Also media, Hello and welcome to Better Offline. I'm your host ed zich Tron. As ever, remember you can buy Better Offline merchandise linkers in the episode notes. Today, I am joined by Karen Howe, the author of the upcoming book Empire of Ai, which tells the story of Open Ai and the arms rais surrounding large language models. Karen, thank you for joining me.

Also media, Hello and welcome to Better Offline. I'm your host ed zich Tron. As ever, remember you can buy Better Offline merchandise linkers in the episode notes. Today, I am joined by Karen Howe, the author of the upcoming book Empire of Ai, which tells the story of Open Ai and the arms rais surrounding large language models. Karen, thank you for joining me.

Thank you so much for having me ed.

Thank you so much for having me ed.

So you describe the progress of these models in these companies as a kind of colonialism, Can you get into that for me?

So you describe the progress of these models in these companies as a kind of colonialism, Can you get into that for me?

Yeah, So, if you think about the way that empires of old operated during the very long history of European colonialism, they were essentially taking resources that were not their own, exploiting massive amounts of labor as in not paying them or paying them extremely small amounts of money, and they were doing this all under a civilizing mission, this idea that they were bringing modernity and progress to all of humanity, when in fact what was actually happening was they were just fortifying themselves and the empire, and the people at the top of the empire, and everyone else that kind of lived in the world had to live in the thrash of what the people at the top decided based on their whims for what was part of their self serving agenda. And that's essentially what we're seeing with Empires of AI today, where they are taking data that is not their own, their laying claim to it. They're taking land, they're taking energy, they're taking water. They are exploiting massive amounts of labor, both labor that goes into the inputs for developing these am models, but also exploiting labor in the sense that they are ultimately creating labor automating technologies that is eroding away people's labor rights as we speak, and they're doing it under this civilizing mission of they are doing it for the benefit of all of humanity. And what I say in the book is Empires of AI they're not as overtly violent as empires of old. And so maybe that can become confusing and people think, oh, well, it can't be that bad. But the thing is, we've had one hundred and fifty years of social and moral progress, and so empires of modern day are going to look different in the way that empires of old operated. And when you look just at like the actual parallels, there are just so many extraordinary parallels between the kind of basis of empire building back then and now that I think it is fundamentally the only frame that I have found to really help understand and grapple with the sheer scope and scale and the actual like what is actually happening here within the AI industry.

Yeah, So, if you think about the way that empires of old operated during the very long history of European colonialism, they were essentially taking resources that were not their own, exploiting massive amounts of labor as in not paying them or paying them extremely small amounts of money, and they were doing this all under a civilizing mission, this idea that they were bringing modernity and progress to all of humanity, when in fact what was actually happening was they were just fortifying themselves and the empire, and the people at the top of the empire, and everyone else that kind of lived in the world had to live in the thrash of what the people at the top decided based on their whims for what was part of their self serving agenda. And that's essentially what we're seeing with Empires of AI today, where they are taking data that is not their own, their laying claim to it. They're taking land, they're taking energy, they're taking water. They are exploiting massive amounts of labor, both labor that goes into the inputs for developing these am models, but also exploiting labor in the sense that they are ultimately creating labor automating technologies that is eroding away people's labor rights as we speak, and they're doing it under this civilizing mission of they are doing it for the benefit of all of humanity. And what I say in the book is Empires of AI they're not as overtly violent as empires of old. And so maybe that can become confusing and people think, oh, well, it can't be that bad. But the thing is, we've had one hundred and fifty years of social and moral progress, and so empires of modern day are going to look different in the way that empires of old operated. And when you look just at like the actual parallels, there are just so many extraordinary parallels between the kind of basis of empire building back then and now that I think it is fundamentally the only frame that I have found to really help understand and grapple with the sheer scope and scale and the actual like what is actually happening here within the AI industry.

One theme from the book I also noticed was that despite all of the backs and forths between all the people, very rarely product came out. Though, Like it was interesting, there seemed to be all that these sations about research and all of these things they were saying, but it usually just ended with like some sort of release and then kind of just moved on. Yeah, it almost it almost makes me wonder what they're always what they're working on half the time.

One theme from the book I also noticed was that despite all of the backs and forths between all the people, very rarely product came out. Though, Like it was interesting, there seemed to be all that these sations about research and all of these things they were saying, but it usually just ended with like some sort of release and then kind of just moved on. Yeah, it almost it almost makes me wonder what they're always what they're working on half the time.

Yeah, you know, it's I think it's a product of two different things that that you noticed that in the book. One is that I finished writing the book before a lot of the most recent product releases came out, Right, That's just the nature of writing things on the timescale of.

Yeah, you know, it's I think it's a product of two different things that that you noticed that in the book. One is that I finished writing the book before a lot of the most recent product releases came out, Right, That's just the nature of writing things on the timescale of.

Books, is it's not fun.

Books, is it's not fun.

Yeah. I froze the manuscript in like the early days of January, right before Deep Seek, right before Stargate, right before you know, a string of other releases. So that's one is that through most of open AI's history, it is really it was really more focused on research conversations, and it's only been in the last year or so that it's really dramatically shifted much more to talking about product. But the second reason is that I personally like that is my expertise. I came up in AI reporting covering the research, and so I wanted to focus on that in the book and really unpack it, especially because there's not as much reporting on the research these days, and I wanted to kind of track that history and the internal conversations that happened when people say that they're developing so called AGI and.

Yeah. I froze the manuscript in like the early days of January, right before Deep Seek, right before Stargate, right before you know, a string of other releases. So that's one is that through most of open AI's history, it is really it was really more focused on research conversations, and it's only been in the last year or so that it's really dramatically shifted much more to talking about product. But the second reason is that I personally like that is my expertise. I came up in AI reporting covering the research, and so I wanted to focus on that in the book and really unpack it, especially because there's not as much reporting on the research these days, and I wanted to kind of track that history and the internal conversations that happened when people say that they're developing so called AGI and.

You talk about in twenty nineteen in the book the your rose colored Glasses got knocked off by a story? What was it that really made you start being suspicious of these companies?

You talk about in twenty nineteen in the book the your rose colored Glasses got knocked off by a story? What was it that really made you start being suspicious of these companies?

Yeah, So in twenty nineteen was when I started covering Opening Eye, and I embedded within the company for three days in August of twenty nineteen to profile what had then become a newly minted capped profit nested in a nonprofit. And I think the thing that but that really started tipping me off was it was actually really small things. Initially, the first thing was they publicly professed to be this bastion of transparency and they were going to share all their research to the world, and they had accumulated a significant amount of good will on the basis of this idea, and they were raising not literally fundraising, but they had amassed a lot of capital on the basis of this idea. And when I started embedding within the company, I realized that they were incredibly secretive, like they were not. They wouldn't allow me to see anything or time to anyone beyond very strictly sanctioned conversations. And even in those conversations, I would notice that researchers were giving side eye to the communications officer every other sentence because they were worried about stepping into a lane that was considered proprietary. And I was like, wait a minute, why are there things that are proprietary, and why are the people being secretive if all this is supposed to ultimately be shared with the public. But the other thing was when I was talking with executives, Like the very first interview that I had was with Greg Brockman and Ilia Setskav, the CTO and she's scientist, And I just asked them very basic questions, like why do you think we should spend this much money on Agi and not on something else? And can you articulate for me what does AGI look like? What would you even want Agi to do? And can you articulate for me? You know, part of their origin story as a company was they want to build agi good agi first before the bad people built bad Agi. So I was like, well, what would bad agi look like as well? Or like what are the harms that are coming out of some of this rapid AI progress? And they weren't able to answer any of those questions. And that was when I thought, hold on a second, Like I thought that this was a nonprofit meant to care counter some of the ills of Silicon Valley, one of the ills being that the most companies end up being thrown boatloads of cash without like clear articulated ideas about what they're going to do with that cash. And here I am in this meeting room trying to just ask the most basic question, like the most boiler plate stuff that there should be some kind of answer too, uh, And they can't even answer that. So it seems like it is actually very much just an animal of Silicon Valley. This is not actually something different from what we're seeing with the rest of the tech industry.

Yeah, So in twenty nineteen was when I started covering Opening Eye, and I embedded within the company for three days in August of twenty nineteen to profile what had then become a newly minted capped profit nested in a nonprofit. And I think the thing that but that really started tipping me off was it was actually really small things. Initially, the first thing was they publicly professed to be this bastion of transparency and they were going to share all their research to the world, and they had accumulated a significant amount of good will on the basis of this idea, and they were raising not literally fundraising, but they had amassed a lot of capital on the basis of this idea. And when I started embedding within the company, I realized that they were incredibly secretive, like they were not. They wouldn't allow me to see anything or time to anyone beyond very strictly sanctioned conversations. And even in those conversations, I would notice that researchers were giving side eye to the communications officer every other sentence because they were worried about stepping into a lane that was considered proprietary. And I was like, wait a minute, why are there things that are proprietary, and why are the people being secretive if all this is supposed to ultimately be shared with the public. But the other thing was when I was talking with executives, Like the very first interview that I had was with Greg Brockman and Ilia Setskav, the CTO and she's scientist, And I just asked them very basic questions, like why do you think we should spend this much money on Agi and not on something else? And can you articulate for me what does AGI look like? What would you even want Agi to do? And can you articulate for me? You know, part of their origin story as a company was they want to build agi good agi first before the bad people built bad Agi. So I was like, well, what would bad agi look like as well? Or like what are the harms that are coming out of some of this rapid AI progress? And they weren't able to answer any of those questions. And that was when I thought, hold on a second, Like I thought that this was a nonprofit meant to care counter some of the ills of Silicon Valley, one of the ills being that the most companies end up being thrown boatloads of cash without like clear articulated ideas about what they're going to do with that cash. And here I am in this meeting room trying to just ask the most basic question, like the most boiler plate stuff that there should be some kind of answer too, uh, And they can't even answer that. So it seems like it is actually very much just an animal of Silicon Valley. This is not actually something different from what we're seeing with the rest of the tech industry.

It felt as well, that was a comment and forgive me for forgetting it exactly where where it was like the all secrets could be written on a grain of rice or something like that. Yeah, and I have to admit, as I read it, I got this weird feeling like does anyone actually have any ip because when you actually look at the conversations they're having, and you likely privy to more hair, it felt like they wouldn't talk about what they were doing at all, and not I say, this is run apof written a lot about the valley. It feels like they'd say more, but no one wanted to say anything, not even secret. It's like nobody really knew. And you even described some of the managerial stuff in there, like no one really knew what was going on anyway. It just feels like a remarkably disorganized company considering the scale.

It felt as well, that was a comment and forgive me for forgetting it exactly where where it was like the all secrets could be written on a grain of rice or something like that. Yeah, and I have to admit, as I read it, I got this weird feeling like does anyone actually have any ip because when you actually look at the conversations they're having, and you likely privy to more hair, it felt like they wouldn't talk about what they were doing at all, and not I say, this is run apof written a lot about the valley. It feels like they'd say more, but no one wanted to say anything, not even secret. It's like nobody really knew. And you even described some of the managerial stuff in there, like no one really knew what was going on anyway. It just feels like a remarkably disorganized company considering the scale.

Yeah, so I think early on at Opening Eye was completely disorganized in the sense that they had no idea. You know, they decide, Okay, we're going to build this ag I think, but then they were like, what does that even mean? We have no idea, And there was a lot of there weren't real managers at the company either, because they had just gathered up a bunch of researchers from academia, and they didn't really have much of a sense of how to organize themselves other than a traditional academic lab where there's a professor and grad students, and I mean academia, you know, as it's has its function, But that ultimately wasn't the right structure for trying to move a group of people towards a similar goal. And over time, Opening Eye did start cleaning itself up a little bit, It did start restructuring itself. It started focusing more on GPT models because they hit on that in around twenty eighteen twenty nineteen. But similarly, there's still just because there's no clarity about its mission and ultimately what it is trying to build, you end up with just a lot of riffs within the organization over this very fundamental question. People fundamentally disagree about what Opening I is. They disagree about what AGI is, They disagree about what it means to ensure that something should benefit all of humanity. And I think because there was all this confusion or there were all these different interpretations ultimately of these like basic tenants of the organization. I think people also just there was they wouldn't quite clearly articulate to one another what they were doing. It wasn't necessarily that they were trying to be secretive to one another. It was more just that they weren't really on the same page. And this eventually became sort of less and less true in the sense that as sam Oltman's installed himself as CEO and started really exerting a particular type of path for AI progress, then they started having, you know, research documents that explicitly articulated we are a scaling lab, like we are going after scale way.

Yeah, so I think early on at Opening Eye was completely disorganized in the sense that they had no idea. You know, they decide, Okay, we're going to build this ag I think, but then they were like, what does that even mean? We have no idea, And there was a lot of there weren't real managers at the company either, because they had just gathered up a bunch of researchers from academia, and they didn't really have much of a sense of how to organize themselves other than a traditional academic lab where there's a professor and grad students, and I mean academia, you know, as it's has its function, But that ultimately wasn't the right structure for trying to move a group of people towards a similar goal. And over time, Opening Eye did start cleaning itself up a little bit, It did start restructuring itself. It started focusing more on GPT models because they hit on that in around twenty eighteen twenty nineteen. But similarly, there's still just because there's no clarity about its mission and ultimately what it is trying to build, you end up with just a lot of riffs within the organization over this very fundamental question. People fundamentally disagree about what Opening I is. They disagree about what AGI is, They disagree about what it means to ensure that something should benefit all of humanity. And I think because there was all this confusion or there were all these different interpretations ultimately of these like basic tenants of the organization. I think people also just there was they wouldn't quite clearly articulate to one another what they were doing. It wasn't necessarily that they were trying to be secretive to one another. It was more just that they weren't really on the same page. And this eventually became sort of less and less true in the sense that as sam Oltman's installed himself as CEO and started really exerting a particular type of path for AI progress, then they started having, you know, research documents that explicitly articulated we are a scaling lab, like we are going after scale way.

How long did it take them to put those documents together though? What year about?

How long did it take them to put those documents together though? What year about?

I think their first research roadmap was in twenty seventeen, so it was one and a half years to them so bad into the non profit Yeah, yeah.

I think their first research roadmap was in twenty seventeen, so it was one and a half years to them so bad into the non profit Yeah, yeah.

So I will admit there is another colonial thing that stood out well. Two specifically, One, it definitely feels that there are a lot of unintelligent cousin types who were put in there because their mate was there throughout the company. But two it's this kind of religious view around agi, this kind of nebulous justification for just about every I was disappointed, and I understand what you mentioned it like did Yadowski was in there? I think the less wrong people. This is a personal belief. Just no need to mention them again for anyone. I think that Yadowski, anyone who writes a six hundred thousand word Harry Potter book should be put in prison, including JK. Rowling. But it feels like there really is this belief system that's pushed throughout this industry which mirrors colonialism. Mirror is the very judao Christian push of the British and many other colonial entities.

So I will admit there is another colonial thing that stood out well. Two specifically, One, it definitely feels that there are a lot of unintelligent cousin types who were put in there because their mate was there throughout the company. But two it's this kind of religious view around agi, this kind of nebulous justification for just about every I was disappointed, and I understand what you mentioned it like did Yadowski was in there? I think the less wrong people. This is a personal belief. Just no need to mention them again for anyone. I think that Yadowski, anyone who writes a six hundred thousand word Harry Potter book should be put in prison, including JK. Rowling. But it feels like there really is this belief system that's pushed throughout this industry which mirrors colonialism. Mirror is the very judao Christian push of the British and many other colonial entities.

Yeah. Absolutely so. One of the things that I was most surprised by when reporting the book is I had seen all the divisions around boomers and boomers people saying hey, I can bring us to Utopiera, people saying I can kill us all. I really did think initially that it was just rhetoric and that it was just a tool for accruing more power. And the thing that surprised me most was how many people I met that genuinely deeply believed in both, especially the Dumer ideology like I was interviewing people whose voices were quivering because they were talking about their anxiety around the potential end of the world, and that was a very sincere reaction. And I think that is part You're exactly right that it is a huge parallel with empire building in the past, is that empires need to have an ideology that convinces themselves why they are ultimately doing something that is for the benefit of the world. So in the past, when they had the civilizing mission, we're bringing this to the world. It also wasn't rhetoric. It was also a deeply seated religious and spiritual and scientific belief that they were doing something that was better off for everyone.

Yeah. Absolutely so. One of the things that I was most surprised by when reporting the book is I had seen all the divisions around boomers and boomers people saying hey, I can bring us to Utopiera, people saying I can kill us all. I really did think initially that it was just rhetoric and that it was just a tool for accruing more power. And the thing that surprised me most was how many people I met that genuinely deeply believed in both, especially the Dumer ideology like I was interviewing people whose voices were quivering because they were talking about their anxiety around the potential end of the world, and that was a very sincere reaction. And I think that is part You're exactly right that it is a huge parallel with empire building in the past, is that empires need to have an ideology that convinces themselves why they are ultimately doing something that is for the benefit of the world. So in the past, when they had the civilizing mission, we're bringing this to the world. It also wasn't rhetoric. It was also a deeply seated religious and spiritual and scientific belief that they were doing something that was better off for everyone.

I mean, the origins of the BBC in England were religious indoctrination on some level. It kind of it's I admit I'm surprised to hear the quivering voices stuff I think because I think that again, this personal opinion, Ydowski, I think is full. I think a lot of those less wrong guys are full of shit. I think they're doing it for not for the bit. But it's the same kind of horse trading shit that people do around anything. It's like, we don't have anything to believe in, so let's all agree on this. But it's interesting to hear that people are I don't know how to put this, actually believing this crap even though it doesn't feel like there's any real evidence. You know.

I mean, the origins of the BBC in England were religious indoctrination on some level. It kind of it's I admit I'm surprised to hear the quivering voices stuff I think because I think that again, this personal opinion, Ydowski, I think is full. I think a lot of those less wrong guys are full of shit. I think they're doing it for not for the bit. But it's the same kind of horse trading shit that people do around anything. It's like, we don't have anything to believe in, so let's all agree on this. But it's interesting to hear that people are I don't know how to put this, actually believing this crap even though it doesn't feel like there's any real evidence. You know.

Yeah, well, I think the analogy that I've started using is I really feel like opening Eyes done, where you know, in Dune, there is a mythology that is created by a certain group of people with four understanding that they're creating a mythology, right right, But then as they start to embody and act out this mythology, not only do many many people who didn't know that it was originally created come to believe it, also the people who created it come to believe it themselves. And I think this is essentially exactly what is happening within AI with the ideologies, is that maybe there was at some point someone who was more aware that there was some kind of rhetorical trick that they were playing around, really propagating this kind of belief, but it is not We're not at that point anymore. Like, there are lots and lots of people who genuinely believe these things, and I think it's self perpetuating because when you believe it, you look for signs of it, and you research things that would suggest more evidence for your belief and so they're kind of continuing to reinforce their beliefs. And the more these A models have progressed, the stronger these beliefs have become. Because whether you believe AI will bring utopia or dystopia, there is an abundance of evidence that you can point to now to reinforce your own yeah, exactly, to reinforce your own starting point. And so it's sort of like a microcosm of society today where you know, most the average person no longer encounters information that can change their minds. It just continues to entrench whatever they already believed before.

Yeah, well, I think the analogy that I've started using is I really feel like opening Eyes done, where you know, in Dune, there is a mythology that is created by a certain group of people with four understanding that they're creating a mythology, right right, But then as they start to embody and act out this mythology, not only do many many people who didn't know that it was originally created come to believe it, also the people who created it come to believe it themselves. And I think this is essentially exactly what is happening within AI with the ideologies, is that maybe there was at some point someone who was more aware that there was some kind of rhetorical trick that they were playing around, really propagating this kind of belief, but it is not We're not at that point anymore. Like, there are lots and lots of people who genuinely believe these things, and I think it's self perpetuating because when you believe it, you look for signs of it, and you research things that would suggest more evidence for your belief and so they're kind of continuing to reinforce their beliefs. And the more these A models have progressed, the stronger these beliefs have become. Because whether you believe AI will bring utopia or dystopia, there is an abundance of evidence that you can point to now to reinforce your own yeah, exactly, to reinforce your own starting point. And so it's sort of like a microcosm of society today where you know, most the average person no longer encounters information that can change their minds. It just continues to entrench whatever they already believed before.

Do you believe Sam Moultman believes this shite? Do you think he believes in the AGI? Is he part of it?

Do you believe Sam Moultman believes this shite? Do you think he believes in the AGI? Is he part of it?

It's really It's really interesting because I think the no matter who I interviewed, and no matter how long they worked with Sam Aultman or how closely they worked with Sam Altman, and not a single person was able to fully articulate what his beliefs are. And I think that is very much by design.

It's really It's really interesting because I think the no matter who I interviewed, and no matter how long they worked with Sam Aultman or how closely they worked with Sam Altman, and not a single person was able to fully articulate what his beliefs are. And I think that is very much by design.

Is that it's beautiful that's.

Is that it's beautiful that's.

Yeah, and and and and and it wasn't. And they would explicitly say this too. They would they would call out, I'm not actually sure what he believes. And this was the most consistent thing that people said about him.

Yeah, and and and and and it wasn't. And they would explicitly say this too. They would they would call out, I'm not actually sure what he believes. And this was the most consistent thing that people said about him.

I really noticed as well. If you read your book and you really look, you actually can't get much of an idea of who Sam Mortman is at all, And in fact, you can't work out why he's brilliant at all. And I've read a lot of stuff about Sam Moultman. The long and short of it I can understand is that he's got good psychology and he's really charming. Everyone talks about the psychology and the charming, and it's just really it. It is so busy. He's so a bizarre man like everything about him is so like. The way that people talk about him is so strange.

I really noticed as well. If you read your book and you really look, you actually can't get much of an idea of who Sam Mortman is at all, And in fact, you can't work out why he's brilliant at all. And I've read a lot of stuff about Sam Moultman. The long and short of it I can understand is that he's got good psychology and he's really charming. Everyone talks about the psychology and the charming, and it's just really it. It is so busy. He's so a bizarre man like everything about him is so like. The way that people talk about him is so strange.

Yeah, So this is what I sort of concluded about why he's able to pull off what he does. He is a once in a generation talent when it comes to storytelling, and he has a loose relationship with the truth, yes, which is a really powerful combination. And so when he's talking to someone, he shines most when he's talking to small groups of people in one on one meetings, and what he says is more tightly correlated with what that person needs to hear rather than what he believes, which is part of the reason why people say, ultimately like they don't really know what he believes because he doesn't really indicate it. And so I think that is what makes him incredibly persuasive. And he is really good at understanding people and what they and what they want, and you know, he's well resourced, so he's able to then deliver to them what they need and want. And what I realized is with that kind of talent, you would inherently be incredibly polarizing as a figure, because if the person agrees with you, you're the best asset in the world for what they want to achieve. You're incredibly persuasive, You're able to get the resources you can do exactly what that person can do for you, exactly what you want them to do. But if you disagree with this person, that person becomes the greatest threat ever because they are so persuasive. You have fear that they're going to be able to carry out exactly what you don't want them to carry out. And so that kind of boils down to why he's just such an enigmatic and extremely polarizing person. Is it really depends on whether or not someone agrees or disagree with him.

Yeah, So this is what I sort of concluded about why he's able to pull off what he does. He is a once in a generation talent when it comes to storytelling, and he has a loose relationship with the truth, yes, which is a really powerful combination. And so when he's talking to someone, he shines most when he's talking to small groups of people in one on one meetings, and what he says is more tightly correlated with what that person needs to hear rather than what he believes, which is part of the reason why people say, ultimately like they don't really know what he believes because he doesn't really indicate it. And so I think that is what makes him incredibly persuasive. And he is really good at understanding people and what they and what they want, and you know, he's well resourced, so he's able to then deliver to them what they need and want. And what I realized is with that kind of talent, you would inherently be incredibly polarizing as a figure, because if the person agrees with you, you're the best asset in the world for what they want to achieve. You're incredibly persuasive, You're able to get the resources you can do exactly what that person can do for you, exactly what you want them to do. But if you disagree with this person, that person becomes the greatest threat ever because they are so persuasive. You have fear that they're going to be able to carry out exactly what you don't want them to carry out. And so that kind of boils down to why he's just such an enigmatic and extremely polarizing person. Is it really depends on whether or not someone agrees or disagree with him.

He also doesn't seem that smart. I don't know, he seems quite good at talking to people, but when I hear him talk, he doesn't seem that eloquent. And it makes me wonder if perhaps Sam Mortman is a symptom of a greater problem that so much of our power, structure and money is based on someone making decisions based on the last intelligent person or intelligent seeming person they talk to.

He also doesn't seem that smart. I don't know, he seems quite good at talking to people, but when I hear him talk, he doesn't seem that eloquent. And it makes me wonder if perhaps Sam Mortman is a symptom of a greater problem that so much of our power, structure and money is based on someone making decisions based on the last intelligent person or intelligent seeming person they talk to.

Yeah, I mean, I think our society is also just we still have such a have we worship people that are wealthy. Yeah, like, And so even if he's not saying something that is convincing you in real time, he has all of the kind of indicators that this person has been remarkably successful and you should listen to what he says because then that will make you successful too, right, And so I think that is part of the part of the kind of mythos around him, is that if you can join up with him, it will greatly enrich you. And you know, like, there's a lot of evidence to suggest that too, that like, there have been plenty of people that I've allied themselves with Sam Aulman and that have become much richer for it. And so whether or not people are joining up with him because they necessarily one hundred percent agree with like his ideology or his actions or anything like that, or if it's if it's more because ultimately they get to benefit from that alliance, I think is Yeah, what.

Yeah, I mean, I think our society is also just we still have such a have we worship people that are wealthy. Yeah, like, And so even if he's not saying something that is convincing you in real time, he has all of the kind of indicators that this person has been remarkably successful and you should listen to what he says because then that will make you successful too, right, And so I think that is part of the part of the kind of mythos around him, is that if you can join up with him, it will greatly enrich you. And you know, like, there's a lot of evidence to suggest that too, that like, there have been plenty of people that I've allied themselves with Sam Aulman and that have become much richer for it. And so whether or not people are joining up with him because they necessarily one hundred percent agree with like his ideology or his actions or anything like that, or if it's if it's more because ultimately they get to benefit from that alliance, I think is Yeah, what.

Most feels like, it's people connecting with other people to see how far they can get, far more than AI. Because one of the other things I really noticed when you were telling the story of the firing Sam Wulman getting fired in No. Twenty twenty three, As much as people wanted to pretend, they kept bringing up the tender and to explain for the listeners the tender was the open AI hadn't had a plans to let have plans to let people sell their stock. It really felt like that was more the primary concern than any loyalty to Altman.

Most feels like, it's people connecting with other people to see how far they can get, far more than AI. Because one of the other things I really noticed when you were telling the story of the firing Sam Wulman getting fired in No. Twenty twenty three, As much as people wanted to pretend, they kept bringing up the tender and to explain for the listeners the tender was the open AI hadn't had a plans to let have plans to let people sell their stock. It really felt like that was more the primary concern than any loyalty to Altman.

It was. I wouldn't say it was the primary concern, but I mean, yeah, it really depended on.

It was. I wouldn't say it was the primary concern, but I mean, yeah, it really depended on.

Who I was.

Who I was.

It's taught, Yeah, exactly like every employee sort of had a different calculus that ultimately led them to revolt against the board and want Altman back, And there were different calculuses among Microsoft and investors. But one of the key things that I think is uh necessary to understand just why there is so much seeming loyalty around Altman in general, is he is very very good at at establishing relationships with money involved, where he is the lynchpin to the other person accessing that much yes, and so the tender offer is a perfect example of this, and that employees ultimately they realized that Altman is just really he's really good at fundraising, and whether or not an employee believes in the AGI thing, they all agreed that open AA ultimately needs an enormous amount of capital, and also many of them are doing it in part because they can then like guarantee their own financial future. And so with Altman gone, it became increasingly clear that open a I wouldn't survive, and so that's not something that a lot of employees wanted. It became clear that even if Opening I did survive, they would be a lot more short changed in terms of the amount of capital that they would be able to get because he would no longer be their champion for that, and also the tender offer could potentially go away and they would not be personally enriched as well, and you know, many of them. The thing to also understand is like it's very expensive to live in the Bay Area, and so for the worker, for the employees, in the moment, losing the tender offer wasn't like oh no, I'm going to lose like my retirement. It was also this sense of like, I'm literally going to lose my financial security right now, like I already tried to, I already bought, you know, a house based on the fact. I feel like you mentioned that yeah, yeah.

It's taught, Yeah, exactly like every employee sort of had a different calculus that ultimately led them to revolt against the board and want Altman back, And there were different calculuses among Microsoft and investors. But one of the key things that I think is uh necessary to understand just why there is so much seeming loyalty around Altman in general, is he is very very good at at establishing relationships with money involved, where he is the lynchpin to the other person accessing that much yes, and so the tender offer is a perfect example of this, and that employees ultimately they realized that Altman is just really he's really good at fundraising, and whether or not an employee believes in the AGI thing, they all agreed that open AA ultimately needs an enormous amount of capital, and also many of them are doing it in part because they can then like guarantee their own financial future. And so with Altman gone, it became increasingly clear that open a I wouldn't survive, and so that's not something that a lot of employees wanted. It became clear that even if Opening I did survive, they would be a lot more short changed in terms of the amount of capital that they would be able to get because he would no longer be their champion for that, and also the tender offer could potentially go away and they would not be personally enriched as well, and you know, many of them. The thing to also understand is like it's very expensive to live in the Bay Area, and so for the worker, for the employees, in the moment, losing the tender offer wasn't like oh no, I'm going to lose like my retirement. It was also this sense of like, I'm literally going to lose my financial security right now, like I already tried to, I already bought, you know, a house based on the fact. I feel like you mentioned that yeah, yeah.

That was someone who put money.

That was someone who put money.

Yeah, who put plenty of money down, and that the tender offer dissolving was a real financial stress. It was a threat to their financial existence in the life.

Yeah, who put plenty of money down, and that the tender offer dissolving was a real financial stress. It was a threat to their financial existence in the life.

I imagine so, But I'm just the way it was framed in public was that this was some big loyalty thing where everyone was like, I love open Ai and Sam Altman, and that just didn't feel like it was what was happening. That people seemed angry at Ilia, but they just seemed angry because something changed, rather than.

I imagine so, But I'm just the way it was framed in public was that this was some big loyalty thing where everyone was like, I love open Ai and Sam Altman, and that just didn't feel like it was what was happening. That people seemed angry at Ilia, but they just seemed angry because something changed, rather than.

Like, yeah, yeah, I mean I think I think there were certainly people within the company that did feel loyalty to Altman and and and that was one of their primary motivating things. But by and Leche, when I was interviewing lots of employees for understanding like what ultimately led them to rally around Sam, there was actually more more practical concerns than just personal loyalty that was driving the thing, whether it was financial or whether it was just I really believe in Agi and I don't want open Aiye to go away because it'll scrap all of the work that we've done. And of course, you know, of course the narrative would I mean, the open ai themselves have been pushing again and again and again this idea that all of the employee or whatever, more than ninety percent of the employees ended up signing the petition, and they show they cite this number as just a show of solidarity and loyalty to Altman. But then, of course, if you look at the track record after the Boyd crisis of how many people have subsequently left the company once once things have sort of stabilized and there isn't a crisis situation, that is I think much more revealing of how much loyalty people have to him.

Like, yeah, yeah, I mean I think I think there were certainly people within the company that did feel loyalty to Altman and and and that was one of their primary motivating things. But by and Leche, when I was interviewing lots of employees for understanding like what ultimately led them to rally around Sam, there was actually more more practical concerns than just personal loyalty that was driving the thing, whether it was financial or whether it was just I really believe in Agi and I don't want open Aiye to go away because it'll scrap all of the work that we've done. And of course, you know, of course the narrative would I mean, the open ai themselves have been pushing again and again and again this idea that all of the employee or whatever, more than ninety percent of the employees ended up signing the petition, and they show they cite this number as just a show of solidarity and loyalty to Altman. But then, of course, if you look at the track record after the Boyd crisis of how many people have subsequently left the company once once things have sort of stabilized and there isn't a crisis situation, that is I think much more revealing of how much loyalty people have to him.

So tell me about Jack Clock. So Jack Clock is the what is he? And he's one of the co founders of Anthropic. Now, yeah, I, without putting you on the spot, kind of feels like Jack Clark has got off a little easy with everyone not even saying you. You're one of the few people. Jack Clark worked at The Register, which is an extremely critical IT publication, and now he's out in conferences saying that AI agents will control everything. He just feels like one of the weirdest characters in this whole story.

So tell me about Jack Clock. So Jack Clock is the what is he? And he's one of the co founders of Anthropic. Now, yeah, I, without putting you on the spot, kind of feels like Jack Clark has got off a little easy with everyone not even saying you. You're one of the few people. Jack Clark worked at The Register, which is an extremely critical IT publication, and now he's out in conferences saying that AI agents will control everything. He just feels like one of the weirdest characters in this whole story.

Yeah, Yeah, it's interesting. Like when I went to profile Opening Eye in twenty nineteen, I actually the first person I reached out to was Jack because I had spoken to him before and he had until then, until recently been playing communications for head for Open Eye, and then he had shifted into a policy role. And I remember when I when I was at the company, I was like, hey, Jack, like, do you think you can actually give me more access to seeing the things that I like, stuff that I like to say? Yeah, Like I was literally I was literally asking so they wouldn't let me go beyond the first floor. There were there's there were three floors second.

Yeah, Yeah, it's interesting. Like when I went to profile Opening Eye in twenty nineteen, I actually the first person I reached out to was Jack because I had spoken to him before and he had until then, until recently been playing communications for head for Open Eye, and then he had shifted into a policy role. And I remember when I when I was at the company, I was like, hey, Jack, like, do you think you can actually give me more access to seeing the things that I like, stuff that I like to say? Yeah, Like I was literally I was literally asking so they wouldn't let me go beyond the first floor. There were there's there were three floors second.

And I'm so sorry there's computers there. There's not It's not like they have an AI machine. Come on.

And I'm so sorry there's computers there. There's not It's not like they have an AI machine. Come on.

Yeah, And I was like, hey, like, can I just literally just go up to the second? Can you like take me up and just like let me walk around? And he looked at me with this like like deep deep side eye of like no, Karen, like you absolutely cannot. And I was like, so, Fawny, you're a former journalist. You know how this works. Like the.

Yeah, And I was like, hey, like, can I just literally just go up to the second? Can you like take me up and just like let me walk around? And he looked at me with this like like deep deep side eye of like no, Karen, like you absolutely cannot. And I was like, so, Fawny, you're a former journalist. You know how this works. Like the.

Jack Frow in twenty fourteen for The Register was shock an a w West the fall of Amazon's deflationary cloud, just as Jeff Bezos did the books and see these Amazon's rivals are now doing it. He used to write these like very grouchy l reg style pig It's just so weird.

Jack Frow in twenty fourteen for The Register was shock an a w West the fall of Amazon's deflationary cloud, just as Jeff Bezos did the books and see these Amazon's rivals are now doing it. He used to write these like very grouchy l reg style pig It's just so weird.

Yeah, I mean I think this is like I've.

Yeah, I mean I think this is like I've.

But it gets back to the thing you were saying about the kind of the doctrine.

But it gets back to the thing you were saying about the kind of the doctrine.

Yeah. So, like, because I started covering this company intoing nineteen, I talked with people then that I then talked to for the book, and I was able to sort of have this unique opportunity to track how people's individual beliefs evolve when they are seeped in this world, and there were people that I was talking to back then that were like, I don't really believe in this AGI thing, that by the time I was talking to them for the book were like AGI all the way, like that this is a genuine, true belief. And I think there's a lot of reasons for this transformation, Like one is that you are only talking to people who believe this, so you're just constantly in this environment where you're not talking to people who are challenging or testing that belief and instead just like continuously being reinforced in this echo chamber. But I think there's another thing that I kind of came to realize while reporting on the book is like people who really really believe that AGI is possible, that we will actually be able to replicate human intelligence. It's not a belief about what AI is capable of. It is a belief about what human intelligence is. And a lot of people in the AI world today have this belief that human intelligence or everything in the world is inherently computable and all you have to do is just a mass more data and more compute and eventually you will get to that thing. You will be able to replicate that thing. And when you are in this kind of environment where you have people constantly arguing to you that this is why AGA is possible, because everything is computable, and then you see the rapid clip of your models being able to do more and more functions that you know other people outside in society previously would have suggested were not possible. It's sort of the self reinforcing belief machine, like it just manufacturers gives you yeah, exactly, And so I think. And one of the things that I also have just has a general realization not just with opening eye but in general. When I'm covering tech companies, I kind of have a policy for myself to do a little bit of a detox after I spend a lot of time talking with them, because it is really like, when you're talking with all of these people that exist in this world, you do adopt their worldview, and you do adopt their talking points, and you do see things through their eyes. And usually I then have to like let myself just be in the actual world for a little bit and remind myself of what the average person thinks and what the average person values, and remind myself that there are you know, there are problems beyond the Silicon Valley's borders that just look fundamentally different from what they conceive the world to be. And so I did that with the Opening Eye profile. I did that with I profiled Facebook years ago, and I that with Facebook. I did that with the book, where I would interview lots of people in like these big batches and kind of really do my best to try and occupy their shoes for a couple of weeks a month, and then I would spend my time explicitly not interviewing open ani people, just interviewing other people that were out in the world to just like reset my brain chemistry a little bit, because it really does feel that way. It really does feel like you kind of get absorbed into this singular world view and then you have to kind of remind yourself of the greater reality.

Yeah. So, like, because I started covering this company intoing nineteen, I talked with people then that I then talked to for the book, and I was able to sort of have this unique opportunity to track how people's individual beliefs evolve when they are seeped in this world, and there were people that I was talking to back then that were like, I don't really believe in this AGI thing, that by the time I was talking to them for the book were like AGI all the way, like that this is a genuine, true belief. And I think there's a lot of reasons for this transformation, Like one is that you are only talking to people who believe this, so you're just constantly in this environment where you're not talking to people who are challenging or testing that belief and instead just like continuously being reinforced in this echo chamber. But I think there's another thing that I kind of came to realize while reporting on the book is like people who really really believe that AGI is possible, that we will actually be able to replicate human intelligence. It's not a belief about what AI is capable of. It is a belief about what human intelligence is. And a lot of people in the AI world today have this belief that human intelligence or everything in the world is inherently computable and all you have to do is just a mass more data and more compute and eventually you will get to that thing. You will be able to replicate that thing. And when you are in this kind of environment where you have people constantly arguing to you that this is why AGA is possible, because everything is computable, and then you see the rapid clip of your models being able to do more and more functions that you know other people outside in society previously would have suggested were not possible. It's sort of the self reinforcing belief machine, like it just manufacturers gives you yeah, exactly, And so I think. And one of the things that I also have just has a general realization not just with opening eye but in general. When I'm covering tech companies, I kind of have a policy for myself to do a little bit of a detox after I spend a lot of time talking with them, because it is really like, when you're talking with all of these people that exist in this world, you do adopt their worldview, and you do adopt their talking points, and you do see things through their eyes. And usually I then have to like let myself just be in the actual world for a little bit and remind myself of what the average person thinks and what the average person values, and remind myself that there are you know, there are problems beyond the Silicon Valley's borders that just look fundamentally different from what they conceive the world to be. And so I did that with the Opening Eye profile. I did that with I profiled Facebook years ago, and I that with Facebook. I did that with the book, where I would interview lots of people in like these big batches and kind of really do my best to try and occupy their shoes for a couple of weeks a month, and then I would spend my time explicitly not interviewing open ani people, just interviewing other people that were out in the world to just like reset my brain chemistry a little bit, because it really does feel that way. It really does feel like you kind of get absorbed into this singular world view and then you have to kind of remind yourself of the greater reality.

I'm gonna ask this question without getting you in too much trouble. You think that's what happened with Kevin Russe, because it's really I know, I don't want to put you in a situation we have to talk kill of someone, but that interview was bizarre and hard fork I So.

I'm gonna ask this question without getting you in too much trouble. You think that's what happened with Kevin Russe, because it's really I know, I don't want to put you in a situation we have to talk kill of someone, but that interview was bizarre and hard fork I So.

I've been I think really lucky in that I've covered the tech industry almost always not living in SF.

I've been I think really lucky in that I've covered the tech industry almost always not living in SF.

I agree, that's a great thing.

I agree, that's a great thing.

And and you know, like I've been able to figure that out in my career, and that was an explicit dis like I did not want to live in SF anymore like I had lived in SF. I wanted to get out. And I think this is a really it's it's a really hard balance for any journalist. Is you need to decide whether you're close to your subject and immerse in their world and therefore might be co opted by their world, or whether you exist outside of that world and therefore you don't have as much access. You don't get to go to the parties where you hear tips all the time. And and that's one just like it's been attention in my career as well as like I constantly feel like I'm missing things because I'm not an SF. But the thing that I think I have gained from not being an SF is just a continued connection to non SF world, you know, Like I I notice when I spend too much time with s F people that I start in my vocabulary changes, like how I talk about things changes, because because people in SF talk about things in a very particular way, you know, like they are talking about like optimization hacking, and like they have a particular utilitarian maximization mindset around how they do things and why, and I have to then kind of step away from that and reseet my language, even when when then I sit down to write a story that's for the greater public. And so yeah, so I think this is something that's just challenging in general. Is like it's really hard to not get too close to your sources and to not start adopting everything that they say as as your own, especially if you are literally living with them.

And and you know, like I've been able to figure that out in my career, and that was an explicit dis like I did not want to live in SF anymore like I had lived in SF. I wanted to get out. And I think this is a really it's it's a really hard balance for any journalist. Is you need to decide whether you're close to your subject and immerse in their world and therefore might be co opted by their world, or whether you exist outside of that world and therefore you don't have as much access. You don't get to go to the parties where you hear tips all the time. And and that's one just like it's been attention in my career as well as like I constantly feel like I'm missing things because I'm not an SF. But the thing that I think I have gained from not being an SF is just a continued connection to non SF world, you know, Like I I notice when I spend too much time with s F people that I start in my vocabulary changes, like how I talk about things changes, because because people in SF talk about things in a very particular way, you know, like they are talking about like optimization hacking, and like they have a particular utilitarian maximization mindset around how they do things and why, and I have to then kind of step away from that and reseet my language, even when when then I sit down to write a story that's for the greater public. And so yeah, so I think this is something that's just challenging in general. Is like it's really hard to not get too close to your sources and to not start adopting everything that they say as as your own, especially if you are literally living with them.

And yes, in some cases right could be anyone. But it does feel like there is a kind of almost word containent or thought contagion with this stuff with AGI that it pickles certain people. They hear about the idea of the autonomous computer and it drives them mad and everything. To your point, they start chasing it even though there's not really any evidence that we can do it.

And yes, in some cases right could be anyone. But it does feel like there is a kind of almost word containent or thought contagion with this stuff with AGI that it pickles certain people. They hear about the idea of the autonomous computer and it drives them mad and everything. To your point, they start chasing it even though there's not really any evidence that we can do it.

Yeah, I mean, I mean, like when I first started covering AI, I also was so enthralled by the premise, Like when I when I so before I feel AI, I didn't really like that when I first started covering it at my two technology review. I did not realize before then that AI was actually trying to recreate human intelligence. I thought it was just you know, I mean, it is a marketing it is a marketing term.

Yeah, I mean, I mean, like when I first started covering AI, I also was so enthralled by the premise, Like when I when I so before I feel AI, I didn't really like that when I first started covering it at my two technology review. I did not realize before then that AI was actually trying to recreate human intelligence. I thought it was just you know, I mean, it is a marketing it is a marketing term.

But even then, this sounds like it might be a definition that people argue.

But even then, this sounds like it might be a definition that people argue.

Over right, right right, But I mean, like in the original, like when AI was coined as a term in nineteen fifty six, like John McCarthy, he did explicitly coin the term both to be to attract funders, so as a marketing term, and because he was trying to describe what he wanted the field to do, which was to recreate human intelligence. And that is just it's it's it's such an evocative thing, like to think, wait a minute, could we actually do that? And what would that mean? And there's so much philosophical Uh, it's just a philosophical mindfield. Like and if you are someone that loves philosophizing, you can just sit there for like days in days and days and think, holy crap, like what would that be?

Over right, right right, But I mean, like in the original, like when AI was coined as a term in nineteen fifty six, like John McCarthy, he did explicitly coin the term both to be to attract funders, so as a marketing term, and because he was trying to describe what he wanted the field to do, which was to recreate human intelligence. And that is just it's it's it's such an evocative thing, like to think, wait a minute, could we actually do that? And what would that mean? And there's so much philosophical Uh, it's just a philosophical mindfield. Like and if you are someone that loves philosophizing, you can just sit there for like days in days and days and think, holy crap, like what would that be?

What would that look like? How can we do times columns?

What would that look like? How can we do times columns?

And and so I really got I got pulled into just the kind of sheer enigma of that and yeah, also the power of that of oh wow, if we could do this, like if if you know, if I imagine being in the shoes of someone who's actually doing the AI research and thinking to yourself, I might be contributing to the recreation of my own intelligence sort of of our collective intelligence. Like that's intoxicating, you.

And and so I really got I got pulled into just the kind of sheer enigma of that and yeah, also the power of that of oh wow, if we could do this, like if if you know, if I imagine being in the shoes of someone who's actually doing the AI research and thinking to yourself, I might be contributing to the recreation of my own intelligence sort of of our collective intelligence. Like that's intoxicating, you.

Know, feels like philosophy marketing though, because I I just look at this stuff and I hear about this stuff, and I always think, Okay, but what you're doing today, And I look at what they're doing today, and I say, that doesn't seem anything like that, And I understand. I actually don't think that there's anything harmful in discussing AGI. What pisses me off is how many people don't seem to be discussing AGI. They discuss the ramifications on the edges. Because something that and Casey Kawa, friend of the show, has brought up a number of times with me, is like, no one seems to be discussing personage, Like if we make a conscious computer, do we give it a Social Security number?

Know, feels like philosophy marketing though, because I I just look at this stuff and I hear about this stuff, and I always think, Okay, but what you're doing today, And I look at what they're doing today, and I say, that doesn't seem anything like that, And I understand. I actually don't think that there's anything harmful in discussing AGI. What pisses me off is how many people don't seem to be discussing AGI. They discuss the ramifications on the edges. Because something that and Casey Kawa, friend of the show, has brought up a number of times with me, is like, no one seems to be discussing personage, Like if we make a conscious computer, do we give it a Social Security number?

That's actually really funny because I think there are too many people discussing personage.

That's actually really funny because I think there are too many people discussing personage.

I don't see them in the black. Well, perhaps they're not doing it in the media because AGI gets brought up as this vague term and then they go, ah, what do you think, Yes, could be good, could be bad, millions brillion sound fucking And it's just it's so bizarre because I look at I've been covering I personally with AI really only started looking at it hard in twenty twenty three, which is my own fault. And I've looked and perhaps that has also colored my belief system because I ken looking for the thing, like the stuff, the thing that everyone was freaking out about. And you look and it's like we've extrapolated from large language models that AGI will come out. But actually that kind of leads me to another question. You Sam Morton's a confusing person. What about Dario Amma Day, Darry Ama Day. What do you think does he believe in AGI? You think you think he's a true believer.

I don't see them in the black. Well, perhaps they're not doing it in the media because AGI gets brought up as this vague term and then they go, ah, what do you think, Yes, could be good, could be bad, millions brillion sound fucking And it's just it's so bizarre because I look at I've been covering I personally with AI really only started looking at it hard in twenty twenty three, which is my own fault. And I've looked and perhaps that has also colored my belief system because I ken looking for the thing, like the stuff, the thing that everyone was freaking out about. And you look and it's like we've extrapolated from large language models that AGI will come out. But actually that kind of leads me to another question. You Sam Morton's a confusing person. What about Dario Amma Day, Darry Ama Day. What do you think does he believe in AGI? You think you think he's a true believer.

I do think Dario is a true believer, yeah, And I do think that he's a true duomer as well, like he genuinely has a lot of anxiety around the AGI creating the end of the world, whether or not, and also like what does it mean to be a true believer?

I do think Dario is a true believer, yeah, And I do think that he's a true duomer as well, like he genuinely has a lot of anxiety around the AGI creating the end of the world, whether or not, and also like what does it mean to be a true believer?

You know, like, does he believe the bollocks he's saying because he claims that AGI will be here but twenty twenty seven or quicker.

You know, like, does he believe the bollocks he's saying because he claims that AGI will be here but twenty twenty seven or quicker.

Yeah, So that then is when he's just wearing his CEO hat and he needs to say something.

Yeah, So that then is when he's just wearing his CEO hat and he needs to say something.

When you say wearing the CEO, can you be a bit more specific?

When you say wearing the CEO, can you be a bit more specific?

I think Dario is an interesting case in that he originally he has a different background than Sam. You know, Sam is a VC that or an investor that then became the CEO of an AI company, and his skill is storytelling, right, That's what all investors do. Dario was, he was a scientist. He studied I think computational neuroscience, and he had a kind of deep fascination with this idea of how do you how do you figure out how the brain works and how do you replicate it like it was? It was. He didn't initially call himself an AI researcher, and I think the early days of his academic career, but like he was essentially studying a lot of the things that hardcore AI researchers study, the brain, computer science, like all all of these things. And so I think he has this fascination and I don't know this for sure, but I would guess that he is of the category of people that I described that believes that everything is fundamentally computable in the world, and human intelligence is computable, and so he does really believe that if he can figure it out like AGI will happen. But then he has to run a company, and a company can't just do science. And actually, one of the things that people mentioned to me about their criticisms of Daria when he initially ran Anthropic was that he didn't care about the business at all, Like he seemed to have no interest in anything other than the science. And there were people within the company that were like, this is not going to work as a company if you cannot literally do business, if you cannot raise money, And so I think what happened I didn't actually report this out, but my guess is what happened is Dario then had to shift to not just being a scientist but also being a businessman, and he had to learn how to storytell, and is he and I think honestly he tries to. You know, Sam Altman is a really successful storyteller and able to accreu a out of capital. I think Dario tries to match the stories that Altman tells in order to try and accrue the same amount of capital and try to take capital away. Maybe because ultimately they are personal archite nemesis and anthropic and open AI are competiti.

I think Dario is an interesting case in that he originally he has a different background than Sam. You know, Sam is a VC that or an investor that then became the CEO of an AI company, and his skill is storytelling, right, That's what all investors do. Dario was, he was a scientist. He studied I think computational neuroscience, and he had a kind of deep fascination with this idea of how do you how do you figure out how the brain works and how do you replicate it like it was? It was. He didn't initially call himself an AI researcher, and I think the early days of his academic career, but like he was essentially studying a lot of the things that hardcore AI researchers study, the brain, computer science, like all all of these things. And so I think he has this fascination and I don't know this for sure, but I would guess that he is of the category of people that I described that believes that everything is fundamentally computable in the world, and human intelligence is computable, and so he does really believe that if he can figure it out like AGI will happen. But then he has to run a company, and a company can't just do science. And actually, one of the things that people mentioned to me about their criticisms of Daria when he initially ran Anthropic was that he didn't care about the business at all, Like he seemed to have no interest in anything other than the science. And there were people within the company that were like, this is not going to work as a company if you cannot literally do business, if you cannot raise money, And so I think what happened I didn't actually report this out, but my guess is what happened is Dario then had to shift to not just being a scientist but also being a businessman, and he had to learn how to storytell, and is he and I think honestly he tries to. You know, Sam Altman is a really successful storyteller and able to accreu a out of capital. I think Dario tries to match the stories that Altman tells in order to try and accrue the same amount of capital and try to take capital away. Maybe because ultimately they are personal archite nemesis and anthropic and open AI are competiti.

Hate each other so much? Is it just because Sam Wlman doesn't like the Warrio walked off?

Hate each other so much? Is it just because Sam Wlman doesn't like the Warrio walked off?

I don't know that Sam. I. I can't figure out whether Sam genuinely ever hates anyone, but people certainly hate him, and Dario hates him for sure. I think it goes back to this idea of do you agree or do you disagree with Sam about something fundamental and therefore do you perceive him as the greatest asset ever or the greatest threat ever? And from in Dario's case, he fundamentally disagreed with Sam about certain key decisions around safety AAI safety, the Dumer, the Dumer brand of AI safety, where they Daria was the one that decided to blow up the amount of computer chips that were being used to train a single model. So he did that. From GPT two to GPT three, they went from a couple dozen chips to ten thousand chips all at once to train GPT three and Daria wanted to do this because he wanted to create an internal lead in order to then have some time to do research on this model that would emerge from ten thousand chips. And Allmann does this thing where he will convince, he will ally with people, so he was like, oh, ten thousand chips, that just a brilliant idea. We should totally do that. But then once it was done, he sort of shifted to, Okay, now we should release it, or now we should give it to Microsoft because we have this deal with Microsoft. We need to make them happy. We need to give them some kind of really exciting thing deliverable to justify the first one billion dollars they gave us so that they can then give us more money. And so it was actually it was like the two It was both Altman and Amoday together that I would credit as being responsible for dramatically accelerating the AI race, because Amoday was the one that decided we need to blow it up to ten thousand chips, and then Altman was the one that persuaded him, yes, you should do it because I agree with you, and then kind of flipped to, Okay, now we need to get this out in the world as quickly as possible, and amoday I think feels like his intelligent Like Altman, as a politically savvy person, was able to use his intelligence against him to achieve exactly the opposite of what he ultimately wanted, which was to slow Yeah, to slow things down rather than accelerate it.

I don't know that Sam. I. I can't figure out whether Sam genuinely ever hates anyone, but people certainly hate him, and Dario hates him for sure. I think it goes back to this idea of do you agree or do you disagree with Sam about something fundamental and therefore do you perceive him as the greatest asset ever or the greatest threat ever? And from in Dario's case, he fundamentally disagreed with Sam about certain key decisions around safety AAI safety, the Dumer, the Dumer brand of AI safety, where they Daria was the one that decided to blow up the amount of computer chips that were being used to train a single model. So he did that. From GPT two to GPT three, they went from a couple dozen chips to ten thousand chips all at once to train GPT three and Daria wanted to do this because he wanted to create an internal lead in order to then have some time to do research on this model that would emerge from ten thousand chips. And Allmann does this thing where he will convince, he will ally with people, so he was like, oh, ten thousand chips, that just a brilliant idea. We should totally do that. But then once it was done, he sort of shifted to, Okay, now we should release it, or now we should give it to Microsoft because we have this deal with Microsoft. We need to make them happy. We need to give them some kind of really exciting thing deliverable to justify the first one billion dollars they gave us so that they can then give us more money. And so it was actually it was like the two It was both Altman and Amoday together that I would credit as being responsible for dramatically accelerating the AI race, because Amoday was the one that decided we need to blow it up to ten thousand chips, and then Altman was the one that persuaded him, yes, you should do it because I agree with you, and then kind of flipped to, Okay, now we need to get this out in the world as quickly as possible, and amoday I think feels like his intelligent Like Altman, as a politically savvy person, was able to use his intelligence against him to achieve exactly the opposite of what he ultimately wanted, which was to slow Yeah, to slow things down rather than accelerate it.

This sounds like colonial This sounds like colonial Britain. It's just white guys getting angry at each other over tiny grievance is from years ago. Here's a weird question. Well, first of all, do any of them seem happy in any way? Do any of them seem to enjoy anything? I asked this seriously, I genuinely do they seem miserable? That is the consistent theme from all of Jack Clark included. They all seem pissed off, scared, paranoid. Weird. It's that they're being driven mad by this.

This sounds like colonial This sounds like colonial Britain. It's just white guys getting angry at each other over tiny grievance is from years ago. Here's a weird question. Well, first of all, do any of them seem happy in any way? Do any of them seem to enjoy anything? I asked this seriously, I genuinely do they seem miserable? That is the consistent theme from all of Jack Clark included. They all seem pissed off, scared, paranoid. Weird. It's that they're being driven mad by this.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I think that is an entirely accurate description. I think you cannot be not driven mad in this world where you have convinced yourself that the stakes are the future of humanity. You know, like, how do you not buckle under that pressure?

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I think that is an entirely accurate description. I think you cannot be not driven mad in this world where you have convinced yourself that the stakes are the future of humanity. You know, like, how do you not buckle under that pressure?

I mean, skill issue? I think I'd be fine give me one billion dollars. But it does make me think that right now as and Bloomberg came out with the headline just as we're recording this, that Stargate soft Banks, Stargate is hitting snags over pariff is they can't seem to raise the money. I wonder if we're going to see new levels of paranoia anxiety with all of these people as the AI trade starts to collapse a bit.

I mean, skill issue? I think I'd be fine give me one billion dollars. But it does make me think that right now as and Bloomberg came out with the headline just as we're recording this, that Stargate soft Banks, Stargate is hitting snags over pariff is they can't seem to raise the money. I wonder if we're going to see new levels of paranoia anxiety with all of these people as the AI trade starts to collapse a bit.

Yeah, this has been an interesting theme that I've picked up on with the way that Alman operates is when he starts sounding incredibly optimistic in public about the future of open AI, the future of AGI, the future of all these things, it means that something is going wrong. Like it's become the opposite signal, because he will roll out the most grandiose language when he needs to cover up something that is really stressing him out. And so we're seeing, you know, like this happening again more recently where I mean, in the beginning of the year, he had this post where he was like, we we are no longer just building AGI, we are now on our path to building superintelligence. Like he was sort of like upping the ante saying okay, could continue to hold on could continue to stay with the program because we're about to uh supercharge turbocharged this like ten times more. And it was like at the time when Opening Eye was starting to really feel weak because it had just lost a string of executives, including some of its most important ones Elias ask Govern and Miramurati, and it was under just a massive amount of scrutiny and it wasn't making the clip of research progress that it needed to kind of solve what it itself defined as the key challenges to reaching AGI and so yeah, so I think the more that that that it sort of becomes clear that people are no longer really buying into this AI future that they've painted. The stronger they're going to painted, the more they're going to roll out this rhetoric.