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.
We're talking about the article apocalypse that's happening on x. Will it swap up the timeline? Will the algorithm handle the flood of of AI generated content that will be slopped up in the timeline. We will see. We will dig into it.
Speaker 1:We will discuss it. We'll also try and understand what is going on with Nikita Beer strategy. What's the strategy at AX? Will this growth hack work? So this all started with Nikita Beer on X.
Speaker 1:He said, ladies and gentlemen, we are giving $1,000,000 to the top article posted on X. You have two weeks. And very, very different structure.
Speaker 2:I thought there's already an there's there's so much AI generated essays on X. Let's do it. Why not make AI generated essays lottery tickets?
Speaker 1:Lottery tickets.
Speaker 2:Let's turn them into lottery tickets.
Speaker 1:I like it. I I mean, they're they're definitely paying out more than a million dollars in creator payments across all the little $100, thousand dollar checks that go out to folks. You have to imagine. But but running a sweepstakes, I mean, that's time honored. What's not to like about a sweepstakes?
Speaker 1:It's great. Nikita's kinda taking two sides to this. He says, it's time to write. But also, he tells everyone else, please bear with article Armageddon. My question was, what's the strategy here and what will the outcome be?
Speaker 1:The Elon taking over felt like, it's an entirely new day. Everything's moving way faster. Now some of those projects had actually been in the works for months or years before. I think community notes was the big one, where the Twitter team had been building for a while, but they were just moving slowly.
Speaker 2:People working on it for over five years.
Speaker 1:Probably, something like that. 2023 was a big year for expanding character limits. They'd also previously acquired this Dutch startup, Revu, which was a direct competitor to Substack, But that product was shut down in less than two years. Like January to January, they only made it two years. Never really got it off the ground.
Speaker 1:And I think it was because it was sort of counter positioned with Twitter. It was kind of like always, oh, well, if we get people on the review platform, they'll leave or they'll take their audience elsewhere. I never really felt
Speaker 2:Yeah, they don't know that a lot people had some incredible faith that, hey, I want to build my business on a Twitter like Yeah.
Speaker 1:Mean, even pre Elon, there had been companies, startups that had built on the Twitter API, which had gone through a number of version changes. Elon made some more extreme changes to that. But there were plenty of times when people would build businesses too closely to any platform really, and then they get steamrolled, whether you're Zynga building FarmVille on Facebook and then they change the algorithm or they change the integration and all of a sudden your growth engine is just gone. This happened with Teespring. They were selling custom t shirts.
Speaker 1:You know, they've been working on on making X a more literate long form platform for a while, 2023.
Speaker 2:We need to teach our users the English language. We need them to read more than, you know, a 180 characters.
Speaker 1:So they've obviously done a ton in video. They've never really leaned into a video library like YouTube. Like, I used to cross post my YouTube videos on X. Sometimes there were length limits for a while, then they got rid of those so I could just actually copy a twenty five minute YouTube video, put it on X. It was cool.
Speaker 1:People wouldn't watch nearly as much as they did on YouTube, and and there was no catalog value. That was, like, the really weird thing was that on YouTube, like, my old videos that I haven't uploaded in over a year, and my old videos are still probably getting, like, I don't know, half a million views a month just because people are every day, they search, like, what's the history of Andoril? Or what's the history of RAMP? Or what's the history of Xi Jinping?
Speaker 2:Well, they're every game content, so continue to serve.
Speaker 1:And then once someone watches one of my videos, they watch five more.
Speaker 2:That's of that, if more you want be a serious video platform, you need to be heavily actually incentivizing people to watch on TV. Like so much of YouTube watch hours happen on TV. Yeah. Yeah. And X, I think, has a streaming TV app.
Speaker 2:Yeah. But it's certainly not doesn't get a lot of love.
Speaker 1:Continuing with the long post journey that X has been on, 2023 was a massive February took it from two eighty characters to 4,000 characters. That's more than I need for most of my posts. I don't think I've ever posted anything longer than that. April expanded it to 10,000 characters, and finally in June they maxed it out at 25,000 characters. That's longer than most blog posts.
Speaker 1:That's around 4,000 words, maybe a little bit more. And you can still thread these posts together. So I was always wondering, like, why does articles exist if long posts are so long that you can put 4,000 words there? And now I think that essentially articles are first class citizens in the algorithm, and there's really no downside.
Speaker 2:Zach Foll had a great idea. He said, Grock, summarize this article in two eighty characters or less. Don't make any mistakes. Thanks. So if you really yearn for the days, the pre article era, just respond and tag Grock in every post and have it turn it back into just regular old fashioned
Speaker 1:140 characters, so even shorter. So when articles launched in March 2024, it didn't really hit for me. Like, was not like, oh, I got to jump on this. I got to post. We started doing the newsletter in 2025.
Speaker 1:Mid year, we started cross posting. Articles were available. I think we might have tested one or two as an article. Didn't really see a difference, so just kind of stuck with the long posts. So my pieces are usually around 5,000 characters.
Speaker 1:They fit fine in a long post. Oh, yeah, we're getting 10x more views now that we're using articles. It's kind of the same thing. But it does seem like an interesting format that maybe they will surface
Speaker 2:on It gets a better experience as a reader.
Speaker 1:If you take advantage of the formatting, maybe, but and and you're doing bullet points and bolding and italics. Like Yeah.
Speaker 2:You can write Embedding more posts.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Embedding posts is cool and also images in the Yeah. Saw one that had, like, graphics, and it read almost like a like like a Strathecari piece. It had embedded images and stuff. It was cool.
Speaker 1:So strategically, this big article push, it feels like another shot at Substack. But I don't know that anyone's going to be rushing to get off of Substack based on this because the value of Substack, the value prop is that you own your email list. So you have a direct relationship with your audience, and you could take that anywhere. You could leave at any time. You can even take your Stripe account with you, which is a crazy thing.
Speaker 1:It's so creator friendly. And Substacks made that their brand, they built a great business around it. And long term, I think Substack should probably figure out how to build some sort of ads product that can run across all of the different Substacks? Because that would probably
Speaker 2:Be a total TBPN victory.
Speaker 1:It would. It would.
Speaker 2:Think The very, very anti ads.
Speaker 1:Anti ads, anti ads. But I just see, like, what does it take to get Substack into the Snapchat, Pinterest, Reddit category, sort of like dakacorn category? And you imagine that for a lot of these, like if you're they're clearly trying to push people into the Substack app, but even just embedding ads here and there, it could be done tastefully. I think it could be done in a way that's not too abrasive. But I think just from a business perspective, it would make sense and really open up it will open them up to some big, big dollars.
Speaker 2:You had kind of a rough theory that maybe there was some logic to doing this just for having new
Speaker 1:Training data. Yes. So there's this idea that Somebody
Speaker 2:untitled YouTube chats is that data is worth 10x more than $1,000,000
Speaker 1:There were a few people that were mentioning this.
Speaker 2:Talk about a company that feels very immune to vibe coding. Plaid? You want the if somebody comes to you and they're like, I got Plaid, but I'm going to charge you half as much. Oh, yeah. It's like, well, I'll take the real one for storing and processing my customer's financial information.
Speaker 2:Noah in the chat says, I don't want to read Substack without ads. So that's
Speaker 1:There we go. Thank you.
Speaker 2:It's advertising strongest soldier.
Speaker 1:So the question is, like, you put out this million dollar bounty. How many people will show up? How many articles will actually get posted? I am seeing a lot of articles in the in the feed. It's also hilarious when you see, like, a Fortune five hundred CEO post an article.
Speaker 1:He's like, oh, damn. Are you really down and you need to mill? Like, what's going on, buddy? And it's like, no. They're just, like, they're just posting news and they just need to get something out so they use an article.
Speaker 1:But it's funny to imagine that they're like, oh man, the the million would change everything for me. Yeah. It's what I need. It's what I need. But
Speaker 2:Tim Tim Cook started ripping article. Just He's like, I need I I need to Yeah. I can't be, like, within the same
Speaker 1:We're not gonna do a keynote this year for the new iPhone. We're dropping an article. And we're releasing it nine months early. The question is, is the data valuable? So $1,000,000 how many people will show up?
Speaker 1:How many people will play the game? How many people will buy a lottery ticket by writing original articles that go viral?
Speaker 2:I mean, I've been seeing so many people quoting articles, sharing them, and say, you need to read this. It's incredibly well written. And then I tap in, and it's just obviously Slop. Slop.
Speaker 1:Doesn't seem like anyone's going to be bailing on Substack today to move over. But there is just valuable and then there's also the question of, so you're probably not going to get your own audience list on X, but will you even be able to monetize with subscriptions? X does have subscriptions, but Substack has a way more like built out
Speaker 2:I wonder what monthly revenue is for the person that's utilizing subscriptions the best. Right? Oh, yeah. That's earning subscription Yeah. Driven creator.
Speaker 1:But the interesting thing is that Substack offers more than just a one time subscription monthly. You can pay annually, get a discount, participate in the livestream, get this chat. And then there's also business plans, group plans. So they just have a way more mature product catalog when it comes to monetizing a customer list or an email list. And then obviously, you can take them elsewhere.
Speaker 1:If you're like, look, my newsletter product has grown so much that I have enterprise level needs. I have to be off Substack. You can go and build something from scratch that does exactly what you want.
Speaker 2:How did you conclude? What was your takeaway?
Speaker 1:My question was so I don't see anyone who's a writer online who's on Substack, being like, okay. Now's the moment. A million dollars on the table. I'm shutting down my Substack, and I'm going over to X exclusively. But a lot of people cross post.
Speaker 1:That's what we do. I think a lot of people, if you have a free if you have a Substack that's part free, part paid, post the free part on X. Why not? It's all upside. It's just more attention that can actually get you into funnel.
Speaker 1:I believe that the posting of the articles on X has been additive to our substack list. I think this has been net growth. I don't think people have been like, oh, I'm unsubscribing from TBPN's newsletter because I'm getting it on John's random Twitter feed that may or may not surface to me in the algorithm. So I don't think X needs writers to go all in. I just think that they want more copies of the best writing to make their way to X.
Speaker 1:And so if you have a great YouTube video, they want you to share it on X as well so then they can surface that to people. If you have a great piece of writing, put it on X as well. And I think this does that, and I think they'll be successful there.
Speaker 2:Yeah, the question I mean, they're really successful and you have YouTube for long form writing, like the UGC platform for long form writing, it's probably a solid business. But it's not going to be juggernaut like YouTube specifically because it's not going to monetize nearly as well.
Speaker 1:I want your take on whether on the actual article experience. I was chatting with some folks who are really, really big on Twitter, a little group of folks who are all well over 100 ks. I've gotten there back in like the thread era. They were like thread guys basically. And they were saying like, I don't think Naval's How to Get Rich Without Getting Lucky thread would have worked as an article.
Speaker 1:The fact that it was all these bite sized pieces, like, that's that's that was what was special. I think personally that meta has sort of died, and we haven't seen that work. What do you think?
Speaker 2:Coming back and just unironically ripping threads?
Speaker 1:Why not? I'd Ziggy and Zach.
Speaker 2:Do you miss threads?
Speaker 1:You mean just like Like, do
Speaker 2:do you miss that era at all? Is it No. Can you remember any iconic threads other than Lulu's and Nawal's?
Speaker 1:Nawal is the main one that I remember. I probably scrolled a few threads. I actually did have a thread that actually blew up my account. So I was at 10,000 followers.
Speaker 2:Is this the Alaska one?
Speaker 1:No. That was not that that got me unfollows because I posted about bringing tech. You know, I was early on the Let's Leave California train. I said, we got to go to Alaska. We're not going to Miami.
Speaker 1:We're not going to Texas. We're going to Alaska. Because if you
Speaker 2:have frontier.
Speaker 1:Runaway global warming, it's gonna be beachfront property up there, baby. It's gonna be 72 and sunny every day in Alaska.
Speaker 2:Palm trees.
Speaker 1:Alternatively, if we solve global warming, we will have unlimited nuclear power. You will be able to heat, air condition, do whatever you need in your Alaska compound because you will have a one megawatt nuclear reactor dropped on your
Speaker 2:That's right.
Speaker 1:Doorstep, and you will have unlimited power, you'll be lounging in a beautiful, scenic mountain retreat perfectly temperature controlled.
Speaker 2:Alaska did not like that.
Speaker 1:They did not like that. I got a lot of DMs from a lot of people showing me their guns saying if you come up here California boy there will be consequences. And it was a rough day on the Internet. I had to lock my account. So I closed out saying that, you know, maybe there's a, you know, article apocalypse.
Speaker 1:I'm not really seeing it. I think the algorithm is pretty well equipped to handle stuff like this. People always seem grumpy with x generally, and honestly Nikita specifically a lot of times.
Speaker 2:We should talk about XAI.
Speaker 1:Oh, yes. What's going on with XAI?
Speaker 2:So Ty Morse
Speaker 1:Yes.
Speaker 2:Did a podcast with Suleiman Khan Gouri. Yeah. Who was previously at the time when the podcast was done.
Speaker 1:Yes.
Speaker 2:He of course was working at XAI. Yes. He came in. He talked about WTF is happening at XAI, predicting bottlenecks, bootstrapping off the Tesla network, how Elon deals with fires, what it's like working at xAI, Cybertruck bet with Elon, how they built Colossus, how xAI hires, experimentation, how Elon recalibrated his timeline estimates. No one tells me no.
Speaker 2:That's important. That's a wild one. Why the fuzziness between teams is an advantage. Testing human emulators as employees. Biggest blunders.
Speaker 2:What a meeting with Elon is like. How Elon gives feedback. Figuring out what is truth for Grokkopedia, what happens when Elon sees wrong Grok outputs on X.
Speaker 1:Basketball viral, by the way. 4,000,000 views just on X.
Speaker 2:I'll start by saying that this is fantastic content.
Speaker 1:Beautifully shot.
Speaker 2:Well, very well done and great content, right? People are so curious about what's happening at xAI, right? We want to understand how they're approaching different problems.
Speaker 1:And Elon talks about it in such high level. He's talking about AI, AGI, super futuristic. Futuristic. And And then then he'll he'll give little details on like some massive build out that he's working on. But he's not the nitty
Speaker 2:gritty. Small problem, though. Yes. Usually, a $200,000,000,000 company likes to control who's gonna go out and do a tell all about the company. And specifically with Elon companies, if you hadn't noticed, there's not a lot of people that work for Elon companies that go and do the podcast circuit and go talk about everything going on.
Speaker 2:The funny thing is I didn't catch all the interview, but they talk about how HR in general is not super formalized at the And so you can also imagine that PR relations team is not Maybe super nobody in HR said, hey, don't go do an hour long podcast. What happened, ultimately, Suleiman
Speaker 1:He said he's left SAI. We don't actually know what happened. But it is odd to go do an hour long interview and then quit.
Speaker 2:Anyway, so I think like skeptical. Good intentions potentially took the concept which he talks about in here, no one tells me no, a little bit too far. I posted earlier, you can't even share the internal secrets of your AI lab on a cinematic podcast in this country anymore.
Speaker 1:The speculation is that this is the result of the interview he gave where he said xAI intends to run 1,000,000 human emulations, a digital version of Optimus, for online work, which will be powered by leasing compute from Tesla owners when the car is parked and charging. That's an interesting development that we actually haven't heard about before. This idea that you have a pretty advanced AI chip doing self driving in the Teslas. They're just sitting there overnight. Why not do some inference and lease that back?
Speaker 2:Why is it a digital version of Optimus? Does it be sitting there in the corner like flippy?
Speaker 1:I mean, think realistically it's probably just like agentic rollouts. So if it's for online work, it's like, what are a bunch of tasks that you like turn Grok loose on? Everything from like the classic like order DoorDash in a simulation, try and buy something on Amazon in a simulation, all these things that require moving around on a screen, doing computer work, using Excel, building stuff, writing code. So a life lesson there.
Speaker 2:Let's go over to Ben Affleck.
Speaker 1:Ben Affleck. He went on Joe Rogan and gave some very good takes on AI. There's some discussion over how good of takes they are, but I ran into somebody that said that they met Ben Affleck. They were like a proper AI researcher, and they said that they met Ben Affleck, and he used compute as a noun. And they were like, yeah, that was impressive.
Speaker 1:Like, he's talking about scaling compute. He's actually very, very deep in this. Ben Affleck is not a doomer. He's actually pretty white pilled, and it seemed like a really good interview.
Speaker 2:Ryan Ryan says, what if he's just acting?
Speaker 3:Try to get ChatGBT or Claude or Gemini to write you something. It's really shitty. And it's shitty because by its nature, it goes to the mean, to the average. And it's and it's not reliable and it's I mean, I just can't stand to see what's right. Now it's a useful tool if you're a writer and you're going, what's the thing?
Speaker 3:I'm trying to set something up or somebody sends someone a letter but it's delayed two days and gets and they can give you some examples of that. I actually don't think it's very likely that it can it's gonna be able to write anything meaningful or and in particular, that it's gonna be making movies, like, from Holkoff, like, Tilly Norwood. Like, that's bullshit. I don't think that's gonna happen. I think it's not I think it actually turns out the technology is not progressing in exactly the same way they sort of presented it.
Speaker 3:And really, what it is is It's gonna plateau pilled. Just, like, sort of visual facts.
Speaker 1:There there was a line in where certain language. Yeah. There there was a line in here where I was like, that is a Carpathi Like, he definitely heard this from Karpathy. He's listening to Dorcache for sure.
Speaker 3:For money. I can't. You can sue me, period. It kinda feels to me like Yeah. Something we were talking about earlier, where there's a lot
Speaker 1:more to The be the whole idea of, like, these models being mid, that's not quite true. I mean, it's hard with, like, to develop a reinforcement learning environment with a verifiable reward for, like, a a great script that will break through because even the great script writers have flops that are unexpected. Literally, everyone thinks it's great, and then it goes out and it just is a box office bomb. Later, he actually makes a stronger case, I think, because they're talking about Dwayne The Rock Johnson in the film The Smashing Machine. And Matt Damon is recalling an interview that he did with Dwayne Johnson about one of the most climactic scenes in The Smashing Machine.
Speaker 1:It's very emotional. And he asks Dwayne, How did you pick this motion? He pulls up a sheet because he's sad. And like, what were you conjuring? What were you drawing on to create that experience as an actor and bring that emotion to the screen?
Speaker 1:Because Matt Damon's saying, love that I love that scene. I love your performance. Where'd that come from? Because you're
Speaker 2:Is he thinking about content without ads in order to draw on the sort of, like, deep, sad Yes.
Speaker 1:Yes. That might be what that does for you. But I mean, Dwayne Johnson gave, like, a very emotional response about a family member who was diagnosed with cancer, and he was in the room when she got the news, and so her reaction, he was like channeling that. It was very emotional. And then the other one was, I think, about another family member who had substance abuse issues.
Speaker 1:And so it was just this very unique blend of human experiences that he was able to bring to bear. And I continue to think that the lore and the storytelling that happens outside of a piece of content is as important as the actual content in many cases. This was the same thing with with art and and the NFT boom. It's not the scarcity is important, but the storytelling behind the the art piece is a lot of it. Like, people like a Van Gogh because they know about him cutting off his ear and all this history.
Speaker 1:And he's in all the history books and everyone just knows And Van yes, you can go and agree.
Speaker 2:Even with cars, It's a car is worth more if previous owner had was significant in some way.
Speaker 1:Yes, yes, yes. A Steve McQueen is to sell for more. And I think that for certain storytelling elements, for certain stories, that lore of who this person is and their likeness. And then he also makes a really good point that it's like, yes, you can obviously generate something that looks exactly like a Van Gogh right now. You can paint it with someone who knows exactly how to paint like Van Gogh.
Speaker 1:It's not going have anywhere near the value. And when he gets to the idea of just AI generating a Dwayne Johnson movie, it's like, well, he'll sue you immediately, and that's very easy. And you've been able to Photoshop Dwayne Johnson into marketing materials for years, and we've had a system for counteracting that. Like, you have to pay licensing fees, and that will happen. So he has a good he has a good balance.
Speaker 3:And it's and it's don't think it's very likely that it can it's gonna be able to write anything meaningful or and in particular, that it's gonna be making movies like from whole cloth, like Tilly Norwood. That's bullshit.
Speaker 1:I don't pause this. He doesn't think that an iconic, amazing movie is going to be generated by AI. And I sort of agree with that, but I think it's important to consider, like, what are we defining as a movie? Because we don't really watch movies anymore anyway. People watch content.
Speaker 1:And if you think about it like decades ago, people might see one movie a month or one movie a week. And that's like two to eight hours a month of screen time. Well, now people are doing two to eight hours of screen time a day, it's these fragmented pieces. And so if AI seeps into the cracks of within the cracks within the cracks, and the goal is not to create the experience of a two hour movie that you show in a theater and you get everyone to come and buy tickets.
Speaker 2:Joe Rogan's really turned into Dwarkesh for A listers. Just come on and talk about AI, right? It's really Gregory McConaughey was talking about wanting this personal LLM where you can log data in.
Speaker 1:That one was a little bit rougher than this.
Speaker 3:I think it actually turns out the technology is not progressing in exactly the same way they presented it. Really, it's going to be a tool, just like visual effects. And yeah, it needs to have language around it, need to protect your name and likeness. You can do that. You can watermark it.
Speaker 3:Those laws already exist. I can't sell your fucking picture for money. You can't. You can sue me. Period.
Speaker 3:I might have the ability to draw you, to make you in a very realistic way, but that's already against the law.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 3:And the unions are gonna I think the guilds are gonna manage this where it's like, okay, look, if this is a tool that actually helps us, for example, we don't have to go to the North Pole, right? We can shoot the scene here in our parkas and whatever it is, but then make it appear very realistically as if we're in the North Pole. It'll save us a lot of money, a lot of time. We're gonna focus on the performances and not be freezing our ass up out there and running back inside.
Speaker 2:Small chance Mhmm. That AI saves Hollywood
Speaker 1:Mhmm.
Speaker 2:As as a place. Right? You're getting collapsing. As a place. Yeah.
Speaker 2:And the reason for that is one of the issues right now is filming is so expensive in There's so much red tape that people have to go to Atlanta, Canada, Europe, whatever, international. But all the talent, the writers, directors, producers, the platforms Yeah. They're still here. It's very depressing.
Speaker 1:It's Mhmm.
Speaker 2:Bad vibe. All the restaurants are shutting down. Everything's cooked. But, if you can start to generate the content here Yeah. Just on your computer, there's a chance that you see a kind of resurgence in in Hollywood the place.
Speaker 2:Right? Yeah. And I think that realistically that is the strategy that that the industry should take because like having this concentration here
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:There's already so much talent. Keeping it here and actually embracing AI is much more likely to revitalize the city.
Speaker 1:Ben Affleck on AI software. I suspect many AI native software companies are misrepresenting their growth and quality of revenue. Use of credits, annualizing proof of concept revenue, and lack of annual contracts lowers the overall quality of revenue and ultimately the multiple. Mean,
Speaker 2:this is a joke.
Speaker 1:I
Speaker 2:didn't actually say that. But he's not that far off from what
Speaker 1:This exactly a great you template. I hope this meme runs way further because it's so good.
Speaker 3:Early AI, the line went up very steeply, and it's now sort of leveling off. I think it's because and, yes, it'll get better, but it's gonna be really expensive to get better. And a lot of people are like, fuck this. We watch SGP four because it turned out, like, the vast majority of people who use AI are using it to, like as, like, companion bots to chat with at night. And so there's no work.
Speaker 3:There's no productivity. There's no value to it. I would argue there's also not a lot of social value to getting people to, focus on an AI friend who's telling you that you're great and listening to everything you say.
Speaker 2:Let's give feather a rebuttal. Defend AI.
Speaker 4:I think most of these takes are pretty outdated. Like writing is actually AI writing. You can still tell that it's AI, but it's like
Speaker 1:It's good.
Speaker 4:It's good. Okay.
Speaker 1:Okay. Sell a screenplay then. Sell a screenplay. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 1:Shop a screenplay.
Speaker 2:Do it.
Speaker 1:Do it.
Speaker 4:Yeah. Why would I sell a screenplay? I could just make the whole movie myself. Okay. Like I I so it's like make the movie.
Speaker 4:Yes. They said you like Make
Speaker 1:the finished movie. Call on Netflix. Instead of And get a million dollar advance for your movie.
Speaker 4:Instead of filming in Antarctica, you can just get in the parkas and film it here. Right? Yeah. You don't need the parkas either because you can just have them be in normal clothes.
Speaker 1:That's true.
Speaker 4:And then it's like, well, you don't actually need the people, right? Yeah. Because you can just maybe fine tune a model so you get consistent characters. Sure, sure, sure. And then,
Speaker 2:yeah, I will say just in the last two weeks, I am getting served AI content that's pretty good.
Speaker 1:Pretty good.
Speaker 2:Pretty good.
Speaker 1:There's some pretty good stuff out there.
Speaker 2:I would I would push back a little bit on Ben saying, like, you're not just gonna be able to generate a film.
Speaker 1:You will Because but it won't be a film in the sense that it won't be Titanic. It won't be something that everyone goes to the movie theater, sits down, watches the same film. It will be a lot of films that are for different people. I don't think there'll be anything Yeah.
Speaker 2:But I'm just saying, like, people are gonna people are gonna create, like, insane fan fiction style Yeah. Yeah. Hero's journey Yeah. Yeah. Kind of standardized plot.
Speaker 2:But for a specific sub community, you'll have like one sub Reddit Yeah. Where everyone Totally.
Speaker 1:Totally. I mean, there there is a lot of just slop movie content on streaming platforms right now. Yeah. You can just go and watch.
Speaker 2:Gap Year, Tyler Jump in the truth zone.
Speaker 4:In Hollywood at least, I like a lot of movies. Like there's certain writers that I like. Yeah. But Okay. You like movies?
Speaker 4:It's hard
Speaker 2:to get Wait. You said you like movies? Name every film. Name every film on the TVPN chat best film list. Movie list.
Speaker 4:Okay. But you you always hear about like certain writers they have a hard time getting their films made because maybe it's like kind of a weird concept or something like it's it's hard to market. But this is like AI is actually much better for them, right? Because if you have someone who's like actually has some like unique look at the world or or they're like very creative or something, like AI is like super good for them but kind of only for them, right? So maybe in the industry it's not super great.
Speaker 4:But for the people like if there's a certain director that I like really love, they're gonna be, you know, they're gonna be able to make way more of their movies or whatever, you know, instantiate all their ideas.
Speaker 2:Chad is calling Tyler based Zoomer.
Speaker 1:He's he's a Zoomer. It's good good times. There's an update to the Elon Musk OpenAI lawsuit, which is sitting at about 60% chance that Elon wins on Calci right now on the prediction market. So on the day that the Brockman files went out, started going viral, OpenAI put out release. They they countered some of the narratives, added some more context, but they also sent out a letter to their investors saying, hey.
Speaker 1:Look. We think it's gonna be $34,000,000 or something at worst.
Speaker 2:We think this is the most, but it could be more.
Speaker 1:It's gonna be a $134,000,000,000 in damages is what Elon is seeking. Musk's legal team argues that his early funding and involvement materially contributed to OpenAI's rise, is now valued at 500,000,000,000, and he wants a slice. The lawsuit says OpenAI has become a for profit company entitling Musk to compensation tied to the value created from his early contributions. When asked about the lawsuit, Elon Musk responded, I've lost a few battles over the years, but I've never lost a war.
Speaker 2:So great line. Yes. But I don't think this lawsuit is the war.
Speaker 1:Yes. I
Speaker 2:think it's a battle in a longer war. Yes. And I think it it it may play a role Yes. In how the in how this sort of like war between Yes. Next AI and OpenAI or Elon versus Sam evolves.
Speaker 2:But ultimately, like, this judge is not gonna make you know, the judge and jury are not gonna make a decision that just like decides the war. The war is going to be won by overwhelming domination in the categories that they compete.
Speaker 1:If he gets that, it's like over 25% of the company, something like that.
Speaker 2:And that's going to be hard, again, depending I'm sure it'll come out how much Sam owns exactly in the case. But it's going to be hard to justify that he deserves more than Sam given their
Speaker 1:And also just play out what happens if Elon does get all $134,000,000,000 It's like you're not CEO, you don't have board control, you don't have supervoting shares, but you're a massive shareholder that can just constantly do shareholder lawsuits. And so that's gonna be incredibly annoying and very bad. But at the same time, like maybe a distraction. How do you actually get to control if that's what Elon's going for? We will see what the judge thinks of the and where the damages land if he wins, which is still not guaranteed by any means.
Speaker 1:It could wind up being a fury victory for Elon. It could be something where he wins the battle, but he loses the war in the sense that it's a distraction. There's gonna be a ton of discovery. It'll be you know, ultimately, even if he gets 100,000,000,000, he's worth 700,000,000,000. It's like, you know, a drop in the bucket.
Speaker 1:We'll see you tomorrow.
Speaker 2:See you tomorrow, folks. Have a great MLK day. Thanks for hanging
Speaker 3:out. Goodbye. Cheers.