollar government contracts from the Department of War because we're entering the final phase of this. These models are really, really good at attack as well as defense. In fact, you have to use the open models for defense. And I think actually we just talked about Quen. Quen Max isn't the main important model. The main important model is going to be Quen
[01:14:01] 27B that they're going to drop. Quen 27B is the best model for 16 GB RAM, MacBooks to graphics cards to everything. And that's the first model probably that will score above 50 on artificial analysis or around there that can then be co-opted for swarm attacks. And so I think the governments are getting ready for swarm attacks, swarm defense, and more. And again, they're trying to balance this because it's so difficult because how do you stop it? >> Let me Ahmad, you're you're so right. But let me add one more thing to what you said also. It makes it very very difficult to detect where it's running. Right now the governments are making the assumption that the data centers can be, you know, measured and tracked. This is like, you know, MacBook level and thousands of them at MacBook level, but super brilliant. So very hard to track where they're running. Go ahead. Sorry. >> Yeah. So basically like um you have the big Quen big Kimmy models that are gigantic, right? And you need to have little mini data centers to run them which will make your house lot. Uh Quen
[01:15:01] 27B or 30B is a model that runs on 16 GB of RAM and is currently state-of-the-art for that level. The 3.8 Lift if we extrapolate it will take it to about GPT 5.3 5.4 four level which is sufficient for cyber attack capabilities. So you could easily see swarms of these things being installed on machines around the world for swarm attacks, >> especially now that we're getting better at swarming models together. Like again Dave with his million or so agents or whatever, right? You've seen the capability of these thing coordinating and so I think governments are looking at the extremists and actually just as now as we're talking OpenAI have said that Astra is the first model to have hit critical on their cyber security thing. They've just put out a blog post on it. What does that mean? What does that mean, Iman? >> They had a preparedness framework in 2023 where they're like have different levels of criticality. So, I don't think they're doing an anthropic mythos weird thing. I think genuinely after we saw the math stuff, Astra is probably a
[01:16:01] level ahead in being able to attack systems. And then, like I said, attack is much more easy than defense. So, they're like, we got to be careful about this >> um the world. long range autonomy as well is is what Astra is being rumored for. And I I would maybe just add also to Immad's point about swarms. It wasn't at all obvious to me until relatively recently whether there would even be a future for swarms of agents. There there was in my mind a future still could be a future where basically we end up with an omni model that's endto-end differentiable and there is zero purpose to having more than one instance of a model. Uh, but given recent advances, it's we're we're where I think in this really weird regime where you can effectively, and I'll I'll use that word cautiously, you can effectively get almost unlimited context with a swarm of
[01:17:00] agents that are all post-trained to communicate and pass messages back and forth between each other and use a unified global store, which is the file system, which is an astonishing development that wasn't available a few months ago. >> One of our next stores. Yeah. >> Oh, okay. >> Yeah, for sure. See, um, where where do you come out on all this? >> You know, I I think the big challenge is when you're you're doing this 30-day voluntary uh regulatory, it's just giving a huge advantage to the others. I I I do kind of line up with Alex. This is probably the best possible probable outcome for the short term. But this is such a dynamic environment. I don't know how you navigate this. Um, the swarm attack is a very real problem and I'll go back to the comments that were talking to the CEO of Zcaler and I remember talking to the CEO of Palo Alto Networks over about this a little while ago and literally they're like cyber has not changed in 20 years and terms of the processes and
[01:18:00] procedures. So I think they're in for a rude shock in terms of trying to deal with this and cope with this. Yeah, Dave, you said it last time. There's going to be a huge business opportunity in cyber security. >> Oh god. Yeah. Yeah. All forms of security. Look, Trump is going to China in September. That's like their one shot at some kind of a framework. And I I think I think what Trump will say and should say and David Saxs will say if he's there is, look, we need to measure and monitor all of this and just be aware. We're not going to stop anything from happening, but we have to know what these things are doing. The Chinese are going to say, "Yeah, we think we should just throw it out. Everybody in the world should have equal access to everything." And they're going to try and use that to curry favor with all these, you know, African nations and other, you know, and probably Europe as well and say, "Look, we're going to put you on a level playing field with America. Here's an equally good model and we don't care. Do anything you want with it." >> And and that's going to be the conflict. Hopefully, they'll resolve. >> I'd like to say one thing on that. The Chinese internet is already hardened. >> The American internet is not. [laughter] [01:19:02] That's why they can do it. >> I know. Well, look, when when Corona virus went around the world and you know, COVID went around the world, China was the only country that sort of was able to lock down sort of and in the end they couldn't either. But they but they have control of their country like nobody else on the planet. So your point is right on like if something takes over the entire internet and sweeps across the world, they're the one nation that might actually keep it out. that you know >> we heard Deis talking about wanting to put a FINRA like structure in place. Do you think we end up seeing anything like that? >> You really want the SEC to manage artificial intelligence? >> Well, [laughter] FINRA is is is private. FINRA FINRA is well managed because it's not part of the government. >> Well, no, but it desperately want What's that? >> It would be Scott Bessant in charge of that legally. Uh >> yeah, your point's right on everybody. Welcome to the health section of Moonshots brought to you by Fountain Life. You know, we talk about AI on this Moonshot podcast all the time. One of the most
[01:20:00] important things AI is going to be able to do for you besides educating your kids and helping you with your taxes is making sure that you're living a healthy lifestyle that you get a chance to get to 100 plus. I'm here today with Dr. Don Malem, the chief medical officer of Fountain Life and a part of my medical team. Don, a pleasure. >> Great to be fair. You know, the thing that people are concerned about most about living to 100 or 120 is their cognitive abilities, making sure they don't have dementia. And uh the numbers about dementia are problematic. Uh can you share what you've learned? >> Such an important point. And you're right. At Fountain Life, our members, the number one thing people are most concerned about is losing their brain health, forgetting the name of their child, forgetting the face of their loved one. We know that when it comes to dementia, the conservative estimates are that 45% are entirely preventable. What was amazing is with the advanced testing we're doing at Fountain Life, one quarter of our members had advanced brain age.
[01:21:00] >> Wow. >> But what was really awesome is again back to that prevention when we partnered it with healthy living. This gives me chills, eating healthier, moving our bodies, sleep, optimizing sleep is so important. You know what we saw? We saw that we improved that brain age by 26%. That is a big big number to show that the majority of those individuals were able actually to improve the brain age. And one of the things I love about Fountain is we're searching the world for the best therapeutics, the best approaches and making sure we bring it to our members. So if having healthy brain function uh till 100 120 is important to you, check out Fountain Life. Go to fountainlife.com/peter. Make sure you become the CEO of your own health. All right, now back to the episode. So, I'm gonna turn to friend of the pod Brett Adcock. He's the CEO of Figure AI and we're going to have Brett back on the program. He's agreed to join us for a Moonshots episode and he's going to be on stage at the Abundance Summit bringing the figure robot in
[01:22:00] March and uh Abundance is 80% sold out. You can check it out at abundance360.com. Uh what people might not know is besides being the CEO of Figure, he's also the CEO of an AI company called Harkc. And uh this week uh Harkc announced their first product called Handoff. It's a web browsing AI agent that is beating GPT 5.4 and Claude Opus 4.8 on the industry benchmark called OM2W. Uh it stands for the online mindto-benchmark testing whether an agent can successfully complete real tasks on live websites it has never seen before. Uh I'm going to show us a quick video. Uh I think it's a pretty damn cool product and then we can we can talk about it after that. All right. Uh here we go. Let's see Brett Atcock here. At Hark, we're creating the world's most capable personal intelligence, [music] a system
[01:23:02] to take on all the tasks and create space to focus on what we choose. And towards that goal, we become the best in the world at building AI that can use the [music] web for us. Okay, Hark, let's liven this place up a bit. >> What do you have in mind? Something specific you want to change or try? >> I need you to order two large bouques. Uh maybe some orange, white, and pink. Uh, let's do some roses, maybe some cherry blossoms, and [music] just florist choice. >> I'm getting that set up for you. Now, >> even something as simple as buying flowers online is surprisingly [music] involved. So, instead of answering a single question like a typical LLM, Handoff is always working. It's looping observation, reasoning, and actions over and over again until a task is done. Handoff sees a website by analyzing the site's structure along with data from visual processing. It uses this information to predict an interaction, like if it should click or type. Then it
[01:24:00] predicts [music] the next step. We've used Handoff to shop for things we need on Target and Walmart and have them delivered. To plan [music] travel and purchase flights, to search for several dinner reservations simultaneously and book the best. I now have Hark for all of my recruiting efforts end to [music] end. It will take a job listing and go out and find qualified candidates. I've actually been able to give handoff research papers I've read. It will go find the authors on LinkedIn and it'll even send a note on my behalf to get in touch. >> So, gives everybody the the executive assistant they wish they had. See, what's your reaction to HARK? >> I like that there's so many cool things we'll be able to do with this. I mean, I'm I'm super excited by the potential. I I as we move into the physical world, this is where I think um gets real. That's that's the fun part. >> Yeah. I mean, the total addressable market for like writing code is like millions of developers, right? The the
[01:25:00] market for a book me a flight and order my lunch is billions of people. So, it's it's fascinating, you know. So, you know, the calculations interesting, right? If you're if you're if you're if you value your time at like 50 bucks an hour and you know handoff can save you a couple hours a week that's like 100x return on a dollar of compute. Dave, what do you think of the uh the business model here? >> Well, it's interesting that Brett, you know, he got a $4 billion launch valuation before they even started. I knowing for this I was just crazy. >> But it's another example of everybody and their uncle Joe now can build a foundation model from scratch. like what was 3 months ago, you know, a couple of empires, Anthropic, OpenAI, Google is now like a free-for-all where and it's largely because Fable 5 and the other models are so smart that they will help you build themselves. And so now, you know, Brett's got his foundation model. It's it was supposed to be a robotics model. Now he's like, well, what the hell? It can do anything. Let's order
[01:26:00] flowers with it. Like, it's directly competing with Anthropic because, you know, why not? So there there are going to be thousands of these now. Um so it's just another one. >> Alex, what are your thoughts? >> I'm going to give you a really hot take on this one. I I suspect the entire HRC adventure is misdirection uh in a very specific reason. So I think it's easy. Yes, I I think it's easy to get distracted by eval uh open pen. I don't think the eval are especially impressive. The computer use assistant CUA space is incredibly competitive and I don't expect Hark or Brett to be very competitive in the CUA space over the long term. Close PN. I'd ask myself the question, he has figure has sky-high valuation. Why on earth is he spinning up in the very competitive CUA space yet another CUA agent? And then I asked myself, look at what Elon was ultimately, although I don't think it was necessarily premeditated, able to do with X then XAI, then SpaceX AAI. He was
[01:27:00] able to re-equitize himself in SpaceX by having this free floating entity XAI that to which again this is low-key hot take. GPUs that would otherwise have been destined for Tesla or SpaceX were diverted to XAI and then he was able to leverage that to re-equitize himself via this bizarre reverse acquisition. >> I think my hot take is Hark is a recapitalization measure for Brett to buy himself more equity in Figure and the falsifiable prediction is that you'll see figure acquire or reverse aqua hire regardless Hark. Yeah, I I think that's very right. But I I don't think it's quite it doesn't need to be quite as nefarious as that >> is spun. But if you ask about like, you know, you've got an organization like figure that raised a lot of capital and started small and then, you know, grew into it. I don't know what the cap table's like at HAR, but it started at 4 billion. So Brett probably has a massive
[01:28:01] equity position in it. >> But it's just a clean starting point for a highly functional mission. >> And you know, that's new in the world. Like it used to be in the old days before Elon broke the code, your board would never let you do an outside activity. Like if you're in this company as CEO, this is all you're going to do, right? >> Yeah. >> Elon has taught today's one. Elon has taught the entire economy that if you're a founder of a well- capitalized company and you want to increase your equity stake, the single best thing you could do is start a parallel company and engineer a self-deed position of that company. >> Are you going to be nice to Brett when he comes on the show, Alex? Uh, this is nice, right? I'm calling I'm calling balls and strikes and this is what I think is likely happening. >> Well, I'll give him the Elon does it. I do it. Immad does it. >> If Elon does it, Elon's doing it with Optimus and Digital Optimus. Why can't Brett do the same thing? >> Yeah. Exactly. Exactly. I don't think I don't think it's as evil as that sounds, though. But >> maybe I should launch a ship company or
[01:29:00] something like that. >> You should do that. >> You should do that. Yes. Um, so look, I I I'll put it simpler. The model architecture of Hawk and the model architecture of Figure are exactly the same. The way they trained Hawk was on lots and lots of people surfing the internet. And I think you'll be able to ramp the compute in that. And I don't think it's nefarious at all. I think it's actually a good compliment because ultimately what you want if you are figure is you want HARK agents in the house managing the house while the robots walk around. you know, you want HARK agents in the enterprise. So, he's going to go for the unified platform play here of controlling computers. >> I'm not that possibility. It would make sense for the the two organizations to merge, right? >> Yeah, it does. It does. But but I think I think I think that putting a negative spin on it, it overlooks one thing, which is that we're moving into the physical world now and we have this like golden era of science coming up. But some of these projects require a cyclron or synretron. You know, some of them require massive capital infrastructure,
[01:30:00] huge data center. it just makes sense to start that as a separate entity because it's going to need to raise a ton of capital. But this other thing which is software or whatever is not capital intensive. So if an entrepreneur can do both or two or three of them like Elon does, it's actually a good thing because the capital structure is naturally very different for those for those different entities. So Amad back me up on that. I mean this is this just does >> I I I think it's a fair I think there is a natural convergence here and this started when he moved off using open AI models to build his own models but he can't he can't scale necessarily with the same skill set and the same organization >> a full foundation model team and all the stuff he's doing at figure so you split them >> you build on the same architecture so that figure can work with hark on their visual language model type stuff as well so you have different level specialtity And then if it makes sense because you've derisked things then you can combine them. >> Well look like this group on this pod would be the most in board with what
[01:31:00] what Amad is saying here where a brilliant idea guy like you guys can have like 10 ideas a week that just flat out make sense. Now that you're AI enabled you can actually act on all of them. And this is what what Elon has suddenly taught the world. A lot of people go through 30 years without a single idea, you know, but but a lot of people that are in the hot seat like you have insane backlogs of great ideas. AI is the is the force multiplier that allows you to act on many many many of them. So this new capital structure is actually the enabler >> of acting on great ideas. or or you're or you're Larry and Sergey and you've built Google to be such an engine, you own enough of it where you can pour the capital back in and not worry about being diluted down and you build on top of that platform. But if you've been diluted to raise the capital for a, you know, manufacturing robot company which is capital intense, yeah, um maybe you want to raise the capital for your AI model outside that company. Well, I'm so glad you brought that up, Peter, because
[01:32:01] we'll know a year or two from now if the old model, which is the Google model, gets crushed by the new Elon model because look, SpaceX is a really cool mission and it attracts talent, but XAI is a really cool mission. It attracts different talent. If you try to put it all into one Google megaplex, you do you get the same level of talent or not? My guess is not, and that the Elon model is the model of the future in in the age of AI. So, >> well, let's talk about Google. It's our next story. So big news out of Google this week and a serious shakeup. Deis Abis, the co-founder of Deep Mind, Nobel Prize winner for Alphafold, the person who built the lab that cracked protein folding and built Gemini is stepping down as CEO of Google Mind. Uh he's becoming chairman and Alphabet's chief scientist. Uh handling handing operations over to Corey uh Kavukloo is uh best pronunciation. >> Easy for you to say. >> Karay Karai. Thank you. Uh who now reports directly to Sundar. Uh in his
[01:33:01] note to the staff, Hassabis wrote that he believes AGI is close at hand and teased the unreleased Gemini 4 by name. Alphabet share shares fell 5% on this news. You know, Demis always wants to be a scientist. He never wanted to be a manager. So, this makes uh sense for him. Uh but the second shoe dropped uh at Google uh with the departure of Jeff Dean. I I texted with Jeff congratulating him. He's been a friend now for 20 years. Uh Jeff has been Google's chief scientist for 27 years as a veteran. Uh he's leaving to co-found Discovery Loop. It's a public benefit corporation. He's taking with him three other top Google AI leaders. Discovery Loop's mission is to build AI models that can improve themselves with little no help. Basically, recursive self-improvement. Dean said his goal is to be more fully automated uh than traditionally has been possible. Uh so one of the things I'm curious guys is is
[01:34:01] is Dean's departure to go build discovery loop uh basically because it's too dangerous for Google to do internally? Uh is he basically saying, you know, Google's gotten too big to be agile and I need to go build this outside? Uh your thoughts, Alex? >> Okay, door number three. It's neither of those. Uh so so again this will be my hottake episode I guess. Um I I think based on information available I I think it's actually in the name Gemini. Uh there was an organizational knife fight between internally between Jeff Dean's Google Brain and Demis' Deep Mind and Demis won and Jeff Dean lost. Uh and >> they merged them. >> They merged them but it was really deep mind winning. Uh and so so that already resulted in the sidelining internally of Jeff who's been with Google forever. Uh and you know basically seniormost
[01:35:00] employee other than the CEO and so post that knife fight I I think it was only a matter of time again this is quasi outsiders perspective only a matter of time before Jeff left. Now it's it's both interesting that he's leaving to do AI for science. Interesting. Also interesting that Demis is getting promoted to chairman of Deep Mind, but no longer the the CEO of DeepMind. I I think Deep Mind is really zooming out a little bit, Deep Mind is taking over Google. Like if if you look at all of the the different parts of Google and I think back to the discussion that I had with Larry Page Circa 2005 or so, Larry was telling me at the time, gosh, I I want to spend $100 million on AI at Google, but I can't find anyone else in Google who wants to work on AI as as unconscionable as that is. Fast forward to the present, AI is is eating Google from the inside out. Deep Mind is eating the entirety of Google and I I
[01:36:02] think Demis with Isomorphic Labs with some of his other projects I I think those are probably of greater interest to him especially post Nobel Prize for Alphafold in chemistry than say basically becoming the the next CEO of Google and and I expect extrapolating this trajectory of DeepMind eating all of Google from the inside that ultimately whoever is running DeepMind probably is the air apparent to CEO of Google itself and not sure that Demis wants to be CEO of Google >> and there was a rumor that Demis was next in line for some time >> there there was and at the same time I I don't want to bury the lead Gemini has lost the mandate of heaven Gemini is just not winning the frontier model race it is a rat race and I I think some of this reorg fallout is inevitably the result of Gemini not remaining competitive at the frontier model >> yeah uh Emod what's your take on all Yeah, I think Jeff Dean and Sanjay Gamat
[01:37:00] leaving is a big deal. There's a wonderful New Yorker piece from 2018 about the friendship that built Google um of those two and you know it's an interesting one because again he's been there for 27 years and he's fantastic guy but if you look at what he's been saying he's like yeah I just had a chat on San Hill and like why not you know here's my deck that we built. It's more like the VCs have to build a deck on the other side cuz what probably happened is he said I think I'm leaving and Costa is probably like here's $500 million. >> Yeah. Venode stepped in right away and funded it. I I text I texted Dean and say is there any you have any more room for investment to talk to Venode. Venode said nope we're done. [laughter] >> Well because he probably had that discussion but then the other thing is Google are the other investors with GCP. What Google should do now is they should have a $50 billion fund announcement and spin out bunches of amazing technologists and say, "We will be your buyers and you will use Google Cloud and I guarantee you they'll go back to the top." >> That was the idea of Alphabet to basically fund baby Googles.
[01:38:01] >> No, no. Alphabet is subsidiaries. I'm saying they should have an incubator VC fund where they take top teams, spin them out, have exclusivity over their models and GCP cuz those guys will then get rich. You can bring in other investors and they can have the pick of the talent. I think the market much better for that. >> What what you're saying I think is what we're already seeing in the market which is Google, you know, some would accuse this of being a circular economy or wash sales. Google financing GCP usage of by Frontier Labs. And to the extent that Jeff Dean's new startup ends up becoming a major purchaser of cloud resources, I would fully expect what you're predicting to happen. >> But what I think Google should do is they should actually have a policy of this. They should say if you want to be an entrepreneur, we have an internal incubation fund where we will get you going, but we want exclusivity option first on the models that you build and then that means they can proliferate their talent which is not going to be politically animated. they can do far bigger rounds than normal and they can
[01:39:00] get back towards the top because as you said I don't think Demis really wants to build Gemini 4, you know, I think he wants to build something different too many things there. >> I mean Isomeorphic Labs, he's still a CEO of that, right? The drug discovery company. Yep. >> And he's a he's a brilliant, lovely man who cares deeply about science and wants to do that. You know, I still don't want to I I can never count out Google. They're going to about to be on all of Apple's devices, right? >> I have a couple of things I want to say. >> Please, Slim, I want to hear what you have to say. [laughter] >> So, that's good for Apple. Let's go. >> This is this is classic edge uh disruption versus the core, right? You end up now with a network where Google runs Gemini, Demis focuses on AGI and and the scientific endeavor. Um, isomorphic is attacking biology, right? Discovery leap is automating science etc. and Google is supplying compute and capital across that whole ecosystem. So it's he's they're turning it from an
[01:40:01] operating environment into an ecosystem. And the fact that they invested in this thing is the key thing. There was a this was a a discussion that goes all the way back to when they created Google X. Um and it's one of the things that the um corp dev guys at Google used to do was to say if people want to leave to do startups, let them leave. hack it out in the Darwinian world and we'll buy them back if they're successful. That was much better than trying to figure it out and fund them themselves from the internally, etc. So, I don't think this is a brain drain. I don't think this is I think this is very clever ecosystem building because now extraordinary talent doesn't have to sit inside the organization for the organization to benefit, right? And this is really incredible. I think this is very smart. I think it's a long-term play. I think it's going to yield incredible outcomes over time. I mean Jeff Jeff is actively saying he wants to go build RSI right do you think >> but everyone is like the whole point
[01:41:00] like Gemini should be doing RSI I take it means do you think the risk committees inside Google would would allow that to occur >> yes of course of course that's how they remain competitive with anthropic and open AI they have to do RSI >> no but I think Peter's point is really important they they've had ample opportunity to be on the front but they can't They're tied up in their own decision- making and ethics and then when somebody else does it then they do it like you're saying Alex they do it in reaction. >> Same like open when when chatpt came out then Google jumped in. >> Yeah. The scarce is no >> the scarce attis here is you know as you commoditize and make intelligence cheap. The scarce the scarcity goes to for the permission to do weird and wonderful things. And so now people can pursue their MTP, get funding, compute, etc., and everybody wins. It's an amazing idea. I I'll maybe frame a a complimentary but
[01:42:00] nonetheless alternative theory. So we're already I I guess reading the epitap uh the eulogy for why Google lost the frontier race. If if I had to write it, I think it had several strikes against it. At the algorithmic layer, Peter, I would still hold out hope that at the hyperscaler layer, Google's doing a booming business and Google will just service all of the other winning frontier labs. But at the model layer, why is why does it why do I think Google's losing? I think in the earlier stages, yeah, it was a despite Google having invented the transformer, Google had a late start to to Dave and Peter your point, sort of internal effective altruist/politically correct uh AI safetyism run a muck preventing themselves from launching anything. I think that's part of it. I think incentives are part of it. I I suspect that Google struggles to compete against Zuck with his billion-dollar offers or even anthropic and open AI with their very focused offers. I think Google probably has struggled just as an
[01:43:00] organization to focus on being competitive. I think their release cycle is completely tonedeaf. If you look at Google's Gemini release schedule for the past few years, they've been approximately on an annual cadence, and that just does not cut it in an era when Frontiers are getting pushed forward on a month-by-month basis. And I think timing all of their Frontier releases to coincide with IO in the style of like iOS releases is just too slow. I think Google's had >> big company smell, right? >> Yeah, big company smell. I think Google's had a number of of legacy cultural issues that have probably held it back versus the the neoights, the newcomers, anthropic and open AI in particular. >> Totally right. If you if you read the book, The Infinity Machine, the Demisabi story that just came out a couple months ago, >> which is a great book by the way. >> Oh, unbelievable, incredible insight. But what happens at Google constantly, it's a California company. Employees come to their bosses and say, "Hey, I want to publish this. I want to put it out in the wild. I want to open source this." And the boss goes, "Is that
[01:44:01] really good for Google? That sounds like it's good for you, but is that good for Google?" And I go, "Well, you know, it'll help Google in some other mysterious way." Oh, otherwise I'm going to quit. And they said, "Fine, fine, fine, fine, fine. Go ahead and publish it. Throw it out there." Transformer, okay, out to the world. You know, all these projects out to the world. Sure. And then they quit and they get venture funding the next day and they start their own companies. And that's the California, you know, ecosystem. That's the way it works. And it's very, very good in aggregate. But Google's bled intellectual property like no company in history. It invented all of this stuff that's changing the world right now. >> Plus their 20% time which encourages employees to go and research their their purpose and their passions. >> I think it's mostly a fiction at this point. I can get hate mail from >> but in the early days in the early days >> in the early >> I think the salvation for Google is going to be the hyperscaler play just like it is for SpaceX. Uh and yeah, Grock 4.5, which is basically, I think at this point, the cursor postrained off of clawed uh reasoning traces is like
[01:45:00] another example there. There was this expression going around uh social media a few weeks ago that if you can't cut it at the frontier model level, then you end up hyperscaling. And like that that's the the consolation prize for for losing the frontier model race. I think Google is at this point finger to the wind in terms of mandate of heaven among the frontier labs. Google is getting the consolation prize of being the hyperscaler to the frontier labs. >> Emma, do you agree with that? [snorts] >> Yeah. I mean, look, who has the best preference data in the world? It's Google and it's clearly not in Gemini, right? So, clearly it's political issues cuz they have all the compute in the world and others that are around that. Um, they have got the scale though just like why do more people use Teams than Slack and Zoom? Like it's they have the distributional effects. They'll still print money. They'll still burn money. But if you're a Google deep mind person right now, your inbox is full, you know. Any top person there can go out and get a 500 million billion dollar valuation
[01:46:00] >> and you're rich, you know, and you have freedom and you have all the compute probably from Google itself. So you're like inside Google I have 100 GPUs. Google will give me a,000 GPUs if I leave. You know, like it's a bit of a strange scenario you're in now. Which is why I think Google needs to go out on the front foot as a stock and say this is a program we're actively doing. You know, we're unlocking all these geniuses. We have the biggest VC fund in the world for this type of thing and we're going to do exclusivity agreements for the output that they do and they'll be on GCP. >> You think Google should just open Gemini? >> I wrote a letter to Google management 3 years ago where I said if you open source it you will win. I think they should ex >> they should they're actually going to allow um distillation from Gemini >> major if you're if you're watching please join us on the pod >> and have a conversation do you open source Gemini that would be fun
[01:47:00] >> America needs it >> yeah [snorts] America needs that would be an amazing move >> be like the Netscape Netscape to Firefox move we like in in the era of Microsoft we need like a top tier American open weight model Google that >> but I mean ultimately Google's mission is to organize the knowledge of the world and make it accessible and useful. What's better than that than open source models? >> And remember Demis's excuse his his sort of quasi public apology for why Gemini itself wasn't openweight. The the claim was we would openweight it open source it if we had the compute but we don't have the compute. So instead we we only have the compute available for Gemma. Now if that commercial argument goes away then that argument goes away and Google can openweight open source Gemini. >> Totally. You know that would be the move of the century if they open sourced it and they tied it to the TPUs. Yes. >> And tied it to GCP compute and then just built the empire on the compute. Uh that would be the move of the >> take over America. Yeah. >> Yeah. And the world. That would that
[01:48:01] would actually save the world potentially. >> Yeah. Uh all right. I hope this meme gets out to them somehow somewhere. So Google employees, if you're if you're listening, clip this and send it to to Sundar and to Demis. >> Give up the ghost and open source Gemini, please. >> On behalf of my Moonshot mates and myself, I'm inviting you to join us at our inaugural Moonshots live event on September the 25th in downtown LA. Alex, Salem, Dave, and I will be hosting 1,500 entrepreneurs, builders, and creators, and hopefully you for a full day dedicated to designing and building your moonshot, shaping your mindset, and steering humanity towards an abundant future. Get ready to enjoy incredible networking and an awesome party while walking away with the tools to change the future and the confidence that you can. Seats are limited, admission is competitive. Check it out at moonshots.com. I'm going to move us to some fun and big news from this week coming from the Elon Universe. So, this
[01:49:00] week uh Elon held SpaceX's first earnings call. Uh and it was Vintage Musk. The numbers were big and bigger. Uh I listened to the earnings call. I don't know if you guys did. I was on CNN and CNBC commenting on the next day. Uh I wanted to share some of the top takeaways from the call. So, first off, SpaceX expects to hit a h 100red billion in annual recurring revenue by the end of this year. And uh Elon set a target for a trillion by 2030, maybe by 2029. He moved up that target from 2031 to 2030, a trillion dollars of annual revenue. Uh SpaceX posted 7.8 billion in revenue this quarter. Uh 92% year-over-year increase. uh he beat the streets expectations. The company has inked 6.7 billion in cloud service deals in the second half of this year. Uh SpaceX plans to hit 2 gawatts of compute by the end of 2026 and up to 10 gawatt by the end of 2027 and their near-term
[01:50:02] cash engine Starlink is outperforming. They have 12 million subscribers. That's 2x year-over-year. Uh the revenues grew 66% to 4.3 billion. I love this. Gwen Shotwell uh also implied that Starlink's direct satellite to mobile was going to take a big chunk of the $600 billion mobile telefan TAM. You know, I can't wait to be any place on the planet in the Gobi Desert or in the foothills of Hollywood here and have a great cell phone signal. >> Oh yeah. >> Uh yeah, it's amazing. >> Just for context, remember no company in world history has ever reached a trillion dollars of revenue. just just to >> if anybody can you know I was on I was on the news show saying this is the first $10 trillion market after we start talking about the terra fab I think it's the first hundred trillion dollar uh company out there um let's listen to two quick clips from Elon and then uh discuss them uh cuz a lot was said and actually a lot more was said after the
[01:51:00] earnings call a lot of news breaking out all right first one >> as Brett mentioned we are expecting to reach 100 billion uh plus ARR uh in December of this year. Um and it's it's probably also worth mentioning that our internal projections for reaching a trillion dollars in revenue, not ARR but revenue um have moved up from 2031 to 2030. So prior to the IPO uh the financial projections we had were reaching a trillion dollars in in revenue uh in 2031. We now expect that to be in in 2030. Um, and uh there's a non-zero chance of that being in 2029. >> Uh, and then he posted uh or he said these that got posted as clips. Let's take a listen. I I find this really funny and and fascinating. >> Actually, rocket science is literally our daily business. Um and uh you know rocket science is a idiomatic expression for extreme uh technological difficulty
[01:52:00] and and there's a reason for it because the the thing let me tell you what what rockets desperately want to do every flight they desperately want to blow themselves into tiny pieces um and uh then the engineering struggle is to u convince the rocket not to blow itself into tiny pieces and actually deliver payload to orbit. So, uh, he was making those comments about how, uh, how hard the hard things they're able to do and building the data centers and building orbital compute is nothing compared to building those rockets. Um, gentlemen, uh, >> isn't it incredibly cute that Elon doesn't know the definition of internal projection? >> This is a public earnings call, dude. [laughter] Oh, it's he's just so awesomely transparent, isn't he? Just just incredible. >> So, on top of that, okay, go ahead, Alex. I want to >> Okay, for my nth hottake of this episode, um I I [laughter] I think this is not financial advice. I think the
[01:53:01] internal now external prediction is credible and I think there are two possible pathways to trillion dollars in revenue by the end of the decade. Path one is the SpaceX Tesla merger that we like to talk about via Optimus. So Optimus basically takes over the the service labor physical labor economy on Earth and in the solar system. That's one pathway to a trillion. Second pathway to a trillion answers my qu the question that I had flagged a few episodes ago and didn't have the answer to which is why isn't Nvidia which is so busy commoditizing the layer above them also commoditizing the layer below them and I I think uh the the answer uh that I heard from from this group at the time was oh well like his Nvidia's relationship with TSMC is too chummy oh they'd never do it they're too dependent on TSMC I think the power move here for path number two for SpaceX to a trillion dollars is SpaceX replaces TSMC with the
[01:54:03] Terapab. TSMC has almost hundred billion a year in revenue. If you could imagine a future where Terrafab is basically TSMC times 10 or 20, it's American domestic. If you roll up the values of Micron and SKHEX and TSMC etc. So memory plus compute plus fabulous fab and then 10x it you easily get to a tr a trillion plus. I think the power move here is Elon and Jensen get into bed together and Elon becomes the new American TSMC in deep deep partnership with Nvidia giving Jensen the leverage he needed against TSMC and giving Elon the path to a trillion. And I think we're already seeing that, right? SpaceX had already announced a exclusive partnership with with Nvidia. You know, I was on the something I didn't say on the on CNBC.
[01:55:01] Uh I think there's a lot of motivation for Elon to drive revenues faster than anybody could imagine. And that is to get the valuation of SpaceX up high enough to buy Tesla so that he's got unquestionable control. Right now they're on par with each other. He needs to get the valuation up to like three trillion and then merge in Tesla, right? There's >> So, Peter, sorry, just to ask you a question on that. It's saying bad things about Brett Adcock uh attempting to use financial engineering to increase his equity when Brett is doing it, but not bad when Elon is doing it. >> Oh, no. Because he's obviously doing it. He's like he's like very [laughter] clearly doing this. He's there's no secret here, right? So, let me just So, after the earnings call, let me hit this one. uh and we'll we'll put more meat on the on the table to to digest here. So on August 4th, SpaceX and Nvidia announced they were jointly designing the compute payload for Star Mine. This is uh SpaceX's orbital uh data centers.
[01:56:01] Each Starmine satellite is going to carry Nvidia's Reuben GPUs and Vera CPUs. Uh and uh interestingly enough uh and really important on the earnings call he announced he expects to have the first Starmine satellites in orbit in 2027 uh a year ahead of what he was announced earlier. So uh that's fascinating. And then just to put more steak on the grill here, uh the big news here uh the day after called Reuters broke the story that SpaceX and Tesla will initially invest $16.8 billion to build the terraab. Alex, we were just talking about uh the most advanced semiconductor complex on the planet. This is a hundred million square foot facility. Uh it's not a factory. This is a city. Right. Let me just share uh this image for everybody to see by comparison here. Um
[01:57:00] actually let's let's hear Elon on the Terrafab and then we'll we'll see the images. >> It's worth noting that there's not a single uh high volume um computer memory fab in America right now. Zero. Um there's one being built in Idaho uh by Micron, but that will not reach volume production till I believe 2028. Um and there's some being built in New York, but they are in I think 29 and 30. Um and and this is a tiny fraction of the memory that's needed. And in fact, even if if you take [clears throat] the best case assumptions of the um the memory makers and the logic makers, it is not enough to meet the demand that is anticipated. And that's why we need to do the the tariff app there will not be enough chips. >> Yeah. Um and here if you're watching this on YouTube, uh check this out. Here's the terra fab. It's a mon. It's gigantic, you know, compared to the Pentagon, compared to Apple, compared to the Mall of America, and compared to the
[01:58:00] Burge Khalifa. Uh, you were saying earlier, Alex, you know, you could probably see this from the surface of the moon. >> It looks like a buckle on the planet. Literally, if like hand of God could reach down to this terraab structure and grab the entire Earth by it. It's beautiful. It's enormous. And as Elon has now confirmed, if if you're if you're watching this and looking at the image, the circular structure in the middle is, wait for it, a free electron laser. So, not only is I I think Elon with the Terrafab going after TSMC, he's also going after ASML. And right now, if you want to do extreme UV, which is the the polite euphemism for soft X-rays based lithography, right now you're stuck using uh ASML's approach, which is pretty expensive and requires creating a vapor of of tin droplets to uh to ultimately create those soft X-rays. By creating a free electron laser, it's a pretty adventurous approach to EUV lithography. he could radically reduce
[01:59:02] the cost and maybe even even though I've read in in public announcements Elon striking agreements with ASML to purchase lots of ASML equipment. If I were ASML uh again not financial advice, I'd be looking at the circular structure uh right here and saying the circular structure is actually a bullseye painted on ASML by Elon. >> Oh my [laughter] god. And here's here's the tweet. Uh this is uh he says looks like a synchron going to build a free electron laser based EUV machine and Elon tweets back feltw free electron laser for the win. >> Yes. >> Wow. >> Pretty extraordinary. So >> he's going after ASML. >> Here's the numbers. TM TSMC invested $330 billion to build out their fabs over the course of 40 years. Terafab is estimated 119 billion. It's probably a low ball number uh but oh my god this is the verticalization of AI uh at a level
[02:00:03] I mean this is as you said Alex this is the hundred trillion dollar company >> and the Americanization like again ASML European company TSMC Taiwanese company Elon if this is correct he's taking that entire stack and he's not just verticalizing it he's onshoring it to America for the first time in history. >> Yeah. Yeah. Hey, uh, one thing to to add to the party, Alex, you can confirm this, but I did I did some Gemini based research on this and because it didn't make any sense to me to build a building, a single structure that big. I mean, I know there's ego involved and whatever, but like why on earth? But if you generate the X-rays or the, you know, the EUV equivalent in that synretron, you distribute them to all the FAB stations throughout this one, basically a linear accelerator distributor. And so by being a single structure, you only need one source of EUV that feeds many, many manufacturing
[02:01:00] steps across the whole building. That's what Gemini tells me. That's interesting. I I'm not sure of the optics for that. How how easy it is to like redirect X-rays that are coming off of a circular synretron to a linear arrangement is also just possible. I mean, maybe Gemini knows better than I do. It's in my mind, it's also possible. It's just like lit literally a linear assembly line that's coming in from both ends or something. >> No, I think I think tell me like we got to research this. This is just too cool. But you can't reflect those beams like and move them around a building. They can only go in a >> X-rays are hard to create mirrors for like X-rays really don't want to get mirrored, >> right? But Elon when we when we were talking to him in December said, "Hey, my manufacturing process, the wafers are in these boxes. >> You can smoke and eat a cheeseburger over them, but they move around. So they can move to the beam, but the beam can only go in a straight line, >> but it can go very, very large distances." Hence, one long beam projector and all these manufacturing stations slide into the beam.
[02:02:02] >> Maybe uh and and Alex, we talked about this before, right? Terraab isn't just a supply chain independence. It's geopolitical independence. Right? If Taiwan ever gets cut off, the company that controls the spice, in this case, the chip sabs >> controls the entire AI industry. The you could say Peter move the flops must flow. >> Okay. Okay. A few things here. >> This is so cool. >> A few things. >> So cool. >> A few things. One is why are we surprised? Cuz didn't we predict this like a while ago that this was a natural no this was a natural outcome that we would end up he would end up yeah full verticalization. He'd end up building TSM CSML something like that. He talked about it. Right. So that's one quick >> I think it's actually pretty surprising like I I didn't see foresee like this satellite map like the the big like cremological surprise for me is that circle like I I
[02:03:01] did not see that circle coming and >> how could you this is so brilliant how could you see that coming >> yeah I mean >> this is like this is very related to physics is cooked you know like the ideas like this are going to start popping up in all kinds of weird places >> that that circle is profoundly surprising Like there were like it's funny for for years this is a a relayed story was public information the the Soviet Union used to stare at satellite maps of the Pentagon and it in the middle of the Pentagon there's this courtyard and in the middle of the courtyard there's this building and the the relayed this public information the Soviet Union was convinced that this little building at the center of the Pentagon was was actually like a missile silo or had some strategic significance. It turned out it was just a hot dog stand. Th this is the exact [laughter] this is the exact opposite. This is this is a circle that has profound profound geopolitical implications. >> Look like if you asked me a week ago my how often in life does something completely change your view of the trajectory of humanity. a week ago if
[02:04:01] you I would have said all of you know disassembling the moon all of the you know the Dyson sphere it's all gated on ASML not being willing to more than double their throughput of these ASML machines that constrains chip production which constrains the Dyson sphere which all of that is on a SL all of a sudden all that's out the window in just one week >> classic Elon >> this one circle like changes the the geopolitics of Europe it diminishes if this interpretation is accurate This this one stupid little circle that appeared in a satellite, not even an actual satellite map, in a planned satellite map has profound implications for European economy, European sovereignty, for the future of China and Taiwan. Just one circle appearing in a mock satellite map. [snorts] >> I totally right. I totally agree. >> Can I finish my point? >> Yes, [laughter] >> I never finished my point. Um, okay. So, a couple things. One is the number like the the it's really fascinating here how hard it becomes to categorize SpaceX,
[02:05:00] right? Is it telecoms? Is it launch like it's like all vertically integrated and I thought Peter your email on this that went out to your group with the four things was really really big. Yeah. Your like go watch go read that. It's a big it's a big deal. Um, I I'm I I know everybody's super excited, but I'm kind of like I we should we s talked about this coming, so I don't know why everybody's so surprised. Maybe the fact that it's actually here and it looks like he's actually doing it is is the big deal, but I think we predicted this a while ago. >> Yeah. I mean, science fiction's predicted a lot of things, but when it materializes, the capital gets commitment, you know, the partnerships get announced, >> you know, and and while Elon's probably never right on his timelines, he always implements the idea eventually, and it's exciting. [laughter] >> 10x everything on a quarterly. >> Also, to your point, like I I think there's like there's a physics surprise here. It it seems that he's confirmed the circle is a free electron laser.
[02:06:00] He's not using tin droplets to do EUV. That's a that's like a a technological surprise. That isn't just like, oh, Elon is out buying ASML machines or contracting with TSMC or Samsung. Whatever happened to Samsung? He's he's off like doing his own thing, not just by taking the existing supply chain and putting it under one roof. There's new physics. >> Yeah, he's he's leaprogging. Well, I think that the way to think about >> analogy >> email the way to think about SpaceX is it's the vehicle for the intelligence industrialization of America, right? Like [snorts] ultimately you need to build a brand new capital stock from rockets to chips to robots and Elon's got the financial arbitrage and the talent arbitrage and the selling point now to bring that all together. So everything that will be economically productive in this next century, Elon's going full stack on. That's the fundamental thing. And the spending on that, the trillion dollars we've had in AI chips is just the first stage.
[02:07:00] Because if you think about the spending that America and the rest of the world has to do over the next few decades, what is it? Robots, rockets, chips. And so that is his story. It's the industrialization of America for the intelligence age. he will be the company that does that with the capital in terms of human and financial edge that's required to do that. >> I'll also point out one more thing which is now that we know what a terra fab on earth looks like. It's not difficult to take that same top down view and imagine what one of these on the moon looks like and you know what else would benefit from that high aspect ratio dimension a mass driver. >> Yes. So I looked at that and I saw, oh my goodness, not just the circle in the middle, which is provocative and speaks volumes about the future of European economic sovereignty, but also the high aspect ratio length. And I saw, oh my goodness, this looks like it could be a mass driver on the moon. I think as well as you get through the
[02:08:00] economic downturn that's going to come as human cognitive labor goes negative you have to know the US government's going to go balls to the wall with infrastructure spending and things like this will absorb that in easily multiples of them >> yeah you know there was a comment made someone made before which is buy SpaceX stock for your children and again not investment advice but this is a generational company uh it's a civilizational infrastructure company. Uh it was nice to see the stock uh you know couple days ago 20% of the stock float became available for a lot of people including myself and very few sold. In fact the price has gone up over the last few days. A lot of belief in where it's going. Gentlemen >> full disclo full disclosure I'm now a small SpaceX shareholder. >> Yes. Well it's my single largest holding. So and I'm going to be holding you know the old hodddle for Bitcoin. Huddle your SpaceX. [laughter] Gentlemen, a pleasure. Uh, Immod, thank
[02:09:02] you for joining us today. Uh, always always a pleasure. And, uh, guys, uh, I loved the episode. >> Oh, God. Learned so much. Always learned so much. But it drives me crazy that I have to go listen to each one again just to understand and fully digest [laughter] what we talked about. But it, but you have to. You have to. >> Oh, love you guys.