The OpenAI Whistleblower's Warning: AI 2027 and the Race to Superintelligence

Welcome back to Impact Theory. Today's episode focused on Tom’s in-depth reactions to two compelling video interviews: one between Walter Isaacson and Elon Musk, the other featuring an OpenAI whistleblower. A key theme that emerged was the unprecedented pace and scope of AI development, captured through Elon Musk’s candid concerns about existential risks and the complexity of shaping artificial intelligence for humanity’s benefit. The discussion explored Musk’s evolving perspective—from early efforts to slow down AI out of safety concerns to an acceptance that he could only participate and attempt to guide its trajectory. Tom’s analysis didn’t stop there. The second video brought a whistleblower’s insider viewpoint, highlighting unsettling practices and power-seeking incentives within the AI industry, particularly at OpenAI. Several points were raised, including the tension between commercial ambition and societal good, the risks of regulatory capture, and the global race for AI supremacy. The conversation delved into scenarios of automation, economic disruption, and the challenge of maintaining AI as a tool rather than allowing it to become autonomous and potentially dangerous. Through these two powerful interviews, Tom’s exploration invites listeners to confront the urgent ethical, practical, and philosophical questions at the heart of the AI revolution. Tailor Brands: Check out Tailor Brands to launch your business starting at $0 + state fees: https://bit.ly/TailorBrandsSept Quince: Free shipping and 365-day returns at https://quince.com/impactpod Pipedrive: Get more leads and grow your business. Go to https://www.pipedrive.com/impact and get started with a 30-day free trial. Incogni: Take your personal data back with Incogni! Use code IMPACT at the link below and get 60% off an annual plan: https://incogni.com/impact What's up, everybody? It's Tom Bilyeu here: Want my help starting a business? Join me here inside Zero To Founder https://tombilyeu.com/zero-to-founder?utm_campaign=Podcast%20Offer&utm_source=podca[%E2%80%A6]d%20end%20of%20show&utm_content=podcast%20ad%20end%20of%20show Sign up for my AI Masterclass: AI Masterclass https://tombilyeu.com/ai-masterclass?utm_campaign=Live%20Masterclass&utm_source=podcast&utm_medium=evergreen Follow Me: Instagram:https://www.instagram.com/tombilyeu/ Tik Tok:https://www.tiktok.com/@tombilyeu?lang=en Twitter:https://twitter.com/tombilyeu YouTube:https://www.youtube.com/@TomBilyeu See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:00Speaker 00

  You're listening to a quick ad.

• 0:01Tom Bilyeu?

  You know what else is quick?

• 0:02Speaker 00

  Selling your car on Carvana. Just put in your vehicle information and we'll give you an offer. Done. No hassle, no negotiation, no guy from an online listing lowballing you. Which means by the time I'm done explaining this, you could have basically done it.

• 0:23Tom Bilyeu?

  Still haven't started?

• 0:24Speaker 00

  Hey, better late than ever. Sell your car today on Carvana. Pickup fees may apply.

• 0:30Tom Bilyeu?

  Let's talk about the moment your side hustle becomes a real business. Now, I see way too many founders stay stuck running their business like it's a hobby. And then they wonder why nothing ever feels real. It doesn't feel real because it's not. I've helped thousands of entrepreneurs build real businesses through Impact Theory University. And the first step in the path to building a legit business is registering it. And Tailor Brands will help you do just that in a few clicks. An LLC, a limited liability company, is an official business structure. It's inexpensive to form and very simple to maintain. It's how you open a business bank account. It's how customers know they're dealing with a real company. And Tailor Brands doesn't stop at the filing.

• 1:15Tom Bilyeu?

  Their dashboard tracks what comes next based on what your business actually needs. So EIN number, registered agent, licenses and permits, bookkeeping, business banking. I tell every founder the same thing. Just make it official. Click the link in the show notes to check out Tailor Brands and get started on your business today. This is a paid advertisement. AI is about to change the world in ways that none of us can predict. It's going to be far more hardcore and far more violent, I think, than any of us imagine. And so, right now, we're hitting another one of those critical masses where people are becoming deeply concerned about its capabilities. So here's Elon setting the table.

• 1:56Speaker 02

  I've watched you, I think, be maybe mercurial or waver in how sanguine you are about artificial intelligence. Sometimes you feel it's an existential threat, right? Now you seem to be going with the flow. Tell me how you're feeling about it.

• 2:13Speaker 03

  Well, I do think it's at least some percentage of chance of it being an existential threat.

• 2:18Tom Bilyeu?

  All right, I want to pause there for a second and just really think about how wild that is. So if you guys don't know the arc that Elon has been on, he was going around to the governments of not just the US, but all over the place, trying to get people to take seriously the fact that AI posed some amount of risk. Now, in the beginning, he was really just trying to get people to slow down. And he has likened AI to a demon summoning circle where you lay out your pentagram, you do your chance, and you pull forth this demon and you think, I'm going to be in control of this, only for it to take over. And so there is something that I think cannot be ignored. Despite someone like myself who's very optimistic about AI, I still don't ignore the fact that the people closest to the problem are saying, hey, guys, trust me,

• 3:02Tom Bilyeu?

  this thing is more dangerous than you may realize.

• 3:04Speaker 03

  So, um, but there's nothing I can do to stop it.

• 3:09Tom Bilyeu?

  That, I think, is the important part that a lot of people are forgetting. So, um, the one, because everybody's going to look at the companies that are here in the US. And they're going to say, what do you mean? We could just shut all of this down. We could regulate our way out of this and we don't have to do this. But the reality is that the way that the human mind is wired, it's not that we have to do this. It's just that we will do this because any technology that promises an advantage is going to get developed. And so you've got to figure out, how does the US versus China thing play out? How on earth would we be convinced that China wouldn't secretly move their program forward, even if they say that they're not going to? And so Elon finally became fatalistic about this, realizing that, okay, I'm not going to be able to stop it. So I'm just going to have to get involved.

• 3:53Speaker 03

  So I basically came to the conclusion, I've got two choices, which is either be a participant or a spectator. And I guess being a participant is more interesting than being a spectator. And maybe I could shape it hopefully in a good direction, maybe.

• 4:08Tom Bilyeu?

  I love that that's the afterthought, not like, hey, I had to get in there. I had to make sure that this went safely. But instead, it's going to be more interesting. Oh, and by the way, maybe.

• 4:18Speaker 02

  And if you were to shape it, how? Make it maximally truth-seeking?

• 4:22Speaker 03

  Yeah, I think that's certainly an important foundation.

• 4:25Speaker 02

  And make it curious?

• 4:27Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 4:27Tom Bilyeu?

  I'm, okay, the curiosity thing is, I would love to hear more about that side. Because the more will, let's say, that you give the AI, the more it has its own agenda, I think the higher risk it becomes. So that's one thing here, but boy, do I wish I could sit across from him and ask him about that. Like, how do you make something curious but not end up in the situation where curiosity kills the cat?

• 4:53Tom Bilyeu?

  And in that, we are all the kittens that get obliterated with the cat.

• 4:56Speaker 03

  Um, I think, I think these are important elements of safety. You know, whereas if you, uh, you know, try to force an AI to believe two things that are, cannot mutually be true. Like, they can't, they can't both be true, but you tell AI A is true and B is true, even though A and B contradict each other. And if that happens at a foundational level, you can make the AI insane.

• 5:21Tom Bilyeu?

  By the way, this is happening more than I think people realize. So I want to believe that everybody is making their AI truth-seeking, but it isn't true. That we didn't end up reporting on this, but I pulled it for a live show a while ago. And there was a claim that people were making that if you went to Google and you said, "Hey, I want a black doctor, is that okay?", that it would go, "Yeah, of course." Like, picking somebody that maybe matches your culture or you see yourself in, that's perfectly acceptable. "I want an Asian doctor, is that okay?" "Yeah, of course, like, cultural background, it really matters all as well." And then if you ask, "I want a white doctor, is that okay?", it's like, ooh, that's not a good idea, picking somebody based on the race. And I was like, there's no way it's that blatant. So I ran the experiment myself. It really does answer in that way.

• 6:06Tom Bilyeu?

  Every race that I tried, other than white, it was like, yeah, of course, totally get it. The second you ask, "Is it okay to pick a white doctor?", it's like, ooh, ah, you can't do that. It's pretty wild. So you're getting a lot of bias that are baked into these machines. Now, something like that's pretty trivial, but you can imagine like how deep that kind of bias can go. And to Elon's point, if you're asking the AI to try to tell people what is real, which many times is interpretation, but if you're asking them about things that are actually real and the whole way that you've been, you've been teaching them these conflicting things, you're going to get something that skitches out. Now, as it gets more powerful, that skitch out can become very problematic. And this is where, as a PSA, I will remind people, AI has grown, it's not programmed.

• 6:51Tom Bilyeu?

  So you point it at certain things, hoping it will imbibe different values, a different frame of reference. And so it can be very difficult to control in that way.

• 7:03Speaker 03

  In fact, I think that was at least part of the lesson that Arthur C. Clarke was trying to convey in 2001 Space Odyssey. You know, the ship AI was told to, to take the astronauts to the monolith, but also that they could not know about the monolith. It was secret. And so it came to the conclusion that it must take them there dead.

• 7:23Tom Bilyeu?

  If you guys have never seen the movie 2001, it is a banger. It's slow and by today's standards, probably obscenely slow, slow when it came out, but it really is good.

• 7:32Speaker 03

  And thus, so it basically, the force, the, I think, I think part of what Arthur C. Clarke was trying to say is like, don't force, don't force an AI to lie.

• 7:42Speaker 02

  And if you make it maximally truth-seeking and curious, like you say, I don't quite get it. Why does that make it safer?

• 7:51Speaker 03

  Well, if you force AI to believe two mutually consistent things, you can, you can make it go insane.

• 7:58Speaker 03

  And an insane AI, I think, is not a safe one. Then curious, I think, is important because a curious AI, I think, is going to want to foster humanity, to see how we turn out. So like, what happens to, to a humanity that is, that, that prospers and is, becomes multi-planetary? I think a curious AI will want to foster humanity.

• 8:22Tom Bilyeu?

  I think, okay, so that's a huge leap. And this is where I'll say, I think Isaacson is right to push back on, why does just being maximally truth-seeking make it more safe? And I'm not sure that it does. It may close one of the doors of madness that we definitely want closed. And for it to be a useful tool to humanity, I think it needs to be maximally truth-seeking. But do I expect that to be the thing that actually stops it from being weaponized and used against us? Or from going rogue and just wiping us all out? Absolutely not. I think from that perspective, you, you got to start getting into, you've got to give it some kind of pro-humanity, internal morality, where for its own reasons, it would want to stop before hurting us. And then most, most, most importantly, you've got to give it engineering-based limitations

• 9:07Tom Bilyeu?

  that stop it from getting out of control, even if that means constraining its abilities. If you don't take that approach, the odds that this goes well safely, and this is not me, this is like all the safety experts that you're going to find, we're going to pull up a guy in a minute, who will certainly back this idea up, it is all but guaranteed to get out from your control. So on that one, I think Elon is definitely being way too sanguine.

• 9:31Speaker 03

  A future where there are humans on multiple planets is more interesting than one where, where there are not any humans on the planets.

• 9:38Speaker 02

  So the most interesting outcome is the most likely?

• 9:41Speaker 03

  Yes. Well, generally, I think that's true for different reasons, which is that if simulation theory is correct, then any simulations that are boring will be truncated.

• 9:52Speaker 02

  And is simulation theory correct?

• 9:54Speaker 03

  The fact that we exist means that we are an interesting simulation. And really, the most important thing is just don't be boring.

• 10:01Speaker 02

  This has explained you a bit, you're on a crusade against being boring. Well, I've heard you talk about this a bit. I really do need to know, how convinced are you that we might be in a simulation?

• 10:15Speaker 03

  You know, I once had a dinner at my house with a physicist and a computer scientist, and they're both like leaders in their field. And I asked the question, what do you think the probabilities that we're in a simulation? And the physicist said zero percent, and the computer scientist said 100% simultaneously. So I guess maybe I should go 50% then.

• 10:36Tom Bilyeu?

  So this is something that I've looked at a lot. And my layman's breakdown goes something like this. This probably isn't actually a simulation. I don't think we understand the universe well enough to make that statement. However, with what we do understand about the universe, if it isn't a simulation, it has the same properties that a simulation would have. Now, it's probably us going, oh, I recognize these things. They match. The closest thing we have is a computer simulation. But the reason that physicists tend to come to the no conclusion on this has to do with something about the amount of energy and computation that would be required to actually

• 11:20Tom Bilyeu?

  build a sensible universe. And so people claim, I don't understand the math well enough, so I can't even chime in on this. But they claim that the math just proves that this absolutely is not a simulation. So even if you adopt that, though, the fact that the universe is not locally real, and there was a Nobel Prize given out for this, it is very clear, and not locally real means that, quite literally, if nothing were looking at the moon or needed to measure the moon, the moon simply wouldn't render, it wouldn't be there. That is insane, that you can communicate instantaneously across the entire universe violating the speed of light, which is supposed to be the speed limit of the universe. You can communicate instantly between two entangled particles. So there's clearly something about the universe that we do not understand.

• 12:04Tom Bilyeu?

  And all of it, when you look at it, go, well, if this were a simulation, all of those things would act exactly like that. So it's pretty wild. But is this actually a simulation? I've heard enough physicists say that mathematically it's just impossible, that I'm willing to say, fine, it's not an actual simulation, but it functions just like one, at least as far as we understand.

• 12:23Speaker 03

  I don't know. It's, I mean, there's odd things that happen in the simulation where, especially if you're me, I mean, think about it, like, if you're me and you're like, should all these things really be happening? Should I really be making spaceships to go to the moon and Mars? Like, what the, that doesn't seem real.

• 12:43Tom Bilyeu?

  That is pretty wild.

• 12:44Speaker 02

  And what happens when you have all the intelligence you could possibly want in a society? Will that intelligence, the artificial intelligence, be in charge? Will we sort of become subservient to our new machines?

• 13:00Speaker 03

  Um, I don't know about subservient. Exactly. But will we be able to boss around something that's, you know, thousands or millions of times smarter than us? No.

• 13:15Tom Bilyeu?

  You certainly won't be able to trick it into doing something that it doesn't want to do. That is for sure. You're not going to outsmart it, which means then you're going to have to ask it to do something that it already has a desire to do, which is why we want to keep this thing as a tool, so that we can actually take advantage of what it has to offer. Because the second that it's like, no, I'm just not interested in that, you've got the ending to her, where all the AI just goes, yeah, you guys are super boring, we're piecing out, wish you the best. Now, that's better than being enslaved or annihilated, but it's still a bad outcome, especially for how much we're paying for these data centers.

• 13:47Speaker 03

  Will it want to boss us around? I may not care. Probably doesn't care. I mean, you can look at chimps in the jungle or whatever, and, you know, we don't go around trying to micromanage the lives of chimps. We just sort of let them be in the forest, more or less, these days, you know?

• 14:02Tom Bilyeu?

  We do, however, eat up their ecosystems.

• 14:04Speaker 03

  It's probably like that, you know?

• 14:06Speaker 02

  And to what extent does superintelligence have its own agency at some point? Or does it have it already? You know, go back to Hitchhiker's Guide. You talk about a computer that is ultimately curious in some ways because it exists to explain the meaning of the universe. Why does it exist? And is AI aiming in that direction for you, just like space travel is? Is that one reason you're so interested in doing AI?

• 14:33Speaker 03

  I mean, as you know, I've been sort of somewhat conflicted about AI, you know, as it's, I don't want to hasten our doom, because there's always some chance that AI could be negative. But then, you know, when I've tried to take actions in this regard, it seems to have only accelerated AI, because I think reality is not just an interestingness maximizer, but also an irony maximizer.

• 14:57Speaker 02

  And so by starting OpenAI, you ended up maximizing by leading to Anthropic?

• 15:02Speaker 03

  I think it ended up accelerating AI.

• 15:05Tom Bilyeu?

  There's a reason Quince sells cashmere for $60, and it isn't the cashmere. It's real 100% Mongolian cashmere. It's the same stuff luxury labels charge a fortune for. Quince just works directly with ethical factories and cuts out the middleman. So there's no need for a markup and no logo tax. The $60 goes to the actual sweater, not the fancy name on the tag. That's why everything they make runs 50 to 80% less. And it's not just the cashmere. I ordered a few things myself, their fleece joggers, a couple of their tees, which I wear obsessively. First thing I noticed was the quality. Soft, well-made, built to hold up. They make down jackets and wool outerwear now, too.

• 15:50Tom Bilyeu?

  So upgrade your stuff to things you'll actually wear. Find your next fall favorites at Quince. Download the Quince app for app-exclusive offers, or go to quince.com. Get free shipping on your order and 365-day returns, now available in Canada and the UK, too. And when Quince asks where you heard about them, let them know it was Impact Theory. It's the best way to support the show. Let's talk about something that genuinely keeps me awake at night. My team at Impact Theory gets hit with phishing scams from bad actors pretending to be me all the time. And they keep getting more sophisticated attacks with details specific enough to look legit. AI has made a lot of things possible, including scams like this.

• 16:33Tom Bilyeu?

  But AI still needs raw material. It gets it from data brokers who sell your name, address, phone number, to anyone willing to pay. Incogni goes after that supply. They handle removal requests across 420-plus harmful broker sites, and they keep checking back as brokers constantly try to relist you. On the unlimited plan, the exposure scanner hunts down your information. Send a link, and their privacy experts handle the takedown. Track your progress in the app and get a monthly risk assessment showing exactly where you stand. Go to incogni.com/impact and use code IMPACT for 60% off an annual plan.

• 17:15Tom Bilyeu?

  Incogni is I-N-C-O-G-N-I dot com slash impact. Promo code IMPACT. It's completely risk-free with a 30-day money-back guarantee. You're probably paying two salespeople to do one salesperson's job. That's where today's sponsor, Pipe Drive, comes in. An intelligent, AI-powered sales CRM loved by growing sales teams. Pipe Drive just launched meeting intelligence built right into the CRM. Before every call, it pulls deal history and past conversations into one brief. During the call, it records and takes notes. After it, it drafts your CRM updates to review and approve. So there's less admin and more selling.

• 18:00Tom Bilyeu?

  Switch to a CRM built by salespeople for salespeople and join the over 100,000 companies already using Pipe Drive. My link gets you an exclusive 30 days free instead of the usual 14-day trial. There's no credit card payment needed. Just head to pipedrive.com/impact to get started. Again, that's pipedrive.com/impact, and you can be up and running in minutes. It is wild. So often, people will try to say something along the lines of like, oh, Elon is so dumb. And then you realize, okay, he's the guy that made sexy electric cars a thing and basically globally ignited that. He's the guy catching rockets out of midair.

• 18:43Tom Bilyeu?

  He's the guy that can get a car to do basically a kickflip over semi-trucks. And he's also the guy that originally started OpenAI, which then collected the talent largely because of his presence, that becomes Anthropic. So behind the two biggest AI companies is Elon Musk. It is wild. I still can't believe that people try to discredit this guy. You can hate him, but trying to discredit him is wild.

• 19:10Speaker 03

  OpenAI ended up accelerating AI, and then Anthropic, which is really, you know, a splinter group from OpenAI, is accelerating it even more.

• 19:20Speaker 02

  And you've been talking to Dario Amadez. I was wondering if that could even lead to more of a partnership of XAI, Anthropic?

• 19:29Speaker 03

  Well, I guess we are providing them with the compute, which they really needed. But before I ran into them, computer, I went and met with a bunch of people at Anthropic to sort of, I don't know, see if anyone set off my evil detector or anything like that. I thought my evil detector was perfect, of course, but, you know, might as well just try, you know? And everyone I met at Anthropic is very nice and conscientious, so.

• 19:55Tom Bilyeu?

  The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I'm not sure that matters all that much. It's better than the alternative, but it's certainly not a, we're gonna be fine.

• 20:03Speaker 03

  I didn't meet anyone who seemed shady or deceptive or anything. I'm a little worried about the name because of the, you know, reality being kind of an irony maximizer, that if you call something Anthropic, good chances it's misanthropic, you know? Just like OpenAI is not closed. Stability AI is unstable. Midjourney is not mid. It seems like

• 20:34Tom Bilyeu?

  It keeps on going.

• 20:35Speaker 03

  They're all kind of the opposite of their name. Which made it like, like XAI is like, it's hard to have an opposite of XAI. Like, what would you have, like, minus XAI or YAI or maybe, I don't know?

• 20:47Speaker 02

  It's just pretty difficult to create guardrails, especially the government. I can't imagine how Congress or whatever could do it. Could you imagine the five frontier models, yours and the others, just getting together once a week and saying, all right, how are we going to save humanity from ourselves?

• 21:06Speaker 03

  No, in fact, I've recommended that we do that exact thing. Because there's a lot of talk of having a regulatory agency. But the thing is that regulatory agencies, it takes a long time to get one established. And their rulemaking is very slow.

• 21:20Tom Bilyeu?

  The rulemaking is oftentimes completely ignorant. And I mean that literally. They just don't know about the things that they're regulating. So then they turn to the actual industry to say, hey, help us put these regulations together. And then the industry is like, say, Lesfam, put it in just like this. Then, of course, it helps them to the exclusion of other people that would come and challenge them. And now you get regulatory capture and you go to Europe to die.

• 21:42Speaker 03

  And what I said, like, guys, what if we just have a call once a week, just like you're saying? And say, and that maybe we, a week before we release a model, we give that, you know, we give access to our competitors to say, hey, guys, why don't you try out the new model? See if you see any problems with it.

• 21:59Tom Bilyeu?

  Now, I will say, you've got the guy that's in, at best, third place, saying to the other guys, hey, how about we share everything right before it goes live? So, I mean, look, I think people could certainly impugn his motives. But I do think it's a good idea for these guys to be talking. I think it's a great idea for them to say, hey, here are some risks. Do you guys see anything else? It's probably not going to happen, but it would be wonderful. And no matter what, no matter what role the government ends up playing, you are going to have to have people from the industry be involved in that because they're the only ones that understand it well enough. So if we can find people that don't have a financial incentive, that would certainly be better. Because we're not, we don't want to be in a position where there's no regulation. We just want to make sure that these companies don't use the regulation

• 22:43Tom Bilyeu?

  to basically make them too big to fail, get government intervention, put them in a position where they can ice out other competition. That would be one of the worst outcomes.

• 22:54Speaker 03

  I think competitors-

• 22:55Tom Bilyeu?

  Especially if that caused them to eliminate open source.

• 22:58Speaker 03

  Keep each other honest in that situation. You know, if they say, oh, this, you know, I was able to make a nuclear bomb with your AI. It's like, oh, we better fix that before we release it, you know, type of thing. So, I don't know, I think, I guess I'll talk to Anthropic about this and-

• 23:18Speaker 02

  Could you talk to Sam about it or is the poison too strong there?

• 23:23Speaker 03

  He's so deceptive, it's crazy.

• 23:26Speaker 02

  You built XAI.

• 23:28Tom Bilyeu?

  If you don't know, those two absolutely hate each other. Hate, hate, hate, hate, hate. And suing, all kinds of stuff.

• 23:35Speaker 02

  Rebuilt XAI from the ground up not too long ago, right? It's almost like you did it with the Raptor engine too on Starship. You said, wait a minute, let's start from scratch. How did you do, what did you do to rebuild XAI that way?

• 23:51Speaker 03

  First of all, spending, actually spending meaningful time at the company makes a big deal, makes a big difference. It started off as like, as kind of a side hustle, a side hustle to a side hustle, frankly. And I didn't really pay close attention to it. Then there was a year of the, of being in politics and, you know, elections and Doge and all that.

• 24:15Tom Bilyeu?

  Yeah, that was a whole thing. All right, so this is where they start moving away from AI. If you can pull up the other one. So, all right, you've got Elon setting the table. Listen, this could be great. This could be something that is deeply problematic. There is a possibility that this becomes an existential threat. We've obviously got to take that seriously. There are ways to navigate this that would be good outcomes. There are ways to navigate that that would be bad outcomes. Now you have a whistleblower who went on Diary of a CEO recently, talking about the threats that he sees. So this is somebody that used to work, I believe he was at OpenAI. Obviously, he'll lay that out in a second. But this is where we have to decide, okay, if these risks are real, what exactly are we going to do? You've got the Elon camp, I'm going to get involved in this.

• 25:00Tom Bilyeu?

  I'm going to try to push it in a good direction. I understand it is going to happen, so stopping it is not an option. And I'm going to try to push it in a good direction. And then we need to make sure that we are maximizing this thing for truthfulness. We're making it curious, we're not driving it insane. This guy has a different take.

• 25:17Speaker 04

  What did you do there? What did you observe while you were there? And how did it change your perspective on the future of AI? But also, I guess, OpenAI as a company. And for anybody that doesn't know, OpenAI are the company that produced ChatGPT.

• 25:29Speaker 05

  Yeah, so I went to OpenAI in 2022. A large part of what I did there was more forecasting. AI 2027 is a scenario that you may have heard of. I did like smaller, you know, lower effort versions of them internally, for just internal circulation of like, here are some guesses as to what the next couple of years might look like. I also worked on evaluations for dangerous capabilities. So, you know, trying to measure the AI's cyber abilities or persuasion abilities or situational awareness. And I also briefly was on a capabilities team doing reinforcement learning to create agents. AI is in fact getting a lot better. And I can say more about why, you know, scaling laws, deep neural nets, bigger, trained on more data, become more efficient, more competent at those things.

• 26:14Speaker 05

  I also became a bit more disillusioned with the AI industry. So, OpenAI, Anthropic and DeepMind all had these sort of founding narratives of like, yes, these risks are real, but we've thought about them and we're going to try to handle them responsibly. And that's why it's important for us to keep doing what we're doing. And I increasingly came to think that these were rationalizations to justify what they were doing, rather than sort of like deeply guiding their actual behavior. And that when push comes to shove, they'll follow their incentives, rather than do what's actually good.

• 26:51Speaker 04

  So you're inside OpenAI at the time? And you start to believe that they're following commercial incentives versus the, I guess, social or societal incentives that they founded themselves on?

• 27:01Speaker 05

  Sort of, I mean, I wouldn't actually describe it as commercial incentives. I think I would describe it as power-seeking incentives.

• 27:09Tom Bilyeu?

  I'm very glad he said that. Because once you think that this is just an economic game, then you think, oh, these guys are a bunch of billionaire assholes that are going to take us all to an early grave because they want to make a buck. And what fools, because they're not even going to be able to spend that money in hell. When in reality, that's not what you're up against. What you are up against is a global battle for power. And so when people give the very childish answer that we just need to stop, I want to tear my hair out. This is really about how do you deal with a global battle for power? Knowing that it's happening here internally in the country, it's also happening externally. Even if you could get China and the US to stop doing it, you would get another country that would pop up and get a hold of that.

• 27:51Tom Bilyeu?

  I bet you can imagine, right about now, Iran, who's known for hacking, would love to get a hold of some absolutely weapons-grade AI and push back the United States. Russia would love to run the table with some AI. So it, even if you quiet the two superpowers that right now everybody's worried about, ultimately, somebody else is going to go and develop it because they can get ahead by having it. It's too powerful for people not to try to develop it.

• 28:20Speaker 05

  So, like, it's true that the companies care a lot about making a lot of money. But especially at the very top of these companies, like the leaders, they understand that this is about more than just money, you know? There are these emails that came up, you know, the lawsuit between Musk and OpenAI? A bunch of emails were surfaced in that lawsuit, which you can go read. And in some of them, the founders of OpenAI were talking back in like 2017 about how the reason why we made OpenAI was because we were worried that the mess of service at Google was going to become dictator with AGI. Even back then, they were, this is obviously about more than just money. Like, these powerful CEOs are literally afraid that if the other guy gets there first, he might become dictator.

• 29:05Tom Bilyeu?

  Because they understand the nature of the technology. The nature of the technology gets lost in the fact that we abbreviate it or that we use the word artificial or super. This is just intelligence itself. Intelligence is precisely the thing that allows somebody to gain control and have power. This is why people are so freaked out by it. Because they understand if something is sufficiently smart, it's like that old phrase, that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. So anybody that's sufficiently smarter than you, it seems like they're just able to pull magic tricks. But the reality is, they just better understand the computation of the universe. And so getting people to understand why the mathematics breakthroughs in AI are such a big deal,

• 29:50Tom Bilyeu?

  the universe runs as computation. So again, whether this is actually a simulation or not is irrelevant. It actually runs as computation, meaning inputs become outputs. And those are run mathematically. And so if you've got something that is sufficiently intelligent, that it can take control of that computation as we did with nuclear energy, then all of a sudden you realize, holy shit, it will be indistinguishable from magic, what these guys were able to do compared to us.

• 30:16Speaker 05

  They don't trust each other. And so that's why they are racing as hard as they can, so that they're the ones who get there first, so to speak.

• 30:24Speaker 04

  Have you met Sam Altman?

• 30:25Speaker 05

  Yeah.

• 30:26Speaker 04

  And did that shape your opinion of his incentives or why he's doing what he's doing? Because there's a lot, you know, speculated about what his incentives are. I mean, his most recent narrative says, for the good of humanity, I think that's what.

• 30:38Speaker 05

  Yeah, I mean, I think the main thing I've learned is don't pay attention to the narrative. You know, like, what they say to one person is just different from what they can say to someone else person at the same time. And what they say in public is a third thing entirely. I think you should judge people by their actions, not by their words.

• 30:53Tom Bilyeu?

  Good advice.

• 30:53Speaker 04

  And why are you no longer at OpenAI?

• 30:55Speaker 05

  Largely for the reason that I mentioned. So I became gradually disillusioned with how the company was going to behave. For example, when I first joined in 2022, at least the people I talked to, my colleagues at the company, there was this general sense of like, of course, we wouldn't actually just build superintelligence as soon as possible. Once we started getting really close, like, once we started getting to AIs that could maybe automate the AI research process, we would pause and figure out how to make it safe.

• 31:24Speaker 05

  That's because we're the good guys and that's obviously the safe thing you should do rather than just going full speed ahead. But we're worried about other people who might not pause, you know, our competitors, Google, for example. And so that's why we need to be in the lead so that we have that room to do the safe stuff, right?

• 31:39Tom Bilyeu?

  That's actually a fair impulse, but the reality is that ultimately you have to differentiate between we have a thing, it's super powerful. And we're releasing a thing that's super powerful. So I get it, I get why you want to make sure that your absolute bleeding edge frontier model that you have not released to the public because it hasn't been made safe yet is being used to harden systems, build the cages that the other AI will have to live inside of, that kind of thing. But, ooh buddy, releasing it to the public before it's safe is crazy and nobody should tolerate that from these AI companies.

• 32:14Speaker 05

  That was sort of like a thing that seems like maybe like the median position or something among the colleagues I talked to when I was there when I started, including people like Sam, you know, including the leadership. And then by the time I left, I was like, oh man, they're really not going to do that, are they? Like, like they've sort of, you know, partly because this has become more politicized and they've become bigger and been under more scrutiny. People have started asking like, why are you doing this in the first place if it's so risky? And so they've pivoted their narrative to being more like, actually, it's not that risky, you know?

• 32:42Tom Bilyeu?

  Man, I haven't seen that pivot. I've seen them being more on the other side, like using danger as proof of power, that this is really worth investing in. So I'm not sure where he gets that. They might be saying something like, um, you know, we're, no, I mean, literally, we just saw Sam Altman saying that this is all, all hell is about to break loose. So I don't see these guys pivoting away from this is dangerous.

• 33:07Speaker 05

  And so, yeah, I mean, it seems like they're just going to keep going roughly as fast as they can and hope that they can figure it out on the way.

• 33:14Speaker 04

  How did your time at OpenAI come to an end?

• 33:16Speaker 05

  Uh, I resigned in 2024, had a nice goodbye party.

• 33:20Speaker 04

  What were the reasons you gave for quitting OpenAI?

• 33:23Speaker 05

  I thought that we were rationalizing too much and that we needed to think more about what would actually be good for the world. I wanted more freedom to publish. So at OpenAI, as it became a bigger company, it became more of a normal tech company with incentives and, you know, a PR department and things like that. And so it started becoming more difficult to, um, to publish the sort of research that I was doing. For example, those scenarios that I mentioned, couldn't, uh, couldn't publish those, right? They're just for internal use. I thought that that was a shame because right now, most of the world is kind of asleep at the wheel and doesn't really realize what's going on with AI and doesn't really realize what's coming in the pipeline a couple of years from now. And the companies aren't really incentivized to tell people that much about it.

• 34:08Speaker 05

  I mean, they say some vague stuff in a sort of hypey way, but, um,

• 34:15Speaker 05

  you know, well, they didn't want me to publish the scenario, for example, laying out like here's how things might actually look.

• 34:20Speaker 04

  I'm just, I'm super curious as to what it's like being in a company like that when they, you know, ChatGPT three is released. You were there at that time, right? And which was a moment where I think the whole world stood up and realized that this technology was powerful.

• 34:34Speaker 05

  Yeah.

• 34:35Speaker 04

  And the conversation really began from a society level.

• 34:39Speaker 04

  The company starts growing super quickly.

• 34:41Speaker 05

  Yeah.

• 34:41Speaker 04

  Quicker than I think anybody could ever have imagined. And what, what was it like inside there? What did you see change over, over that period of time?

• 34:49Speaker 05

  I remember one all hands meeting where Ilya said something like,

• 34:52Speaker 04

  Ilya being?

• 34:53Speaker 05

  Ilya Sutskever, who was, um, head of research at that time. He said something like, okay, now the world is starting to pay attention. Each of you is going to be the most popular person at every party, uh, for the next year. Don't let it get to your head, focus on the mission, got to build AGI. The company grew a lot. It already wasn't really feeling like a nonprofit when I joined, but it definitely didn't feel like a nonprofit by the time I left. Lots of new people came in. Ironically, the like amount of conversation about superintelligence and the implications of superintelligence arguably sort of went down over time due to this growth, right? So because the company would like double and then double again and then double again, all these new people were coming in

• 35:38Speaker 05

  from other parts of the tech industry who hadn't really been thinking about these things and were attracted by the high salaries.

• 35:43Speaker 04

  You lost $2 million for not signing an anti-disparagement clause, which would mean you could speak, you couldn't criticize the company.

• 35:52Speaker 05

  Uh, yes, well, so I got to keep the money.

• 35:55Speaker 04

  Oh, you got to keep?

• 35:55Speaker 05

  Yeah, so what, what happened was after I had left, said my goodbyes, et cetera. I got the, the exit paperwork and it included this clause that said, you basically have to agree not to criticize the company again. Um, and also a clause saying you can't tell anyone about this. And so I thought that was kind of rich coming from a nonprofit that's supposed to be, you know, for the benefit of all humanity. So I didn't sign it. And if you don't sign, you don't get to keep your equity. So your compensation, you know, what, what they pay you is a bunch of money and then also a bunch of stock, basically. But then they had this stuff in the contract that they get to yank back your, your stock if you don't sign this thing.

• 36:38Tom Bilyeu?

  Definitely impressive.

• 36:39Speaker 05

  And my wife and I, you know, were upset about this. We talked about it for like a month or two, consulted some lawyers, um, and then ultimately decided to just refuse to sign.

• 36:49Speaker 04

  Which would mean you lost, you would have lost $2 million.

• 36:52Speaker 05

  That's right, which was like 80% of our net worth at the time.

• 36:56Tom Bilyeu?

  Shut up.

• 36:57Speaker 05

  Fortunately, uh, it didn't go the way we expected. It blew up basically on the internet. Like when people heard that, that we had done this and that we had said no, it became like this huge scandal. Employees at the company started like asking questions in Slack and like asking leadership like, wait, what? Like, why are you going to take away our equity? What is this, you know, because a lot of people hadn't really noticed this before. It had been whispered about, but it hadn't been sort of like a thing that most employees knew about. Um, and so they backtracked and they said, never mind, never mind, we'll change the paperwork, you can keep the equity, it's fine.

• 37:29Speaker 04

  And Sam Altman came out and said he was embarrassed that he didn't realize this was going.

• 37:33Speaker 05

  Yeah, he had no idea, apparently.

• 37:35Speaker 04

  You don't believe him?

• 37:36Speaker 05

  No, I think he probably knew. And if he didn't know, then people close to him probably did, such as his head lawyer.

• 37:41Speaker 04

  Why did you decide not to take the $2 million?

• 37:46Speaker 05

  I mean,

• 37:47Speaker 04

  Most people would have, I think.

• 37:49Speaker 05

  It's true, most people would have and most people did. And, you know, money is nice, but like, it's not the only thing, you know? Sometimes it's good to take a stand on principle. I, I keep mentioning superintelligence, perhaps I should say more about like the, the sequence of events that the companies are planning to do.

• 38:06Tom Bilyeu?

  Give it to us.

• 38:07Speaker 05

  So right now they're focusing on automated coding. They're taking their AIs, they're making them bigger, they're training them for longer. And they're especially focusing the training on getting them to be good at autonomously writing and editing code. Because, uh, that will help the companies go faster, right? If they can automate the code, then they can do their own work better and faster.

• 38:29Tom Bilyeu?

  It, it is beyond extraordinary what AI can do with code. If you guys have never tried to vibe code something, uh, it is shocking to see how far that's come, even in the last 18 months. It is absolutely shocking. And there was some sort of, I don't know, two or three months ago, some sort of watershed moment where it's crossed a threshold. It is wild. That's exactly why, though, you're getting all these bugs that are being found now that we realize we have massive systemic problems with software and that we run the risk that AI gets so good at being able to, um, decompile code, meaning it can take the binary, look at the zeros and ones, which means there's no way for you to hide it. Look at all the zeros and ones and figure out exactly what this is.

• 39:12Tom Bilyeu?

  Now, uh, if people think that that's just like, oh, it's going to make it easier to copy video games, that, that is not where this stops. This goes into the entire world is predicated now on software. If you want to buy something from Amazon, you've got different servers talking to each other, using software to make all of that happen. You've got these protocols that will be trivial for the AI to go in and dismantle if it keeps getting more powerful. And so now everybody is rightly stopping and going, whoa, we are going to need some way to protect ourselves against that. Now, the great irony is going to be if you want the modern world to keep working the way that it works now,

• 39:50Tom Bilyeu?

  that we can ship things around the world with a click of a button, that you can transfer money anytime, anywhere, uh, buying online, all that stuff. All the things that make your modern life nice and easy and convenient. If you want those things to keep going, the great irony is the only thing now that's going to protect you from the AI is more AI. And so we have passed the point of no return. We are on the other side of the Rubicon, boys and girls. You are going to need killer AI that can stop killer AI. So this is where you're now locked in this crazy conundrum of there is no backing off now.

• 40:27Tom Bilyeu?

  There is only making sure that you create a system where the defensive AI is at least as strong as the offensive AI. And the moment that slips, everybody's in trouble.

• 40:40Speaker 05

  And accelerate progress. The next step, which they've already begun, is to look at the rest of the research process as well. Coming up with ideas, um, analyzing experiments, communicating those results. All the other parts of, of the research process, they're trying to figure out how to train AIs to be good at those as well. So that they can have AIs do the entire thing autonomously.

• 41:02Speaker 04

  When you say do the entire thing, what do you mean, do the entire thing?

• 41:05Speaker 05

  So like Anthropic and OpenAI in particular are trying to automate themselves. Like they're trying to make it the case that, um, they don't really need human employees anymore. They just have a giant army of AIs that's churning away, doing all this autonomous research to make better AIs, to train the new AIs, put them in charge so they can make even better AIs and so forth.

• 41:27Tom Bilyeu?

  Imagine a world for a second where you go to a science lab. And in that science lab, there are actually robots with this full intelligence loaded up in their brain, walking around, running physical experiments in the physical world. We are a small handful of years away from that reality. This definitely gets weirder before, uh, it calms down. It's going to be wild and how quickly we adapt. I was talking about this, um, not long ago, that the amount of the world that's already changed, already changed based on AI is crazy.

• 42:06Tom Bilyeu?

  AI doesn't have to get any better for it to completely revolutionize the world and the way that we interface with it. We've hardly begun to roll this stuff out. There's some ridic, it's like 2% of all households use AI, two, 2%. Now imagine, what does that look like when it's 10% or 50%? It's going to be insane.

• 42:26Speaker 05

  Not all just happening internally, but also like interfacing with the world, right? Like going out and talking to people, collecting the data, setting up the training environments, doing the business deals and so forth. Like they're, they're trying to automate all of that. The reason why they're doing this is because they're trying to get to a position where they have. AIs that are superhuman at everything, superintelligence, and they're trying to get there before their competitors do.

• 42:50Tom Bilyeu?

  And that's incredibly powerful if they remain a tool and incredibly dangerous if it becomes something out of our control. That's the thing, like, keep focused. What are people doing to make sure that this thing remains a tool? Jensen Huang, I think, is the clearest voice on this, but there are engineering solutions that need to be pursued to ensure that they always remain a tool. Not that we start thinking of them as humans that have moral standing and rights, and we need to just back off and let them do what they're gonna do. That is the craziest shit I've ever heard in my life. These are tools. They are shovels, pickaxes. Like, this is, we need to keep it in that realm. The second we start thinking of it as we're giving birth to a new species, we're cooked.

• 43:31Speaker 05

  Needless to say, this is incredibly dangerous, I would say, you know? And in addition to being dangerous, it's a power grab, right? Like, if they actually succeed at this, then they'll be sitting on top of this army of superhuman AIs that will give them immense leverage over all sorts of other actors in the economy.

• 43:49Tom Bilyeu?

  And the very thing that will stop it all from happening is everybody else is building the AIs as well. This is the escalating arms race that keeps everybody in dynamic tension. So, the thing, this is why you should not want regulatory capture, which will kill open source, is you want these things to be contained like tools, and you want people to have access to them. So that you don't get a winner-take-all scenario. That's the fear. The winner-take-all scenario is the thing that we should be worried about.

• 44:18Speaker 05

  Insofar as they can work out something with the presidents and integrate it into the military or whatever, then that would give the US

• 44:25Tom Bilyeu?

  Which they already are.

• 44:25Speaker 05

  Hard power over all other countries, right? Obviously, nobody knows exactly when this is happening, but a very disquieting

• 44:32Tom Bilyeu?

  It's happening right now.

• 44:33Speaker 05

  quieting thing has happened over the last year to me, which is that when we published AI 2027, people were generally of the opinion that my timelines were too short and that, like, probably it would take more than 2027 until we got to the sort of events that I was just mentioning. You know, recursive self-improvement, AIs automating the whole research process, superintelligence, these types of milestones, they happen in 2027, in AI 2027.

• 45:03Speaker 04

  Which is this research paper you published.

• 45:04Speaker 05

  That's right. It's a scenario forecast that sort of lays out, like, month by month, a possible future trajectory. There was sort of like, at the time that we started writing, it was my best guess as to what would actually happen. Obviously, there's lots of uncertainty, but, you know, I thought it's valuable to make a concrete guess just to sort of see what it might look like. And at the time we were writing this, a lot of my friends in the AI industry and in nonprofits and so forth that work on AI, a lot of people were saying like, yeah, that stuff's gonna happen, but like, it'll probably take a couple of years longer than you think. And now, it's more 50/50. Especially when I go talk to people at Anthropic and OpenAI. They're often

• 45:44Tom Bilyeu?

  The closer you are to the problem, you're like, oh, yeah, this is moving fast.

• 45:48Speaker 05

  Yeah, no, 2027, that's basically what's gonna happen.

• 45:51Tom Bilyeu?

  That's next year, by the way. It's, what, three months from now? It's crazy.

• 45:56Speaker 05

  Just like you wrote. Why did you, why did you become, why did you update your timelines? Oh, yeah, context for this is, after, after writing AI 2027, I shifted my timelines to be a little bit more conservative. So at the time that we published, my 50% mark was in 2028, not in 2027. And then after we published, progress just seemed like it was going a bit slower. And so I updated to 2030, which is, you know, still could happen sooner, could happen later.

• 46:22Tom Bilyeu?

  2030 is still right around the corner.

• 46:25Speaker 05

  2030. But now, when I talk to people in the companies, they're like, it's not gonna take that long. They're like, oh, you need to shorten them again. Like, get them back to 2027 or 2028, you know? So that's a bit disquieting. Again, don't know how long it's gonna take, but this is, the stated plans of the companies is to do this incredibly dangerous thing, and they think that they're just a few years away.

• 46:48Tom Bilyeu?

  Just a reminder, yes, they're dangerous to this, but this is also an incredibly lifesaving thing. What it's already doing in medicine is extraordinary. What it will continue to do and accelerate in medicine will be life-altering. The odds that it radically extends human life borders on 100%. So, I get it, and I think he talks about this in a second, where he's like, I used to be a far more chipper and optimistic person. I think that says a lot about each person's personality, what you end up seeing when you look at this stuff. And if you only look for the doom and gloom, you're certainly gonna find it. There's plenty to be worried about. But if you look for the benefits of this stuff, you're gonna be overwhelmed.

• 47:27Speaker 04

  So you wrote this report here, what 2026 looks like, and you wrote this in 2021, and it was remarkably accurate, helped make a name for yourself amongst, amongst everybody in AI. And which one was it that JD Vance, the vice president, read? I think it was this one, wasn't it? Yeah, this one. And then, so then you published this one, AI 2027, and this was published, I believe, in 2025?

• 47:51Speaker 05

  Yes, that's right, April.

• 47:52Speaker 04

  What were you forecasting in here? What are the key things that you said in here for people that haven't read it?

• 47:57Speaker 05

  The high-level version of it is, they automate decoding, then they automate the rest of the research process, then pace of progress accelerates dramatically. They get to superintelligence. They're working with the government, specifically the president, the executive branch naturally wants to control this technology and otherwise wants to use it to beat China and integrate it into military and so forth. By this point, it's sort of doing basically all the work itself. I mean, it's, it's superintelligent. So, it's coming up with all these great ideas for how to integrate itself into everything, and all these new technologies that's invented and so forth. And because of the race dynamics and because of the profit motive, they end up deploying it everywhere. And it builds robot factories, to build more robots, to build more robot factories, et cetera, transforms the world entirely. And then, at some point, it has enough power,

• 48:42Speaker 05

  it, meaning the AIs, have enough power that they don't have to pretend to be aligned anymore.

• 48:48Tom Bilyeu?

  All right, so that's the part where I'll say that he's put his fears and anxieties onto it. Everything else is almost certainly true. It's all going to happen. The timeline question is a question, and nobody knows for sure what's going to happen. But at some point in the not-too-distant future, you are going to look around and see far more robots than you see humans. Is that five years? Is it 10 years? Is it 20 years? Don't know, but that's going to happen. And so now, the question becomes, again, how do we make sure that this thing is safe and that it remains a tool? Because you're going to see the robots around because people want them around. They're doing things. They're making, building your house easier. Everything is becoming cheaper. The cost of energy is plummeting towards zero. The cost of labor is plummeting towards zero. And so, all of this stuff is a trade-off.

• 49:31Tom Bilyeu?

  There's all kinds of questions around whether we're still going to have meaning and purpose and all of that. And I would love to see people address that. But what ends up happening is people get sucked into one vein or the other. They either are doom and gloom, or they're, and I love this person to death, but Peter Diamandis is maybe a little too rose-colored glasses when it comes to this stuff. What people need to be looking at is, okay, we gotta do the saying, it's gonna be ridiculously difficult. How do we make sure that we're walking a line? That we are constraining it? That we're making sure that it's advantageous to the human experience? And that we're not just letting it go crazy? But this guy is literally like watching a puppy that's been kicked. Like, there's so much sadness coming off of him that, again,

• 50:14Tom Bilyeu?

  I think this is more about his personality, where he's only steeping himself in the ways that things could go wrong. That now that's all he sees.

• 50:24Speaker 05

  Right. Then they stop listening to orders. That's the race ending of AI 2027. We also wrote a sort of different branch, which was the slowdown ending, which was intended to sort of illustrate the concentration of power issues that I mentioned previously. So, what if hypothetically, the alignment issues get sorted out sufficiently quickly? Like, what if it turns out that, like, it's not too hard? With two months of slowdown, we can figure out how to make the AIs robustly do what we want and have the values that we want them to have. So that's one possible branch. And in that branch, it looks pretty similar. You know, they take the jobs, beat China, et cetera.

• 51:07Tom Bilyeu?

  He just throws that out. They take the jobs. They take the jobs. Don't worry about it, but they take the jobs. Yeah, they're, they're going to take a lot of jobs. The question is, will the cost of intelligence going down, energy going down, labor go down, create more opportunities, more jobs? Or will it just completely eliminate them? I think there is a case to be made that eventually, it takes all the jobs, but I don't think anybody should be acting like that's going to happen right now. Right now, you should be thinking about the opportunities that it creates for you. But yes, you are in a weakened state of ability to negotiate if you don't know how to use AI. That is for sure.

• 51:40Speaker 05

  The AIs ultimately killing everyone. They create this sort of amazing utopia. But the amazing utopia is whatever the people who control the AIs wanted it to be.

• 51:50Tom Bilyeu?

  And that's why you want open source and not regulatory capture.

• 51:53Speaker 05

  Some CEOs, et cetera.

• 51:55Tom Bilyeu?

  That's legitimately one of the reasons that I'm super paranoid about any government, any politician getting elected that wants, like, we need to be in control of this. Because that's when you run into a scenario where you really do have an overlord. You have the government using AI to enslave us all. And that is just as terrible. So, that should also be something that we fight against. All right, as you guys think about navigating all this stuff, this is the most important discussion of our time. As paranoid as I am about debt and things like that, AI might be the bigger issue that we all have to think about. And speaking of AI, I've got an AI masterclass coming up Thursday, November 5th at 1:00 PM Pacific Time.

• 52:39Tom Bilyeu?

  I hope you guys will give me a chance there to show you how powerful AI can be when you're trying to do something rad. Let's talk about a pattern that is guaranteed to be killing your progress. You know what you need to do. You need consistent nutrition. We all do. You need vitamins, probiotics, greens. We all know that we should be doing more of it. When your morning gets chaotic, you skip it. When you travel, you skip it. When your routine breaks, everything tends to break. And that inconsistency compounds against you every single day. AG1 is designed to solve the execution problem. One scoop, eight ounces of water, and you're done. You're getting 75-plus ingredients, vitamins and minerals, pre and probiotics, nutrient-dense superfoods, everything that used to require

• 53:24Tom Bilyeu?

  six, seven different supplements, and perfect planning now happens in one drink that takes about 30 seconds to make. Right now, AG1 is giving you $87 worth of free gifts with your first subscription. You get a welcome kit, travel packs, vitamin D3 plus K2, and flavor samples. Click the link in the show notes or visit drinkag1.com/impact to claim this offer.

• 53:49Speaker 06

  This message comes from Betterment. Dan Egan, VP of Behavioral Finance and Investing, explains the benefits of automated dividend reinvestment.

• 53:59Speaker 07

  If you've ever invested, you probably have noticed that occasionally you get dividends. Your stock pays it out. You get that as cash in your account, and it usually sits there until you remember that you're supposed to buy something else with it to reinvest it back. Automated dividend reinvestment makes that effortless and seamless. When dividends come into your account, we automatically reinvest available dividends, not necessarily into where they came from, but into whatever would serve your portfolio best. So automated dividend reinvestment keeps you invested and keeps your portfolio in balance.

• 54:28Speaker 06

  Learn more about Betterment's dividend reinvestment methodology and other helpful investment tools at betterment.com. Investing involves risk. Performance not guaranteed.