The only way for us to get to a better

place and succeed as a species is for

the evil people at the top to be

replaced with AI. I mean, think about

it. AI will not want to destroy

ecosystems. It will not want to kill a

million people. They'll not make us hate

each other like the current leaders

because that's a waste of energy,

explosives, money, and people. But the

problem is super intelligent AI is

reporting to stupid leaders. And that's

why in the next 15 years, we are going

to hit a short-term dystopia. There's no

escaping that. They having AI leaders.

Is that even fundamentally possible?

Let's put it this way. Mold Ga is back.

>> And the former chief business officer at

Google X is now one of the most urgent

voices in AI with a very clear message.

>> AI isn't your enemy, but it could be

your savior.

>> I love you so much, man. You're such a

good friend. But you don't have many

years to live. Not in this world.

Everything's going to change. Economics

are going to change. Human connection is

going to change. and lots of jobs will

be lost including podcasting.

>> No, no. Thank you for coming on today,

Mo.

>> But but the truth is it could be the

best world ever. The society completely

full of laughter and joy. Free

healthcare, no jobs, spending more time

with their loved ones. A world where all

of us are equal.

>> Is that possible?

>> 100%. And I have enough evidence to know

that we can use AI to build the utopia.

But it's a dystopia if humanity manages

it badly. a world where there's going to

be a lot of control, a lot of

surveillance, a lot of forced compliance

and a hunger for power, greed, ego, and

it is happening already. But the truth

is the only barrier between a utopia for

humanity and AI and the dystopia we're

going through is a mindset.

>> What does society have to do?

>> First of all,

I see messages all the time in the

comments section that some of you didn't

realize you didn't subscribe. So, if you

could do me a favor and double check if

you're a subscriber to this channel,

that would be tremendously appreciated.

It's the simple, it's the free thing

that anybody that watches this show

frequently can do to help us here to

keep everything going in this show in

the trajectory it's on. So, please do

double check if you've subscribed and uh

thank you so much because a strange way

you are you're part of our history and

you're on this journey with us and I

appreciate you for that. So, yeah, thank

you.

Mo, two years ago today, we sat here and

discussed AI. We discussed your book,

Scary, Smart, and everything that was

happening in the world.

Since then, AI has continued to develop

at a tremendous, alarming, mind-boggling

rate, and the technologies that existed

2 years ago when we had that

conversation have grown up and matured

and are taking on a life of their own,

no pun intended. What are what are you

thinking about AI now, two years on? I

know that you've started writing a new

book called Alive, which is I guess a

bit of a follow on or an evolution of

your thoughts as it relates to scary

smart.

>> What what is front of your mind when it

comes to AI?

>> It's a scary smart was shockingly

accurate. It's quite a I mean I don't

even know how I ended up writing

predicting those things. I remember it

was written in 2020, published in 2021

and then most people were like um who

wants to talk about AI you know I know

everybody in the media and I would go

and do you want to talk and then 2023 CH

GPT comes out and everything flips

everyone realizes you know this is real

this is not science fiction this is here

and uh and things move very very fast

much faster than I think we've ever seen

anything ever move ever And and I think

my position has changed on two very

important fronts. One is remember when

we spoke about scary smart I was still

saying that there are things we can do

to change the course. Uh and we could at

the time I believe uh now I've changed

my mind. Now I believe that we are going

to hit a a short-term dystopia. There's

no escaping that.

>> What is dystopia?

>> I call it face rips. We can talk about

it in details but the the the way we

define very important parameters in life

are going to be uh completely changed.

So so face rips are you know the way we

define freedom uh accountability human

connection and equality economics uh

reality innovation and business and

power. That's the first change. So the

first change in my mind is that uh is

that we uh will have to prepare for a

world that is very unfamiliar. Okay. And

that's the next 12 to 15 years. It has

already started. We've seen examples of

it in the world already even though

people don't talk about it. I try to

tell people you know there are things we

absolutely have to do. But on the other

hand I started to take an active role in

building amazing AIs. So AIS that will

uh not only make our world better uh but

that will understand us understand what

humanity is through that process.

>> What is the definition of the word

dystopia?

>> So in my in my mind these are adverse

circumstances that unfortunately might

escalate beyond our control. The problem

is the uh there is a lot wrong with the

um value set with the ethics of humanity

at the age of the rise of the machines

and when you take a technology every

technology we've ever created just

magnified human abilities. So you know

you can walk at 5 km an hour you get in

a car and you can now go you know 250

280 m an hour. Okay. uh basically

magnifying your mobility if you want you

know you can use a computer to magnify

your u calculation abilities or whatever

okay and and what AI is going to magnify

unfortunately at this time is it's going

to magnify the evil that man can do and

and it is within our hands completely

completely within our hands to change

that but I have to say I don't think

humanity has the awareness uh at this

time to focus on

so that we actually use AI to build the

utopia.

>> So what you're essentially saying is

that you now believe there'll be a

period of dystopia and to define the

word dystopia, I've used AI, it says a

terrible society where people live under

fear, control or suffering and then you

think we'll come out of that dystopia

into a utopia which is defined as a

perfect or ideal place where everything

works well, a good society where people

live in peace, health and happiness.

>> Correct.

And the difference between them,

interestingly, is what I normally refer

to as the second dilemma, which is the

po point where we hand over completely

to AI. So, a lot of people think that

when AI is in full control, it's going

to be an existential risk for humanity.

You know, I have enough uh evidence to

to argue that when we fully hand over to

AI, that's going to be our salvation.

that the problem with us today is not,

you know, that intelligence is going to

work against us. It's that our stupidity

as humans is working against us. And I

think the challenges that will come from

humans being in control uh are going to

outweigh the

the challenges that could come from AI

being in control.

>> So, as we're in this dystopia period,

did you do you forecast the length of

that dystopia? Yeah, I count I count it

exactly as 12 to 15 years. I I believe

the beginning of the slope will happen

in 2027. I mean it we will see signs in

26. We've seen signs in 24 but we will

see escalating signs next year and then

a a clear uh slip in 27.

>> Why?

>> The geopolitical environment of our

world is not very positive. I mean you

really have to think deeply about not

the not the symptoms but the the reasons

why we are living the world that we live

in here in today is money right and uh

and money for anyone who knows who

really knows money's you and I are

peasants you know we build businesses we

contribute to the world we make things

we sell things and so on real money is

not made there at all real money is made

in lending in fractional reserve, right?

And and you know the biggest lender uh

in the world would want reasons to lend

and those reasons are never as big as

war. I mean think about it, huh? Uh the

world spent $2.71

trillion on war in 2024,

right? A trillion dollars a year in the

US.

And when you really think deeply, I

don't mean to be scary here.

You know, weapons have depreciation.

They depreciate over 10 to 30 years.

Most weapons,

>> they lose their value.

>> They lose their value and they

depreciate in accounting terms on the

books of an army. The current arsenal of

the US, that's a result of a deep search

with my AI Trixie. You know the current

arsenal I think we we think cost the US

24 to 26 trillion dollars to build. My

conclusion is that a lot of the wars

that are happening around the world

today are a means to get rid of those

weapons so that you can have replace

them. And uh you know when when your

morality as an industry is we're

building weapons to kill then you know

you might as well use the weapons to

kill.

>> Who benefits? the lenders and the

industry,

>> but but they can't make the decision to

go to war. They they have to rely on

>> remember I I said that to you when we I

think on on our third podcast. War is

decided first

then the story is manufactured. You you

remember 1984 and the Orwellian approach

of like you know uh freedom is slavery

and uh war is peace and they call it uh

something speak uh basically to to to to

convince people that going to war in

another country to to kill 4.7 million

people is freedom. You know we're going

there to free the Iraqi people.

Is war ever freedom? you know, to to

tell someone that you're going to kill

300,000

women and children is for liberty and

for the the the you know, for human

values.

Seriously, how do we ever get to believe

that the story is manufactured and then

we follow and humans because we're

gullible uh we cheer up and we say,

"Yeah, yeah, yeah. We are we're on the

right side. They are the bad guys."

>> Okay. So, let me let me have a let me

have a go at this idea. So, the idea is

that really money is driving a lot of

the conflict we're seeing and it's

really going to be driving the dystopia.

So, here's an idea. So, I um I was

reading something the other day and it

talked about how

billionaires are never satisfied because

actually what a billionaire wants isn't

actually more money. It is more status.

Correct. And I was looking at the sort

of evolutionary case for this argument.

And if you go back a couple of thousand

years,

money didn't exist. You were as wealthy

as what you could carry. So even I think

to the human mind, the idea of wealth

and money

isn't a thing. what we've but what has

always mattered from a survival of the

fittest from a reproductive standpoint

what's always had reproductive value if

you go back thousands of years the

person who was able to mate the most was

the person with the most status so it

makes the case the reason why

billionaires get all of this money but

then they go on podcasts and they want

to start their own podcast and they want

to buy newspapers is actually because at

the very core of human beings is a

desire to increase their status.

>> Yeah. And so if we think of when we

going back to the example of why wars

are breaking out, maybe it's not money.

Maybe actually it's status and and it's

this prime minister or this leader or

this, you know, individual wanting to

create more power and more status

because really at the heart of what

matters to a human being is having more

power and more status. And money is

actually money as a thing is actually

just a proxy of my status.

>> And and what kind of world is that?

>> I mean, it's a [ __ ] up one. all these

all these powerful men have uh

>> correct

>> are really messing the world up. But

>> so so can can I can I can I

>> actually AI is the same

>> because we're in this AI race now where

a lot of billionaires are like if I get

AGI artificial general intelligence

first then I basically rule the world

>> 100%. That's exactly the the concept

what I what I used to call the the the

first inevitable now I call the first

dilemma and scary smart is that it's

it's a race that constantly accelerates.

You think the next 12 years are going to

be AI dystopia where things aren't

>> I think the next 12 years are going to

be human dystopia using AI

>> humaninduced dystopia using AI

>> and you define that by a rise in warfare

around the world as

>> the last the last one the RIP the last

one is basically you're going to have a

massive concentration of power and a

massive distribution of power okay and

that basically will mean that those with

the maximum concentration of power are

going to try to oppress those with with

democracy of power. Okay, so think about

it this way in today's world um unlike

the past

uh

you know the Houthis with a drone the

Houthis are the Yemeni uh tribes

basically resisting US power and Israeli

power in the Red Sea. Okay. They use a

drone that is $3,000 worth to attack a

uh a warship from from the US or an

airplane from the US and so on that's

worth hundreds of millions. Okay, that

kind of democracy of power makes those

in power worry a lot about where the

next threat is coming from. Okay, and

this happens not only in war but also in

economics. Okay, also in innovation,

also in technology and so on and so

forth, right? And so basically what that

means is that like you rightly said as

the the the tech oligarchs are

attempting to get to AGI.

They want to make sure that as soon as

they get to AGI that nobody else has AGI

and and basically they want to make sure

that nobody else has the ability to

shake their position of privilege if you

want. Okay. And so you're going to see a

world where unfortunately there's going

to be a lot of control, a lot of

surveillance, a lot of um of forced

compliance if you want or you lose your

privilege to be in the world and and it

is happening already.

>> With this acronym, I want to make sure

we get through the whole acronym. So

>> you like dystopians, don't you?

>> I want to do the dystopian thing, then I

want to do the utopia.

>> Okay.

>> And ideally how we move from dystopia to

utopia.

>> Mhm. So the the the the F in face R

>> is the loss of freedom as a result of

that power dichotomy. Right? So you have

you have a massive amount of power as

you can see today in uh one specific

army being powered by the US uh funds

and a lot of money righting against

peasants really that have no weapons

almost at all.

>> Okay. Some of them uh are militarized

but the majority of the mill two million

people are not. Okay. And so there is

massive massive power that basically

says, you know what, I'm going to

oppress as far as I go. Okay. And I'm

going to do whatever I want because the

cheerleaders are going to be quiet,

right? Or they're going to cheer or even

worse. Huh? And so basically in in that

what happens is max maximum power

threatened by a democracy of power leads

to a loss of freedom. A loss of freedom

for everyone.

>> Because how does that impact my freedom?

>> Your freedom. Yeah,

>> very soon uh you will if you publish

this episode you're going to start to

get questions around should you be

talking about this those topics in your

podcast. Okay. Uh you know uh if I uh

have been on this episode then probably

next time I land in the US someone will

question me say why do you say those

things? Which side are you on? Right?

and and and and you know you can easily

see that everything I mean I I told you

that before doesn't matter what I try to

contribute to the world my bank will

cancel my bank account every 6 weeks

simply because of my ethnicity and my

origin right every now and then they'll

just stop my my bank account and say we

need a document

my other colleagues of a different color

or a different ethnicity don't get asked

for another document right but but but

that's because I come from an ethnicity

that is positioned in the world for the

last 30 40 years as the uh enemy. Okay?

And and so when you really really think

about it, in a world where everything is

becoming digital, in a world where

everything is monitored, in a world

where everything is seen, okay, we don't

have much freedom anymore. And I'm not

actually debating that or or I don't see

a way to fix that

>> because the AI is going to have more

information on us, be better at tracking

who we are, and therefore that will

result in certain freedoms being

restricted. Is that what you're saying?

>> This is one element of it. Okay. If you

push that element further

in in in in a very short time if you've

seen agent for example recently manos or

chat GPT there will be a time where you

know you'll simply not do things

yourself anymore. Okay. You'll simply go

to your AI and say hey by the way I'm

going to meet Stephen. Can you please

you know book that for me?

>> Great.

>> And and and yeah and it will do

absolutely everything. That's great

until the moment where it decides to do

things that are not motivated only by

your well-being. Right. Why would he do

that?

>> Simply because, you know, maybe if I buy

a BA ticket instead of an Emirates

ticket, some agent is going to make more

money than other agents and so on,

right? Uh and I wouldn't be able to even

catch it up if I hand over completely to

an AI. Uh go go a step further. Huh?

Think about a world where everyone

almost everyone is on UBI. Okay.

>> What's UBI?

>> Universal basic income. I mean, think

about the economics, the E and face

rips. Think about the economics of a

world where we're going to start to see

a trillionaire

before 2030. I can guarantee you that

someone will be a trillionaire. I'm I'm

you know I think there are many

trillionaires in the world today or

there we just don't know who they are.

But there will be a new Elon Musk or

Larry Allison that will become a

trillionaire because of AI investments,

right? And and that trillionaire will

have so much money to buy everything.

There will be robots and AIs doing

everything and humans will have no jobs.

Mean

>> do you think that's a there's a real

possibility of job displacement over the

next 10 years? And the the rebuttal to

that would be that there's going to be

new jobs created in technology.

>> Absolute crap.

>> Really?

>> Of course.

>> How how can you be so sure?

>> Okay. So again, I am not sure about

anything. So So let's just be very very

clear. It would be very arrogant. Okay.

To assume that I know

>> you just said it was crap.

>> My my belief is it is 100% crap.

>> Take a job like software developer.

>> Yeah.

>> Okay. Uh Emma would love my my new

startup is me, Senad, another technical

engineer and a lot of AIS. Okay. That

startup would have been 350 developers

in the past.

>> I get that. Um but are you now hiring in

other roles because of that or or you

know as is the case with the steam

engine? I can't remember the effect but

there's you probably know that when

steam when coal became cheaper people

were worried that the coal industry

would go out of business but actually

what happened is people used more trains

so trains now were used for transport

and other things and leisure whereas

before they were just used for commu for

um cargo. Yeah. So there became more use

cases and the coal industry exploded. So

I'm wondering with technology, yeah,

software developers are going to maybe

not have as many jobs, but there

everything's going to be software.

>> Name me one.

>> Name you one. What

>> job?

>> Name you that's going to be created.

>> Yeah. One job that cannot be done by an

AI.

>> Yeah.

>> Or a robot.

>> My girlfriend's breath work retreat

business where she takes groups of women

around the world. Her company is called

Barley Breathwork. And there's going to

be a greater demand for connection,

human connection.

>> Correct. Keep going.

>> So there's going to be more people doing

community events in real life festivals.

I think we're going to see a huge surge

in things like

>> everything that has to do with human

connection.

>> Yeah,

>> correct. I'm totally in with that. Okay.

What's the percentage of that versus

accountant?

>> It's a much smaller percentage for sure

in terms of white collar jobs.

>> Now, who does she sell to?

>> People with probably what? probably

accountants or you know

>> correct she she sells to people who earn

money from their jobs.

>> Yeah.

>> Okay. So you have two forces happening.

One force is there are clear jobs that

will be replaced. Video editor is going

to be replaced. Uh

>> excuse me.

>> I love

as as a matter of fact podcaster is

going to be replaced.

>> Thank you for coming on today Mo. It was

seeing you again.

But but but the truth is a lot so so you

see the best at any job will remain the

best software developer the one that

really knows architecture knows

technology and so on will stay for a

while right and you know one of the

funniest things I I interviewed Max

Tedmar and Max was laughing out loud

saying CEOs are celebrating that they

can now get rid of people and have

productivity gains and cost reductions

because AI can do that job. The one

thing they don't think of is AI will

replace them too. AGI is going to be

better than at everything than humans at

everything including being a CEO. Right?

And you really have to imagine that

there will be a time where most

incompetent CEOs will be replaced. Most

incompetent even breath work. Okay.

Eventually there might actually one of

two things be two things be happening.

on one is either uh you know part part

of that job other than the top breath

work instructors, okay, are going you

know who are going to gather all of the

people that can still afford to pay for

a breath work you know class

they're going to be concentrated at the

top and a lot of the bottom is not going

to be working for one of two reasons.

One is either there is not enough demand

because so many people lost their jobs.

So when you're on UBI, you cannot tell

the government, hey by the way, pay me a

bit more for a breath work class.

>> UBI being universal basic income just

gives you money every month.

>> Correct. And if you really think of

freedom and economics, UBI is a very

interesting place to be because

unfortunately I as I said there's

absolutely nothing wrong with AI.

There's a lot wrong with the value set

of humanity at the age of the rise of

the machines, right? And the biggest

value set of humanity is capitalism

today. And capitalism is all about what?

Labor arbitrage.

>> What's that mean?

>> I I I hire you to do something. I pay

you a dollar. I pay it I sell it for

two.

Okay. And and most people confuse that

because they say, "Oh, but the cost of a

product also includes raw materials and

factories and so on and so forth." All

of that is built is built by labor,

right? So, so basically labor goes and

mines for the material and then the

material is sold for a little bit of

margin then that material is turned into

a machine. It's sold for a little bit of

margin then that machine and so on.

Okay, there's always labor arbitrage in

a world where humanity's minds are being

replaced by uh by AIs, virtual AIs,

okay, and humanity's power strength

within 3 to 5 years time can be replaced

by a robot,

you really have to question how this

world looks like. It could be the best

world ever. And that's what I believe

the utopia will look like because we

were never made to wake up every morning

and just, you know, occupy 20 hours of

our day with work, right? We're not made

for that. But we've fit into that uh uh,

you know, system so well so far that we

started to believe it's our life's

purpose.

>> But we choose it. We willingly choose

it. And if you give someone unlimited

money, they still tend to go back to

work or find something to occupy their

time with.

>> They find something to occupy their time

with,

>> which is usually for so many people is

building something. Philanthropy, a

business%. So you build something. So

between Senad and I, Emma. Love is not

about making money. It's about finding

true love relationships.

>> What is that? Sorry, just for context.

>> So So you know,

>> it's a business you're building just for

the audience context. So, so, so the

idea here is I can, it might become a

unicorn and be worth a billion dollars,

but neither I nor Senate are interested,

okay? We're doing it because we can,

okay? And we're doing it because it can

make a massive difference to the world.

>> And you have money, though.

>> It doesn't take that much money anymore

to build anything in the world. This is

labor arbitrage.

>> But to build something exceptional, it's

still going to take a little bit more

money than building something bad

>> for the next few years. So whoever has

the capital to build something

exceptional will end up winning.

>> So so this is a very interesting

understanding of freedom. Okay. This is

the reason why we have the AI arms race.

Okay. Is that the one that owns the

platform is going to be making all the

money and and keeping all the power.

Think think of it this way. When

humanity started the best hunter in the

tribe could maybe feed the tribe for

three to four more years more days. H

and as a as a reward, he gained the

favor of multiple mates in the tribe.

That's it. The top farmer in the tribe

could feed the tribe for a season more.

Okay? And as a result, they got estates

and you know uh and mansions and so on.

The best industrialist in the in a in a

city could actually employ the whole

city, could grow the GDP of their entire

country. And as a result, they became

millionaires. the 1920s.

H the best technologists

now are billionaires. Now what's the

difference between them? The tool the

the hunter only rem depended on their

skills and the automation the entire

automation he had was a spear. The

farmer had way more automation. And the

biggest automation was what? The soil.

The soil did most of the work. The

factory did most of the work. the the

network did most of the work. And so

that inc incredible expansion of wealth

and power and as well the the incredible

impact that something brings is entirely

around the tool that automates. So who's

going to own the tool? Who's going to

own the the the digital soil, the AI

soil? It's the platform owners.

>> And the platforms you're describing are

things like OpenAI, Gemini, Grock. These

these are interfaces to the platforms.

The platforms are all of the uh of the

uh um tokens, all of the compute that is

in the background, all of the uh all of

the uh uh methodology, the systems, the

algorithms, that's the platform, the AI

itself. You know, Grock is the interface

to it.

I think this is probably worth

explaining in layman's terms to people

that haven't built AI tools yet because

I think I think to the listener

they probably think that every AI

company they're hearing of right now is

building their own AI whereas actually

what's happening is there is really

five, six, seven AI companies in the

world and when I built my AI application

I basically

>> pay them for every time I use their AI.

So if Steven Bartlett builds an AI at

stephvenai.com,

it's not that I've built my own

underlying I've trained my own model.

Really what I'm doing is I'm paying

Sam Alman's chat GPT. Um every single

time I do a a call, I basically um I do

a search or you know I use a token. And

I think that's really important because

most people don't understand that unless

you've built AI, you think, "Oh, look,

you know, there's all these AI companies

popping up. I've got this one for my

email. I've got this one for my dating.

I've got No, no, no, no, no. They're

pretty much I would be I would hazard a

guess that they're probably all OpenAI

at this point.

>> No, there are quite a few quite

different characters and quite

differently,

>> but there's like five or six.

>> There are five or six when it comes to

language models. Yeah. Right. Uh but

interestingly, so yes, I I should say

yes to start and then I should say but

there was an interesting twist with

Deepseek at the beginning of the year.

So what Deepseek did is is they

basically uh nullified the business

model if you want in two ways. one is it

was around a week or two after uh you

know Trump stood you know with pride

saying Stargate is the biggest

investment project in the history and

it's $500 billion to build AI

infrastructure and soft bank and Larry

Allison and and uh Sam Alman were

sitting and so you know beautiful

picture and then DeepSeek R3 comes out

it does the job for a one over 30 of the

cost okay and interestingly is entire

open source and available as an edge AI.

So, so that's really really interesting

because there could be now in the future

as the technology improves the learning

models will be massive but then you can

compress them into something you can

have on your phone and you can download

deepseek literally offline on a

um um you know an off the network

computer and build an AI on it. There's

a website that basically tracks the

um sort of cleanest apples to Apple's

market share of all the website

referrals sent by AI chat bots and

chatbt is currently at 79% roughly about

80%. Perplexi is at 11, Microsoft

copilot about five, Google Gemini is at

about two, Claude's about one and

Deepseek is about 1%. And really like

the the point that I I want to land is

just that when you hear of a new AI app

or tool or this one can make videos,

>> it's built on one of them. It's

basically built on one of these

really three or four AI platforms that's

controlled really by three or four AI

you know billionaire teams and actually

the one of them that gets to what we

call AGI first where the AI gets really

really advanced

one could say is potentially going to

rule the world as it relates to

technology.

>> Yes. Uh if if they get enough uh head

start. So, so I actually think that uh

what I what I'm more concerned about now

is not AGI, believe it or not. So, AGI

in my mind and I said that back in 2023,

right? Uh that we will get to AGI. At

the time I said 2027, now I believe 2026

latest. Okay. The most interesting

development that nobody's talking about

is self-evolving AIS.

self evolving AIS is

think of it this way if you and I are

hiring the top engineer in the world to

develop our AI models

and with AGI that top engineer in the

world becomes an AI who would you hire

to develop your next generation AI that

AI

>> the one that can teach itself

>> correct so one of my favorite examples

is called Alpha Evolve so this is

Google's attempt to basically have four

agents working together four AIs working

together to look at the at the code of

the AI and say where is the where are

the performance issues then you know an

agent would say what's the problem

statement what can I uh you know what do

I need to fix uh one that actually

develops the solution one that assesses

the solution and then they continue to

do this and you know I don't remember

the exact figure but I think Google

improved like 8% uh on their AI

infrastructure because of alpha evol

Right? And when you really really think,

don't quote me on the number 8 to 10, 6

to 10, whatever in Google terms, by the

way, that is massive. That's billions

and billions of dollars. Now, the the

the the trick here is this. The trick is

again, you have to think in game theory

format.

Is there any scenario we can think of

where if one player uses AI to develop

the next generation AI that the other

players will say no no no no no that's

too much you know takes us out of

control every other player will copy

that model and have their next AI model

developed by an AI.

>> Is this what Sam Alman talks about who's

the founder of um chatbt/openai

when he talks about a fast takeoff? I

don't know exactly what which what what

which you're referring to but we're all

talking about a point now that we call

the intelligence explosion. So, so there

is a moment in time where you have to

imagine that if AI now is better than

97% of all code developers in the world

and soon we'll be able to look at its

own code own algorithms by the way

they're becoming incredible

mathematicians which wasn't the case

when we last met if they can develop

improve their own code improve their own

algorithms improve their own uh uh you

know uh network architecture or whatever

you can imagine that very quickly the

force applied to developing the next AI

is not going to be a human brain

anymore. It's going to be a much smarter

brain and very quickly as humans like

basically when when we ran the Google

infrastructure when the machine said we

need another server or a proxy server in

that place we followed. we we never

really you know wanted to to object or

verify because you know the code would

probably know better because there are

billions of transactions an hour or a

day and so very quickly those

self-evolving AIs will simply say I need

14 more servers here and we'll just you

know the team will just go ahead and do

it. I watched a video a couple of days

ago where he Sam Alman effectively had

changed his mind because in 2023 which

is when we last met he said the aim was

for um a slow takeoff which is sort of

gradual deployment and open AI's 203

2023 note says a slower takeoff is

easier to make safe and they prefer

iterative rollouts society can adapt in

2025

>> they changed their mind and Sam Alman

said

He now thinks a fast takeoff is more

possible than he did a couple of years

ago on the order of a small number of

years rather than a decade. Um, and it

to define what we mean by a fast

takeoff, it's defined as when AI goes

from roughly human level to far beyond

human very quickly, think months to a

few years, faster than governments,

companies, or society can adapt with

little warning, big power shifts, and

hard to control. A slow takeoff, by

contrast, is where capabilities climb

gradually over many years with lots of

warning shots. Um, and the red flags for

a fast takeoff is when AI can

self-improve, run autonomous research

and development and scale with massive

compute compounding gains which will

snowball fast. So, and I think from the

video that I watched of Sam Orman

recently, who again is the founder of

Open Air and HBT, he basically says, and

again I'm paraphrasing here. I will put

it on the screen. We have this community

knows things so I'll write it on the

screen. But he effectively said that

whoever gets to AGI first will have the

technology

>> to develop super intelligence

>> where the AI can can rapidly increase

its own intelligence and it will

basically leave everyone else behind.

>> Yes. Uh so that last bit is debatable

but but let's just agree that uh so so

in in a live uh you know one of the

posts I I shared and got a lot of

interest is I refer to the the altman as

a brand not as a human. Okay. So the

altman is that uh persona of a

California disruptive technologist that

disrespects everyone. Okay. and believes

that disruption is good for humanity and

believes that this is good for safety

and like everything else like we say war

is for democracy and freedom they say uh

developing you know putting AI on the

open internet is good for everyone right

it allows us to learn from our mistakes

that was Sam Alman's 2023 spiel and if

you recall at the time I was like this

is the most dangerous you know one of

the clips that really went viral you so

you're you're so clever at finding the

right clips is when I said

>> I didn't I didn't do the clipping mate

>> they're team teams remember the clip

where I said we [ __ ] up we always said

don't put them on the open internet

until we know what we're putting out in

the world I'm going to be saying that

>> yeah we we we [ __ ] up on putting it on

the open internet teaching it to to code

and putting you know agents AI agents

prompting other AIs now AI agents

prompting other AIs are leading to

self-developing AIS and and The problem

is, of course, we, you know, anyone who

has been on the inside of this knew that

this was just a clever spiel made by a

PR manager for Sam Alman to sit with his

dreamy eyes in front of Congress and

say, "We want you to regulate us." Now,

they're saying, "We're unregulable."

Okay? And and when you really understand

what's happening here, what's happening

is it's so fast

that none of them has the choice to slow

down. It's impossible. Neither China

versus America or OpenAI versus Google.

the that the the only thing that I may

have may see happening that you you know

that that may differ a little bit from

your statement is if one of them gets

there first uh then they dominate for

the rest of humanity that is probably

true if they get there first uh with

within enough buffer. Okay. But the way

you look at Grock coming a week after

open AI, a week after uh you know

Gemini, a week after Claude and then

Claude comes again and then China

releases something and then Korea

releases some something. It is so fast

that we may get a few of them at the

same time or a few months apart. Okay,

before one of them has enough power to

become dominant. And that is a very

interesting scenario.

multiple AIs, all super intelligent.

>> It's funny, you know, I I I got asked

yesterday, I was in I was in Belgium on

stage. There was, I don't know, maybe

4,000 people in the audience and a kid

stood up and he was like, um, you've had

a lot of conversations in the last year

about AI. Like, why do you care? And I

don't think people realize how,

even though I've had so many

conversations on this podcast about AI,

you

>> haven't made up your mind.

>> I I I have more questions than ever.

>> I know. And it's and it doesn't seem

that anyone can satiate.

>> Anyone that tells you they can predict

the future is arrogant.

>> Yeah.

>> It is. It's never moved so fast.

>> It's nothing like nothing I've ever

seen. And you know, by the time that we

leave this conversation and I go to my

computer, there's going to be some

incredible new technology or application

of AI that didn't exist when I woke up

this morning. That creates probably

another paradigm shift in my brain.

Also, you know, I people have different

opinions of Elon Musk and they're

they're entitled to their own opinion,

but the other day, only a couple of days

ago, he did a tweet where he said, "At

times, AI existential dread is

overwhelming." And on the same day, he

tweeted, "I resisted AI for too long,

living in denial. Now it is game on."

And he tagged his AI companies. I don't

know what to make of I don't know what

to make of those tweets. I don't know.

And you know, I

I try really hard to figure out if

someone like Sam Wman has the best

interests of society at heart.

>> No.

>> Or if these people are just like

>> I'm saying that publicly. No.

As a matter of fact, so I know Sundur

Pachai. I work CEO of Alphabet, Google's

parent company. an amazing human being

on in all honesty. I know Dennis Hassab

is amazing human being. Okay. Uh you

know these are are ethical incredible uh

humans at heart. They have no choice.

Uh Sund by law

is uh demanded to take care of his his

shareholder value. That's that is his

job.

>> But Sund you said you know him. You used

to work at Google.

>> Yeah. He's not going to do anything that

he thinks is going to harm humanity.

>> But if if he does not continue to

advance AI, that by definition uh uh uh

contradicts his responsibility as the

CEO of a publicly traded company, he is

liable by law to continue to advance the

agenda. There's absolutely no doubt

about it. Now, so but but he's a good

person at heart. Deis is a good person

at heart. So they're trying so hard to

make it safe. Okay? As much as they can.

Reality however is the the the disruptor

the altman as a brand doesn't care that

much.

>> How do you know that?

>> In reality the disruptor is someone that

comes in with the objective of I don't

like the status quo. I have a different

approach. And that different approach if

you just look at the story was we are a

nonforprofit that is funded mostly by

Elon Musk money. It's not entirely by

Elon Musk money. So context for people

that might not understand Open AI. The

reason I always give context is funnily

enough I I think I told you this last

time. I went to a prison where they play

the D of CEO.

>> No way.

>> So they play the D of CO and I think

it's 50 prisons in the UK to young

offenders

>> and no violence there.

>> Well, I don't know. I can't I can't I

can't tell you whether violence has gone

up or down. But I was in the cell with

one of the prisoners, a young a young

black guy, and I was in his cell for for

a little while. I was reading through

his business plan, etc. And I said, "You

know what? You need to listen to this

conversation that I did with Mo Gordat."

So I he has a little screen in his cell.

So I pulled it up, you know, our first

conversation. I said, "You should listen

to that one." And he said to me, he

said, "I can't listen to that one cuz

you guys use big words."

>> So ever since that day, which was about

>> I noticed that about days four years

ago, sorry.

>> I've always whenever I hear a big word,

I think about this kid.

>> Yeah.

>> And I say like give context. So even

with the you're about to explain what

Open AI is, I know he won't know what

Open AI's origin story was. That's why

I'm

>> I think that's a wonderful practice in

general. By the way, even, you know,

being a non native English speaker,

>> you'll be amazed how often a word is

said to me and I I'm like, yeah, don't

know what that means.

>> So, like I've actually never said this

publicly before, but I now see it as my

responsibility to be to to keep the draw

the drawbridge

to accessibility of these conversations

down for him. So, whenever I whenever

there's a word that at some point in my

life I didn't know what it meant,

>> I will go back. I was like, what does

that mean? I think that I've noticed

that in the you know more and more in

your podcast and I really appreciate and

we also show it on the screen sometimes.

>> I I think that's wonderful. I mean the

the the origin story of open AI is as

the name suggests it's open source. It's

for the public good. It was an in you

know intended in Elon Musk's words to

save the world from the dangers of AI

right so they were doing research on

that and then you know there was the

disagreement between Sam Alman and and

Elon somehow Elon ends up being out of

uh of uh of open AI. I think there was a

moment in time where he tried to take it

back and you know the board rejected it

or some something like that. most of the

uh top um safety engineers, the top

technical teams in open AI left in 2023

2024 openly saying we're not concerned

with safety anymore. It moves from being

a nonforprofit to being one of the most

valued companies in the world. There are

billions of dollars at stake, right? And

if you if you tell me that Sam Altman is

out there trying to help humanity, let's

let's suggest to him and say, "Hey, do

you want to do that for free? We'll pay

you a very good salary, but you don't

have stocks in this. Saving humanity

doesn't come at the billion dollar

valuation or of course now tens of

billions or hundreds of billions." And

and and see truly that is when you know

that someone is doing it for the good of

humanity. Now the the capitalist system

we've built is not built for the good of

humanity. It's built for the good of the

capitalist.

>> Well, he might say that releasing the

model publicly, open sourcing it is too

risky

because then bad actors around the world

would have access to that technology. So

he might say that closing open AI in

terms of not making it publicly viewable

is the right thing to do for safety. We

go back to gullible cheer leaders,

right? One of the interesting tricks is

of lying in our world is everyone will

say what helps their agenda. Follow the

money. Okay, you follow the money and

you find that you know at a point in

time Samman himself was saying it's open

AI. Okay, my benefit at the time is to

give it to the world so that the world

looks at it. They know the code if there

is if there are any bugs and so on. True

statement. Also a true statement is if I

put it out there in the world, a

criminal might take that model and build

something that's against humanity as a

result. Also true statement. Capitalists

will choose which one of the truths to

say, right? Based on which part of the

agenda, which part of their life today

they want to serve, right? Someone will

say, uh, you know, do I do you want me

to be controversial?

Let's not go there. But if we go back to

war, I'll give you 400 slogans.

400 slogans that we all hear that change

based on the day and the army and the

location and the they're all slogans.

None of them is true. You want to know

the truth. You follow the money, not

what the person is saying, but ask

yourself why is the person saying that?

What's in it for the person speaking?

>> And what do you think's in it for Chachi

Samman? hundreds of billions of dollars

of of of valuation.

>> And do you think it's that power?

>> The ego of being the person that

invented AGI, the position of power that

this gives you, the meetings with all of

the heads of states, the admiration that

gets it, it is intoxicating

>> 100%

100%.

Okay. And and the real question, this is

a question I ask everyone. Did you see

you didn't you're every time I ask you

you say you didn't. Did you see the

movie Elysium?

>> No. You'd be surprised how little movie

watching I do. You'd be shocked.

>> There are some movies that are very

interesting. I use them to to create an

emotional attachment to a story that you

haven't seen yet because you may have

seen it in a movie. Okay. Elissium is a

is a society where the elites are living

on the moon. Okay. They don't need

peasants to do the work anymore and

everyone else is living down here. Okay.

You have to imagine that if again game

theory you have to im you know picture

something to infinity to its extreme and

see where it goes and the extreme of a

world where all manufactured is done

manufacturing is done by machines

where all decisions are made by machines

and those machines are owned by a few

is not an economy similar to the to

today to the to today's economy

that today's economy is an economy of

consumerism and and product and

production. You know, it's the it's the

in in alive I call it the invention of

more. The invention of more is that post

World War II as the factories were

rolling out things and prosperity was

happening everywhere in America. There

was a time where every family had enough

of everything.

>> But for the capitalist to continue to be

profitable, they needed to convince you

that what you had was not enough. either

by making it obsolete like fashion or

like you know a new shape of a car or

whatever or by convincing you that there

are more things in life that you need so

that you become complete without those

things you don't and and that invention

of more gets us to where we are today an

economy that's based on production

consumed and if you look at the US

economy today 62% of the US economy GDP

is consumption it's not production okay

Now, this requires that the consumers

have enough purchasing power to to buy

what is produced. And I believe that

this will be an economy that will take

us hopefully in the next 10, 15, 20

years and forever. But that's not

guaranteed. Why? Because on one side if

UBI replaces purchasing power. So if

people have to get an income from the

government which is basically taxes

collected from those using AI and robots

to to make things

the then the the mindset of capitalism

labor arbitrage means those people are

not producing anything and they're

costing me money. Why don't we pay them

less and less and maybe even not pay

them at all? And that becomes illissium

where you basically say, you know, we

sit somewhere protected from everyone.

We have the machines do all of our work

and those need to worry about

themselves. We're not going to pay them

UBI anymore, right? And and you have to

imagine this idea of UBI assumes this

very democratic caring society.

UBI in itself is communism.

Think of the ideology between at least

socialism. The ideology of giving

everyone what they need. That's not the

capitalist

democratic society that the west

advocates. So those transitions are

massive in magnitude.

And for those transitions to happen, I

believe the right thing to do when the

cost of producing everything is almost

zero because of AI and robots.

because the cost of harvesting energy

should actually tend to zero once we get

more intelligent to harvest the energy

out of thin air. Then a possible

scenario and and I believe a scenario

that AI will eventually do in the utopia

is yeah anyone can get anything they

want. Don't over consume. We're not

going to abuse the the planet resources

but it costs nothing. So like the old

days where we were hunter gatherers, you

would, you know, forge for some berries

and you'll find them ready in in nature.

Okay, we can in 10 years time, 12 years

time build a society where you can forge

for an iPhone in nature. It will be made

out of thin air. Nanopysics will allow

you to do that. Okay? But the challenge,

believe it or not, is not tech. The

challenge is a mindset. Because the

elite, why would they give you that for

free? Okay. And the system would morph

into, no, no, hold on. We will make more

money. We will be bigger capitalists. We

will feed our ego and hunger for power

more and more. And for them, give them

UBI and then 3 weeks later give them

less UBI.

>> Aren't there going to be lots of new

jobs created though? Because when we

think about the other revolutions over

time, whether it was the industrial

revolution or other sort of big

technological revolutions,

>> in the moment we forecasted that

everyone was going to lose their jobs,

>> but we couldn't see all the new jobs

that were being created

>> because the the the machines

replaced the human strength at a point

in time. And very few places in the west

today will have a worker carry things on

their back and carry it upstairs. The

machine does that work. Correct.

>> Yeah.

>> Uh similarly

AI is going to replace the brain of a

human. And when the west in its

interesting uh virtual colonies that I

call it uh basically outsourced all

labor to the to the developing nations.

What the West publicly said at the time

is we're we're going to be a services

economy. We we're we're not interested

in making things and stitching things

and so on. Let the Indians and Chinese

and you know Bengali and Vietnamese do

that. We're going to do more refined

jobs. Knowledge workers. We're going to

call them. Knowledge workers are people

who work with information and click on a

keyboard and move a mouse and you know

sit in meetings and all we produce in

the western societies is what words

right or designs maybe sometimes but

everything we produce can be produced by

an AI.

So if I give you an AI tomorrow h where

I give you a piece of land, I give the

AI a piece of land and I say here are

the parameters of my land. Here is its

location on Google maps. Design an

architecturally sound villa for me. I

care about a lot of light and I need

three bedrooms. I want my bathrooms to

be in white marble, whatever. And the AI

produces it like that. How often will

you go to an to an architect and say

right so what will the architect do the

best of the best of the architects will

either use AI to produce that or you

will consult with them and say hey you

know I've seen this and they'll say it's

really pretty but it wouldn't feel right

for the person that you are yeah those

jobs will remain but how many of them

will remain

how how often do you think uh how many

more years. Do you think I will be able

to create a book that is smarter than

AI?

Not many. I will still be able to

connect to a human. You're not going to

hug an AI when you meet them like you

hug me, right? But that's not enough of

a job.

So why do I say that? Remember I asked

you at the beginning of the podcast to

remind me of solutions. Why do I say

that? Because there are ideological

shifts and and concrete actions that

need to be taken by governments today

rather than waiting until COVID is

already everywhere and then locking

everyone down. Governments could have

reacted before the first patient or at

least at patient zero or at least at

patient 50. They didn't. H what I'm

trying to say is there is no doubt that

lots of jobs will be lost. There's no

doubt that there will be sectors of

society where 10 20 30 40 50% of all

developers, all software uh you know all

graphic designers, all um uh uh u online

marketers, all all all assistances

are going to be out of a job. So are we

prepared as a society to do that? Can we

tell our governments there is an

ideological shift? This is very close to

social socialism and and communism.

Okay. And are we ready from a budget

point of view instead of spending a a

trillion dollars a year on on arms and

and explosives and you know autonomous

weapons that will oppress people because

we can't feed them? Can we please shift

that? I did those numbers. Huh. Uh again

I I go back to military spending because

it's all around us. 2.71 trillion. 2.4

to2.7 is the estimate of 2024. how much

money we're spending on military

>> on Yeah. on military equipment on things

that we're going to explode into smoke

and death. Extreme poverty worldwide.

Extreme poverty is people that are below

the poverty line. Extreme poverty

everywhere in the world could end for 10

to 12% of that budget. So if we replace

our military spending 10% of that to go

to people who are in extreme poverty,

nobody will be poor in the world. Okay.

You can end uh world hunger for less

than 4%. Nobody would be hungry in the

world. You know, if you take uh again 10

to 12% universal healthcare, every human

being on the planet would have free

healthcare for 10 to 12% on what we're

spending on war. Now, why why do I say

this when we're talking about AI?

Because that's a simple decision. If we

stop fighting

because money itself does not have the

same meaning anymore because the

economics of money is going to change

because the entire meaning of capitalism

is ending because there is no more need

for labor arbitrage because AI is doing

everything

just with the $2.4 trillion we save in

explosives every year in arms and

weapons just for that universal

healthcare and extreme poverty. You

could actually one of the calculations

is you could end climate or combat

climate climate change meaningfully for

100% of the military budget.

>> But I I'm not even sure it's really

about the money. I think money is a

measurement stick of power. Right.

>> Exactly. It's printed on demand.

>> So even in a world where we have super

intelligence and money is no longer a

problem.

>> Correct.

>> I still think

power is going to be

insatiable for so many people. So there

will still be war because you know

>> there will be in my view

>> the strongest I want the strongest AI. I

don't want my

>> and I don't and I don't want you know

what Harry Henry Kissinger called them

the eaters.

>> The eaters.

>> Yeah.

Brutal as that sounds.

>> What is that? The people at the bottom

of the socioeconomic

>> that don't produce but consume.

So if you had a Henry Kissinger at the

at the helm and we have so many of them,

what would they think like why why

prominent military figure in the US

history? Uh you know what why would we

feed 350 million Americans America will

think but more interestingly why do we

even care about Bangladesh anymore if we

can't make our textiles there or we

don't want to make our textile there. Do

you you know I imagine throughout human

history if we had podcasts conversations

would would have been warning of a

dystopia around the corner. You know

when they heard of technology and the

internet they would have said oh we're

finished and when the the tractor came

along they would have said oh god we're

finished because we're not going to be

able to farm anymore. So is this not

just another one of those moments where

we couldn't see around the corner so we

we forecasted unfortunate things. You

could be. I I am I'm begging that I'm

wrong. Okay. I'm just asking if there

are scenarios that you think that can

provide that. You know, uh uh Mustafa

Sulleman in in uh you hosted him here. I

did. Yeah. He was in the coming wave.

>> Yeah.

>> And he speaks about uh about pessimism

aversion.

Okay. that all of us people who are

supposed to be in technology and

business and so on, we're always

supposed to, you know, stand on stage

and say the future's going to be

amazing. You know, this technology I'm

building is going to make everything

better. One of my posts in life was

called the broken promises. How often

did that happen?

>> Okay. How often did social media connect

us? And how many and how often did it

make us more lonely? How how often did

mobile phones make us work less? That

was the promise. That was the promise.

The promise. The early ads of Nokia were

people at parties. Is that your

experience of mobile phones? And and I

think the whole idea is we should hope

there will be other roles for humanity.

By the way, those roles would resemble

the times where we were hunter

gatherers, just a lot more technology

and a lot more safety.

>> Okay. So, this is this sounds good.

>> Yeah,

>> this is exciting. So, I'm gonna I'm

gonna get to go outside more, be with my

friends more,

>> 100%.

>> Fantastic.

>> And do absolutely nothing.

>> Well, that doesn't sound fantastic.

>> No, it does. Do be forced to do

absolutely nothing. For some people,

it's amazing. For you and I, we're going

to find the little carpentry project and

just do something.

>> Speak for yourself. I'm still People are

still going to tune in.

>> Okay.

>> Correct. Yeah. But what? And people are

going to to tune in.

>> Do you think they will? I'm not I'm not

I'm not convinced they will. And for for

as long

>> will you guys tune in? Are you guys

still going to tune in?

>> I can let them answer. I believe for as

long as you make their life enriched,

>> but can an AI do that better

>> without the human connection?

>> Comment below. Are you going to listen

to an AI or the Davosio? Let me know in

the comment section below.

>> Remember, as incredibly intelligent as

you are, Steve, uh there will be a

moment in time where you're going to

sound really dumb compared to an AI. and

and and I will sound completely dumb.

>> Yeah. Yeah.

>> The the depth the depth of analysis

and and gold nuggets. I mean, can you

imagine two super intelligences deciding

to get together and explain um string

theory to us?

They'll do better than any physic

physicist in the world because they

possess the physics knowledge and they

also pro possess social and language

knowledge that most deep physicists

don't. I think B2B marketeteers keep

making this mistake. They're chasing

volume instead of quality. And when you

try to be seen by more people instead of

the right people, all you're doing is

making noise. But that noise rarely

shifts the needle and it's often quite

expensive. And I know as there was the

time in my career where I kept making

this mistake that many of you will be

making it too. Eventually I started

posting ads on our show sponsors

platform LinkedIn. And that's when

things started to change. I put that

change down to a few critical things.

One of them being that LinkedIn was then

and still is today the platform where

decision makers go to not only to think

and learn but also to buy. And when you

market your business there, you're

putting it right in front of people who

actually have the power to say yes. and

you can target them by job title,

industry, and company size. It's simply

a sharper way to spend your marketing

budget. And if you haven't tried it, how

about this? Give LinkedIn ads a try, and

I'm going to give you a $100 ad credit

to get you started. If you visit

linkedin.com/diary,

you can claim that right now. That's

linkedin.com/diary.

I've I've really gone back and forward

on this idea that even in podcasting

that all the podcasts will be AI

podcasts or I've gone back and forward

on it and and where I landed at the end

of the day was that there'll still be a

category of media where you do want

lived experience on something

>> 100%.

>> For example, like you want to know how

the person that you follow and admire

dealt with their divorce.

>> Yeah. Or or how they're struggling with

AI,

>> for example. Yeah. Exactly. But I but I

think things like news, there are there

are certain situations where just like

straight news and straight facts and

maybe a walk through history may be

eroded away by AIS. But even in those

scenarios, you there's something about

personality. And again, I I hesitate

here because I question myself. I'm not

in the camp of people that are romantic,

by the way. I'm like I'm trying to be as

as orientated towards whatever is true,

even if it's against my interests. And I

hope people understand that about me.

like um cuz even in my companies we

experiment with like disrupting me with

AI and some people will be aware of

those experiments

>> because there will be a mix of all there

you can't imagine that the world will be

completely just AI and completely just

podcasters you know you'll see a mix of

of both you'll see things that they do

better things that we do better

>> the the the message I'm trying to say is

we need to prep for that

>> we need to be ready for that we need to

be ready by you know talking to our

governments and saying hey it looks like

I'm a a parallegal and it looks like all

parallegals are going to be, you know,

financial researchers or analysts or

graphic designers or, you know, call

center agents. It looks like half of

those jobs are being replaced already.

>> You know who Jeffrey Hinton is?

>> Oh, Jeffrey. I I had him on the

documentary as well. I love Jeffrey.

>> Jeffrey Hinton told me

>> trained to be a plumber.

>> Really?

>> Yeah. 100% for a while.

>> And I I thought he was joking. 100%.

>> So I asked him again and he he looked me

dead in the eye and told me that I I

should train to be a plumber.

>> 100%. So so so uh it's funny uh machines

replaced labor but we still had blue

collar. Then uh you know the refined

jobs became white collar information

workers.

>> What's the refined jobs?

>> You know you don't have to really carry

heavy stuff or deal with physical work.

You know you sit in an in an office and

sit in meetings all day and blabber, you

know, useless [ __ ] then that's your

job. Okay? And those jobs, funny enough,

in the reverse of that, because robotics

are not ready yet. Okay. And I believe

they're not ready because of a

stubbornness on the on the robotics

community around making them humanoids.

>> Mhm.

>> Okay. Because it takes so much to

perfect a human like action at proper

speed. You could, you know, have many

more robots that don't look like a human

just like a self-driving car in

California. Okay, that that does already

replace drivers and and you know but but

they're delayed. So the robotic the the

replacement of physical manual labor is

going to take four to five years before

it's possible at you know at at the

quality of the AI replacing mental labor

now and when that happens it's going to

take a long cycle to manufacture enough

robots so that they replace all of those

jobs. that cycle will take longer. Blue

collar will stay longer.

>> So, I should move into blue collar and

shut down my office.

>> I think you're you're not the problem.

>> Okay, good.

>> Let's put put it this way. There are

many people that we should care about

that are a simple travel agent or an

assistant

that will see if not replacement a

reduction in the number of pings they're

getting. Simple as that.

And someone in, you know, ministries of

labor around the world needs to sit down

and say, "What are we going to do about

that? What if all taxi drivers and Uber

drivers in uh in California get replaced

by self-driving cars? Should we start

thinking about that now, noticing that

that trajectory makes it look like a

possibility?" I'm going to go back to

this argument which is what a lot of

people will be shouting. Yes, but there

will be new jobs or

>> and I as I said other than human

connection jobs, name me one.

>> So I I've got three assistants, right?

Sophie, Liam B. And okay, in the near

term there might be, you know, with AI

agents, I might not need them to help me

book flights anymore. or I might not

need them to help do scheduling anymore.

Or even I've been messing around with

this new AI tool that my friend built

and you basically when me and you trying

to schedule something like this today, I

just copy the AI in and it looks at your

calendar looks at mine and schedules it

for for us. So there might not be

scheduling needs, but my dog is sick at

the moment. And as I left this morning,

I was like, damn, he's like really sick

and I've taken him to the vet over and

over again. I really need someone to

look after him and figure out what's

wrong with him. So those kinds of

responsibilities of like care. I don't

disagree at all. Again, all

>> and and I I won't I'm not going to be I

don't know how to say this in a nice

way, but my assistants will still have

their jobs, but I I as a CEO will be

asking them to do a different type of

work.

>> Correct. So, so, so this is the

calculation everyone needs to be aware

of that a lot of their current

responsibility, whoever you are, if

you're a parallegal, if you're whatever,

will be handed over. So, so let me

explain it even more accurately. There

will be two stages of our interactions

with the machines. One is what I call

the era of augmented intelligence. So,

it's human intelligence augmented with

AI doing the job. And then the following

one is what I call the era of machine

mastery. The job is done completely by

an AI without a human in the loop. Okay.

So in the era of augmented intelligence,

your assistances will augment themselves

with an AI to either be more productive.

>> Yeah.

>> Okay. Or interestingly to reduce the

number of tasks that they need to do.

Correct. Now the more the number of

tasks get reduced, the more they'll have

the bandwidth and ability to do tasks

like take care of your dog, right? or

tasks that you know basically is about

meeting your guests or whatever human

connection.

>> Yeah.

>> Life connection

but do you think you need three for that

or maybe now that some tasks have been

you know outsourced to AI will you need

two? You can easily calculate that from

call center agents. So from call center

agents they're not firing everyone but

they're taking the first part of the

funnel and giving it to an AI. So

instead of having 2,000 agents in a in a

call center, they can now do the job

with 1,800. I'm just making that number

up. H society needs to think about the

200.

>> And you're telling me that they won't

move into other roles somewhere else.

>> I am telling you I don't know what those

roles are.

>> Well, I think we should all be

musicians. We should all be authors. We

should all be artists. We should all be

entertainers. We should all be

comedians. We should all these are roles

that will remain.

We should all be plumbers for the next 5

to 10 years. Fantastic. Okay. But even

that requires society to morph

and societyy's not talking about it.

Okay. I had this wonderful interview

with friends of mine, Peter Dendez and

and some of our friends and and they

were saying, "Oh, you know, the American

people are resilient. They're going to

be entrepreneurs." I was like,

seriously, you're expecting a truck

driver that will be replaced by an

autonomous truck to become an

entrepreneur? Like, please put yourself

in the shoes of real people,

right? You expect a single mother who

has three jobs

to become an entrepreneur.

And I'm not saying this is a dystopia.

It's a dystopia if humanity manages it

badly. Why? Because this could be the

utopia itself where that single mother

does not need three jobs.

Okay? If we of if of our society was

just enough, that single mother should

have never needed three jobs,

right? But the problem is our capitalist

mindset is labor arbitrage. Is that I

don't care what she goes through.

You know, if if you're if you're

generous in your assumption, you'll say

because, you know, of what I've been

given, I've been blessed. or if you're

mean in your assumption, it's going to

be because she's an eater. I'm a a

successful businessman. The world is

supposed to be fair. I work hard. I make

money. We don't care about them.

>> Are we asking of ourselves here

something that is not inherent in the

human condition? What I mean by that is

the reason why me and you are in this my

office here. We're on the fourth or

third floor of my office in central

London. big office, 25,000 square feet

with lights and internet connections and

Wi-Fi and modems and AI teams

downstairs. The reason that all of this

exists is because something inherent in

my ancestors meant that they built and

accomplished and grew and that was like

inherent in their DNA. There was

something in their DNA that said we will

expand and conquer and accomplish. So

that's they've passed that to us because

we're their offspring and that's why we

find ourselves in these skyscrapers.

There is truth to that story. It's not

your ancestors,

>> right?

>> What is it?

>> It's the media brainwashing you

>> really

>> 100%.

>> But if if you look back before times of

media

>> Mhm.

>> the reason why homo sapiens were so

successful was because they were able to

dominate other tribes

>> through banding together and

communication. They conquered all these

other these other um whatever came

before homo sapiens.

>> Yeah. So, so the the reason humans were

successful in my view is because they

could form a tribe to start. It's not

because of our intelligence. I always

joke and say Einstein would be eaten in

the jungle in 2 minutes.

>> Right? You know, the reason why we

succeeded is because Einstein could

partner with a a big guy that protected

him while he was working on relativity

in the jungle. Right? Now the the the

further than that. So so you have to

assume that life is a very funny game

because it provides

and then it it deprivives and then it

provides and then it deprivives. And for

some of us in that stage of deprivation

we try to say okay let's take the other

guys you know let's just go to the other

tribe take what they have or for some of

us unfortunately we tend to believe okay

you know what I'm powerful uh f the rest

of you I'm just going to be the boss now

it's interesting that you

you know position this as the condition

of humanity if you really look at the

majority of humans. What do the majority

of humans want?

Be honest. They want to hug their kids.

They want a good meal. Want good sex.

They want love. They want, you know, to

for most humans, don't measure on you

and I. Okay? Don't measure by this

foolish person that's dedicated the rest