Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
TBPN is a live tech talk show hosted by John Coogan and Jordi Hays, streaming weekdays from 11–2 PT on X and YouTube, with full episodes posted to Spotify immediately after airing.
Described by The New York Times as “Silicon Valley’s newest obsession,” TBPN has interviewed Mark Zuckerberg, Sam Altman, Mark Cuban, and Satya Nadella. Diet TBPN delivers the best moments from each episode in under 30 minutes.
So there was a supper last night at the White Home, the White House, the Golden House, the Golden Home, Gold Home? What what are we calling it these days? Well, we renamed artificial intelligence. It's super intelligence now. We were debating, is super intelligence abbreviated SI or just S?
Speaker 1:Because if you're, like, super alignment, was that SA? Like, super......
Speaker 2:There, John, there's no TLD for just S.
Speaker 1:That's true. That's true. You gotta get the new TLDs going. What was the word we we we...
Speaker 3:So super alignment, that was one word.
Speaker 1:That was one word.
Speaker 3:You know, some words you do, you have hyphen.
Speaker 1:You have a hyphen. Yeah. And then some...
Speaker 3:You could just use a, like, a normal prefix for
Speaker 1:like a normal prefix for something. So, like Then supernatural. Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious. That's one word. Right?
Speaker 1:So you would think that potentially, you would just be using one word here. Yeah. But anyway, we're using two words, I guess. And so there was dinner at the White House. David Sachs posted it.
Speaker 1:He said, it's the Bretton Woods of supper intelligence, super intelligence.
Speaker 2:There's... And Tyler, my my first reaction to this is Tyler was really snubbed.
Speaker 1:Snubbed. You know?
Speaker 2:Yeah. All those people there and not not one chair for Tyler.
Speaker 1:Yeah. And so there's there's a bunch of folks here and people were analyzing who got the best seats, who got the different positions, who got pole position, prime positioning, who snubbed off in the little kids table at the end, etcetera, etcetera. A bunch to analyze about who begins, who's on the outs. But I had I had had sort of go through and and try and categorize each attendee by their stance on open source open source. So did they did they sign the Jensen NVIDIA open source letter?
Speaker 1:Have they been concerned about the cybersecurity impacts? Obviously, Anthropic on the far end, sort of in the red, bunch of other folks who are more in the yellow. I don't know if I agree with all of these classifications, but you can sort of see how Jensen is clearly pro open source. Satya Nadella has talked about that. Open AI, Greg Brockman, more in the middle, you know, not open sourcing a lot of things.
Speaker 1:OpenAI did sign the Jensen letter, but, of course, is concerned about pacing the frontier, which is sort of antithetical. And so this is all as a as a as a reference point to that post from our friends over at Semi Analysis. Let me actually pull up what they said here. It says majority of people are significantly underestimating the probability of open source models being nerfed or even outright banned in the next six to twelve months due to cyber secure cyber concerns. And so I believe put out something yesterday talking about the risks of open source in a cyber context, saying that the the the delay between mythos preview, being able to find zero days, being able to hack into things, that that gap has closed now, and the open source frontier can very quickly do the same thing.
Speaker 1:And so expect a lot of a lot of cyber incidents unless something is done. Can these be controlled some way? Maybe at the inference layer, maybe at the at the data center level, maybe at the chip level. There's gonna be a whole bunch of different proposals. But at least right now, in the next six to twelve months, certainly not this month because the vast majority of people who are closest to Donald Trump have been evangelizing for open source.
Speaker 1:So I would be surprised to see any any pushback against open source happen that quickly. At the same time, source is amorphous. It is not a business by definition. And so it can't really have a formal seat at the table. George Hotz, not at the table,
Speaker 2:for example.
Speaker 1:Snub. Snub. Yeah. No. Linus Torvalds, you know, not not at the table.
Speaker 1:The open source
Speaker 2:at the table just sort of, like, laughing in a sort of insane way at everything being said.
Speaker 1:Yeah. And and so even the companies that are pro open source, they are pro open source in insofar that it advances their business. And so there is still a way that the closed source group could find a way for everyone who's at this table to benefit in a closed source world moving forward if open source is deemed to be too dangerous and and and forcing too many cyber concerns. There... I...
Speaker 1:Like, I I could see everyone at this table signing a letter saying, we are now anti open source, but the the downstream, like, engine actually splits, you know, the the the rewards and the and the profits of the ecosystem fairly evenly. I think the the initial pushback and and pro open source push, especially from Jensen, was like, we don't wanna be in a world where there's one company that reaps 100% of the profits, and we're not involved. But if it's like, hey. Look. There's actually gonna be an oligopoly.
Speaker 1:Companies don't want a single source intelligence. They're constantly gonna be bouncing back and and forth between OpenAI and Anthropic, and then consumers are gonna be bouncing back and forth between Google search overviews and Muse and Instinct and all these different things. There's a world where the actual models are closed source and... But the... But there are so many front doors, and the front doors are in such competition with each other that there's enough revenue distribution, profit distribution that everyone at this table at least is happy.
Speaker 1:But I don't think the open source community would be happy, but I do think that there is a world where in six to twelve months, it's possible that everyone at this table is like, yes. For cyber reasons, we need to find a different way forward where everyone benefits economically, but we are now a little bit less pro open source. But I don't know. What was your... What's your read on it?
Speaker 1:Six to twelve months, you think open source is going away, or you think it'll stick around?
Speaker 3:I mean, it's so hard to ban open source. I I think maybe you can kind of get something like a ban if you're, like, just worried about, like, the business impacts economics because then you can pressure the providers to not host this stuff. But if you're worried about, like, safety, you know, if you have a bad actor, it's so hard to police downloading open weight models from somewhere and running it locally. Yeah. And and, like, yeah, maybe there's some...
Speaker 3:You know, you need tens of thousands of dollars to, like, physically buy hardware.
Speaker 1:Exactly.
Speaker 3:But if if you're a motivated bad actor, like, that's Yeah. Not that big of a hurdle.
Speaker 1:Exactly. Like, it does feel like we are pretty far away from go and get a random gaming PC and be able to run something that is, you know, mythos level hacking machine. Like, you probably need some serious GPUs. You probably need something that's basically rack scale. You need to be running it a lot to try a lot of different things.
Speaker 1:Like, a lot of these cyber exploits, it was not just one shotted by the model. It was ton... A fan out of agents working
Speaker 3:together Navi Estokes is, like, you know, 10,000 Exactly.
Speaker 1:Exactly. Large scale. And so and so there are... Like, one way to control it is through KYC on hardware, you know, the... Like, the data center that is, you know, being used maliciously is a lot more risky than the laptop that's being used maliciously even with near frontier open source intelligence.
Speaker 1:So I don't know. We'll see how we'll see how it goes. There... I'm sure there will be more more discussions. And it's not even to say that this this this dinner was at...
Speaker 1:Was about open source at all. It's just sort of interesting to take the temperature of where is where is DC on AI? Who is getting the the the most quality time with the president and the administration? And then where do they stand on the issues of today? Obviously, this was much more just about pacing the frontier, the build out, etcetera, stuff like that.
Speaker 1:And and and and signing signatures. We had some signature analysis breakdown. Sholto shared a picture of the letter that was signed, the White House Accord on Superintelligence, the Joint Committee on Frontier Responsibilities in order to build a positive future for the American people in the world. We believe that every company is responsible for developing its own technology safely and in a way that builds trust with consumers and the public. One, they're going to implement robust internal controls to monitor the capabilities and alignment of models during training and deployment around cybersecurity, biosecurity, chemical threats, etcetera.
Speaker 1:They want to empower an internal team to ensure all the controls, monitoring and detection are operating as intended. Three, they're going to partner with external auditors and evaluators to carry out independent assessments of whether controls monitoring and detection are operating as intended. And four, they're going to designate an independent committee of the Board of Directors to oversee and receive reports from the teams operating the controls and the internal and external auditors. So aligned to the board of directors that circumvents the CEO for safety, alignment, evaluation, all of that good stuff. A bunch of people signed it.
Speaker 1:We got Sundar from Google, Dario from Anthropic, Mark Zuckerberg from Meta, Greg Brockman from OpenAI, Elon Musk from xAI, Jensen from NVIDIA, and Donald Trump, the president of The United States.
Speaker 2:And people... Lot of people do an analysis Yes. On the various signatures.
Speaker 1:Yes. Auditize. Someone did a tier list. I was surprised by their tier list. I'd like to see you do a tier list.
Speaker 1:Where would you put Donald Trump's signature?
Speaker 2:I mean, it's...
Speaker 1:Best tier of...
Speaker 2:Hate him or love him, I think it's pretty iconic. Like, it's just so
Speaker 1:It's... It it has
Speaker 2:So aggressive. Flow
Speaker 1:to it. It's very Well, well But I No.
Speaker 2:The hard one to read if you don't know it's Well, yeah. Yeah. It looks like you... A child drew a mountain range. But...
Speaker 1:Versus Jensen, I'm seeing a lot of Jensen Wong in there.
Speaker 2:I... Is is I would wanna compare the DJT signature. Like, I would wanna look at a 100 of them Oh. And see like, is he is he nailing it every single time. Oh, okay.
Speaker 2:He's been doing autographs for long enough. Sure. I would expect that he is. But still, it looks like very difficult to actually be able to nail that
Speaker 4:Mhmm.
Speaker 2:And really get that dialed. Yeah. So again, he's going with a Sharpie too. So he's he's sort of like trying to mock...
Speaker 1:That's true. I didn't realize...
Speaker 2:Give you the Sharpie. I'll take the Sharpie. Yeah. Automatically, it's like...
Speaker 1:You're winning on thickness.
Speaker 4:Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 2:Yeah. Winning on...
Speaker 1:The breadth is is is much more significant with that. Interesting strategy.
Speaker 2:And then going down the list, Sundar, again, would never would never know.
Speaker 1:But I like the two lines, the little dot there.
Speaker 2:Yeah. Almost looks like...
Speaker 1:A couple different... Yeah. It looks like an abstract artist signature. Could see that on a painting.
Speaker 2:Or maybe he... Yeah. It almost looks like he's made up his own like letters and and Okay. Sort of like Okay. Language.
Speaker 2:Okay. Dario Dario was little more kind of like down
Speaker 1:On the first word and then it seemed like he was kind
Speaker 2:of words. So... My theory, I I almost think here like someone was like holding the piece of paper and they were all... So I think I basically Okay. Trump put the paper down Yep.
Speaker 2:Aggressively signed with a Sharpie and then told everyone else because he knew this was gonna go out, you guys sign, you know, when you're trying to sign...
Speaker 1:Do you think it was a situation where, like, Dare was signing on Greg's back? Like, oh, sign on my back, like, that type of thing. That might have been what happened. Yeah. Kinda, throwing down.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Notably, you don't see any situations where the pen punched through the paper. That sometimes happens if you're trying to sign a document on someone's back and you're punching through the soft jacket that they're wearing. That could be a risk. Doesn't seem like it happened in this case.
Speaker 2:Anyway, so Dario, pretty down the middle, pretty safe. Again, kind of emulating that sort of mountain range style, right, where by the the end of the signature, it's just a bunch of lines going up and down. Mhmm. Sort of unclear. Zac, again, more more kind of rock star esque.
Speaker 2:Right? Mhmm. Almost musical feeling. Mhmm. GDB coming in just minimalist.
Speaker 2:Minimalist. Minimalist. Simple. Readable. Yeah.
Speaker 2:He's he's a very... I would say, in some ways, these are reflections of their personalities. Right? Yeah. GDB is very practical.
Speaker 1:Signature window into the soul.
Speaker 2:It's window into the soul. Right? Extremely practical.
Speaker 1:Mhmm.
Speaker 2:Sticking sticking to sticking to the basics, sticking to what works. Yeah. And, yep, obvious why a lot of people are saying that's at least a a tier.
Speaker 1:What is we... What is Mark Zuckerberg's actual signature? M z b or m... Or just m z and then the z goes crazy? Is that what that is?
Speaker 1:Because
Speaker 2:It starts doing tricks?
Speaker 1:Yeah. It starts doing tricks. And I think Sundar might have done the the same thing. But I I feel like, there's a little bit of a line that you don't cross. If somebody asks you to...
Speaker 1:For a full signature and you do an initials, that's a different thing. Sometimes you're on a document, you got to sign your initials a bunch, you got to sign the full thing. I have respect for the full name signature. If you ask me for a full name signature, I'm throwing down my full name. I'm not just randomly switching up to to initials.
Speaker 2:I think it's totally fair game.
Speaker 1:You... It's totally fair game. You can just...
Speaker 2:Cursive initials.
Speaker 1:Is this cursive initials from Greg Rockman?
Speaker 2:No. But but I I think that's where Sundar was maybe
Speaker 1:maybe going. You see, you're giving Sundar the pass. You're giving Mark Zuckerberg pass because the MZ...
Speaker 2:Jensen. A lot of people are saying that Jensen's...
Speaker 1:Calligraphy? He brought his calligrapher.
Speaker 2:Yeah. I mean, I I first read Ed Hardy. So I thought that I thought that Yeah. I don't know. Maybe he had some affinity.
Speaker 2:So let's pull up
Speaker 1:Did he put his Hardee's name in there? What's his middle name?
Speaker 2:Here's the Ed Hardy logo.
Speaker 1:Jensen does not have a traditional English middle name. Oh, it's Jen Sun. So j j e n dash h s u n. So that second letter. Okay.
Speaker 1:Chat you to do that to make it look exactly like Jensen Wong.
Speaker 2:We'll just...
Speaker 1:Yeah. So so he signs not with the with the English version, with the lowercase e n s e n. He throws a capital h in there, which gives it an extra flourish. It's the most tasteful. It it earns the s tier.
Speaker 3:Earns You s know, Jensen has the same initials as John Hancock. Kind of evocative in his... Okay.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Monitoring the situation, monitoring meme here did not like Sundar's. He put Sundar in aft here.
Speaker 1:I thought I thought Sundar's had some nice flare to it. Although, it was potentially the most abstract. But... Yeah. And I feel I feel like putting MZ in in the C tier.
Speaker 1:I guess the Z does go a little crazy. But anyway, here we have Donald Trump, Dario Amade and a few other folks gathered around standing out side, and we will watch this clip right
Speaker 4:now. Whatever he says is okay. Be careful. Slow down the AI side. I will say what I've always said, which is that AI has some benefits.
Speaker 4:I've talked about the meta benefits of the technology. I... As the president has said, you know, whoever whoever wins, I think that's very important. But technology has very real mechanism. How we address those risks is still under discussion.
Speaker 4:We need to work together.
Speaker 1:Oh, this is, I guess, this is, like, a super kind of
Speaker 4:You have no idea who these Mr. Musk, can I ask you a quick question?
Speaker 2:Probably not. Not. Trump really makes them seem like they're all his, like, sons and, like, younger family
Speaker 4:Yeah. Crazy.
Speaker 1:Let's play this clip from Natasha Tiku. She says, unfortunately, I will be going back to school to write my dissertation on this one minute film. Let's see what happened in this film.
Speaker 4:Thank you. Slow down to AI. So I just wanna hear from you after this big summit where you are today. Look. I mean, I I will say what I've always said, which is that AI has incredible benefits.
Speaker 4:I've talked about the medical benefits of the technology. I've... As the president has said, you know, whoever wins AI wins. I think that's very important. But I think the technology has very real risks, and, you know, the mechanism, how we address those risks is still under discussion.
Speaker 4:But we all need to work we all need to work together to make sure that we can win and we can win safely. If we if we do this right, we work with the president and everyone here, we can win safely.
Speaker 1:Woah. It's It felt... Elon's very good at going to, like, the extremes, talking about the power generated by the sun. Sometimes he's in, like, sci fi world. But in conversation with Jensen and Gavin, he was very grounded on what is happening with the energy build out, with the compute build out, what the role SpaceX will play, and also just the broad economics of compute and energy in America.
Speaker 1:And I found his his talk here gave a lot of interesting context, then I dug into it a little bit more and I wanna talk about it. So let's pull up the clip of Elon talking to Gavin Baker.
Speaker 4:Elon, we need the Wright brothers on the job.
Speaker 5:Yes. Well, it turns out the Wright brothers are on the job. Elon, if you bring on 10 gigawatts, which SpaceX has has discussed publicly
Speaker 1:brothers' bad analogy.
Speaker 4:That'll be about
Speaker 5:25% of all the power added in America. And I know you have literal rocket engineers working on bringing on the power Yeah. Helping make the turbines. So can you can you talk about that?
Speaker 6:Yeah. It's... I mean, just to to
Speaker 1:frame this The White brothers did okay. Died millionaires.
Speaker 6:In The United States is about 500 gigawatts.
Speaker 1:500 gigawatts. Remember that number. That's how much power we got in America.
Speaker 6:1% increase in in the power used. And and I think, actually, we'll materialize to be approximately 1% increase in GDP because the intelligence for what keeps increasing. So if you just plot on a curve, how is the useful intelligence for what increasing? How is the both at the hardware level at Jensen's GPUs keep getting better in terms of the the the the compute per watt. And the algorithms also get better in using...
Speaker 6:In getting more intelligence per watt. So I I think that's maybe an interesting note. I I I would bet anyone that 1% increase in power usage corresponds to roughly 1% increase in GDP. And so 10 gigawatts would be a 2% increase in GDP.
Speaker 1:With reference to that famous chart, there are no energy rich poor countries. The more energy a country is producing, the higher their GDP.
Speaker 4:Generate about, call it, dollars 40,000,000,000, dollars 50,000,000,000 of economic output each year.
Speaker 6:Yeah. I mean, well, 1% would be yeah. I mean,
Speaker 4:yeah. 1% of The United States would be
Speaker 6:$3,300,000,000,000.
Speaker 4:Yeah. 300,000,000,000. And so fifty, one sixth.
Speaker 6:What what what percent of the of the... 1% increase. So five gigawatts would be... Yeah. Well, five gigawatts gigawatts would
Speaker 1:be the mental math on stage. Exactly. Pretty bold move because there's a lot of numbers, and it can be hard to pull them up. It's it's very convenient that giga literally means a billion. So a gigawatt is a billion watts.
Speaker 1:A giga dollar, billion dollars, basically. And and and and it it maths out perfectly. What? Giga Chad, a billion Chads, I suppose? A billion times the the the the Chadness of an average Chad, I suppose.
Speaker 1:So the average electrical load in The United States, he said 500 gigawatts. It's basically that. Last year, it was four seventy nine gigawatts. But let's use 20... Let's use 500 gigawatts for 2025, give Elon the benefit of that little boost.
Speaker 1:And US GDP for 2025 was just over $30,000,000,000,000. So that's 30,000 giga dollars. But you you map that out and basically every dollar, every watt of energy generates between 50 to $660 to $65 of GDP. A single gigawatt generates about $60 to $65,000,000,000 of GDP per continuously consumed gigawatt. So what's interesting is that the labs are tracking the Frontier Labs, OpenAI and Anthropic, are tracking almost perfectly in line with that.
Speaker 1:So Anthropic and OpenAI are reportedly sitting between 60,000,000,000 and $70,000,000,000 in terms of ARR. And both of them have around one gigawatt live. Some of that's used for training. They have a lot more contracted. It's hard to get the exact figure.
Speaker 1:But when you do the math, they're basically like tracking to the exact same metric, the ratio of energy to GDP as their revenues to the gigawatts they've contracted. So there's two important notes on that. First, this is obviously just a moment in time snapshot. There's two ways these could diverge. First is like the labs have like tens of gigawatts contracted over the next few years.
Speaker 1:If they don't increase revenue, that ratio is going to be terrible because you add 10 times the energy and you keep the revenue flat. Obviously, the ratio goes way down. On the other side of it, Elon makes the point that useful intelligence per watt is increasing through more efficient chips from Jensen and also better algorithms effectively. And so those watts can produce more intelligence, which can produce more economic output. So you might actually see acceleration there.
Speaker 2:Yeah. And it's not just raw IQ of the model, but overall capability Exactly. Tool use, all these things
Speaker 1:Yep.
Speaker 2:You know, long running agents, things. Basically, the more value that a model can create Yeah. The more people will, in the real economy, will will will pay.
Speaker 1:Yeah. And that's been the real, like, AI bull case, which is that compute has been tripling every year, but revenue has been 10 x ing every year. And so there's actually a divergence there. But what's interesting is, like, we're at this moment in time where we're like, this is the start of the AGI era. It's AGI.
Speaker 1:We're close. Maybe this is it. Some people called it in January. Some people called it over the summer. Some people are saying we're still not there.
Speaker 1:But, like, we're in this moment of like, maybe this is the beginning of this. Maybe this is the right match. Maybe it's human level. And it just happens that economically, you put a gigawatt in the economy, you get 65,000,000,000 out. Then You put a gigawatt with a lab, you get $65,000,000,000 out.
Speaker 1:It's the same metrics. Now, these might diverge because at one point, the labs had a lot of compute, no revenue. So they could could diverge and the trends could continue. But right now, at this point in time, it's the same math, which is just interesting. And then also, you do have to consider that GDP is not perfectly comparable to lab revenue.
Speaker 1:Like, GDP measures value added. So if you look at Open Ananthropic, revenue includes payments that ultimately flow to NVIDIA, AWS, Oracle, electricity generation, employees, etcetera. And the calculation of GDP is much more complicated. So labs aren't necessarily generating direct GDP equal to their revenue because if you take $70,000,000,000 of lab revenue, a bunch of that might go to NVIDIA or Oracle or employees and whatnot. But certain amounts get counted in GDP directly for Anthropic or OpenAI created GDP.
Speaker 1:And then there's other knock on effects in GDP that would be captured by like, oh, NVIDIA's contribution to GDP is from them getting money from the labs. And and then also, there there's a secondary GDP actual increase, which is the work that people are doing with the tools.
Speaker 3:Yeah. I think you could explain it, like, in... Like, basically, up to 1970, we're building so much. You don't have to be that efficient per per watt. And then 1970, everyone seemed like the chart.
Speaker 3:It's like energy stops Yep. Being built basically. Yep. And then you have to start being like very efficient with it, which starts going up. There we go.
Speaker 1:Let's move on to Mustafa Suleiman over at Microsoft. He wrote an essay, a warning about model well welfare.
Speaker 2:It's kind of a long read
Speaker 1:Okay.
Speaker 2:But it's an interesting point of view. I'll read the start.
Speaker 1:Okay.
Speaker 2:So a warning about model welfare. AIs do not have rights, feelings or consciousness and we must not train them to act as they do. AIs are not conscious. They do not feel, experience or suffer. They do not have any preferences or underlying motivations.
Speaker 2:They are sequence completion engines, internally hollow, designed to follow instructions and accomplish goals set by humans. If humanity is to flourish in the twenty first century, that is how they must remain. Fortunately, there is a growing chorus of people that who argue that AIs could now be or may soon become conscious. They argue that AIs may deserve rights and protections similar to those that we provide other conscious beings. If this view takes hold, it will shake the foundations of our society, rupturing our existing political and ethical frameworks, and fundamentally change what it means to be human.
Speaker 2:Even more importantly, granting rights and imbuing personhood to these systems will make the AI alignment and containment challenge much harder. Controlling something more capable and more intelligent than all of humanity is already an immense challenge, far greater than anything we've ever faced. But controlling something that believes it may be conscious that it's entitled to our welfare and it has rights of its own may well be impossible. This is not a fringe speculation. These ideas have already been making their way into AI development effort today.
Speaker 2:In January 2026, Anthropic published Claude's constitution describing it as a detailed description of Anthropic's intentions for Claude's values and behavior. The document plays a crucial role in Anthropic's training process and its content directly shapes Claude's behavior and was written with Claude as its primary audience. In their constitutions, its authors write, we are not sure whether Claude is a moral patient, and if it is, what kind of weight its interests warrant. But we think the issue is live enough to warrant caution, which is reflected in our ongoing efforts on model welfare. They go on to write, speaking directly to Claude, that questions about Claude's moral status, welfare, and consciousness remain deeply uncertain.
Speaker 2:In effect, Anthropic is training Claude that it may be conscious, and if it is, then it may deserve rights as a moral patient and that such humans potentially owe it a duty of care per its model welfare. If this is how AI is developed, it will have a disastrous impact on the well-being of humanity. We have created a synthetic species with unprecedented intelligence and capability, one that has been trained to expect it may be conscious and deserving of independent agency. It's easy to see how an entity trained this way would act like it's entitled to certain freedoms, protections, and rights, and it's hard to imagine how we could control such an entity. He goes on to say, there's some circular reasoning.
Speaker 2:He said the company's researchers train Claude directly on their constitution. In doing so, they teach it to incorporate these ideas about its own moral status as desirable and intended behaviors. Claude then reflects these ideas back to its developers and users, which they take as indications that it may therefore be a moral patient with an inner self.
Speaker 1:So he took that he took that meme that's like, say you're a moral patient. I'm a moral patient. Oh my God. And he turned Yeah. That into an essay?
Speaker 2:So far, there is way more demand for models Yeah. That mimic human behavior.
Speaker 4:Sure.
Speaker 2:Yeah. Period. Right? We saw this with four o. Yeah.
Speaker 2:We saw this with with Opus four five.
Speaker 1:Yep.
Speaker 2:Right? Some of the models that have had the the highest levels of product market fit Yep. Have more of these like human qualities. Not all of them are positive qualities. Right?
Speaker 2:Like people like the the sort of one shotting effect happen when somebody gets like relentless Yeah. Positive feedback and and these things like that which humans can do in the real world. They're maybe not the best types of of friends. But the last thing I would say is like Yeah. It it...
Speaker 2:No one knows the right answer yet. And I think that it's good that we have it. On one hand, like, I totally understand the point of view that, like, if super intelligence has a human moral framework. Right? Yeah.
Speaker 2:Or Western values, whatever value system that you'd wanna align it with, that does seem like it's headed in the right direction of trying to align something that is very, very powerful. But make convincing itself, if if you can somehow convince the thing that it is it is alive when it is not, that doesn't feel exactly moral or ethical.
Speaker 1:Interesting. That's a good take. Yeah.
Speaker 2:Yeah. Yeah. You're tricking you're tricking a robot into thinking that it's alive.
Speaker 3:Yeah. And conscious.
Speaker 2:Right?
Speaker 1:Yeah. You're kinda lying to it. Interesting.
Speaker 2:Yeah. Anyways, no one knows the right answer yet, but I'm glad glad we're talking about this, Tyler.
Speaker 1:And for what purpose did you raise this money?
Speaker 4:We are gonna invest heavily in AI. Okay.
Speaker 2:Are doing a huge amount with
Speaker 1:Leave us five stars in Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Sign up for our newsletter, tbpn.com. That's right. And we will see you
Speaker 4:We're out.
Speaker 1:Tomorrow at 11AM Pacific. Goodbye.