Before Elon Musk rebranded Twitter, the letter X was already in use at Google. Google X was the company's top secret research and development lab, a place where Google's wildest and most outlandish ideas had the chance to come to life. There was only one catch. For a project to be an X project, it had to try to solve one of the world's hardest, most intractable problems. Problems so big they could only be described as moonshots. The term moonshot has become so overused it's almost lust its meaning. For a moonshot to actually be a moonshot and has to be beyond hard, stretch the limits of our imagination and have a very high chance of failure. But if it works, if it works, it could change the world. That's where astro Teller comes in. He's the co founder and CEO of X, the secret of lab behind Google's most remarkable innovations, from pioneering self driving cars, to bringing the Internet to all people in every part of the world, even finding ways to better predict natural disasters.

Before Elon Musk rebranded Twitter, the letter X was already in use at Google. Google X was the company's top secret research and development lab, a place where Google's wildest and most outlandish ideas had the chance to come to life. There was only one catch. For a project to be an X project, it had to try to solve one of the world's hardest, most intractable problems. Problems so big they could only be described as moonshots. The term moonshot has become so overused it's almost lust its meaning. For a moonshot to actually be a moonshot and has to be beyond hard, stretch the limits of our imagination and have a very high chance of failure. But if it works, if it works, it could change the world. That's where astro Teller comes in. He's the co founder and CEO of X, the secret of lab behind Google's most remarkable innovations, from pioneering self driving cars, to bringing the Internet to all people in every part of the world, even finding ways to better predict natural disasters.

So how do they do it?

So how do they do it?

Astro Teller may just be the patron saint of innovation because he has figured out some remarkable, counter intuitive ways to inspire people, push the limits and actually deliver on some incredible well moonshots, This is a bit of optimism astro. I'm you know, I'm a huge fan of yours, So the fact that you're hearing we're doing this together is just sheer joy and thrill for me.

Astro Teller may just be the patron saint of innovation because he has figured out some remarkable, counter intuitive ways to inspire people, push the limits and actually deliver on some incredible well moonshots, This is a bit of optimism astro. I'm you know, I'm a huge fan of yours, So the fact that you're hearing we're doing this together is just sheer joy and thrill for me.

Likewise, simon, thank you.

Likewise, simon, thank you.

You know you do what are affectionately known in the rest of the world as moonshots. The organization formally known as Google X now X, not to be confused with formally known as Twitter X, two different organizations, but Google X used to be the secret lab at Google where they would attempt to do what are known as moonshaw's, which is crazy, outlandish ideas that only a company with the resources and brain power of Google could do. Were you there from the very beginning?

You know you do what are affectionately known in the rest of the world as moonshots. The organization formally known as Google X now X, not to be confused with formally known as Twitter X, two different organizations, but Google X used to be the secret lab at Google where they would attempt to do what are known as moonshaw's, which is crazy, outlandish ideas that only a company with the resources and brain power of Google could do. Were you there from the very beginning?

I was so. What happened was that the founders of Google were thinking about what became Google X even for several years before it existed. They recruited someone whose name was Sebastian Thrun to run the place as they were starting to get it up and running. This is almost fifteen years ago now, and they asked him if he wanted a co founder. He and I had known each other for a long time and had been looking for an opportunity to work together. I was running a hedge fund in San Francisco at the time, and Sebastian came and asked me, would you like to come do this thing? And I said no because I was really dedicated to my esters. And then he came and asked me again, and so I went to my board of directors and I said, Okay, I'm gonna say no again, but before I do, I just want to hear that you're all as serious about what we're doing as I am. And they said, what are you crazy, astro go do that we got this covered like, so I made my CTO at that hedge fund, the CEO, and I came and helped start Google X.

I was so. What happened was that the founders of Google were thinking about what became Google X even for several years before it existed. They recruited someone whose name was Sebastian Thrun to run the place as they were starting to get it up and running. This is almost fifteen years ago now, and they asked him if he wanted a co founder. He and I had known each other for a long time and had been looking for an opportunity to work together. I was running a hedge fund in San Francisco at the time, and Sebastian came and asked me, would you like to come do this thing? And I said no because I was really dedicated to my esters. And then he came and asked me again, and so I went to my board of directors and I said, Okay, I'm gonna say no again, but before I do, I just want to hear that you're all as serious about what we're doing as I am. And they said, what are you crazy, astro go do that we got this covered like, so I made my CTO at that hedge fund, the CEO, and I came and helped start Google X.

Okay, so now now let's get into the real nitty gritty. Thank you for that. But here, let's get into the real nitty greedy because I think what every company writes on its fake values list that's written on the wall. And I say fake because.

Okay, so now now let's get into the real nitty gritty. Thank you for that. But here, let's get into the real nitty greedy because I think what every company writes on its fake values list that's written on the wall. And I say fake because.

You know, I know exactly what you mean.

You know, I know exactly what you mean.

It's just a list of stuff on a wall. But they all have innovation, right, which I think is funny because every company thinks they're innovative, but most companies are not. And even companies that say we even the companies that are that are driving to innovation, the innovations that they're thinking of are I think fair to say, even if they're good small income comparison to the stuff that you're doing over at X and have always done. Just so that people understand some of the size of the thinking that's happening there, just so we can contextualize it. Give a couple of the brands that have spun off that people might know that that came out of this brilliant lab.

It's just a list of stuff on a wall. But they all have innovation, right, which I think is funny because every company thinks they're innovative, but most companies are not. And even companies that say we even the companies that are that are driving to innovation, the innovations that they're thinking of are I think fair to say, even if they're good small income comparison to the stuff that you're doing over at X and have always done. Just so that people understand some of the size of the thinking that's happening there, just so we can contextualize it. Give a couple of the brands that have spun off that people might know that that came out of this brilliant lab.

Sure, so someones that people may be familiar with. Google Brain, which started at X, was the arguably the original epicenter of what is now this modern day explosion of deep learning, and it was the first place where really large networks were industrialized. Essentially a year or two after we did that, it was going so well in that particular case, we chose to move Google Brain back to Google. We decided that was the best way to harvest the value that was coming from that thing. Let me use one or two examples to show you the breadth. We started something which internally was called chauffeur, a long time ago. It was our exploration into self driving cars. That project has grown up. It's graduated from X it's now a standalone business inside the Alphabet family called Waimo. And so you go to San Francisco. Now you can get a ride from Waimo Cars and it's a transportation as a service experience. There's just no one sitting in the front seat, and you don't even need to be whitelisted. You just download the app, order a car, it appears, it takes you around. For listeners of yours who've tried it before, it's really exciting for the first four or five minutes, and then it's boring, and that's awesome.

Sure, so someones that people may be familiar with. Google Brain, which started at X, was the arguably the original epicenter of what is now this modern day explosion of deep learning, and it was the first place where really large networks were industrialized. Essentially a year or two after we did that, it was going so well in that particular case, we chose to move Google Brain back to Google. We decided that was the best way to harvest the value that was coming from that thing. Let me use one or two examples to show you the breadth. We started something which internally was called chauffeur, a long time ago. It was our exploration into self driving cars. That project has grown up. It's graduated from X it's now a standalone business inside the Alphabet family called Waimo. And so you go to San Francisco. Now you can get a ride from Waimo Cars and it's a transportation as a service experience. There's just no one sitting in the front seat, and you don't even need to be whitelisted. You just download the app, order a car, it appears, it takes you around. For listeners of yours who've tried it before, it's really exciting for the first four or five minutes, and then it's boring, and that's awesome.

I've had friends who've taken Waymo's in San Francisco and I was like, what's it like, as if they it's the first time on a plane, and they were like, yeah, whatever, it's an uber without a driver.

I've had friends who've taken Waymo's in San Francisco and I was like, what's it like, as if they it's the first time on a plane, and they were like, yeah, whatever, it's an uber without a driver.

And that is the highest compliment that I can imagine. Because inside of Waimo, over this fourteen year arc, we had to first solve all the safety problems, but then we had to solve like, hey, let's make sure we don't make the driver inside seasick. Now that it's safe for people outside the car, and then there are all these like third order effects like the body language of the car. We don't realize that little things that we do when we're driving, signal to people like hey, I'm gonna merge now. No really like leave me some space, all of these things it turns out we have to get good at, Like where are you going to drop someone off when they're arriving somewhere. There's so many things. It's sort of an AI hard problem. It's been an incredible ride, and the fact that it's boring is the largest compliment we could ever get.

And that is the highest compliment that I can imagine. Because inside of Waimo, over this fourteen year arc, we had to first solve all the safety problems, but then we had to solve like, hey, let's make sure we don't make the driver inside seasick. Now that it's safe for people outside the car, and then there are all these like third order effects like the body language of the car. We don't realize that little things that we do when we're driving, signal to people like hey, I'm gonna merge now. No really like leave me some space, all of these things it turns out we have to get good at, Like where are you going to drop someone off when they're arriving somewhere. There's so many things. It's sort of an AI hard problem. It's been an incredible ride, and the fact that it's boring is the largest compliment we could ever get.

I never thought about that, of course, because like when you're merging into trap, you sort of like nudge your way forward, which says you better slow down because I'm going whereas an AI model would just be like, oh, there's a space, I'm going to accelerate now, which, as you said, it's almost what's so fascinated is it's like these automative non verbal cues, right.

I never thought about that, of course, because like when you're merging into trap, you sort of like nudge your way forward, which says you better slow down because I'm going whereas an AI model would just be like, oh, there's a space, I'm going to accelerate now, which, as you said, it's almost what's so fascinated is it's like these automative non verbal cues, right.

But so of course that wasn't on the list of problems to solve to we were actually out in the world and people are saying, that's what this is the thing we really care about Okay, great to know, and then we can go solve that.

But so of course that wasn't on the list of problems to solve to we were actually out in the world and people are saying, that's what this is the thing we really care about Okay, great to know, and then we can go solve that.

Now, everybody wishes they were more innovative, and I think leaders everywhere are trying to quote unquote get their people to be more innovative. What have you learned after fifteen years at being at X that that you didn't know before but is part of the real formula? Like how do you is it how you hire? Is it the culture? Like what is it specifically that you do that lets people dream big? But also know how to make that stuff? Like how do you get innovation out of people?

Now, everybody wishes they were more innovative, and I think leaders everywhere are trying to quote unquote get their people to be more innovative. What have you learned after fifteen years at being at X that that you didn't know before but is part of the real formula? Like how do you is it how you hire? Is it the culture? Like what is it specifically that you do that lets people dream big? But also know how to make that stuff? Like how do you get innovation out of people?

So let me take a step back and make sure that we're all like on the same page about what we're trying to do, so that when I describe how we're trying to do it, it would makes sense. So what we call a moonshot has three basic parts. Number One, there has to be a huge problem with the world that you want to solve that you want to make go away. Number Two, there has to be some kind of science fiction sounding product or service that you're proposing that we would make that, however unlikely it is, we could actually make it, get it to work, get it to be cheap enough, whatever. If we could make it we can agree it would probably make that problem with the world go away. And then you have to have a proposal of some breakthrough technology for how we can take at least a run at making that thing that's sort of at least an order of magnitude better than the solutions that are currently out there. If you have those three things, we would call that a moonshot story hypothesis. You're probably wrong, but it's cool by itself. Once you get to that stage, then the question is how fast, how cheaply can we verify that you're wrong so we can get onto the next thing. Because in the early days they all sound crazy. We can't pre pick which ones are the right ones. So the best we can do is just be better than other people at filtering the ideas. That's what we try really hard to be good at. And so if you Simon worked at X and you come up with the teleportation proposal, and you have like, hey, I think I have a way of making teleportation work, and here's this crazy idea. If we can try it, but it's going to take four years and ten million dollars before we find out if we're on the right track. Nope, not interested. But if you say, hey, crazy idea. Here's how great it would be for the world if it worked. I know that it's probably not going to work, but I think we can learn something for a few tens of thousands of dollars in the next month or two. Oh yeah, you've got our attention. I don't care how unlikely it is if we can learn for that cheap and that fast. So that's the game we're playing, is churning through ideas, throwing most of them away for good reasons with evidence, And so the most fundamental thing we're doing is playing the long game and trying to have really high amounts of audacity. So we're willing to go on these unlikely journeys, but then with e equally high levels of humility, knowing right from the beginning that it's probably not going to work, and being able to be sanguine enough about it that we can be proud of going on the journey and then proud of turning off the journey when it turns out it's not the right journey, instead of resisting that reality or going through a long grieving process when it turns out not to be the right thing to do. And so all of the cultural work. It acts is about trying to help people get from this sort of gambler's mentality of innovation over into this card counting mentality of innovation where we can feel together as a community, supporting each other in this process where we are passionate about being dispassionate. We pursue each of these ideas, hoping it will work, but also realistic that most of them won't, and hungry to discover where we're wrong.

So let me take a step back and make sure that we're all like on the same page about what we're trying to do, so that when I describe how we're trying to do it, it would makes sense. So what we call a moonshot has three basic parts. Number One, there has to be a huge problem with the world that you want to solve that you want to make go away. Number Two, there has to be some kind of science fiction sounding product or service that you're proposing that we would make that, however unlikely it is, we could actually make it, get it to work, get it to be cheap enough, whatever. If we could make it we can agree it would probably make that problem with the world go away. And then you have to have a proposal of some breakthrough technology for how we can take at least a run at making that thing that's sort of at least an order of magnitude better than the solutions that are currently out there. If you have those three things, we would call that a moonshot story hypothesis. You're probably wrong, but it's cool by itself. Once you get to that stage, then the question is how fast, how cheaply can we verify that you're wrong so we can get onto the next thing. Because in the early days they all sound crazy. We can't pre pick which ones are the right ones. So the best we can do is just be better than other people at filtering the ideas. That's what we try really hard to be good at. And so if you Simon worked at X and you come up with the teleportation proposal, and you have like, hey, I think I have a way of making teleportation work, and here's this crazy idea. If we can try it, but it's going to take four years and ten million dollars before we find out if we're on the right track. Nope, not interested. But if you say, hey, crazy idea. Here's how great it would be for the world if it worked. I know that it's probably not going to work, but I think we can learn something for a few tens of thousands of dollars in the next month or two. Oh yeah, you've got our attention. I don't care how unlikely it is if we can learn for that cheap and that fast. So that's the game we're playing, is churning through ideas, throwing most of them away for good reasons with evidence, And so the most fundamental thing we're doing is playing the long game and trying to have really high amounts of audacity. So we're willing to go on these unlikely journeys, but then with e equally high levels of humility, knowing right from the beginning that it's probably not going to work, and being able to be sanguine enough about it that we can be proud of going on the journey and then proud of turning off the journey when it turns out it's not the right journey, instead of resisting that reality or going through a long grieving process when it turns out not to be the right thing to do. And so all of the cultural work. It acts is about trying to help people get from this sort of gambler's mentality of innovation over into this card counting mentality of innovation where we can feel together as a community, supporting each other in this process where we are passionate about being dispassionate. We pursue each of these ideas, hoping it will work, but also realistic that most of them won't, and hungry to discover where we're wrong.

This is a big deal and it's worth repeating, and you said it, which is moving from a gambler's mentality to a card counting mentality, which I think is a great way of put it. Most innovation, especially in big companies, happens where somebody comes up with ideas, or a group of people come up with ideas. Some executive who has to sign off on it, wants the ROI wants to know what the bet is, and they pick what they think is going to be the best bet, and if it fails it probably takes too long. They write it off and then they repeat that system and it doesn't produce high quantities of great innovation. As you said, you might hit it now and then, but it is a gambling. It was a little bit of luck or a lot of luck that it worked in the first place, exactly, whereas what you're doing is you're creating a mentality of trying, not just evaluating on paper and taking bets, and you're allowing the reality of is this possible or not to dictate if we go forwards or not. So egos kind of aren't really involved. You don't really have camps being pitted against each other that my idea is better than your idea because the data will prove whether it's viable or not. And I assume that it makes people much more cooperative that you're all trying to help each other make your ideas work, because nobody's going to be rewarded because you're not gamblers.

This is a big deal and it's worth repeating, and you said it, which is moving from a gambler's mentality to a card counting mentality, which I think is a great way of put it. Most innovation, especially in big companies, happens where somebody comes up with ideas, or a group of people come up with ideas. Some executive who has to sign off on it, wants the ROI wants to know what the bet is, and they pick what they think is going to be the best bet, and if it fails it probably takes too long. They write it off and then they repeat that system and it doesn't produce high quantities of great innovation. As you said, you might hit it now and then, but it is a gambling. It was a little bit of luck or a lot of luck that it worked in the first place, exactly, whereas what you're doing is you're creating a mentality of trying, not just evaluating on paper and taking bets, and you're allowing the reality of is this possible or not to dictate if we go forwards or not. So egos kind of aren't really involved. You don't really have camps being pitted against each other that my idea is better than your idea because the data will prove whether it's viable or not. And I assume that it makes people much more cooperative that you're all trying to help each other make your ideas work, because nobody's going to be rewarded because you're not gamblers.

What you described is our aspirational state, the actual work that's going on here. And you've spent time here at the Moonshot Factory, so you know what I'm talking about is trying to get our way step by step towards that aspiration. Because you're right, and it sounds great, but it's really hard for us to do because that's not what the rest of the world has encouraged us to be like since we were six years old. The rest of the world if I say I don't know what the answer is to your question, or I say your idea is better than mine, and we can all agree abstractly that that's the right way for us to be and that the best innovation factory would have those kind of characteristics. But that is not how you jack up your career in almost all of the world. So getting the culture to reinforce all of these pieces that are aligned with the audacity, with the humility, with taking life long time horizons. Part of the problem is we train particularly engineers, but arguably other skills too. If you're making version seventeen of some satellite, I'm sure you know what you're doing, and so you just want to be left alone for two years so you can make the next version. And you can pretty much predict what's going to make the next version better, and it's going to be incremental. It's not going to be radically better. If we're shooting over the horizon. The temptation is there in all of us to say, give me enough people, enough money, enough time, and leave me alone, let me build it right. The first time I get that temptation, the smarter people are the more that temptation is high in us. But when we're shooting over the horizon, you don't even know if you're going in the right direction. So how fast you head there is like not the question. It's like being able to work the sextant. That's important, not how fast you row in your boat.

What you described is our aspirational state, the actual work that's going on here. And you've spent time here at the Moonshot Factory, so you know what I'm talking about is trying to get our way step by step towards that aspiration. Because you're right, and it sounds great, but it's really hard for us to do because that's not what the rest of the world has encouraged us to be like since we were six years old. The rest of the world if I say I don't know what the answer is to your question, or I say your idea is better than mine, and we can all agree abstractly that that's the right way for us to be and that the best innovation factory would have those kind of characteristics. But that is not how you jack up your career in almost all of the world. So getting the culture to reinforce all of these pieces that are aligned with the audacity, with the humility, with taking life long time horizons. Part of the problem is we train particularly engineers, but arguably other skills too. If you're making version seventeen of some satellite, I'm sure you know what you're doing, and so you just want to be left alone for two years so you can make the next version. And you can pretty much predict what's going to make the next version better, and it's going to be incremental. It's not going to be radically better. If we're shooting over the horizon. The temptation is there in all of us to say, give me enough people, enough money, enough time, and leave me alone, let me build it right. The first time I get that temptation, the smarter people are the more that temptation is high in us. But when we're shooting over the horizon, you don't even know if you're going in the right direction. So how fast you head there is like not the question. It's like being able to work the sextant. That's important, not how fast you row in your boat.

So what I love about this is, I mean, so I know that we call moonshots moonshots because you know, we always like we could put a man on the moon, but we can't dot dot dot, Like I get it. It's like that we landed somebody on the moon in nineteen sixty nine, nineteen sixty nine, Faven's sakes, it is the great things to point to of human ingenuity that we use as a point of reference. And though that's true, it's your description of those three characteristics that define how X goes about pursuing ideas. It seems to mirror exactly what they did back in the sixties when Kennedy challenged everybody which was it had to be for some greater good, And in his Man to the Moon speech, he says, you know, in order to serve mankind, in order to do something great to advance the human race forwards. He literally talks about why we're doing this, the audacity that we're going to put a person on the moon and bring them back again safely, and then the trials and trials and trials to prove that I think we can do this, like we have the rocket power, we have, like we can figure this out and give it enough time, less than a decade with a computer the power of a Commodo sixty four, And we did it.

So what I love about this is, I mean, so I know that we call moonshots moonshots because you know, we always like we could put a man on the moon, but we can't dot dot dot, Like I get it. It's like that we landed somebody on the moon in nineteen sixty nine, nineteen sixty nine, Faven's sakes, it is the great things to point to of human ingenuity that we use as a point of reference. And though that's true, it's your description of those three characteristics that define how X goes about pursuing ideas. It seems to mirror exactly what they did back in the sixties when Kennedy challenged everybody which was it had to be for some greater good, And in his Man to the Moon speech, he says, you know, in order to serve mankind, in order to do something great to advance the human race forwards. He literally talks about why we're doing this, the audacity that we're going to put a person on the moon and bring them back again safely, and then the trials and trials and trials to prove that I think we can do this, like we have the rocket power, we have, like we can figure this out and give it enough time, less than a decade with a computer the power of a Commodo sixty four, And we did it.

So that's I.

So that's I.

Think the most impressive thing is not the accomplishment, it's that your three criteria match the actual moonshot.

Think the most impressive thing is not the accomplishment, it's that your three criteria match the actual moonshot.

Yes, thank you, and we are adding on. I mean, so obviously we're trying to learn from all the great work that's happened before us, Bell Labs, Xerox Park, you know, the Apollo space mission, as you were just describing, Bletchley Park during World War Two, and the invention of the computer. There's a lot to learn from. One of the things that distinguishes us from the eponymous moonshot is efficiency was not the goal, right. There was a national security and national pride issue which trumped efficiency, and that helped and then made it sort of a special case. We do not have that benefit we are and should be held to an efficiency standard. In principle, what distinguishes a part of what distinguishes gambling from being a card counter like everything that we're doing here, Yes, those three circles and the intersection, it has to have those three things, but it's also how are we going to pursue this as efficiently as possible? So it's not just can we do it? So let me give you an example of something that I think is a learning that we've had that's very much in the culture here. Now. We call it moonshot compost. So we take a run at something a lot of people are passionate about it. I'll use an example. We have a moonshot now for helping the electric grids of the world move into the twenty first century in a variety of ways, so that we can help them to take care of the grids as they are, plan for the grids as they want to be in the future, and operate the grids in real time in ways that will make them much greener and more resilient. That doesn't exist, we think we can make it. The moonshot we have now, which is called tapestry, is actually well on its way to doing that, and that is not our first run at that particular problem, and when we took previous runs at it and they didn't work out, And I still remember the conversation I had with somebody internally where they talked about doing another run at it, and I said, fine, it's a huge problem with the world. I would love to see it fixed. Can we please make sure that we learn everything possible from all the ways it didn't work before, so when we take our next run at it, or at least somewhat more likely to do it, we don't duplicate any of our past mistakes. And so that concept of moonshot compost is one of maybe ten cultural memes here that people really get that when we try to learn in a space and it doesn't work, when we stop it, many of the people stay, the patents stay, the code stays, we maintain some partnerships, and so then when we try again, we're not starting from scratch. We have all of this like learning and intellectual momentum that we can already build on. Even if the project has a new name, we're kind of starting over.

Yes, thank you, and we are adding on. I mean, so obviously we're trying to learn from all the great work that's happened before us, Bell Labs, Xerox Park, you know, the Apollo space mission, as you were just describing, Bletchley Park during World War Two, and the invention of the computer. There's a lot to learn from. One of the things that distinguishes us from the eponymous moonshot is efficiency was not the goal, right. There was a national security and national pride issue which trumped efficiency, and that helped and then made it sort of a special case. We do not have that benefit we are and should be held to an efficiency standard. In principle, what distinguishes a part of what distinguishes gambling from being a card counter like everything that we're doing here, Yes, those three circles and the intersection, it has to have those three things, but it's also how are we going to pursue this as efficiently as possible? So it's not just can we do it? So let me give you an example of something that I think is a learning that we've had that's very much in the culture here. Now. We call it moonshot compost. So we take a run at something a lot of people are passionate about it. I'll use an example. We have a moonshot now for helping the electric grids of the world move into the twenty first century in a variety of ways, so that we can help them to take care of the grids as they are, plan for the grids as they want to be in the future, and operate the grids in real time in ways that will make them much greener and more resilient. That doesn't exist, we think we can make it. The moonshot we have now, which is called tapestry, is actually well on its way to doing that, and that is not our first run at that particular problem, and when we took previous runs at it and they didn't work out, And I still remember the conversation I had with somebody internally where they talked about doing another run at it, and I said, fine, it's a huge problem with the world. I would love to see it fixed. Can we please make sure that we learn everything possible from all the ways it didn't work before, so when we take our next run at it, or at least somewhat more likely to do it, we don't duplicate any of our past mistakes. And so that concept of moonshot compost is one of maybe ten cultural memes here that people really get that when we try to learn in a space and it doesn't work, when we stop it, many of the people stay, the patents stay, the code stays, we maintain some partnerships, and so then when we try again, we're not starting from scratch. We have all of this like learning and intellectual momentum that we can already build on. Even if the project has a new name, we're kind of starting over.

So again, this is something that you know, even though it is the adage, you know you to get it right, or you learn a lesson how many organizations are actually like pulling out the old data to be like, all right, we're gonna try this again. Let's let's spend some time to sort of like go through so we don't repeat the mistakes. You know, a friend of mine who is a consultant says of her clients, they never have the time and money to do it right the first time, but they always have the time and money to do it again right.

So again, this is something that you know, even though it is the adage, you know you to get it right, or you learn a lesson how many organizations are actually like pulling out the old data to be like, all right, we're gonna try this again. Let's let's spend some time to sort of like go through so we don't repeat the mistakes. You know, a friend of mine who is a consultant says of her clients, they never have the time and money to do it right the first time, but they always have the time and money to do it again right.

And I'm so glad you brought up Never time to do it right, but always time to do it over right. That stuff gets brought up at X all the time because that's what they learn in the rest of the world. And measure twice, cut once. It's like a seamstress saying, when the most expensive thing you have is the fabric and you pretty much know what you're gonna do, measure twice and cut once makes sense. But when you have no idea what the real problem even is, let alone what the solution is, it might be that there is no solution, or that now isn't the time to find a solution, that the tech needs to move forward another decade. Who knows the whole concept of doing it right the first time is just out the window.

And I'm so glad you brought up Never time to do it right, but always time to do it over right. That stuff gets brought up at X all the time because that's what they learn in the rest of the world. And measure twice, cut once. It's like a seamstress saying, when the most expensive thing you have is the fabric and you pretty much know what you're gonna do, measure twice and cut once makes sense. But when you have no idea what the real problem even is, let alone what the solution is, it might be that there is no solution, or that now isn't the time to find a solution, that the tech needs to move forward another decade. Who knows the whole concept of doing it right the first time is just out the window.

Oh that's such a it screws with our heads, as you said, because you've had it drilled in us, you know. So that must be the hardest thing you have to do. Is when you're taking people who are not twelve years old and you're hiring them and you have to unteach them their incentive structures, their reward structures, their grade structures, that everything that they did to get to the point of being smart enough, good enough, talented enough to get a job with you, And they're like, congratulations, Now forget everything you've learned. You're going to try something new. That must be the single hardest thing you have to deal.

Oh that's such a it screws with our heads, as you said, because you've had it drilled in us, you know. So that must be the hardest thing you have to do. Is when you're taking people who are not twelve years old and you're hiring them and you have to unteach them their incentive structures, their reward structures, their grade structures, that everything that they did to get to the point of being smart enough, good enough, talented enough to get a job with you, And they're like, congratulations, Now forget everything you've learned. You're going to try something new. That must be the single hardest thing you have to deal.

With, exactly right. You know you've probably heard that really great painters who break all the rules learn first how to follow the rules. Yes, we want the same thing and the people who work at X if we're trying to do something really radical, we don't want people who are starting at zero. We want people with all of the skills to do things the normal way, who also have the mental plasticity to put that aside, to glimber up as individuals, but more importantly as groups, and to say Okay, Now, how can we be productively nonconformist bringing our skills to the table, but not all of our biases and the habits, Because, as they say, the tools that got you here won't get you there. Right. If you're going to bring to bear on some really big problem the same things that everyone else has been trying, you shouldn't expect to get better results than everyone else is bringing.

With, exactly right. You know you've probably heard that really great painters who break all the rules learn first how to follow the rules. Yes, we want the same thing and the people who work at X if we're trying to do something really radical, we don't want people who are starting at zero. We want people with all of the skills to do things the normal way, who also have the mental plasticity to put that aside, to glimber up as individuals, but more importantly as groups, and to say Okay, Now, how can we be productively nonconformist bringing our skills to the table, but not all of our biases and the habits, Because, as they say, the tools that got you here won't get you there. Right. If you're going to bring to bear on some really big problem the same things that everyone else has been trying, you shouldn't expect to get better results than everyone else is bringing.

Can you give some specific guidance as how you actually do do that at a cultural level, from a leadership standpoint, how do you actually get people to let go?

Can you give some specific guidance as how you actually do do that at a cultural level, from a leadership standpoint, how do you actually get people to let go?

My experience is that at first you have to give them some intellectual architecture that gives them a boost while they sort of get into the flow of things. You can't just say let it go. That doesn't work.

My experience is that at first you have to give them some intellectual architecture that gives them a boost while they sort of get into the flow of things. You can't just say let it go. That doesn't work.

Get everything you've learned right.

Get everything you've learned right.

So an example which I know you've heard, but many of your listeners won't. For many years, I was just saying, we have to work on the hardest parts of the problem first. Yeah, And it just was clearly not working for people at X And then I was at a Wall Street Journal live conference and someone asked me about just like you're doing, and I said, work on the hardest parts of the problem first, and they said, what does that mean? I don't get it. And I said, look, hyperbolically, if you were trying to teach a monkey to stand on the top of a ten foot pedestal and recite Shakespeare, what should you do first? Train the monkey or build the pedestal? In that extreme circumstance, I think we could all agree there's no point building the pedestal first, because you've removed zero percent of the risk, right. All of the risk is can you train the monkey?

So an example which I know you've heard, but many of your listeners won't. For many years, I was just saying, we have to work on the hardest parts of the problem first. Yeah, And it just was clearly not working for people at X And then I was at a Wall Street Journal live conference and someone asked me about just like you're doing, and I said, work on the hardest parts of the problem first, and they said, what does that mean? I don't get it. And I said, look, hyperbolically, if you were trying to teach a monkey to stand on the top of a ten foot pedestal and recite Shakespeare, what should you do first? Train the monkey or build the pedestal? In that extreme circumstance, I think we could all agree there's no point building the pedestal first, because you've removed zero percent of the risk, right. All of the risk is can you train the monkey?

Right?

Right?

But when you actually look in slightly more subtle circumstances, all over the world, almost all the time, everyone's building pedestals because then you can be half done. You spent a couple of years, you got a bonus, you got a promotion. And if it's incremental, if you kind there isn't a lot of risk and its possibility, it's just hard work. Yeah, then it's fine to do the pedestal first, because it's kind of all pedestal. But just me saying that, it became a meme here at X and so now people literally put little monkey icons by the parts of what they're working on in slide decks that are like the make or break it part of what they're doing. And so that is an intellectual architecture that has helped people focus in on are we really de risking the hard parts now or are we kicking the can down the road and sort of chickening way.

But when you actually look in slightly more subtle circumstances, all over the world, almost all the time, everyone's building pedestals because then you can be half done. You spent a couple of years, you got a bonus, you got a promotion. And if it's incremental, if you kind there isn't a lot of risk and its possibility, it's just hard work. Yeah, then it's fine to do the pedestal first, because it's kind of all pedestal. But just me saying that, it became a meme here at X and so now people literally put little monkey icons by the parts of what they're working on in slide decks that are like the make or break it part of what they're doing. And so that is an intellectual architecture that has helped people focus in on are we really de risking the hard parts now or are we kicking the can down the road and sort of chickening way.

Yeah, yeah, and you're right because because egos are fragile, right, and we've all been in this meeting where you know, we spent two years and spent ten million dollars, you know, building the pedestal that because we don't want hurt anybody's feelings, we go, great job to the Monkey Shakespeare project team, brilliant job building this pedestal. That's exactly what we envision with this perfect pedestal. We just want to say good work to everybody, you know, keep keep keep it up. And we do that. We sort of halfway there, halfway there, and just want to just a quick high five to to the Monkey team for building a great pedestal. And we do this in the meetings because for good reasons, we don't want to be like, what the hell are you doing building the pedestal? Like train the monkeys?

Yeah, yeah, and you're right because because egos are fragile, right, and we've all been in this meeting where you know, we spent two years and spent ten million dollars, you know, building the pedestal that because we don't want hurt anybody's feelings, we go, great job to the Monkey Shakespeare project team, brilliant job building this pedestal. That's exactly what we envision with this perfect pedestal. We just want to say good work to everybody, you know, keep keep keep it up. And we do that. We sort of halfway there, halfway there, and just want to just a quick high five to to the Monkey team for building a great pedestal. And we do this in the meetings because for good reasons, we don't want to be like, what the hell are you doing building the pedestal? Like train the monkeys?

Right. I'll give you another example when when someone cancels their own project, which is arguably the pinnacle of what we're trying to do here. It's very hard, it doesn't happen all the time. But when people do that, we stand them up at an X all hands meeting, we give them a standing ovation, We give them all very large bonuses, and we make a point to exers every single time. This is the rate limiting step of innovation. Not coming up with ideas. I don't think anyone's much better than random and coming up with ideas. Not killing off bad ideas. Anyone can kill off bad ideas. It's killing off the pretty good ones, the ones that are still feel possible and we want them to work. But when the project leads says, you know what the reward risk ratio of this thing? Now that we've are two years in, we've learned a lot, it's just not as good as some of the other stuff going on at X, and I think we should stop working on this. I hope I find another project to work on, and that's of course better for X, and it's better for them as individuals. So that's another example.

Right. I'll give you another example when when someone cancels their own project, which is arguably the pinnacle of what we're trying to do here. It's very hard, it doesn't happen all the time. But when people do that, we stand them up at an X all hands meeting, we give them a standing ovation, We give them all very large bonuses, and we make a point to exers every single time. This is the rate limiting step of innovation. Not coming up with ideas. I don't think anyone's much better than random and coming up with ideas. Not killing off bad ideas. Anyone can kill off bad ideas. It's killing off the pretty good ones, the ones that are still feel possible and we want them to work. But when the project leads says, you know what the reward risk ratio of this thing? Now that we've are two years in, we've learned a lot, it's just not as good as some of the other stuff going on at X, and I think we should stop working on this. I hope I find another project to work on, and that's of course better for X, and it's better for them as individuals. So that's another example.

It goes into composts, right, because if you came up with Netflix twenty years ago, the technical was DVDs, that's the best you could do is upgrade from videotape. But that's the best you could do. So you would put it on the pile, and then as the Internet matured, you'd be like, Okay, let's take it off the pile and try again now that we have the Internet exactly exactly.

It goes into composts, right, because if you came up with Netflix twenty years ago, the technical was DVDs, that's the best you could do is upgrade from videotape. But that's the best you could do. So you would put it on the pile, and then as the Internet matured, you'd be like, Okay, let's take it off the pile and try again now that we have the Internet exactly exactly.

And that happens regularly here, that we're too early, and sometimes we're too early and we come back to it. That's happened quite a few times. Sometimes we're too early, and the world comes back to it Google Glass for various reasons. Arguably we were too early, but we were exactly right. There's now a whole bunch of work and products being sold that are very much in the vein of Google Glass. So you know, we were pressing it. But our job is to arguably our job is to be the right amounts too early. But in order to be the right amounts too early, we not infrequently have to be too too early. We'll be right back.

And that happens regularly here, that we're too early, and sometimes we're too early and we come back to it. That's happened quite a few times. Sometimes we're too early, and the world comes back to it Google Glass for various reasons. Arguably we were too early, but we were exactly right. There's now a whole bunch of work and products being sold that are very much in the vein of Google Glass. So you know, we were pressing it. But our job is to arguably our job is to be the right amounts too early. But in order to be the right amounts too early, we not infrequently have to be too too early. We'll be right back.

Our only company, and he's like, Google able to do this because there's a lot of failure, which means there's a lot of waste, which means you need a lot of money. You know, how is this methodology or mentality transferable to a startup or a lesser resource to organization like my little company. I don't think I could afford to do this, or could I.

Our only company, and he's like, Google able to do this because there's a lot of failure, which means there's a lot of waste, which means you need a lot of money. You know, how is this methodology or mentality transferable to a startup or a lesser resource to organization like my little company. I don't think I could afford to do this, or could I.

I mean, I don't know that you could afford to do it at the scale that we're doing it. But if you said to your team, I would like to whatever it is, I'd like to have ten times as many podcast listeners a year from now. Instead of having one idea about how we're going to do that, we're going to spend a month coming up with one hundred crazy ideas. Then we're going to spend two months beating the crap out of all of those hundred ideas. We'll have used up three of the twelve months that we have. Then we're going to spend another three months on the top four ideas and give them each a chance to like prove their weight, and then we're going to push the last six months the best of those four ideas. I guarantee you you will make more progress on building your listenership for your podcast doing that than if you picked some idea and just hoped you were right from the beginning and pushed really hard for twelve months. So that is exactly the process that we're doing.

I mean, I don't know that you could afford to do it at the scale that we're doing it. But if you said to your team, I would like to whatever it is, I'd like to have ten times as many podcast listeners a year from now. Instead of having one idea about how we're going to do that, we're going to spend a month coming up with one hundred crazy ideas. Then we're going to spend two months beating the crap out of all of those hundred ideas. We'll have used up three of the twelve months that we have. Then we're going to spend another three months on the top four ideas and give them each a chance to like prove their weight, and then we're going to push the last six months the best of those four ideas. I guarantee you you will make more progress on building your listenership for your podcast doing that than if you picked some idea and just hoped you were right from the beginning and pushed really hard for twelve months. So that is exactly the process that we're doing.

You do realize that, one example, you have screwed a lot of people's heads right now. You've screwed with a lot of people's heads right now, because we're all rethinking how we do this stuff. Like I think we all embarrassingly take bets and it's because we're afraid of losing. And you're not saying you're gonna lose. You're saying the irony is is there's less risk in your assessment than in the and then the way we traditionally exactly, I think great irony is your wasteful method quote unquote is actually more efficient, less wasteful, and more effective than the gambling method.

You do realize that, one example, you have screwed a lot of people's heads right now. You've screwed with a lot of people's heads right now, because we're all rethinking how we do this stuff. Like I think we all embarrassingly take bets and it's because we're afraid of losing. And you're not saying you're gonna lose. You're saying the irony is is there's less risk in your assessment than in the and then the way we traditionally exactly, I think great irony is your wasteful method quote unquote is actually more efficient, less wasteful, and more effective than the gambling method.

Right. And so most people think Google's doing this because they have infinite money. I think that Google's letting us do this because they're inspired and they understand. But we're creating value disproportionately, which is why they're still giving us money to do this.

Right. And so most people think Google's doing this because they have infinite money. I think that Google's letting us do this because they're inspired and they understand. But we're creating value disproportionately, which is why they're still giving us money to do this.

Has there been a project that I know your nature is to be like, well, give it a try, But has there been one where you sort of said give it a try, but in your head you're like, yeah, no, like this this is actually outlandish, and we're forced to eat your hat.

Has there been a project that I know your nature is to be like, well, give it a try, But has there been one where you sort of said give it a try, but in your head you're like, yeah, no, like this this is actually outlandish, and we're forced to eat your hat.

Oh constantly, God stilly. Let me tell you about one that I'm really excited about now, and I remember just being like, no, we now have something that's graduated from X. It's on the outside. That is a substantially cheaper way to pull CO two out of the atmosphere than other people have figured out how to do. It's the world's largest snow globe. The team has figured out a way to on very small pieces of sand basically MorphOS silica, put these little chemical fingers called means that are designed to hang on to the sand and to grab CO two molecules out of the air at one temperature, at a colder temperature, and that at a higher temperature, they let go of it. And then the trick is part of why it's so expensive to grab CO two from the air is that you have to get it up to almost like ninety degrees celsius before it we'll let go. The team designed a way to get it down to about forty five degrees celsius, and that turns out is the heat of waste that comes out of factories in data centers. You can get all of the forty five degrees celsius heat you want almost anywhere in the world. So all of a sudden, the single biggest cost just evaporated. Imagine now, six years ago, somebody who was a genius engineer but maybe not a genius communicator trying to describe making the world's largest snow globe and how this was going to solve climate change. When that was described in the beginning, I is deeply, deeply dubious, And here we are six years later. It's a super excit. It's one of the things we're most proud about that's come out of x. It's called two eighty Earth if people want to look into it, to eighty Earth, to eighty Earth. The number of parts per million of CO two in the atmosphere now is about four hundred and eighty, very roughly, but pre industrialization it was at two hundred and eighty parts per million. So the goal is how do we get back there?

Oh constantly, God stilly. Let me tell you about one that I'm really excited about now, and I remember just being like, no, we now have something that's graduated from X. It's on the outside. That is a substantially cheaper way to pull CO two out of the atmosphere than other people have figured out how to do. It's the world's largest snow globe. The team has figured out a way to on very small pieces of sand basically MorphOS silica, put these little chemical fingers called means that are designed to hang on to the sand and to grab CO two molecules out of the air at one temperature, at a colder temperature, and that at a higher temperature, they let go of it. And then the trick is part of why it's so expensive to grab CO two from the air is that you have to get it up to almost like ninety degrees celsius before it we'll let go. The team designed a way to get it down to about forty five degrees celsius, and that turns out is the heat of waste that comes out of factories in data centers. You can get all of the forty five degrees celsius heat you want almost anywhere in the world. So all of a sudden, the single biggest cost just evaporated. Imagine now, six years ago, somebody who was a genius engineer but maybe not a genius communicator trying to describe making the world's largest snow globe and how this was going to solve climate change. When that was described in the beginning, I is deeply, deeply dubious, And here we are six years later. It's a super excit. It's one of the things we're most proud about that's come out of x. It's called two eighty Earth if people want to look into it, to eighty Earth, to eighty Earth. The number of parts per million of CO two in the atmosphere now is about four hundred and eighty, very roughly, but pre industrialization it was at two hundred and eighty parts per million. So the goal is how do we get back there?

The thing that I'm I'm realizing that is one of the big problems. And I'll admit it happens in our company too. The skeptical authority giver here's ideas all the time and goes, ah, I don't think so. And the amount of ideas that get killed by a person who may or may not fully understand what's happening, or has bias or baggage or whatever. And I've done it. I've heard ideas that I've killed because I think it's a waste of money, and I'm playing the gambling game.

The thing that I'm I'm realizing that is one of the big problems. And I'll admit it happens in our company too. The skeptical authority giver here's ideas all the time and goes, ah, I don't think so. And the amount of ideas that get killed by a person who may or may not fully understand what's happening, or has bias or baggage or whatever. And I've done it. I've heard ideas that I've killed because I think it's a waste of money, and I'm playing the gambling game.

And now we're back to I don't care how crazy your idea is. I care how inexpensively we can explore it. There's only one thing on the door of my huddle. It's a blown up picture of the tarot card of the fool. The beginning of a journey is sacred. It's full of mystery and wonder. You can expect to get laughed at. If my job here was to stop all the bad adventures, there wouldn't be any adventures. That's why most places don't do radical innovation. So instead, I say, we're going to start almost every adventure that we can do it relatively and expensively in the early days. Yes, and here's what I want in exchange from you, Simon. If you're going to work here at X, you can start crazy ideas that no one else will start, but you have to make a deal with me right at the beginning. We're not going to fall in love with this thing and then try for the rest of your life to prove that you're right. In exchange for me let you go on this journey. You have to be committed to the intellectual, honest process of finding evidence and then agreeing together with us, what does that evidence tell us about whether we should keep going. If you can do that with us, then we can start on these crazy journeys.

And now we're back to I don't care how crazy your idea is. I care how inexpensively we can explore it. There's only one thing on the door of my huddle. It's a blown up picture of the tarot card of the fool. The beginning of a journey is sacred. It's full of mystery and wonder. You can expect to get laughed at. If my job here was to stop all the bad adventures, there wouldn't be any adventures. That's why most places don't do radical innovation. So instead, I say, we're going to start almost every adventure that we can do it relatively and expensively in the early days. Yes, and here's what I want in exchange from you, Simon. If you're going to work here at X, you can start crazy ideas that no one else will start, but you have to make a deal with me right at the beginning. We're not going to fall in love with this thing and then try for the rest of your life to prove that you're right. In exchange for me let you go on this journey. You have to be committed to the intellectual, honest process of finding evidence and then agreeing together with us, what does that evidence tell us about whether we should keep going. If you can do that with us, then we can start on these crazy journeys.

This is magic, right, which is most companies when they do innovation, they're looking to how efficiently we can get to yes? In other words, how efficiently we can get to a minimum viable product. And you're saying, how efficiently can I get to know? How efficiently can I prove that? This is the wrong.

This is magic, right, which is most companies when they do innovation, they're looking to how efficiently we can get to yes? In other words, how efficiently we can get to a minimum viable product. And you're saying, how efficiently can I get to know? How efficiently can I prove that? This is the wrong.

Answer for radical innovation. Ninety nine percent of the things we're going to try, the answer should be no. So if our attitude going in is how fast we can get to yes, God, are we going to waste theart?

Answer for radical innovation. Ninety nine percent of the things we're going to try, the answer should be no. So if our attitude going in is how fast we can get to yes, God, are we going to waste theart?

And by the way, this is very grounded in reality. In other places, the same year that Babe Ruth broke the record for home runs, he also broke the record for strikeouts. If you want radical innovation, you have to be willing to strike out more than anybody else.

And by the way, this is very grounded in reality. In other places, the same year that Babe Ruth broke the record for home runs, he also broke the record for strikeouts. If you want radical innovation, you have to be willing to strike out more than anybody else.

Those strikeouts, they hurt us, right, It's why I'm somewhat fairly like branded is like the high priest of failure. I hate failure. I don't want to fail. But I'm obsessed with learning and what we can get from learning. And if we avoid failure because of all of the ways in which we think will be censured by our peers, by our spouses, by our managers when we fail, and then we avoid it. What we're doing, whether we acknowledge it or not, is we're avoiding learning because the moment where you thought something would happen in the world and it didn't happen. That is, by definition, when you heard you don't learn anything when you're right.

Those strikeouts, they hurt us, right, It's why I'm somewhat fairly like branded is like the high priest of failure. I hate failure. I don't want to fail. But I'm obsessed with learning and what we can get from learning. And if we avoid failure because of all of the ways in which we think will be censured by our peers, by our spouses, by our managers when we fail, and then we avoid it. What we're doing, whether we acknowledge it or not, is we're avoiding learning because the moment where you thought something would happen in the world and it didn't happen. That is, by definition, when you heard you don't learn anything when you're right.

This stuff is interesting. Oh my god, I mean so the stuff that you're saying makes so much sense and there's so much logic. Why aren't all companies doing innovation like this? And why are we still gambling? And I don't buy into because you know, that's how people are taught to do it, because we will adapt. You know, companies, especially you know Horrish companies. If there's a more efficient way to get something out of it and extract something, they'll do it, right they'll incentivize people to do it. Why aren't more companies copying you?

This stuff is interesting. Oh my god, I mean so the stuff that you're saying makes so much sense and there's so much logic. Why aren't all companies doing innovation like this? And why are we still gambling? And I don't buy into because you know, that's how people are taught to do it, because we will adapt. You know, companies, especially you know Horrish companies. If there's a more efficient way to get something out of it and extract something, they'll do it, right they'll incentivize people to do it. Why aren't more companies copying you?

Arguably you are one of the high priests of being human is hard, and tuning up our and managing our psychology to get the most out of ourselves as individuals and teams is hard. Everything we're talking about, it's not the technology, it's the personal stuff. It's working on ourselves and practicing a set of habits that are really easy to describe but are very hard to practice because they're not what's encouraged in the rest of the world, and it's what we spend our energy on. And I think most people aren't yet ready to put in that level of cultural engineering, and it takes a level of sort of passion and playing the long game, believing in people, believing the best in them. There's a bit of a trust and what we're talking about it makes sense, but I think there's a level of dispassion necessary and belief in the process necessary when you're card counting that for people who aren't really believing in the process, I'm glad that you're a believer, but you have to really believe before you start practicing it. I'm going to be interested over a beer sometime to ask you whether you tried the one hundred crazy ideas that you winnowed down to one idea. You said it was a great idea and it was cracking everyone's brain open. I'm going to ask you next time over a beer whether you actually did it. It's harder than it sounds, even though it's right. Fair bet, we'll be right back. What are some of the cultural.

Arguably you are one of the high priests of being human is hard, and tuning up our and managing our psychology to get the most out of ourselves as individuals and teams is hard. Everything we're talking about, it's not the technology, it's the personal stuff. It's working on ourselves and practicing a set of habits that are really easy to describe but are very hard to practice because they're not what's encouraged in the rest of the world, and it's what we spend our energy on. And I think most people aren't yet ready to put in that level of cultural engineering, and it takes a level of sort of passion and playing the long game, believing in people, believing the best in them. There's a bit of a trust and what we're talking about it makes sense, but I think there's a level of dispassion necessary and belief in the process necessary when you're card counting that for people who aren't really believing in the process, I'm glad that you're a believer, but you have to really believe before you start practicing it. I'm going to be interested over a beer sometime to ask you whether you tried the one hundred crazy ideas that you winnowed down to one idea. You said it was a great idea and it was cracking everyone's brain open. I'm going to ask you next time over a beer whether you actually did it. It's harder than it sounds, even though it's right. Fair bet, we'll be right back. What are some of the cultural.

Things that you do at X that work that other people could easily implement, that start to move a culture in that direction, moving from gambler to car counter that you've.

Things that you do at X that work that other people could easily implement, that start to move a culture in that direction, moving from gambler to car counter that you've.

Learned over the years.

Learned over the years.

That you've learned over the years.

That you've learned over the years.

I think it's actually a huge number of small things, and I'll give you an example or two. But it starts if you understand the process which we just described, then you need to send a ton of signals to your people. This is what we care about. So for example, if you come into our lobby, you won't see finished versions of all our products. You will see in processed versions, beaten up versions where they got beat up and dirty, the janky early ones in the field. And the reason is because we're actually proud of the learning and the getting in touch with the real world as fast as possible. We're not proud about the outcomes. We're proud about the process. But if you don't show that in the jewel case in your lobby, people know. They not consciously, but unconsciously they notice when you come into our building, the walls are literally plywood. The whole building kind of yells to you unconsciously this place is a work in progress. There's graffiti, I mean like graffiti from when the building was built, things like you know gas line, you know, a little arrow pointing up on the pillars here, like right next to me, And we don't remove them because we want to tell the people who work here everything is a work in progress. So we have purposefully done hundreds of things like that to try to send each other the signals we're here to have fun. We're serious about being playful. We know that we're going to try crazy things and then we're going to do hard filtering because we're humble enough to do that. But everything has to send that signal, and it's lots of little stuff like that, like putting the fool. I think most CEOs would be uncomfortable putting the fool as the only thing on the door of their office. That is one of the hundreds of ways that I try to say to people. It's about the journey. It's not about taking ourself, God forbid, not about taking me too Seriously, You're.

I think it's actually a huge number of small things, and I'll give you an example or two. But it starts if you understand the process which we just described, then you need to send a ton of signals to your people. This is what we care about. So for example, if you come into our lobby, you won't see finished versions of all our products. You will see in processed versions, beaten up versions where they got beat up and dirty, the janky early ones in the field. And the reason is because we're actually proud of the learning and the getting in touch with the real world as fast as possible. We're not proud about the outcomes. We're proud about the process. But if you don't show that in the jewel case in your lobby, people know. They not consciously, but unconsciously they notice when you come into our building, the walls are literally plywood. The whole building kind of yells to you unconsciously this place is a work in progress. There's graffiti, I mean like graffiti from when the building was built, things like you know gas line, you know, a little arrow pointing up on the pillars here, like right next to me, And we don't remove them because we want to tell the people who work here everything is a work in progress. So we have purposefully done hundreds of things like that to try to send each other the signals we're here to have fun. We're serious about being playful. We know that we're going to try crazy things and then we're going to do hard filtering because we're humble enough to do that. But everything has to send that signal, and it's lots of little stuff like that, like putting the fool. I think most CEOs would be uncomfortable putting the fool as the only thing on the door of their office. That is one of the hundreds of ways that I try to say to people. It's about the journey. It's not about taking ourself, God forbid, not about taking me too Seriously, You're.

Right, people want to put their trophies in the front because they want you to see, look at our amazing accomplishments. They don't put the bumpy journey to get there and celebrate the bumpy journey. They celebrate the wins. I don't know if I've told you this or not, but it's a perfect reminder. And of I got the chance to get to know doctor James Carse, who is the originator of Finite and Infinite Games before he died, and when I first met him, many people come up with theories about how the world works, but cars came up with a truth. And that's once in a hundred years. And so of course I'm like, I couldn't wait to sit down with him. And the first question the poor guy, like I barely said hello. The first question I asked him is how did you come up with it?

Right, people want to put their trophies in the front because they want you to see, look at our amazing accomplishments. They don't put the bumpy journey to get there and celebrate the bumpy journey. They celebrate the wins. I don't know if I've told you this or not, but it's a perfect reminder. And of I got the chance to get to know doctor James Carse, who is the originator of Finite and Infinite Games before he died, and when I first met him, many people come up with theories about how the world works, but cars came up with a truth. And that's once in a hundred years. And so of course I'm like, I couldn't wait to sit down with him. And the first question the poor guy, like I barely said hello. The first question I asked him is how did you come up with it?

Like?

Like?

How did you come up with a truth like finite and Infinite games? And he was saying back in the seventies, there were all of these intellectual salons that would they would bring together you know, a mathematician, a philosopher, you know, a finance guy, you know whatever. And game theory was all the rage in the seventies, kind of like AI now, like it's all anybody wanted to talk to. It's the subject of every conference, right, was game theory. And he was invited to one of these salons. And by the way, the Prisoner's Dilemma was one of the things that came out of one of these salons. So he went to the salon and they're all talking about winning and losing, and they're all of their thinking is about how to win, how to win, how to avoid loss, and he raised the question what about playing, and they basically ignored him. And he comes back home and he's sort of now that he has this idea stuck in his head, he starts to view the world through this lens and he sees his own kids, and he sees when they play ping pong, there's always fighting, there's always an accusation of cheating, and it often doesn't end well, right. But when they do lego or they're drawing, or they're you know, building something it's quiet. It goes on for hours. One kid leaves to go do something for another hour, comes back. It's you know, the kids are rotating, but the game remains. And he realized play without an end is way more innovative, and the things that they were inventing was way more powerful than a competition.

How did you come up with a truth like finite and Infinite games? And he was saying back in the seventies, there were all of these intellectual salons that would they would bring together you know, a mathematician, a philosopher, you know, a finance guy, you know whatever. And game theory was all the rage in the seventies, kind of like AI now, like it's all anybody wanted to talk to. It's the subject of every conference, right, was game theory. And he was invited to one of these salons. And by the way, the Prisoner's Dilemma was one of the things that came out of one of these salons. So he went to the salon and they're all talking about winning and losing, and they're all of their thinking is about how to win, how to win, how to avoid loss, and he raised the question what about playing, and they basically ignored him. And he comes back home and he's sort of now that he has this idea stuck in his head, he starts to view the world through this lens and he sees his own kids, and he sees when they play ping pong, there's always fighting, there's always an accusation of cheating, and it often doesn't end well, right. But when they do lego or they're drawing, or they're you know, building something it's quiet. It goes on for hours. One kid leaves to go do something for another hour, comes back. It's you know, the kids are rotating, but the game remains. And he realized play without an end is way more innovative, and the things that they were inventing was way more powerful than a competition.

And he was the only one.

And he was the only one.

Who talked about the value of playing over the value of the outcome of winning and losing. And even the prisoner's dilemma is about is a win loss scenario? Falsely, I might add, And I think what is so magical about X and you and your leadership and your culture and what you're doing is you're one of the very few organizations that has fully staked its flag on playing, knowing that the creativity, the cooperation, the joy, the fun, the getting to leave join is way more powerful than incentivizing people on win or loss. That it is the janky version on the way that you can laugh at and say, I remember that, yeah, and is what it's about.

Who talked about the value of playing over the value of the outcome of winning and losing. And even the prisoner's dilemma is about is a win loss scenario? Falsely, I might add, And I think what is so magical about X and you and your leadership and your culture and what you're doing is you're one of the very few organizations that has fully staked its flag on playing, knowing that the creativity, the cooperation, the joy, the fun, the getting to leave join is way more powerful than incentivizing people on win or loss. That it is the janky version on the way that you can laugh at and say, I remember that, yeah, and is what it's about.

And we have these different sayings to try to get at this idea that we want to be. We want to shape the play without killing the joy and creativity of the play. So sometimes we say responsibly irresponsible. Someone recently said a term I kind of like, he said, the non stupid suspension of disbelief. That's what we have to do in the early days of a project. Say like, it's very hard to get at it. But I think it's like you need rigor and directionality to it, or it's just random, but you need to have it be so that the play is guided to cause efficiency, not so much that it turns back into a grim grinding of the gears, because you're not going to get radical innovation out of that.