Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Technology's daily show (formerly the Technology Brothers Podcast). Streaming live on X and YouTube from 11 - 2 PM PST Monday - Friday. Available on X, Apple, Spotify, and YouTube.
Wild time on the timeline yesterday, with comments from OpenAI, OpenAI's finance chief, Sarah Fryer. She was at a Wall Street Journal event on Wednesday. Yeah.
Speaker 2:Put the timeline in turmoil.
Speaker 1:She did put the timeline in turmoil. The headline from The Wall Street Journal, was OpenAI wants Very difficult. Wants federal backstop for new investments. Looks like
Speaker 3:it's OpenAI at our core are the model company that needs always to be the state of the art. That's what we've done time and time again. GPT-five is no exception, but even in areas like open source, are attempting to put the state of the art model always out into the world. And in order to do that, we always want to be on the frontier chip. So the question is how long does a chip remain on the frontier?
Speaker 3:Is it three years, four years, five years or even longer? Now in a world where we have no compute or compute constrained, we are absolutely using chips that have a 100 equivalents that have been around like maybe six, seven years at this point in time. If that's the case, financing chips gets a lot easier. If the timeline on the chip stays short, that gets harder. And so this is where we're looking for an ecosystem of banks, private equity, maybe even governmental, the ways governments can come to bear.
Speaker 4:Meaning like a federal subsidy or something?
Speaker 3:Meaning like just first of all, the backstop, the guarantee that allows the finance
Speaker 1:Heads like a ton of bricks.
Speaker 3:That can really drop the cost of the financing, but also increase the the loan to value. So the amount of debt that you can take on top of an equity portion for So some final backstop for chip investing. Exactly. And I think we're seeing that. I think the US government in particular has been incredibly forward leaning.
Speaker 3:Has really understood that AI has is almost a national strategic asset. And that we really need to be thoughtful when we think about competitive competition with for example China. Are we doing all the right things to grow our AI ecosystem?
Speaker 2:We're in a global erotica race.
Speaker 4:Are you talking to the White House about how to further formalize that kind of backstop? We're we're always being brought in by the
Speaker 3:White House to give our point of view as an expert on what's happening in the sector for sure.
Speaker 1:So on LinkedIn, Sarah Fryer said, she wasn't asking for a backstop for OpenAI's investments. She was just making the point that, American strength in technology will come from building real industrial capacity, which requires the private sector and government playing their part. Every comment, every sentence by uttered by an an OpenAI executive will be analyzed to death. It's one of my favorite things to do. So that's exactly what we're gonna do on this show.
Speaker 1:Should a federal backstop exist for large scale industrial projects? Like, when there's a lot of money floating around the economy, should should the government be ready to step in if things don't line up, if things don't pencil pencil out? And so Sam Altman actually touched on a similar concept in his conversation with Tyler Cowen that was recorded, I think, a few days ago, but also went live yesterday, which
Speaker 5:is just sort of crazy timing. As you know, both you and I were fans of nuclear power, but we also know the insurance for nuclear power plants is provided by the government. The plants might be quite safe, but people worry. They're nervous Nellies. There's a lot of parties involved, so the federal government does the insurance.
Speaker 5:Do you worry that the future holds the same for AI companies or the feds or your insurer?
Speaker 6:At some level, when something gets sufficiently huge, whether or not they are on paper, the federal government is kind of the insurer of last resort, as we've seen in various financial crises and insurance companies screwing things up. So I guess, given the magnitude of what I expect AI economic impact to look like, sort of, I do think the government ends up as, like, the insurer of last resort. But I don't I
Speaker 4:think I mean that in a different
Speaker 6:way than you mean that, and I don't expect them to actually be, like, writing the policies in the way that maybe they do for nuclear.
Speaker 5:And there's a big difference between the government being the insurer of last resort and the insurer of first resort. Last resort's inevitable, but I'm worried they'll become the insurer of first resort, and that I don't want.
Speaker 6:I don't want that either. I it's not I don't I don't think that's what will happen.
Speaker 2:Let me give some more context here. In that that same day, that same interview, OpenAI, CFO, Sarah Fryer, suggested the market is overly focused about anxiety about a possible bubble in artificial intelligence and should muster more exuberance about the technology's potential. Quote, I don't think there's enough exuberance about AI when I think about the actual practical implications and what it can do for individuals. We should keep running at it. You know, Friday, everyone saw the interview with with Sam and Brad.
Speaker 2:Brad asked a very simple question that's on everyone's minds. Mhmm. Sam, basically doesn't answer the question. Nobody heard his response and thought, okay, I'm confident. And so to go into that and then say in this interview, the market is not exuberant enough.
Speaker 2:She can go out and say that she takes it back or that she didn't mean it to come across in the way that it did. Yep. But in the moment, agreed with the interviewer's
Speaker 1:I feel like it is true that there is a government backstop. Whenever there's a trillion dollars of spend going on, there is a de facto backstop. Like, this happened in 2008. There was a global financial crisis. Banks were leveraged on housing.
Speaker 1:The government came in and acted as the lender of last resort. In that moment, it was the rational thing to do. Now the problem is is that if you are identifying the backstop before you get into trouble, it creates this moral hazard, and that's why people were so upset with Wall Street. I don't see I actually don't see a problem with the government, behaving like it always has. I don't I don't have a problem with that.
Speaker 1:I'm I'm fine with a backstop, and I wouldn't change anything about the way the government works. And I'm serious about that. I think that the alternative is actually worse. I think the alternative, if you go back to 2008 and you say, okay. Let's not bail out the banks, I think that you just extend the recession.
Speaker 2:Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But but if in 2005 Yeah. The banks and various players were saying, we're gonna do a bunch of super risky lending that we're not sure is gonna pencil out.
Speaker 2:And we just wanna know that if if things get really bad, you'll be there to bail us out, but we're gonna make a ton of money in the process.
Speaker 1:My conclusion to my post today was America has a playbook for backstops. I don't think Sarah Fryer or anyone at OpenAI is asking to rewrite the playbook, but there's something that feels very moral hazard y about the CFO of the most important company at the center of a massive economic wave sort of telling everyone how the magic trick works. It is a problem if you if you say, I'm openly acknowledging the way the system works, and I'm gonna push it to the limit. That's a little bit rough.
Speaker 4:The AB test of like 2008, you can kind of say is like great depression.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 4:Where there's this big critique where people were basically mad that there wasn't stimulus earlier.
Speaker 1:Totally.
Speaker 4:And then basically by not doing stimulus, you drag out the depression, like, way longer than it should have?
Speaker 1:Totally. I mean, it was the foundation of the Keynesian economic model. Like, this idea that it is actually advantageous to spend. I like the backstop more than we're going to try and pick a winner and do a specific project. What was the backstop in .com?
Speaker 1:Do you know what they did as a result of .com? No. Like, they didn't go in and say, oh, you're in pets.com. We're making you whole. What they did was they said, there's a recession right now.
Speaker 1:We need to lower interest rates. We need to cut taxes a little bit. We need to just stimulate the economy just a little bit to get back on our feet and just start up the economic engine.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:So they did tax cuts and it lowered interest rates. And that is a backstop, and I'm fine with that. I think that's fine. If the AI bubble pops and the end result is that we get lower interest rates and and some tax cuts and, like,
Speaker 2:different different than various players wanting to develop data centers Mhmm. And lenders feeling uncomfortable about not having clarity on, are these chips gonna be worth anything in six years? Are they gonna be worth anything in five years? Are they gonna be useless after a few years? When I hear these comments from Sarah Fryer
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:What I'm hearing is we have a bunch of lenders that would that would happily finance this if there's a government guarantee that they won't lose money. And that's very different. If you get some type of setup where the government does come in and say, not just for OpenAI, but for a variety of these players, like, we we will provide a backstop.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:The the lenders start to feel comfortable. They start to lend. What's the lender's incentive? If a lender makes money when they lend money and they have type some type of structure where they can't lose money. Yep.
Speaker 2:What are they gonna do? That's the They're lend as much money as they possibly can. Looking back through, you know, 07/00/2008 and and and the example you gave around post.com crash. Yeah. I'm not against government intervention during a crisis.
Speaker 1:Totally.
Speaker 2:Using the government to create what will ultimately just be an even greater crisis and ultimately just socializing the losses from all of this. And yeah.
Speaker 1:Tesla. Government backstop. Right? Gave loans. Paid back the loans.
Speaker 1:Tesla paid back the loans with interest. The taxpayer made money on that. And anyone who says, oh, Elon, only, you know, he's just the government pays for everything. That's it's like they're wrong. The the government made investment in Tesla, and they got back money with interest.
Speaker 1:And so the government participating in private markets, it it doesn't always end poorly. Sam is not asking for the government to take a position. He's like, I don't wanna be Intel. I don't want them on my cap table. I don't want any of that.
Speaker 1:It's like Sure. So, honestly, I don't know. I don't know what they're asking for because it is a crazy, crazy piece of comms to say to to to even talk about it in the current zeitgeist.
Speaker 2:And, you know, the the general public already hates AI enough. I don't know. Yeah. I I I would expect that something like this does happen.
Speaker 1:Yeah. I mean, that's why David Sacks came out and said, like, there will be no federal bailout for AI. The US has at least five major frontier model companies. If one fails, others will take its place.
Speaker 2:The AI race looked more clearly like AI China designing AI weapons. Yeah. Yeah. And OpenAI is purely a defense tech player that is also developing AI weapons. Sure.
Speaker 2:And in order to be competitive, in order to not have the CCP, you know, take full control over the world with their sort of dark super intelligence, we needed a national champion, national lab. Yep. We needed to give them as much infrastructure, as much energy, all these That scenario, I'd be looking at this a lot differently.
Speaker 1:I think literally me, you, Sarah Fryer, David Sachs, we're all in agreement here that no one's saying OpenAI gets a bailout if the company doesn't do well.
Speaker 2:But, I think it's important to like, break these out. A bailout is like OpenAI is gonna default. Yeah. And they need a capital injection. Yeah.
Speaker 2:In order to stay solvent. And David Saxe was clear Yeah. We're not gonna have a bailout, but Yeah. But a backstop of loans, I would expect that to happen.
Speaker 1:I guess the bigger question is, like, should America vote actually socializing the losses of the AI build out. If you don't like AI, then you're like, No, there's no point. But if you think it's like the railroad or you think it's like the Internet infrastructure build out or you think it's like the computing revolution, then you should be all in on that. On like, yes, put the weight of the US government behind this project.
Speaker 2:I just think there's no public appetite for this. Look at the state of the of the average American.
Speaker 1:I think you're right.
Speaker 2:They can't afford a home. They can't even afford McDonald's. Yeah. They're already worried I might get a job, and then I might lose it to AI. Yep.
Speaker 2:You have people working in AI that are already talking about job displacement.
Speaker 1:There's been breaking news. Sama has tweeted addressing the backstop. I would like to clarify a few things. First, the obvious one, we do not do not have or want government guarantees for OpenAI data centers. We believe that governments should not pick winners or losers and that taxpayers should not bail out companies that make bad business decisions or otherwise lose in the market.
Speaker 1:If one company fails, other companies will do good work. What we do think might make sense is government building and owning their own AI infrastructure.
Speaker 2:Go code.
Speaker 1:Then the upside of that should be should flow to the government as well. We can imagine a world where governments decide to take to off take a lot of computing power and get to and get to decide how to use it, and it may make sense to provide lower cost of capital to do so. Building a strategic national reserve of computing power makes a lot of sense. If you believe in the lore of AI 2027, this is trust the plan. Jensen Huang was in the Financial Times talking about the the China will win AI race with America, says NVIDIA chief.
Speaker 7:He's like, China's gonna win the AI race. We need to sell them as many chips as we possibly can right now.
Speaker 2:Please. They're gonna win. His position is that we wanna get China dependent Yep. On Yeah. On American AI infrastructure so that we can pull it back at any time.
Speaker 2:But saying they're about to win the AI race when he's also advocating for selling them as many as many chips as as they can produce doesn't really sit that. We need to better define what the AI race is. Like Gurley earlier this year, I think made some good points. Like, what is the AI race? How does one win?
Speaker 2:What does that look like? What does it look like in the near term?
Speaker 1:If you're HCI Pillar, it's the race to a super intelligence, a system that can economic work.
Speaker 2:It looks And the reason that people don't take that narrative super seriously right now is that companies like OpenAI make short form social media apps.
Speaker 1:Well, then the question is, if we're not getting 10X the results, we need to be spending 10x as much next year? What we do think might make sense is the government building their own AI infrastructure. The project is going to happen. Building a strategic national reserve of computing power makes a lot of sense, but this should be for the government's benefit, not the benefit of private companies. The one area where we have discussed loan guarantees is as part of supporting the build out of semiconductor fabs in The United States.
Speaker 1:I completely agree with this. I'm pro all of it when it comes to building semiconductor fabs in The United States.
Speaker 2:I've been a bit more negative. I'm pro build out. I think the power side is an area that could make a lot more sense. Yeah. That could benefit the average American a lot more.
Speaker 2:Yeah. Which is like, hey. The government is gonna help finance bringing a lot more power online.
Speaker 1:Mhmm.
Speaker 2:And we're gonna be stay be able to stay at the at the leading edge in AI, lead in AI, and your power bill. We're actually gonna make your power bill cheaper over time. Mhmm. That's something that people could could get behind. But federal backstop so you can get more videos of your cat dressed up like a doctor, I don't think people are gonna be on board with that.
Speaker 2:I think it's very unclear to me how building just a national reserve of computing power makes a lot of sense. New consumer devices and robotics, excited about that. I think it's hard for them to lean on those, right? Because when I look at the history of big tech companies launching ambitious products,
Speaker 1:oftentimes
Speaker 2:they either flop entirely or lose money for a long time. So new consumer devices. So Zuck has been doing this, right? And just been like literally just lighting money on fire for years now. Yeah.
Speaker 2:You're saying, we we are looking at about 1,400,000,000,000.0 of commitments over the next eight years. Yep. And you're saying that part of our solution to delivering on this is new consumer electronics. Mhmm. I I don't I personally, I don't lean on that too hard.
Speaker 2:None of these things scream cash flow to me. These to me seem very likely like businesses new business lines that also lose money. I'm excited about these categories. I think they're gonna make cool, novel products. Yeah.
Speaker 2:But it doesn't give me more confidence that they can meet those commitments.
Speaker 1:Keep the government out of the application layer. Focus on the energy layer. Just just work on driving down energy prices and let all the tech companies duke it out, and they will be benefit beneficiaries of of cheaper energy. Yeah. But I want I want, you know, tons of American jobs building everything from natural gas to Solar.
Speaker 1:That solar plan, I want 10 of those, and I want it staffed by Americans. How about that?
Speaker 2:Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'm We on board with
Speaker 1:could agree with that.
Speaker 2:The other thing is we are also looking for ways to more directly sell compute capacity to other companies and people. And so when I look at this, you're you're simultaneously saying, we're so compute constrained that they're making the AI lazy and they're not launching new features.
Speaker 1:Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2:To me, this just, again, this just says like OpenAI is a new hyperscaler And it's so hard to compete with the hyperscalers that have huge amounts of cash flow.
Speaker 1:Yep.
Speaker 2:That they need every advantage that they possibly can. Right? And one way they could get an advantage is through programs like Sarah suggested and then walked back.
Speaker 1:The timeline continues to be in turmoil. If OpenAI were to fail, it would have zero impact on the future of AI. Zero, he says. They have a dozen viable competitors and 10 folks who would buy the assets. Let it rise or fall based on merit.
Speaker 1:Like, the fact that this is the reaction to that quote is, like, so crazy. The idea of, like, federal backstop just immediately conjures massive failure, and it just puts your company and failure right next to each other. So very, very rough. Very rough. This is why traditionally, CFOs are only allowed to speak fake accounting identities in public.
Speaker 1:Backstop is what the Federal Reserve calls it when they have to save 20 banks from exploding if invited in a global financial crisis. The word you were looking for, Sarah, was partnership. I'm actually more pro Backstop than partnership because I don't love the idea of the government picking winners in any particular layer of the stack, but partnership just sounds so much more positive than Backstop. It just conjures up financial crisis. It just feels like major layoffs, recession, stock market sell off as soon as you start talking about Backstop.
Speaker 1:So a huge amount of the money being spent on AI has gone to GPUs, particularly NVIDIA, rocketing the fabless design company to a nearly $5,000,000,000,000 valuation and the title of most valuable company in the world. The problem from the the Carlota Perez perspective is that all of this spending on chips is relative to the sort of infrastructure she wrote about, railroads, factories, fiber, short lived. If there's a bubble in railroads and we're like, we think railroads are gonna unlock 5% GDP growth, it's amazing, and then you build all the railroads. Like, the worst case scenario is you end up with a bunch of rails. You can still put cars on them.
Speaker 1:Like, they still work. But with a bunch of GPUs that, like, depreciate and get useless and they break, like, they don't stick around forever.
Speaker 2:Good thing, John, is we're gonna find out.
Speaker 1:We're gonna
Speaker 2:find we're effing around. Soon, we're gonna find out. Fryer is describing a worse form of regulatory capture than anything we have seen proposed in any US legislation I am aware of. A firm lobbying for this outcome is literally rather than impressionistically lobbying for regulatory capture. This is going back to what I was saying before.
Speaker 2:If there is some type of program where the government is guaranteeing loans made for certain data center projects Yep. Like anybody will just get to be in that program. I'm with Dean Ball on this one. And, you know, Sarah and the team have walked it back, but they said it
Speaker 1:David to a Sachs said there will be no federal bailout for AI, but he did address your comment, Tyler. He said, that said, we do wanna make permitting and power generation easier. The goal is rapid infrastructure build out without increasing residential rates for electricity. Let's hear it for that.
Speaker 2:NVIDIA down almost 8% over the last five days. Mhmm. Bunch of other names are down at ridiculous amount. Duolingo is down. Is Snap 30%.
Speaker 1:Snap is up. Right?
Speaker 2:CarMax down 18%. HubSpot down 18%. Wow. DoorDash down 15%.
Speaker 1:Crazy sell off.
Speaker 2:What's been notable this week, companies are selling off after an earnings beat. Mhmm. Palantir down 10.7% in the past five days.
Speaker 1:Whether you're going long or you're going short, do it on public.com.
Speaker 2:That's right.
Speaker 1:Investing for those that take it seriously. They got multi asset investing, industry leading yields. They're trusted by millions. Snapshares surged after the company announced a $400,000,000 partnership with Perplexity to incorporate AI powered search engine into Snapchat. The deal gives Snap a new business line and puts the social media company squarely into the mix around AI chatbot.
Speaker 2:Why is Snap not monetizing their half almost half a billion DAUs of young people, And this is a great way for them to do it.
Speaker 1:477,000,000 DAUs in the third quarter for Snap, an 8% jump from a year ago. So they're still growing. The company also reported nine forty three million monthly active users. So they're almost at a billion MAUs and half a billion DAUs, which is remarkable.
Speaker 2:While that Snap has almost a billion monthly actives and is valued substantially less than Perplexity.
Speaker 1:It was kind of odd that Snapchat didn't have a dance partner on the AI side since every other major social media platform is kind of bolted onto a lab at this point. XAI and X are obviously the most prominent example, but even like LinkedIn and Microsoft. I don't think the U. S. Government should backstop data center loans or funnel money to NVIDIA's 90% gross margin business.
Speaker 1:Instead, they should make it really easy to produce energy with subsidies and better rules, infrastructure that's beneficial for all and puts us at parity with China. Wow. This is an example of a person who's not into AI, Danny, with 142 followers here saying, build your own effing energy sources. Stop being parasites on the grid. The way the grid is set up, the way The US economy is set up is not like we don't build separate grids for each use case.
Speaker 1:Like, didn't build a separate grid for Netflix. The ultrasound. Some people might say that hospitals deserve better access to electricity than Netflix. Right? Like, do we really need Netflix?
Speaker 1:Like, is that life or death? No. This idea of the government putting the thumb on the scale of and basically doing away with, like, what is effectively net neutrality or grid neutrality is super, super alluring to people right now, that people are going to say, Why are my rates going up for the thing I don't like? It's kind of always been that way. Why are airline ticket prices going up Because people are ordering things that are, you know, shipping by air.
Speaker 1:Like, that happens.
Speaker 2:What is the case against bailouts if winning the AI race against China is existential? I'm not actually making this argument or have this view necessarily, but public money backstops bailouts seem like the natural endpoint of how AI is discussed at these levels.
Speaker 1:If winning the AI race against China is existential, America in every company should do everything possible.
Speaker 2:Feel like I should I should read through a little bit of of this Feet article about Jensen saying China will win the AI race with The US. In the starkest comments yet from the head of the world's most valuable company, Huang told the Financial Times, China is going to win the AI race. Huang's remarks come after the Trump administration maintained a ban on California based NVIDIA selling its most advanced chips to Beijing following a meeting between US president Donald Trump and Chinese leader Xi last week. The NVIDIA chief said that the West, including The US and The UK, was being held back by cynicism, and we need more opposite optimism. Huang had previously warned that the latest American AI models were not far ahead of their Chinese rivals, urging the US government to open up the market to its chips to keep the rest of the world dependent on its technology.
Speaker 2:But following his meeting with Xi, Trump said last week he did not wanna let China use NVIDIA's cutting edge Blackwell chips. The most advanced, we will not let anybody have them other than The United States.
Speaker 1:We still want we want a fair fight. We want a free market. We want everyone who wants to buy chips can buy them. And then it's still a race. Like like, everyone gets a pair of cleats, and then you have to actually race.
Speaker 1:And so what are you racing on? You're racing on ingenuity. You're racing on ability to actually build things effectively.
Speaker 2:We know from history Yeah. That even if we give China chips, they will still spend as much as they need to in order to catch up themselves.
Speaker 1:I don't know. I I do think that there's I I do think that you can put supply pressure on the Chinese system.
Speaker 2:Sure. Maybe, yeah. A little bit. Maybe you could slow it down a
Speaker 1:little bit. I mean, been investing in semiconductors fifty years, right?
Speaker 2:How many five year plans?
Speaker 1:Yeah, they're going to continue to do that. There some level of acceptable argument to this idea that if you continue to push NVIDIA chips there, it just makes the Huawei Ascend just a little bit less exciting.
Speaker 2:This post, I think, is pretty reflective of kind of general sentiment, specifically outside of the tech industry from Elliott. He says if OpenAI blows up and investors are saved by the government, I would vote for Fidel Castro. This is not what Sarah Fryer was proposing. Right? Yeah.
Speaker 2:But but it is it is a funny
Speaker 1:Yeah. People are not not into it. There's also a little bit of cognitive dissonance there too. If the products are just tech products, no one was really upset that that that Uber and Facebook and Google were trying to sell their products into China. The whole reason why it became like, don't sell AI to China was because it was like, AI is so valuable.
Speaker 1:It's so powerful. If you don't believe AI is super powerful, then you should maybe be okay with selling it to China.
Speaker 2:The timing of Jensen coming out and saying China's gonna win the AI race, and not even clarifying what that means, right? Are they gonna build more better data centers faster? Are they gonna have better models? Are they gonna unleash super intelligence at the same time? Because I assume Trump will see this quote Yeah.
Speaker 2:And he's gonna say, well, I don't wanna lose to China on anything.
Speaker 1:If AGI happens in fifteen years, China is more likely to get it because they're on a steeper energy ramp than we are. But if AGI happens sooner, and it's and it is just sort of an algorithmic breakthrough, like, we do have an advantage in America because we have more data centers right now. If you wanna get president Donald Trump's attention around energy regulation, this is a pretty good headline. You want to say, hey. Let's drive down energy cost in America.
Speaker 1:Make it about geopolitics. Why not? Do have a problem with that?
Speaker 2:Making it about geopolitics, pretty pretty effective. Sam Altman snaps at Brad Friday. Michael Burry shorts. Alex Carr crashes out on TV. I didn't think that was that much.
Speaker 2:I I didn't it just seemed like a pretty normal Karp interview. You you Oh, yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 1:I saw a little bit of CNBC.
Speaker 2:He was, like, maybe slightly more annoyed. DoorDash misses. OpenAI CFO floats a bailout, not not quite accurate. Mhmm. Floats a backstop, maybe, and then takes it back.
Speaker 2:McDonald's is for the upper class. Did you see this? No. Like, lower income consumption at McDonald's is declining, which is, concerning.
Speaker 1:That's not great. Tesla shareholders approve Elon Musk's $1,000,000,000,000 pay package. For reference, it it received 75% of the vote. The $1,000,000,000,000 stock award is tied to business goals. It nets Musk 878,000,000,000, I guess.
Speaker 2:This also allows him to have, I think, 20% of the voting power at 25% of the voting power at Tesla, which is something he's talked about publicly around, you know, building this robot army and wanting to make sure that that he can't be, you know, terminated for political reasons or or other reasons. We hope you have a wonderful evening.
Speaker 1:Goodbye.