NEWSMAX

Immensely jealous. And I think I would have enjoyed that a great deal. So pause the lead into this. What is the second video that's playing? I think you guys have two videos playing. He's saying, I'll just read the transcript. He says, do you know, did you know that Alexander the great's tutorial for 14 years was Aristotle? When Alexander the Great had a question, he would just go to Aristotle. I think we can play the clip from the beginning now. Let's see who Alexander the Great's tutor was for about 14 years, you know, Aristotle. And I read this, I became immensely jealous. And I think I would have enjoyed that a great deal. And through the miracle of the printed page, I can at least read what Aristotle wrote without an intermediary. And maybe if there's a professor they can add to that, but at least I can go directly to the source material. And that is, of course, the foundation upon which our Western civilization is built. Blazing the printing press. But I can't ask Aristotle a question. I mean, I can, but I won't get an answer. And so perfectly timed soundboard is that in our lifetimes we can make a tool of a new kind, of an interactive kind. And so my hope is someday, when the next Aristotle is alive, we can capture the underlying worldview of that Aristotle in a computer. And someday some student will be able to not only read the words Aristotle wrote, but ask Aristotle a question and get an answer. And that's what I hope that we can do. It's so crazy. He's just like, we gotta compress all the data down and be able to give it a conversational interface. Large language models with a simple interface that anyone can use. It's a crazy, crazy prediction. 40, 40 something years ago. And I mean, there's so many interesting details about that video. Steve Jobs is probably the most famous techno optimist, the most successful techno optimist. The Bicycle for the Mind quote, that one continues to hit constantly. But you can see his excitement every time he gives a keynote. He'll just be on stage like giddily testing GarageBand. But his delivery there too is something really, really special. I mean, you noticed that right where he, he asks a hypothetical question, then, you know, well, I could ask, but I wouldn't get an answer. And he kind of like lets the laugh line kind of land and lets the audience. He is really basically the Mark Gurman of CEOs. Mark Gurman is the goat. Yes. Journalist. Yes. And he is the greatest, you know, founder, CEOs. Yeah. Ever. It just, it's just, it's really, really cool timing. It took you that long to. Because I thought you were talking about Mark Gurman's come timing, which is fantastic. But Mark Gurman's delivery of Apple truly. He truly has Apple intelligence and his delivery. True. That's true. So, yeah, I mean, you can see Ben Thompson's called this out a few times. But when Steve Jobs introduces GarageBand, he is just so excited about this product. You can see him in this One video introducing GarageBand 1.0 with John Mayer, which is really cool. He has John Mayer come out and just like, play some stuff on the guitar where I want to show you loops and I'm going to show you. What a knob. And he's just like, chilling there on this computer, on this stool, using this tool.

Playing. He's saying, I'll just read the transcript. He says, do you know, did you, did you know that Alexander the great's tutor for 14 years was Aristotle? When Alexander the Great had a question, he would just go to Aristotle. I think we can play the clip from the beginning now. Let's see who Alexander the Great's tutor was for about 14 years. Aristotle. And I read this, I became immensely jealous. And I think I would have enjoyed that a great deal. And through the miracle of the printed page, I can at least read what Aristotle wrote without an intermediary. And maybe if there's a professor they can add to that, but at least I can go directly to the source material. And that is, of course, the foundation upon which our Western civilization is built. Glazing the printing press. But I can't ask Aristotle a question. I mean, I can, but I won't get an answer. And so perfectly timed soundboard is that in our lifetimes we can make a tool of a new kind, of an interactive kind. And so my hope is someday, when the next Aristotle is alive, we can capture the underlying worldview of that Aristotle in a computer. And someday some student will be able to not only read the words Aristotle wrote, but ask Aristotle a question and get an answer. And that's what I hope that we can do. It's so crazy. He's just like, we gotta compress all the data down and be able to give it a conversational interface. Large language models with a simple interface that anyone can use. It's a crazy, crazy prediction 40 something years ago. And I mean, there's so many interesting details about that video. Steve Jobs is probably the most famous techno optimist, the most successful techno optimist. The Bicycle for the Mind quote that one.

Alexander the great's tutor for 14 years was Aristotle. When Alexander the Great had a question, he would just go to Aristotle. I think we can play the clip from the beginning now. Let's see who Alexander the Great's tutor was for about 14 years. You know, Aristotle. And I read this, I became immensely jealous and I think I would have enjoyed that a great deal. And, and through the miracle of the printed page, I can at least read what Aristotle wrote without an intermediary. And maybe if there's a professor they can add to that, but at least I can go directly to the source material. And that is of course, the foundation upon which our Western civilization is built. Raising the printing press. But I can't ask Aristotle a question. I mean, I can, but I won't get an answer. And so perfectly timed soundboard is that in our lifetimes we can make a tool of a new kind, of an interactive kind. And so my hope is someday, when the next Aristotle is alive, we can capture the underlying worldview of that Aristotle in a computer. And someday some student will be able to not only read the words Aristotle wrote, but ask Aristotle a question and get an answer. And that's what I hope that we can do. It's so crazy. He's just like, we gotta compress all the data down and be able to give it a conversational interface. Large language models with a simple interface that anyone can use. It's a crazy, crazy prediction 40, 40 something years ago. And I mean, there's so many interesting details about that video. Steve Jobs is probably the most famous techno optimist, the most successful techno optimist. The Bicycle for the Mind quote, that one continues to hit constantly. But you can see his excitement. Every time he gives a keynote, he'll just be on stage like giddily testing GarageBand. But his delivery there too is something really, really special. I mean, you noticed that right? Where he, he asks a hypothetical question, then you know, well, I could ask but I wouldn't get an answer. And he kind of like lets the laugh line kind of land and lets the audience. He is really basically the Mark Gurman of CEOs. Mark Gurman is a goat. Yes. Journalist. Yes. And he is the greatest, you know, founder, CEO. Yeah. Ever. It just, it's just, it's really, really cool timing. It took you that long to. Because I thought you were talking about Mark Gurman's come timing, which is fantastic. But Mark Gurman's delivery of Apple truly, he truly has Apple intelligence. And his delivery. True, that's true. So yeah, I mean, you can see Ben Thompson's called this out a few times, but when Steve Jobs introduces GarageBand, he is just so excited about this product. You can see him in this One video introducing GarageBand 1.0 with John Mayer, which is really cool. He has John Mayer come out and just like play some stuff on the guitar. I want to show you loops and I'm going to show you what a non. And he's just like chilling there on this computer.

Cool. Give us the funding. News. Tell us about the news. Yeah. How much did you raise? Yeah, we raised 4 million bucks here in New York City. And Haystack as well, out of the way.

And I'm really disappointed we didn't get ccwalk. Zucky got a bunky. Zucky got a bunk. Zucky got a bunky. All right, let's talk about Doom. Doom. An anthropic researcher is quitting the artificial intelligence industry. Whoa. He didn't just quit the company. Quit the industry over fears that the lab and its competitors are racing to build systems that could spiral out of control and destroy humanity. This was not received well. A bunch of back and forth with another researcher chiming in saying that they have a PDUM of 10%, which is something that's come up years ago. And we kind of went back and forth on this. All started with Jacob Coxson who said, I resigned from Anthropic today. I spent the last three years doing pre training research at both OpenAI and Anthropic. Neither company is acting responsibly. They are racing straight to self improving superintelligence and gaming. Gambling with our lives. He is not happy with where things go. And it got a hundred million views and 600,000 likes. It's going straight on a Bernie Sanders billboard for sure. I worked on an actual thermonuclear weapons project. Martin Casado from A16Z says, and the dissonance was less bizarre. And so he's comparing it to what it was like working on very scary technology, very different than what's going on today. And Evan Hubinger who works on alignment science at anthropic previously Miri OpenAI, Google Ripple, Yelp Ripple was the cryptocurrency. Is that right? Isn't Ripple xrp? Yeah. He says, Jacob is correct here. We really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans. I personally think it's above 10% within the next decade. I believe Anthropic is trying its best, but we do not yet have a plan to solve Alignment for Superintelligence and are clearly not on track to. So everyone's sort of pushing for a slowdown now. But then you go into the regulatory capture thing. I've been seeing what Jess Buckingham says, bro. Got that Pip. Yeah. A lot of people are like, are you giving back your equity? Blah blah blah blah blah. Yeah. Odd. Nick Carter says if you actually believe this, you'd be committing acts of violent sabotage and terrorism against your employer. You clearly do not. So stop self. Stop it with this self aggrandizing twaddle. Eliezer on the other side says, thank you for saying plainly what you believe. I do appreciate it and the world could be even grimmer than it is otherwise. We have Eliezer Yudkowski's co author coming on the show tomorrow, Nate Soares tomorrow to talk about if anyone builds it, everyone dies. We'll continue the doom debate. It seems like it's in the news. Lots of people were just going back and forth on everything. Ryan Peterson sees it as a bull case. He says, I need to buy more stock in this company. I've never seen such a commitment to making money regardless of the consequences. Yeah, it is. Adair says if you publicly assign a greater than 10% probability to human extinction within a decade, you owe people a clear explanation of how you reach that number. Plus what would change your. Yes. So, yeah, a lot of people were upset that this felt like a vibe prediction. Very like, you know, unresearched. And he did link, Evan did link to the anthropic risk report, which you can read in full. They have a reasonable scaling policy and they're talking about pacing the frontier, collaborating with other labs. And I'm oddly optimistic that this will happen. Obviously there's the Sam and Dario can't even hold hands on stage in that India conference. But AI has made strange bedfellows out of people. If you had said, oh yeah, in six months, Elon Musk, the guy who's calling anthropic Ms. Anthropic, will be doing a deal and bring in Sholto to watch Rockets take off at Starbase, I would have been like, no way. No way can Elon Musk and Dario become friends. Like that just seems like impossible. But the funniest outcome is the most likely. To quote Elon again. And yeah, maybe there's this weird, you know, oh, people wind up working together. There are other consequences of that. There are some very serious just thinking that believing in your whole heart that things are that serious and then just rage quitting and not leaning in and trying. Do you really think that the rage quit method is. I don't know. I mean, some of these organizations are really big and if you're at a certain level, it can be very hard to actually get things done in a large organization. So you can be there and say, like, yeah, I've been sending a Slack message and emailing the whole executive team every day that this is the thing that I want to have happen and it's not happening and like, I don't have the authority within this particular role to actually have the change. People sort of tend to think, oh, if you work for the company, you can exact your will. But that's not true. Like, you can work in the marketing Organization think you want to run billboards in, you know, Tallahassee, Florida and not be able to get that done because someone higher up than you said, no, no, we're not doing billboards in Florida. Right. Like, things get vetoed for a variety of reasons. So it's not like, you know, you just take a job at a 5,000 person company and then you can just do whatever you want. That's not the way companies work. It's. Yeah, it's a weird, weird time. We'll see. But there are serious, there are serious, like, regulatory frameworks for not allowing collusion between big companies. And so we might wind up in this other weird scenario where if all the big labs are like, yes, okay, the government's not stepping in regulating, we're gonna self regulate, we're gonna work together, then that could actually be a legal problem because you're not allowed to price fix, you're not allowed to collude with your. That is like textbook antitrust. Right. And then the other thing is that there's this weird dynamic I've seen playing out where people, the AI leaders make a prediction and then the outsiders criticize that prediction as like, they're only saying that to raise the. Or they're only saying that. And this is the same thing with like all the labs were saying like, we want regulation, and then they're only saying that for, you know, regulatory capture. And it's like, regulatory capture might be a side effect of regulation, but the labs can still want it. And now I'm seeing people online look at the, look at what's happening and say, we do need regulation. And I'm willing to put up with that regulatory capture that may happen under that scenario. And so there's all these weird, like, predictions that happen way too early for everyone to digest because the people inside the lab see things much earlier and understand. Oh, yeah. Okay, the next leg up is going to work. The agentic era is going to arrive. Swarms are going to be a thing. Like, we're, like, we're on, we're on track to solve this. Anyway, Jordy, one last thing and then we'll bring in one last thing. Friend of the show Bucco Capital quoted Evan with his 10% prediction and said, hey, Quote. Hey, Dario. Congrats again on the great quarter. Nice to see enterprise re acceleration. Hoping you could provide a little color on that 10% extinction number and some of the puts and takes that might have on further enterprise adoption. And then just quick follow up after. Yeah, what are anthropic earnings calls going to be like, it's just going to be CFO and Dario or Daniela going to be on. I don't know. It's like, that's not that crazy to imagine that that happens. That's like a thing that happens on the call. Very, very odd. I mean, I guess you do have, like, defense tech companies that have earnings calls and defense primes, and they might get asked about geopolitical things that are pretty heady. I don't know. Anyway, we'll figure it out. In the meantime, let me tell you about MongoDB.

Use your favorite agent to deploy web apps, servers, databases and more. While Railway automatically takes care of scaling, monitoring and security in the Wall Street Journal. Wall Street Journal. They didn't talk about math. It made it to the digital version. Didn't make it into the paper. Navier Stokes did not make the paper edition of the Wall Street Journal, but Meta and their new personal agent did. It's right here. Metal launches the absolute state of traditional media. Hey, this is Meta. Probably it's more profitable as a business perspective, right? It's like, what are you going to do? Sell math theories? Navier Stokes was a $1 million prize. You don't think Alex Wang can pull a million bucks? This could be a trillion dollar prize they can get. They haven't monetized it yet, but they got to put ads in this thing. And will they do agentic commerce? What will they do? We were very excited talking to Sufinator yesterday about AGI for small businesses, for folks who run ads on Meta. I still love that idea, but they're going a different direction. They're doing personal super intelligence. Zuck's been talking about this for a year at least. He's put out a lengthy blog post about how he wants AI to diffuse, how he wants everyone to have AI, and now everyone does with the Metamuse app. That's a separate app that you get that will book restaurants for you. The Wall Street Journal has a little bit of a story here. Meta Platforms is betting that making AI agents easy to use will get mainstream consumers to start adopting them in their daily lives. The company on Tuesday announced a new personal AI agent that can buy goods online. I think they partner with Stripe on L. So I don't know if that just means that when link is enabled on a particular checkout, it'll be a little bit smoother or if it's like it's going to try and steer you towards things that are linked. Right. Because some websites do it. It's really nice when they do, but certainly getting closer to this. It can respond to emails. So do you have to link it to your Gmail, I guess, to get that working and complete other tasks users authorize you to do for them. The agent called Muse, is accessible via dedicated app. Users operate the agent by conversing with it like a typical chatbot and can choose their own names for it. I saw some really funny ones. Tyler called his Mark. I saw someone else. That's. Someone gave it a really funny name like. Like they said, like you can pick one and then the name of the Agent was just, you can pick one or something like that. Bunch of funny hallucinations. Always happens with these products. Everyone's gonna have fun with them. The new tool is Meta's latest attempt to monetize its massive AI investments, which are expected to top 130 billion this year. The AI agent is free to access for most of what people need and has two tiers of subscription plans for power users for 100 bucks a month and $20 a month. Anthropic and OpenAI have quickly built multibillion dollar businesses around agents capable of performing complex computer tasks. But most of that usage is driven by software coding or other business applications. Consumer adoption of technology lags behind, offering Meta, Apple and other companies potential for catching up. The fact that we've given such a powerful technology in a package that is going to be really digestible for the product is one of the things that will set us apart from lots of other agentic products. Meta's AI chief Alex Wang said in an interview. Ben Thompson was raving about the fact that it gives you a pretty powerful VM, 8 gigs of memory and 8 gigs of storage that is yours sequestered. And they're also implementing a lot of the security features that they have done with WhatsApp where there's end to end encryption. Yeah, they got Moxie pulled into it apparently. That's really cool. Moxie is a legend. So great on the recruiting front. Everyone loves Signal and great team there. Yeah, the question is how? It sounds like if they're actually giving every user a computer vm, but yeah, it's like virtualized, but yes, serious computing resources. Yeah, but the cost is going to probably be pretty significant. So the VM most likely spins up when you use it and then gets, you know, like, you know, taken down when you're not using it. So the actual compute hours that are associated to anyone but a power user and of course very quickly you can wind up spending 20 bucks or 100 bucks and that's enough to just pay for a virtual machine. Like you can go and rent, you know, a true virtual machine to like host your website on DigitalOcean for like 20 bucks. So Kaz, the CEO of OpenDoor, went to X and said posted a screenshot of him asking Meta AI and WhatsApp. And he said, please make WhatsApp the main interface for these things. Alex Wang, please. And he just says, how do I use Muse? And Meta AI responds. Muse is a free AI assistant for Anthropic. You can use it on the web, on mobile or through Their API, go to Claude AI, create an account and log in. So I'm looking at this post, I'm trying to find why is nobody talking about how Meta AI thinks that Muse is a product from Anthropic and is telling people to go log in there. That is weird that it would hallucinate that Muses from Anthropic because there's not even any connection between those. It's not like Anthropic ever had a product called Muse that I know of. Very odd. But Meta AI of course is running an older LLM and then I believe you still get thrown into a llama model. I think when you're on Instagram, if you wind up in a, in a LLM chat. And so there's going to need to be unification around all of these different products and they're going to need to eventually talk to all the same models. But of course there's like scaling and all sorts of different issues that you need because some of these products that they've gotten to scale are pretty significant, even if they're not like the most talked about. When you are a hyperscaler with billions of users and you vend an LLM into something like you've deployed that at scale, it's doing a lot and it's like the new Gemini 3.7 flash. Bunch of great reviews, great benchmarks on things, but they can't just stuff that in Google search on day one. They have to actually scale it up. Yeah. The question I have is do you think they. Does it seem like this was something they were working on prior to Instinct gaining traction or is this an instant clone? I saw one post that was saying, you know that rumor that they tried to buy it, which makes sense. Or Farrokh says there's a rumor going around that Meta and others made a 10 figure offer for Instinct. That's a crazy valuation for a one year old company. Something like that. Instinct turned it down. Now Meta has launched 15, something like that. And that's literally what the post is. Meta has launched Muse and now the timeline is reacting. It'll be a big deal. Sounds familiar. Yeah, I saw some people saying like now the people with distribution are coming in, it'll be interesting to see how much what distribution looks like in the Meta ecosystem. Because yes, Meta was able to win stories. How did they do that? They didn't win by launching a Snapchat clone as a separate app. They won by putting it in Instagram, which already had the install base. And so if Muse works its way into Instagram, which a lot of people do use. It'll probably get a lot of adoption. If it's a separate app, it's a little bit trickier. Now. The threads playbook worked. They routed a lot of people to their threads. Shows up on Instagram, it has an advertising surface area. It's pulled over. What are they at? A couple hundred million Maus. Hundreds of millions of millions MAUs. And again, it's hard to fully understand the value of that because they're counting somebody who clicked through clickbait on Instagram. Yeah, there's that. And then also. But there's politically robust. There's a robust, like, real community of, for sure. Threads users. The other, the other thing that I think about is like, Meta has the advantage of being able to, when you open all their apps, just put a huge billboard. They make ad inventory just for themselves. Yeah. With the Ray Bans, the specs, where you open around the specs. Sorry, sorry, sorry. It's a little, little slip there. But when you opened Instagram in Q4, it's like, buy some of our. You know. Right. And so I would expect. I don't think they're going to do that until Muse has, like, yeah, early adopters on and figure out all the kinks and stuff growing. Daniel John Chu says Meta has been working on Muse for almost a year now. You have to believe that that's true. The Manus acquisition ties into that. The Zuck messaging around, personal super intelligence. I mean, even we interviewed him a year ago. We were asking about, oh, am I going to be able to use your AI to actually buy? If I see a pair of shoes, will I be able to buy it? And he was kind of like, I'm not ready to announce that yet. But it was very clear that that's where this was going. So I don't think it's an Instinct clone. I think it will compete with Instinct. And I think it's tricky because Instinct is pretty early and they are going up against a big company that's been investing and has a lot of resources to go after this very, very hard. At the same time, consumers come to Meta to be entertained. Muse feels like a product for productivity. And I'm not sure that people will put them in the same buckets like that. It's very unclear. At the same time, people do a lot of shopping on Instagram. Basically just scrolling. Really? Oh, for sure. Not. Not actually check. Are you joking? No, no, no. So. So like, it's like. It is like the buzz dominant shopping app of time. Yeah, positioned as. But particularly people will like go there and not just search things, but just like casually scroll and like linger over things so that they get retargeted. Visit websites and then have the. Have the ads come to them. And so you can imagine that that on the shopping side, that there's a lot of traction there. Yeah. A lot of excitement around this. Climbing the chart is currently muse is number three on the charts app store after ESPN fantasy sport. Fantasy fantasy sports and more in ChatGPT. ESPN fantasy sports. Growing Daniel came in with an absolutely brutal ratio. What do you say? He quoted Zuck's announcement with a screenshot of the exchange that Zuck had with somebody during the early days of Facebook where he said, yeah, so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard, just ask. I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, and student numbers. What? How'd you manage that one? People just submitted it. I don't know why they quote, unquote. Trust me, dumb Fs. Anyway, growing Daniel never forgets. Obviously Zuck has grown up a lot since then. Who punched him in the nose? That's the question Ryan Peterson is asking. Let me find the. You sent me the image. Is this true? So, yeah, so. So here's the thing. His nose is starting to look like this guy Merab, who's a UFC champion. And Merab has one of the most busted up noses in the ufc. And Merab was the UFC fighter that Zuck was training with on that. On that deck. That's a lot of people are asking. So pull up this picture of Merab and you can see their noses are starting to look quite similar. That's a really. That's a really good sign that. Zoom in there. Zoom in there. He's pushing. Look, their noses. Zuck was like, give me one of them right now. Give me a nose like that right now. I like it. Do you think? And I would expect, you know, who knows, Barab could go and get probably surgery to correct this. One, it's a very cool battle scar aura. Yeah. And two, it, you know, this, this tells me that Zuck is going way harder in training than he lets on in the video. Totally, totally. Which I. Which I love to see. He's like, he's ready for that Elon fight. He's like, there's a chance I might catch Elon on a good day. He opts in. Yeah, I got to be ready. He's also going extremely hard on the Irish countryside. Buying castles, we call them Lord Zuck. We got a video now breaking down his Latest real estate purchase, Strancally Castle in Ireland. Let's play a little bit of this because there's some good voiceover, some good context, and it can be found on the banks of the River Blackwater in County Waterford. This Gothic revival mansion was designed by the famous Payne brothers for John Kiley, a local landlord, former Tory MP for Clan Mel, and high Sheriff of County Waterford. The house was complete in 1830, and it's scaled. He's got a bunky under there. According to records, it took a brisk four and a half minute. That is a bunker. Just to get from the kitchen to the dining room. Within the grounds, there was a folly. Five minutes, Chinese pagoda and an aviary. The folly, which is known as Strand Kelly Tower, was built in 1826. We're having David Perel on the show later to talk about architectural revival. And it served as. He's going to have the resources to actually restore this and do this. Some of these castles are, like, cheap relative to, like, how epic they are. But the carrying cost of actually renovating or living in, even visiting any of these places or just, like, cleaning out the cobwebs is probably six figures a year. And the landscaping has got to be extremely expensive. But I think this is the answer to, like, where's the tech wealth going? Like, at some point, he's either going to get bored of this or donate it or pass it on or it's going to fall out of the family. Because seven generations later, the family's like, yeah, we don't really want this castle anymore. And. And boom, you got a beautiful museum that was properly renovated and brought up to modern standards in 2026 and is prepared to actually house a bunch of. Alex, pull out this other video. We're gonna watch this quick video, and then we're gonna talk about absolute doom and despair. Okay, let's doom it up. But first, this little pallet cleanser. What are we doing, Emperor dude? Does that feel like. No. I wish that people did what I wanted them to do. It's like, that would be. That would be fun. But it. But in the meantime, you can have some fun. Yeah. Oh, yeah. I would have a chopper. I'd have a. I don't even know what I would have. I would have an underground tunnel. I do have an underground tunnel. Do you really? Yeah, it's like more of underground storage situation, but yeah, no, it's. It's. Oh, wow. Like a damn emperor dude. Does that feel. I love that the Theo Von Arc happened where, like, for some reason, all the tech CEOs were like, it's rite of passage. Now we got to go. I'm disappointed we didn't get satya on Theo, and I'm really disappointed we didn't get ccki. Got a bunky. Zucky got a bunk. Zucky got a bunk.

Use your favorite agent to deploy web app servers, databases and more, while Railway automatically takes care of scaling, monitoring and security. So yeah, let's play Steve Jobs predicts ChatGPT in 1985. Because I had a bunch of thoughts based on Aristotle and I read this, I became immensely jealous. And I think I would have enjoyed that a great deal. So, pause. He's the lead into this. What is that second video that's playing? I think you guys have two videos playing. He's saying, I'll just read the transcript. He says, do you know, did you know that Alexander the great's tutor for 14 years was Aristotle? When Alexander the Great had a question, he would just go to Aristotle. I think we can play the clip from the beginning now. Let's see who Alexander the Great's tutor was for about 14 years. You know, Aristotle. And I read this, I became immensely jealous and I think I would have enjoyed that a great deal. And through the miracle of the printed page, I can at least read what Aristotle wrote without an intermediary. And maybe if there's a professor, they can add to that, but at least I can go directly to the source material. And that is of course, the foundation upon which our Western civilization is built. Raising the printing press. But I can't ask Aristotle a question. I mean, I can, but I won't get an answer. And so perfectly timed soundboard is that in our lifetimes we can make a tool of a new kind, of an interactive kind. And so my hope is someday, when the next Aristotle is alive, we can capture the underlying worldview of that Aristotle in a computer. And someday some student will be able to not only read the words Aristotle wrote, but ask Aristotle a question and get an answer. And that's what I hope that we can do. It's so crazy. He's just like, we gotta compress all the data down and be able to give it a conversational interface. Large language models with a simple interface that anyone can use. It's a crazy, crazy prediction 40 something years ago. And I mean, there's so many interesting details about that video. Steve Jobs is probably the most famous techno optimist, the most successful techno optimist. The Bicycle for the Mind quote, that one continues to hit constantly. But you can see his excitement. Every time he gives a keynote, he'll just be on stage like giddily testing GarageBand. But his delivery there too is something really, really special. I mean, you noticed that, right? Where he, he asks a hypothetical question, then, you know, well, I could ask, but I wouldn't get an answer. And he kind of like, lets the laugh line kind of land and lets the audience. He has really, basically the Mark Gurman of CEOs. Mark Gurman is the goat. Yes. Journalist. Yes. And Steve is the greatest founder CEOs ever. It's a really, really cool timing. Surprise. It took you that long? Because I thought you were talking about Mark Gurman's comedic timing, which is fantastic. But Mark Gurman's delivery of Apple truly. He truly has Apple intelligence and his delivery. True, that's true. So, yeah, I mean, you can see Ben Thompson's called this out a few times. But when Steve Jobs introduces GarageBand, he is just so excited about this product. You can see him in this One video introducing GarageBand 1.0 with John Mayer, which is really cool. He has John Mayer come out and just like, play some stuff on the guitar. This is. I want to show you loops and I'm going to show you what a non. And he's just like, chilling there on this computer, on this stool, using this tool and just doing a live demo. And if you scroll forward about halfway, you'll see John Mayer comes in and plays some songs toward the end. There you go. It's a British Invasion. He's just having fun. And so, you know, with the power of modern LLMs, like, you can ask, you can ask, you know, an AI version of Steve Jobs. What. What would he think about AI? I did, and I think the answer's somewhat interesting. He said probably yes, with very strong opinions about what makes AI worth using. That's speculation, but his own words give us a surprisingly good basis for it. In 1985, Jobs imagined computers capturing a thinker's underlying ideas so that a student could interact with them. You could actually ask Aristotle a question. He was already enthusiastic about something resembling a central promise of conversational AI. But his enthusiasm would come with three demands in this hypothetical Steve Jobs analysis. One, you got to give people new abilities. Learning, designing, composing, building would probably excite him most. Two, you have to make it effortless. I'd expect him to push for AI that understands what you want with minimal instruction. And three, you have to make something excellent. I suspect he'd value AI's ability to help someone realize an original vision in much more than its ability to produce enormous quantities of generic content. He would be anti slop, but pro AI. Aristotle also had an interesting AI take in this. In this imagined LLM version of Aristotle, he'd care more about what AI does to our character than how intelligent becomes the conclusion of this is Aristotle would favor AI as an instrument of human philosophical flourishing, while resisting the idea that a life requiring less human effort is automatically a better life. You must continue to create, you must continue to work. You will be unsatisfied if the create more than you consume. Yeah, exactly. Forever, exactly. AI that strengthens our ability is what's important. And so what I was going back and forth with you about was like, was like, it seems pretty clear that Steve Jobs would be excited about AI or some form of AI, but what would the reaction to that be in the modern era? Because I tend to think that there would have been the natural cycle of reaction because of there's a whole host of things. Political polarization, economic stagnation, wealth inequality, negativity, bias on social media, there's so many different incentives that the desire, the impetus to tear someone down is unavoidable. And so I think we would be in this weird era where a lot of people would be excited about that particular vision for AI and yet there would still be viral videos complaining about the latest Steve Jobs keynote. But what do you think? Because you've called for the Steve Jobs of AI, someone who's an optimist, someone who talks about empowering humanity, focus on human flourishing, agrees with the Aristotelian philosophy around AI, but what would the actual reaction be? Is that actually a panacea or would it fall by the wayside like. Like all other attempts at positivity seem to have fallen by the wayside? Yeah, I've come around to the technology itself being fundamentally scary, even though it's very cool. And then you factor that in with certain actors that are trying to position it as even more scary than maybe it is inherently. And I think even if we still had Steve with us, it would still be a mess and he might be nicely counter positioned. But it doesn't stop other people from poisoning. Maybe not, maybe not poisoning the discourse. What do you think his P doom would be over under.

Screen everywhere. There's our screen everywhere. You're looking at the windshield of your car. That's the screen. Can we pull up some real pictures of the duo? Here it is. Here it is. The duo. So in this video, there is no crease. I'm sure the YouTube tech reviewers will be hunting in all different lighting for creases, but it feels like Apple waited long enough to avoid a crease whatsoever. So you will get no crease in your. That is crazy sitting there. Boom. It's cool. It's cool. I think this is going to sell like hotcakes. I think people are ready to spend. It's going to be like two grand, maybe three grand when you max it out. I think the Apple buyer, the Apple fanboy, is ready for something that actually is a flex beyond like a slight upgrade. You paid 30% more for the Pro. This says you pulled out the big bucks. You dropped two. Well, and that's been the thing relative to how much value you get out of a phone. Phones have always been incredibly cheap, even the highest price. Yeah. You spend more time on your phone than you do in your car and your car's 10 times the price of your phone always, if not more. And so I think this will sell very well. It'll be interesting to see if any new apps come from this if people need to redesign stuff. Like we're having Mikey from Suno on the show lately later today. And Suno has an app that's really full featured for iPhone. You can make songs, you can scroll a feed of other people's songs, but you do have to pop over to desktop if you want to get into their composer and actually deconstruct the song and shift around different pieces of the song and then you get a sort of garageband interface. What's his plan? Is he thinking, okay, this is gonna sell enough that I need to re engineer my app for a different flow. You've seen even using a lot of normal iPhone apps on iPads, it usually just doesn't feel quite right scrolling. So I think there'll be a couple UI UX opportunities, challenges. Both interesting little bezel there where you can see the screen is curved, but it's on a blocked out, squared off edge there in the center. Two cameras on the back, one on the front. Yeah. Leaving room for the iPhone Duo Pro with five cameras or something like that. Yeah. Yeah. It really shows that the phone seems to be at least the iPhone is certainly in its final form. Right. This feels like the biggest step forward in a long time. And yet it does absolutely nothing new for you. A rave review until they do that on paper that folds out. It's moderately, it's moderately exciting because we're all. It's moderately exciting because everyone's addicted to their phone and it's like cool new, new, new screen but it does nothing new for you. It doesn't move humanity forward any way at all. Jordy, you're gonna be able to watch two reels at once and they're both gonna be vertical. You think so? Yeah. What do you mean? From the demo that I saw, it looked like it was. You put the video up top and then you imessage or imessage. Well, that's because that was a horizontal video. I don't think you'll be able to open two copies of Instagram at the. I think it'll be more like the iPad OS where you can have different windows. So you think you'll be able to do YouTube shorts and Instagram reels side by side? Ideally, hopefully ideally. Brain rot Final boss over here wants to do it and then you can have the third one on the back. Well, it's definitely going to be better for looking at charts on public.com investing for those who take it seriously, they've got stocks, options, bonds, crypto treasuries and more with great customer service. What is Apple actually doing today in the market? Brian says this could literally 2x GDP. Does the market like this? I mean all this has been, you know, priced in. But let's check on Apple. Down 1.27% today, down 5% over the last five days, but sort of flat on the month. So it's exciting to see John Ternus get a big win like early, like first thing as the CEO, first major, you know, Apple event. And it's an entirely new product, the foldable phone. Something that's been rumored for years. They didn't tee him up just to do a minor Mac mini refresh. Exactly. Yeah. It's exciting that he got to come out strong with this. And it's also less of a risk than the Apple Vision Pro. If they'd thrown him there then he'd be remembered. Oh, his first thing was sort of a flop. Even though I think this is going to be a hit. Even though it doesn't matter at all, I think it's going to sell very well. I think a lot of people are going to buy him for a variety of reasons, but I think, I think it's just a good way to kick off a really strong decade long run. Hopefully four decades. Cook couldn't. Couldn't make it to 95 in the seat. But Turnus, I think he got it. What it takes. I want to see Turnus running this place. So you're 100% getting the duo. Yeah, I think I'll get it. I'll need to feel how it feels in my hand. But at one point, I was considering carrying an iPad mini as my daily driver phone because I was like. So they come with Wi Fi 6 8, 6 8. So I have big pockets, so it would actually fit in my pocket. And I don't like the phone feature of the phone. I don't like getting phone calls. So you lose that because it doesn't have a cellular connection. So it doesn't have a phone. So you can never call me. And it's not like you need a phone number for anything else besides calls. Like logging into pretty much any service. Yeah. You can do two factor on an actual authentication app. I think you can get by. You might need to have a Mac Mini hooked up somewhere that has a phone number attached to it that can route you two factor codes or something. But it did seem doable. Or you just check your phone, your actual phone with the phone number at home later. But every day you just have this iPad mini that you pull out and it has a cellular connection. I don't know that it can actually get phone calls, but it has a cellular connection. So you can get data while you're out and about. So you can be out in the world and scroll real data. What else do you need? You don't need to make big data. I don't know. Yeah, I mean, it really comes down to. Look, the phone is lighter, thinner. It's not lighter. It's not thinner. It is probably faster. It's bigger. This is. This is the opposite of your meme. Typically they come out and they say it's lighter, thinner, faster, thinner, faster fit, thinner, faster. 12 times. It's the best iPhone ever. This is actually a different direction. This is. Here's, here's. This is a response to your joke. Here's. Here's something. Yeah. Would you rather search work and imessage or be able to get the duo Search work in imessage? What do you like? Search in imessage? Yeah. Oh, you want that to work? Yeah. Personally, I would be excited about functional features of the core software that I use with the iPhone, among many other things. But Kate over on X says, mentally ready for my iPhone to start being slow, laggy, and having a bad battery. You have that to look forward. So did they. They also updated like the normal iPhone. Is that right? Did you watch a little bit of the earlier keynote? Yeah, that one is thinner, lighter, faster, better, stronger, all the different things. They updated Apple Intelligence bunch. So there was all the things I thought they haven't launched it yet. I thought this was the launch of the Siri. Like it's actually going to go out now. Correct? Yeah. Okay. Yeah, this was in the, in the launch video. Okay. And also the old iPhone or not, not the old iPhone but the new normal iPhone 18, they were like, oh, the battery is like much better. So all those things that Jordy they like said about the new iPhone, which, which one do I have? Because I got mine last year. I believe about. I have a 26. No, 17. I have a 17. So they launched the 18 which is the same form factor, just lighter, thinner, faster, better, stronger. Correct. Okay, but looks exactly the same from what I. I mean I'm sure some people can tell difference. Okay, okay. But yeah, better chip or something. So I don't know, maybe you'll notice it with Apple Intelligence. I wonder if there's any gated features because I know that there were some initially some gated features for the pro models. You need more memory for the on device stuff. I don't know. It'll be interesting. I'm excited to get it in hand, see how it works. I don't know, it might, might be too much to open that thing up. I'm thinking like it's pretty easy just to play it for you. It's great because you're such a newspaper guy. I do like a newspaper. Put your feet up on the desk and fold your phone open. I'm scrolling. Yeah, something like that might make sense. I don't know. I don't know. I was reflecting on Steve Jobs. I saw a viral video about Steve Jobs predicting ChatGPT in 1985. And the video is incredible. And because he arrives to this talk, he's giving a talk at a university on the future. It's just Steve Jobs view the Future in 1985 and he arrives on a helicopter with an entourage and they all get out of this helicopter and they go into this. It's amazing. Kind of unrelated, but more of a. Where is it? King in the castle. King in the castle. Because the video kind of takes, kind of takes place in the castle. But we can, but we can probably play this, this video. Here, let me, let me pull this up. I'll send it in. Because you gotta watch Steve Jobs in 1985 predict modern AI pretty well. What is that sound? Or is that the soundboard? You got a new like, just like vibe chatter in the background. Anyway, while we pull that up, let me tell you about railway. Railway is the all in one.

And say okay sure I'll take a shot on goal here but how do some of these investors and I'm seeing these rounds, let's call them like series B and C stage rounds where a company has a much richer revenue multiple than let's say the labs leading labs and they're growing often not even necessarily as well and you know, they're not as talent dense and these, all these rounds are getting funded and I, and that is, that's like the, that's like the place of frothiness that I don't understand where I don't understand how, but I don't understand how you look at the business and say like oh yeah, this has a path to a trillion when it's like okay, every single person working at this company tried to get a job at like four other companies couldn't and then is now here. And that doesn't mean they're not great and they could very well build a billion dollar company. But I just, I don't know how you underwrite these things to that trillion dollar mark. Very student observation. Nor do I. Which is hopefully on your list of companies that are getting funded that have those three criteria. None of them are my investments. But if you told me like hey, companies growing less rapid clip than the frontier labs with less density of talent at lower scale at like 100x lower scale and what's a higher multiple? My answer would be, you know, I have some competitors I'll introduce you to if you want, I'll be in France, I'll go find a startup in France. There's one or two apparently that are quite good but the fundamental driver though you identified which is key and a lot of people lose sight of. So it's worth double clicking on. The critical density of talent does matter. And so if a company is in the short term at low scale growing at you know, X clip, that's not that critical. If they have the right team assembled against the right challenges that is investable, you know, up to some dollars amount. And whether you're like multiplying, you know, using met as multiple or open eyes implied multiple or Nvidia's multiple doesn't matter in the earlier stages if the team is stellar. But your point is the team is often not stellar. It doesn't have to mean the same people that would work at anthropic for open AI, but they have to be world class at what they do at their craft and you have to be able to assemble a density of them. You, in some ways you want to find people who are mispriced and that the labs don't necessarily value as much as they should. And there's an archetype you can scale a company on, but you still have to believe you're scaling with incredible talent, like top 1 basis point, 10 basis point on some dimensions to really believe that you're going to create a trillion dollar business from scratch in less than a decade. Do you think that differences in philosophy, whether it's.

Than it was a decade ago. And it's going to be better than it was 20 years ago. And we're going to wave our magic wand to make it better if we have to. Yep, Yep. I am a firm devotee of the cult of saving time and money, that is for sure. But what do you make of the conversation around doom? There's been this back and forth around regulatory capture and the evolution of this. And I've watched some people from the outside friends who are not in tech, but critique tech from a political angle. And they were upset about the rhetoric leading to potential regulatory capture. But now they are worried about some of the developments in AI and they're calling for regulation. And so they're sort of begrudgingly giving the labs their due on the calls for regulation. But how have you been processing just this year? Has it updated you at all on how we should think about the probability of the bad outcome and doom and all of that? Well, I think people start often in life with orientation, optimism or doom, and maybe from the time they're like 7 years old. I'm an optimist. I'm a tech optimist. That's what I do. If I wasn't a tech optimist, I wouldn't be investing in tech companies. And there's a question of whether these people should be building or working there or forfeiting their equity if they really believe they're doing something that's bad or evil. In my opinion, like, the world is getting a little tired of some of this because we had the gloom and doom about jobs. All jobs are going away. There's no human jobs could still happen. But all the evidence as of today is to the contrary. Every single piece of evidence. You can be the Sherlock Holmes through magnifying glass. You can't find any evidence that AI is causing creating job loss of anything. It's creating jobs. So they're over one, let's say as of now. Then they're like, oh my God, the world's going to end. Okay, well, hard to falsify that. AI jobs, at least you can falsify. You're like, no, that's not happening. False. This one's a little harder to falsify. But then I think as a couple of people push back today online is well articulate how the world ends. Because then at least the precepts or the predicates we can start trying to falsify and prove or try to disprove that, you know, there's some risk there. And I do think that the reality is the world is always going to be subject to some risk. You know, people like to compare to the advent of the nuclear bomb. And you know, there's a very strong argument it's not, you know, QED proven, but the nuclear bomb in many ways probably made the world more peaceful. If you went through the arc of history and like how many citizens died, you know, as a fraction of the population of the globe and in conflict before and after the advent of the nuclear bomb, you have a pretty strong case. It certainly wasn't negative. But was that known that it would play out that way on day one when we drop a nuclear bomb or two in Japan? No. Even there's a scene in Oppenheimer where they don't even really know what it would do to the atmosphere. And they go to consult with Einstein to make sure it's not going to blow up the world and he's like, it doesn't give him a very compelling, like definite answer. So you know, like the world is free of, is not risk free. And I think, you know, all of us make decisions every single day. We drive a car, we fly in a helicopter, blah, blah, blah that, you know, take that into account. So I don't think a zero defect approach to life really works either for humans. But I think the burden is on the people arguing for regulation or slowing progress down of articulating, well, what goes wrong, why and how and so that people can probe and push back and try to evaluate and quantify that risk. And I have yet to see a compelling answer to that. That's not just like, oh, I know it because I was working on this and it's really dangerous. How many of these, how many of these ideas do you think? Wait, wait, hold on, let me layer on one other political point. Even if that was 100% true, the idea that politicians are going to make it better is also subject to historical debate. Yes. Like if you said we have a world class problem on our hands, would you entrust it to the federal government or to a bunch of private citizens? Not obvious. Yep. Yeah. Do you think that, that, that basically these ideas around PDM end up in the S1? Because I would expect them.

Yeah. Do you think that, that, that basically these ideas around PDM end up in the S1? Because I would expect them. I would expect anthropic to actually put this into one as a, as a real risk factor. People are saying like, oh, you know, the, you know, they got to stop the employees from posting this stuff. But if, but if it's coming top down, it might be just then, then SEC disclosure, it could very well end up in there. And it would be. I used to be a securities litigator, so I can argue a couple fun points on this. You could say, hey, if the real risk is the world's going to blow up, buying anthropic shares is no more dangerous or risk. So it's not a particularly. It's not a risk factor associated with anthropic. Sure. A more nuanced view might be, hey, if the political environment were to appreciate that. No, no, no. Couldn't you make the argument that there's like. That the company could, with a runaway AI, incur such massive liability that it is a risk to the actual investment. That's probably fair and there probably will be language like that, but it'll be so toned down that most people won't even understand it. There's an old Peter Tillian lesson here too, which is if you have risk factors, you want the most possible risk factors, so no one can really tell which one's really important. So you might see an anthropic prospectus that has hundreds of pages of risks you can't like isolate. Oh, this is the one I should actually care about. Got it. But the most acute risk probably would be something like, hey, we scare enough politicians that they implement policy that's particularly not certainly imprudent, but it would, it could constrain our growth. And that is a real risk. If they can't control their employee blog post or X post sooner rather than later, I think people are seeing through some of this. There has been significant exposure of the fact that many of these anti data center crusades are being funded by China intentionally by our adversary. There is real proof that these data centers certainly do not waste energy, waste water and things like that. It's kind of a silly. It's almost like a walking IQ test. That doesn't mean that the political cost doesn't have to rebut it, but it is kind of a walking IQ test for someone if they really believe that data centers are going to make the world run out of water somehow. Yeah, it's very ridiculous that the origin of that is like just a simple calculation error that was off.

Like the paper towel holder. But that's very funny Jordy. Where are you? Anyways, I wanted to get right into how you are like what is your how much are you pricing in a data center freeze or real friction to bringing in and what is your mental model for what happens then? Because on one hand existing compute that's in a powered shell becomes potentially a lot more valuable and starts to trade hands as certain companies are able to monetize it much better than others. But then there's potentially millions of GPUs that aren't plugged in that the world is figuring out. How do we shuffle these around the world to get them to places that they can be plugged in and the capital flows that happen there and the impacts to the to the labor market. Like there's so many downstream implications of that. And when you have both sides of the political aisle that are realizing hey I can get points for pushing back here, then it's hard to imagine that there isn't like very real friction ahead. So let me say sort of the exposure first and then come back up. The most devastating thing to the frothy hype and the traction that we're seeing with AI and the funding of it from VCs would be a anthropic and or open. I have a blip in their public access. The public, their IPOs. Do they have to show metrics over the next month to first few quarters that cause people to value either company less than the current belief that they will trade in the trillions is so they can have a missile revenue tracks and miss on margin something something like that that would be catastrophic and immediately reset virtually all valuations in the world and probably deprive half the companies that are raising money from access to capital. Well yeah and I've been asking, I've been asking that happen. I'm not saying that's going to happen or is likely and I think if they miss it would be more on the margin side than on the revenue side right now. But if they do, everybody is predicating the idea their valuations and new investments in dollars on the idea that you can build a trillion dollar company within the life cycle of a venture fund. There's two examples currently and there's several companies that people believe have the potential to get there. If that changes and you cannot sort of predict that more trillion dollars companies can be created then the valuations that people are investing in and the dollars that are being invested do not make that much sense. Let me backtrack one second. Basically in the history of venture, a very successful company was 10 to 50 billion dollars, maybe 100 billion at the max. That's like a home run. That's like we all dreamed about sort of thing. It is possible now that at least one order of magnitude, possibly two orders of magnitude, have been added to the upside potential of a startup, which does adjust the prudence and rationality of a VC investing $50 million at $500 million or whatever the case is. Compared to when I invested in Airbnb, it was at 1.7 million, pre or post. 1.7. Yeah. So that world may or may not be coming back. But certainly by adding a zero or two zeros to the upside potential, you can rationally look yourself in the mirror and say, okay, sure, I'll take a shot on goal here, but how do some of these investors, and I'm seeing these rounds, let's call them like series B and C stage rounds, where.

Need to have their own products. Yeah. And there's one thing that's interesting is there's so many companies that are marked up into the, into the tens of billions of dollars that, that are actually insignificant to the overall AI trade. But their valuations are such that if one were to fail, you would have all over the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, all the newspapers, $30 billion company. You know, it would be like a we work Theranos level failure which like it would be a bit for a very different reason but like it would be that big. Yeah. And I think that, I think that the market would be able to process it generally. But like you said, there's just when the cash is flowing, there's an incentive to make sure that hey, let's buy this company an extra two years. Right. Even when there's no other investors lining up to back the company. Yeah. I mean it's in self interest. The longer the AI wave continues, the better it is for Nvidia, without a doubt. And the bigger the amplitude almost surely is better for Nvidia unless and until there's a better version of Nvidia or somebody obviates their competitive advantages, which could happen. It always happens in technology at some point. We're seeing this play out now that what's the future Google? Who knows. But that was even five years ago. Even formulating that question kind of felt silly. But now it feels very realistic that a chat or similar interface may displace all of searches. The advertising revenue will lag and so the business itself will show signs of life for a while. But people I know, and not all my friends and colleagues in different fields are Tech Forward have substituted huge fractions of what used to be searches with things they do with ChatGPT. Obviously I'm quite biased.