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.
And without further ado, we'll bring in our first guest of the show. Eilat, how are you doing?
Speaker 2:What's going on? Doing great.
Speaker 3:How are you guys?
Speaker 2:Doing great. Is is this your first time
Speaker 1:Is it over?
Speaker 2:During a a global sell off?
Speaker 3:The first time so far, but, you know, I'm I'm just the best interest the way I look Yes. At We've got a lot of opportunities and a lot of scary things coming down the pipe.
Speaker 1:Okay. So, yeah, take us through the the the thought process. Like, how long have this been simmering? What was the actual process of putting together this report? And then what do you want people to take away from it?
Speaker 1:And then maybe we can go into some of the reactions and your reactions to those reactions.
Speaker 3:Absolutely. The the process ultimately is that, you know, I've been building in AI for fifteen years, and I've been an investor for twenty. And so especially the last six months as I've just been using AgenTic coding myself and my teams have adopted it, it's just been a step change function in how much we can get done. Mhmm. And just thinking through, hey.
Speaker 3:How is this gonna you know, we're we're early. We're a startup. You know, we're gonna be at the leading edge of how people are adopting things. You know, assuming the corporate world is a year or two years away, it's it's gonna be pretty profound. And I think the underlying thing, you know, as, you know, sort of an amateur macroeconomist is we're just not producing white collar jobs to begin with.
Speaker 3:I hadn't actually seen the extent of that until I kinda looked at, you know, specifically what we call, like, the information sector, so different parts of kinda technology. Those jobs are down 8% from the peak in 2022 already. And so those those are the places where people are adopting the most aggressively already, and we know, you know, every week there's firings out of, like, big tech.
Speaker 1:Yep.
Speaker 3:And so in that world, what happens when the technology that big tech's been using for a while has gotten a lot better, and now, you know, your average corporate starts using it as well. It can get quite scary. And so, you know, we wanted to kinda think through the implications of that. And, you know, the the piece
Speaker 2:But how much of those how much of those layoffs do you think are are you know, we've talked about a bunch of those layoffs on the show. They're usually attributed to AI. But if you dig under the hood, it's like they just wanted to kind of resize or get more efficient or they're re reprioritizing resources
Speaker 1:Mhmm.
Speaker 2:And not actually because they just launched some new agent and suddenly everything's changed. Hey, we don't need these thousand engineers anymore.
Speaker 3:So I think, you know, those are all great corporate euphemisms, and of course, that's how they're gonna say Mhmm. But I think the the the way I would think about this is it's not necessarily like agentic powers happened, now everyone's gonna get fired. Mhmm. You know, agents and LLMs broadly are are just sort of on the tech tree as a continuum from software.
Speaker 1:Mhmm.
Speaker 3:And so software has been making companies more efficient for decades and, you know, that has caused a lot of downstream effects. Now that software has just become much more intelligent. And so in that sense, think, you know, companies that are efficient, have been doing a form of this for a really long time And we think about, you know, the the the age starting now in '26 is just something that's gonna accelerate that.
Speaker 1:Okay. So, yeah, what what else was, like, key in the thesis or maybe potentially overlooked that you think people should be really focusing on?
Speaker 3:I think the problem, a, the first thing, the most important thing is just the labor market dynamics. Mhmm. We've just been in a really weak labor market for a while Mhmm. And that's before these things roll out. But then you put that together with the fact that, you know, we just have a a very structural Mhmm.
Speaker 3:Environment where what what is the thing that drives our entire economy? It's wages. Most of those wages that are ultimately driving all the discretionary spending is coming from the white collar worker.
Speaker 1:Mhmm.
Speaker 3:And the problem with that is that we're now entering this place where you made all these assumptions on, like, loaning money to all these companies, you know, to mortgages and everything else. Like, well, white collar economy is our economy. If you all of a sudden just take a leg out of that economy, it has a contagion effect into basically every asset in the world. And so that, I think, is the part that people haven't thought about because when, you know, people were making these loans, no one ever consumed the world in which, wow, okay, now, like, white collar jobs are in sort of permanent decline. Right?
Speaker 3:If that's at 2% a year, then I think we can skate through. But if it's at four or 5% a year, then, you know, we have to we need action action a lot more quickly.
Speaker 1:Is the is the white collar economy actually the full economy, or is it more just like the stock market? Because it feels like white collar workers are disproportionately allocated to assets versus consumption, and you see things like, like there's a lot of health in more blue collar sectors. Health care is growing. And then you also see dynamics like just you know, like we've seen like like jitters in the in the consumer market for a long time, and then we just see the health of the American consumer just continuing, continuing, continue. And it feels like it's maybe driven by something like, lower level.
Speaker 1:And there's always this disconnect in my mind between, like, the economy and the market.
Speaker 3:It's a great question. I think the issue here is that it's all just one labor market. Mhmm. And right now, blue collar is doing better because there are not firings there. Yeah.
Speaker 3:I don't think you know, I think robots are probably eighteen like, twenty four to thirty six months behind. Yeah. Other forms of LMs that are, you know, just diffusing through society. Mhmm. But the problem is, let's just say that it's one labor market ultimately.
Speaker 3:If there's no more white if the white collar jobs are going away, let's say, you know, in our scenario, we talk about five percent of folks might get fired in in a couple years. Those five percent, if there aren't white collar jobs for them to relocate into, then they're gonna have to move into the the gig economy and the blue collar labor force. And so that puts pressure Yeah. On the entire labor market, not just the white collar one. And to answer your other question, health care is growing.
Speaker 3:Education is growing.
Speaker 1:Yep.
Speaker 3:The reason those things are growing ultimately, and we we did some work in our piece to try and isolate white collar that is not government driven. And so the government continues to spend more.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 3:Yeah. That's why health care is growing. They're the biggest payer in in health care. Yeah. They're they're guaranteeing all the loans in the the education industry.
Speaker 1:Mhmm.
Speaker 3:And so those those sectors continue to grow because government spending grows, but that's again, it gets very circular if government spending is coming primarily from taxes Mhmm. And primarily payroll taxes because the average worker pays a lot more in taxes, you know, per dollar than the average corporate does. Mhmm. And so some corporates make a lot more money, workers' payroll taxes go down more, then there is a bit of a contagion effect into bonds as well there too.
Speaker 2:Mhmm. On Saturday, John and I were going back and forth about some of the really wild predictions around the impact of the Internet that were being made in the nineties. There was clicks replace bricks. People were predicting total die off.
Speaker 3:Clicks did? Well, I mean, to be fair
Speaker 2:Yeah. Mean, they they to be like, I'll I'll just finish. They were expecting a total die off of all brick and mortar stores in five to ten years, which was like Yeah. Wide widely widely discussed prediction. It was like, why would you ever go to a store to buy something if you could just get it online sent to you directly?
Speaker 3:Yeah. And I think a
Speaker 2:couple a a couple others. Like, not as relevant to your piece, but, people are predicting like permanent high growth, the end of business cycles. There was the like media disintermediation narrative, which was like the the Napster era. Everyone was gonna get all media for free forever. Newspapers would would die off.
Speaker 2:Record labels would die off.
Speaker 3:Aren't the media disintermediation narrative?
Speaker 1:Are. But Yeah. It's all about timelines
Speaker 2:for you. Twenty years later. And CNBC is still a much much bigger business than all all business Yeah. Media, at least in our world.
Speaker 3:But like newspapers Yeah. Like magazines completely gone. Right? All of that has moved to the Internet.
Speaker 1:Totally. Totally. It's it's just like like Sure. But like percent unemployment
Speaker 2:shock in a You know, unique example. Way
Speaker 1:different. I I mean, like, like, a 5% unemployment shock is completely different if it happens over a quarter than if it happens over two decades. Right? Like, these are just fundamentally way different things.
Speaker 2:Yeah. So so the other the other thing though. Yeah. The last thing I would say is, like, there was, like, this concept of, like, frictionless capitalism, meaning that, like, middlemen would be eliminated because you could just go directly to the source and that would push pricing pressure down. My question, and I know you guys are not writing your piece saying like this we believe we will stake our entire reputation on this sort of narrative.
Speaker 2:But what do you think what how much did you pay attention to, like, the nineties, early two thousands Internet predictions? What do you think they got wrong? Why is this time different in terms of how a new technology will diffuse the economy?
Speaker 3:I think the difference is if you just plot, what's happening to technology, it's all just going exponential. So these are all just continuous timelines of, like, we have microcomputers, we have the Internet, we have mobile phones, and today, we have very powerful AI. Mhmm. And so I think most of the predictions that you ticked off there, it's kind of interesting. I would you know, just looking at them today, I would say they couldn't really happen until you had proper AI because, like, if you have the ability to just freely, you know, like, have commerce the way you do today, it doesn't work if you still have to do all the work.
Speaker 3:Ultimately, like, you have to go and you have to log in. Think about the amount of friction there is in buying a product for most people today. Right? You still have to go to the website. You have to put your credit card in.
Speaker 3:It's all work. We only have gotten to kind of the tech required for those predictions, I think, this year. And and that's why this is the year that I think it really begins because now it is completely seamless. You just and no one's really doing this yet, but it's gonna happen, I think, you know, in the next six months is just tell your agent you know, tell Gemini, tell ChatGPT, go buy these things. It has your credit card.
Speaker 1:Yep.
Speaker 3:And now that world that they were describing is is truly gonna come to pass. Yeah.
Speaker 1:What about the canary in the coal mine analogy? I was looking at unemployment statistics in India and The Philippines, and it doesn't seem to be doom and gloom over there. I don't know. I didn't dig in super far, but would you at least expect that the unemployment rate would spike overseas before it spikes in America, or do you think this all happens simultaneously?
Speaker 3:It's a tricky question. I think, ultimately, white collar work is a lot more of our economy than it is the economy of India and The Philippines. Mhmm. And they are much sort of, like, more immature economies that are growing through investment and things like that. Yeah.
Speaker 3:But certainly, I think we called it out. The the the consulting sectors in India are certainly gonna be challenged in other places as well. But the reality is, like, the the timing timing is everything in the markets, clearly. But the the trick here is if you're a corporate and you are hard pressed to get AI into your organization today, you know, ChatGB ChatGBT and OpenAI will send you a forward deployed engineer if you have billion dollars in budget. Right?
Speaker 3:Yeah.
Speaker 2:But if
Speaker 3:you have a $10,000,000 budget, they're not going to.
Speaker 1:Mhmm.
Speaker 3:And so who are those folks turning to? They can't usually do it themselves, and so they are going to the outsource providers, the centers of the world. And so I think those businesses are are are likely gonna be in a lot of trouble over the medium term, but they probably will have a big bump from people really putting that AI into their organizations first. And so it's a it's a bit of a tricky timeline there.
Speaker 1:What moats do you think hold beyond this? Because I think a lot of people latched on to, like, the DoorDash example as something that they thought had a moat and that in the post, you sort of underline, like, how that could maybe not be as durable as a moat as people thought. But in the long case, like, what moats do exist? Like, do network effects stay? Do complex coordination, intellectual property?
Speaker 1:Like, what what doesn't break down?
Speaker 3:You know, real brand value where people are choosing you over other things because of the brand and the status signaling across brands matters a ton. Sure. Network effects are are more powerful than ever, I think, in this world.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 3:So things like Meta really have a lot to to sort of gain in that sense. But I think things that look like their network effect businesses Mhmm. But in fact are just the ones that are doing the hard work of aggregating demand and supply Mhmm. I think will be more challenged. And so DoorDash is a good example there.
Speaker 3:It's not necessarily the the biggest risk Mhmm. Versus some of the other things, but I just was in a thread with Gavin Baker talking about this. But the problem for DoorDash and Uber and folks like that is right now, they're doing two jobs. They're doing the job of aggregating demand and the job of aggregating supply. Mhmm.
Speaker 3:They're both hard jobs, but the demand side is the harder side. And in we think the world of the future, there are lots of folks, like, in, let's say, food delivery, you know, Instacart wants to get a bunch of market share, and, you know, Grubhub wants to get a bunch of market share. Mhmm. And so let's say the agents are the ones doing the buying. It's 202840% of the the sales are through agents.
Speaker 3:You just tell Gemini, hey, order me some noodles. In that world, instead of it's gonna go to each and every provider. And right now there are four providers that do that. But now it's very easy for as if I'm building a startup in this space, previously, I had to get all the drivers on board, get all the restaurants on board, and acquire customers. Now Gemini and ChatGPT are acquiring the customers for me, and all I have to do is get the supply side going.
Speaker 3:So it makes it much easier for new entrants to come in. And for existing, second, third, fourth tier players can really sort of say, I'm gonna relax my margins, try to get more top line. And so you would think that know, whatever the 15% vig is that DoorDash gets today, maybe it's more than that. Mhmm. You know, some of that, I would think Gemini and Chattypi are gonna ask for themselves.
Speaker 3:Wherever I send the traffic, I'm gonna get a piece of that. And then some of that's gonna go back to the consumer.
Speaker 1:Yeah. It feels like was this the most, like, stretched or controversial prediction?
Speaker 3:It seems like it was certainly the one that got, you know, getting the most chatter. Yeah. And I think we did it for a reason. We wanted to be a little provocative in thinking bringing it through because, know, it's an amazing business, and they're gaining a bunch of market share. Yeah.
Speaker 3:But the fundamental idea that you're because what did the lock in? Right? Like, do the drivers have lock in on DoorDash or on Uber? Not really. Right?
Speaker 3:They're you know, most most drivers are doing Lyft and Uber, so they're they're not locked in. The real lock in, the real business value, the franchise value of an Uber or DoorDash is the customer lock in because the customer gets comfortable. They've got everything saved. They wanna hit a couple buttons. They don't they don't price shop.
Speaker 3:Agents are happy to price shop as much as possible. And so if you take that away, then it's a real problem for businesses that, you know, are ultimately built on customer lock in.
Speaker 2:Yeah. Yeah. I don't know. I think the interviews that we've had with the Lyft I mean, you know, again, take take it with a grain of salt. They have a narrative that is important to their business.
Speaker 2:But like, if you ask these people what is the greatest challenge, it is managing managing the supply side. It is not the demand side is not where they're saying, like, hey, like, this is really what we need to solve. It's like, hey, as we get more drivers on the platform, revenue naturally naturally goes up. And so I just I'm I'm just hard pressed to imagine a world in which, you know, somebody think think about if somebody in my town, which is like 15,000 people, like, vibe codes a delivery a delivery app, and I go into ChatGPT or with another agent, I say, like, I want food. It's like, the agent wants to get the best possible service.
Speaker 2:I would imagine the agent to route to the platform with the supply that is going to be able to deliver in the shortest possible time horizon. And imagining a world where there's like this, you know, vibe coded small team operating that just happens to aggregate as much supply, which is just as increases the likelihood that my order will be delivered on the best possible timeline, which is gonna be the number one factor for customer satisfaction. I just don't see how solving the front end kind of demand piece actually makes a better consumer experience, which I assume the agent would optimize for on behalf of the user.
Speaker 3:So let's let's consider what actually happens here. Right? You make the the the order on DoorDash. Yeah. DoorDash sends it to the restaurant.
Speaker 3:Yep. The restaurant essentially, you know, sometimes they use their own drivers, sometimes they send the drivers from DoorDash. But now imagine the agent can take you directly to the restaurant site and place the order directly with the restaurant. And you can keep half the the savings, and the agent can keep half the savings. Right?
Speaker 3:The But
Speaker 2:where's the driver where's
Speaker 1:the driver number? Coming from? Because I I feel like I understand I understand the the the customer demand side. Like, you start with an LLM or an agent who shops around for you. So maybe that's solved.
Speaker 1:Maybe it'll find you just via SEO, and you can just put out, like, we only take a 5% cut instead of 15%, and the agent picks you. I understand getting all the restaurants on board because you email them and say, hey. It's 5% instead of 15%. They're sure. We'll turn it on.
Speaker 1:But for the drivers, how do you actually reach out to them and get them on the platform? And how how does AI, like, lower that cost? Because right now, I I think about, like, what was the driver marketing budget over the last decade at Uber or at DoorDash? And it's probably, like, in the billions of dollars. And so I feel like just to to generate that much liquidity, I have to invest that much to onboard all those drivers, build awareness.
Speaker 1:Maybe it just goes viral because they're like, hey. I can make more money here, but that deal's hard.
Speaker 3:I think it's gonna take time, but I think there are a bunch of smaller sort of driver aggregation networks that exist today Mhmm. That are not the ones that we know about. For instance, I started a business called Thistle, and we do delivery of healthy foods to your door. Mhmm. We we split it between half of them our own employee drivers and the other half, you know, I think we have, like like, 500 or 700 drivers that we just use a a third party service to provide.
Speaker 3:So I think there are a lot more of these businesses. All of those businesses now will also just have huge opportunities to kinda take market share. Ultimately, what we're saying is the friction in doing commerce is going way down. Places where there are rents, the prices can go down. But, ultimately, this is just an opportunity for more and more entrepreneurs to kinda build businesses, for the new world.
Speaker 1:Yeah. I think the the the it it's interesting because we're here, like, debating, like, this this, like, somewhat temporary thing because, like, self driving cars, robotics, like, changes all of that,
Speaker 3:like Yeah.
Speaker 1:In a huge way. Exactly. But but but we we we use the term sloppable for companies that are that can be vibe coded away and and clankable for companies that can be disrupted by robotics. And I've always put the delivery services more in the clankable category than the sloppable category. So I was I was shocked to see
Speaker 2:What what are the
Speaker 1:But it's
Speaker 2:it's What would you spend more time on if you knew you were gonna get, 50,000,000 views and, the the markets would react in the way that they have.
Speaker 3:I would have finished writing the third piece where I talk about solutions, which I have
Speaker 1:not gotten A lot of people are demanding solutions. Like, you just gotta you just hit me with a ton of problems. That's funny. Do you think that there's any there's this question about, like, in my mind, like, yes, Google and NVIDIA are public, but Anthropic, OpenAI, and x AI through SpaceX are not public. They're
Speaker 3:sort
Speaker 1:of like this massive, you know, multiple $100,000,000,000 sell off in the public markets that sort of should if you believe your thesis, that should sort of funnel to the labs, I would imagine. If if when I read it, like, there's a lot of doom and gloom about companies that are out there, but it's a lot of bull it's lot of bull case for AI labs. And Yeah. But that can't happen in one day because, like, rounds happen every once in a while. They're private.
Speaker 1:There's all these different things. But, do you think that the world would change when the big labs get out in the public markets?
Speaker 3:I think it's absolutely gonna change. I have a strong suspicion that Anthropic is gonna go, you know, in the next three to six months. They just have so much momentum, and there's a lot of value being first. Yeah. The p and l also just looks a lot better than anyone else.
Speaker 3:So I would think that gets public, and it's gonna be pretty interesting if it happens. Certainly, labs are are ultimately they seem like they're they're we're very well positioned to win. I would wonder over the medium term, like, you know, what happens with some of the the Chinese models and whatnot if people actually want just something that's more local and something that they own, but it does seem like the most likely outcome is gonna be that the existing incumbents are gonna get the most share. And, you know, I think Google is particularly well positioned since they already own all of those customers today, and they can finance losses from inference a lot longer than everyone else. But I think, ultimately, like, there's a world in which the labs are the the biggest winners here.
Speaker 3:There's also a world in which, like, you end up with just a lot more competition and people trade and and change. But the thing that seems very clear to me that the absolute, like, there's no way they won't be the hugest winners here is gonna be the underlying tech, meaning the semiconductors. So, you know, everything in
Speaker 1:tech go even deeper. You could go into, like, you know, commodities and, like, copper and energy and oil and natural gas and stuff. And people have.
Speaker 3:Yes.
Speaker 2:Did you see the
Speaker 3:I have. Yep.
Speaker 2:Yeah. Did you see the the some of the criticism was that the the essay was very Marxist. Oh, yeah. Heat said, Mark Marx writing during the Industrial Revolution predicted capitalism would periodically devour itself, firms replace labor with machinery to boost profits but competition diffuses the technology, drives prices to marginal costs and the gains get competed away. Meanwhile, displaced workers lose purchasing power, hollowing out the demand the whole system depends on.
Speaker 2:Production rises but no one can afford to buy what's produced. The contradiction between production and realization. Sattrini's piece describes this exact dynamic then declares there's no natural break. It's the most Marxist piece of financial analysis. Not my word.
Speaker 1:Don't think you were expecting that critique.
Speaker 2:And makes the same errors Marx did. Yeah. Creative destruction doesn't just destroy. It creates industries we can't yet conceive of.
Speaker 1:Yeah. That's interesting. I mean, maybe that's going into solutions.
Speaker 2:Is that going into solutions?
Speaker 3:So let let me address it a few ways. Marx is a really smart dude. Yeah. He got a lot of things right very early. Mhmm.
Speaker 3:Marxist can mean communist. Marxist can also mean just understanding how capital and labor interact. In that sense, yes, it is Marxist. He had he he was very insightful. Mhmm.
Speaker 3:But I I think the thing that that we're missing here is that it's there there's there's the economic layer Mhmm. But ultimately, it's the political layer Yeah. That matters. And, you know, we're in a world where we've we've had two parties.
Speaker 1:Mhmm.
Speaker 3:And both parties, you know, economically have a little bit of difference, but not a huge amount of difference, and so we kind of bicker. But in a world in which jobs are going away really fast, I think there's gonna be a much stronger alignment for, you know, just the laboring class overall to say, hey. We need to fix this problem. Yep. It's a very fixable problem.
Speaker 3:What I'm what we're actually expounding here is that GDP, done properly, will absolutely explode. Mhmm. Right? We're getting way more efficient. We have you know, we built a machine dot.
Speaker 3:We built machine intelligence.
Speaker 1:Mhmm.
Speaker 3:But we have to structure our society such that as those things happen very you know, hopefully very slowly, you know, we we do the right thing from a taxation perspective to say the winners should win. But, you know, if that's what's causing the displacement, let's sort of make the pie a little bit bigger for everyone. And that, I think, ultimately should be something that appeals to a lot of folks in the AI complex. Yep. Because if we don't, then something like this is likely to happen, and, you know, AI progress will slow down because we'll have an economic crisis, and we're not gonna go to finance nearly as much of it as we otherwise would.
Speaker 2:So do you think the future is, what, Anthropic's head of sales position in France? The company will be spending €530,000 per year. The government will get €340,000 and the employee will get a 190,000. Is that is that the level of taxation do you think we're we're headed for?
Speaker 3:I think when we're at, you know, France's level of government spending, then, you know, the math probably means roughly that. I I would say that, you know, government spending would be at France's level, I'm guessing, like, you know, five, seven years from now if this if this scenario kinda comes to pass. And so I think we'll head there over time, but I think it's less a question of the percent of spending and how much goes to the employee versus goes to the the government, and ultimately, what is the size of the total pie. Mhmm. So the bet here is that the pie, if done properly, can in just increase multiples of what it is today, and and thus, you know, there's it's just a win win.
Speaker 1:One question. I mean, it sounds like you're working on potential solutions post, which I'm very excited to read. Thank you. I'm interested to know your reflection on the messaging that's coming from the leaders of the AI labs because they've outlined many sort of low probability but potentially negative scenarios. We have the white collar work number.
Speaker 1:We've had many of these comments from lab leaders. But I rarely hear them follow it up with, and the answer is print, print, print, or interest rates will be will save us or unemployment insurance or UBI. Like, all of those, like, solutions that I think people it's funny because people are quote quoting your post being like, this is easily solved with this solution. It's like, okay. Well, that's great if we all agree.
Speaker 1:And and I think you might with some of the some of the quotes. People are all over the place. But I'm wondering about your reflection on, like, the the, the messaging from the labs around solutions versus pure focus on problems.
Speaker 3:I think it's a really interesting question and very interesting setup in that the labs are, on the one hand, you know, want to get the word out there. And so, you know, Dario especially has been the loudest here. There's a really good Axios article from last May where he's he kinda saw on the sound of the alarm bells. Mhmm. People aren't really he's like saying people are not listening.
Speaker 3:Obviously, a lot's changed Yeah. Since then. But they can't go so far as to say, like, hey. If you put the pieces together, then this is how it's gonna play out. I think it's too sort of damaging to sort of their reputations and, like, you know, their ability to fundraise and things like that.
Speaker 3:And so I think it's other folks like ourselves that kinda have that duty to go and really start thinking that through. I I I sort it seems like Anthropic is pretty engaged. Yeah. You know, should that conversation really start happening. And I think this is the year it needs to really start happening.
Speaker 3:Yeah. And so I think they all kinda get it. And so it's just a question of, like, how do we as a society start moving in that direction?
Speaker 1:Yeah. I I I think, you know, obviously, there's there's I'm still processing part of the piece. I agree with some of it. I disagree with some of it. But what's really underrated is just, how useful this process of writing an article for a particular audience is.
Speaker 1:Like, I I I disagree with a lot of, you know, something big is happening, but it hit with a very different audience than machines of love and grace or the adolescents of AI or of machine intelligence. And and there's there's pieces that are written for, like, you know, AI insiders, leaders, researchers. Then there's, like, the broader tech community. Then there's, like, everyday people. And you clearly hit the nail on the head with, like, speaking to the financial community, and we see that in the markets.
Speaker 1:Not amazing results, but maybe it's maybe it's worthwhile because we will get really great solutions and a better conversation around it. So I I I I think I think in in due time, this discussion needed to be had. Thank you.
Speaker 2:What Sure. What what's it what's an industry or job of the future that you could see emerging?
Speaker 3:I think, again, if we solve this, like, everything related to sort of leisure is gonna absolutely zoom, and that those are gonna be the biggest growth industries of the future. Right? Like, what do humans want to do?
Speaker 2:Total Shansky victory. Polo.
Speaker 1:Exactly. Cloned horse play polo for sure.
Speaker 3:Yeah. So, you know, imagine humans have, like, the entire day Yeah. To just enjoy themselves, instead of having to work.
Speaker 1:Now that is something I've been promised for a hundred years. So I'm I'm deeply skeptical, but this time is different. I want it to be different. Let's bring on the leisure. Boom.
Speaker 1:I'm I'm I'm here for I'm here for it.
Speaker 2:On anything in your solution stock around reindustrialization? I mean, the the frustration that so many people in tech that have that have been building in in kind of hardware in the real world, or trying to recruit people Mhmm. That that are getting offers from social media companies, or now labs, or SaaS companies. You know, one of the the problems of Ameri you know, for America in the last twenty years was that if you just wanted to make a $100,000,000, you probably were much more likely to do that building enterprise software than building critical infrastructure or or anything in the real world. So is that is is kind of new new infrastructure and re industrialization like a a a potential landing point for people that had the 180 k a year PM job that might be going away?
Speaker 3:It's a great question. I think there's there's certainly gonna be a lot more opportunity in those sectors, and I think we've we've done some pretty smart policy things that are moving us in that direction. But we're also, you know, just in a lot of ways so far behind China there, and doesn't AI affect kind of those jobs both for, you know, on the industrialization side just like it does for for writing code. Mhmm. And so that's where I think it will get trickier.
Speaker 3:I think over as a as a country, we're gonna spend an awful lot more on that. I think we're gonna we're gonna catch up, but we're not it's not clear that's gonna be through just creating a bunch of additional jobs versus you know, the the ultimate thing we're seeing with AI, period, is just high agency people who really know how to use the tools can just do the work of many, many people. Yeah. And and I think that trend applies in every industry to some extent.
Speaker 1:Yeah. What an exciting time. Thank you so much for taking the time to
Speaker 2:come beast dropping.
Speaker 3:Hopefully by the end of the week, but don't don't don't hold me to that.
Speaker 1:Well, don't go Now when
Speaker 2:you when you know that it then it could be hard for the follow-up to get as much reach as as this one. That's kind of the way these things go. But now now the pressure's on to really pay attention
Speaker 1:to that. Don't have any anxiety anxiety. You'll be fine. We're excited to read it, and we'll talk to you soon.
Speaker 2:Yeah. Great to meet you.
Speaker 1:Have a great rest of your day. Thanks so much.