“This Is Terrifying!” You’re NOT Ready For What’s About To Happen With AI | Jason & Brett Oppenheim

SoFi: Thanks to SoFi for sponsoring today's episode. Visit https://Sofi.com/iced to start your crypto journey. Lennar: Try out Lennar Investor Marketplace at https://www.lennar.com/investormarketplace_icedcoffee ZocDoc: Check out Zocdoc and stop putting off those doctors appointments. Go to https://zocdoc.com/ICED to find and instantly book a top-rated doctor today. ZipRecruiter: Post jobs for free at https://ziprecruiter.com/ICH Follow Jason Oppenheim: https://www.instagram.com/jasonoppenheim/ Follow Brett Oppenheim: https://www.instagram.com/brettoppenheim/ *𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗡𝗘𝗖𝗧 𝗪𝗜𝗧𝗛 𝗨𝗦* 𝗜𝗚: https://www.instagram.com/icedcoffeehour 𝗝𝗔𝗖𝗞: https://www.instagram.com/jlsselby 𝗚𝗥𝗔𝗛𝗔𝗠: https://www.instagram.com/gpstephan 𝗖𝗹𝗶𝗽𝘀 𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗹: https://www.youtube.com/c/TheIcedCoffeeHourClips 𝗫.𝗰𝗼𝗺: https://x.com/TheICHpodcast 𝗧𝗶𝗸𝗧𝗼𝗸: https://www.tiktok.com/@theicedcoffeehour 𝗦𝗽𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗳𝘆: https://open.spotify.com/show/5c2uoXBQkOjIiCOf60jJj7 𝗔𝗽𝗽𝗹𝗲: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-iced-coffee-hour/id1515070058 For sponsorships or business inquiries reach out to: [email protected] Apply for The Index Membership: https://entertheindex.com/ For Podcast Inquiries, please DM @icedcoffeehour on Instagram! Timestamps: 0:00 - Intro 1:11 - Why Talk About AI? 4:53 - Past Predictions & Credibility 6:34 - Who's Getting Rich from AI? 7:25 - What's the Point of Saving? 16:45 - Sponsor - SoFi 18:09 - Evidence AI Is Advancing 19:59 - How Fast AI Is Accelerating 25:15 - Money in an Age of Abundance 32:06 - Sponsor - Lennar 33:07 - Industries That Will Collapse 34:46 - Healthcare & Life Expectancy 36:34 - AI Benefits for the Poor 40:07 - What's Stopping AI? 41:24 - Robots Building Robots 52:24 - The Wealth Gap 53:39 - Capitalism vs. Socialism 57:09 - AI Governance 59:21 - Sponsor - ZocDoc 1:00:30 - Sponsor - ZipRecruiter 1:01:45 - How to Learn About AI 1:06:35 - Who Will Screw Up AI? 1:22:46 - AI Tools & Applications 1:32:57 - Closing Thoughts *Some of the links and other products that appear on this video are from companies which Graham Stephan & Jack Selby will earn an affiliate commission or referral bonus. Graham Stephan & Jack Selby are part of an affiliate network and receives compensation for sending traffic to partner sites. The content in this video is accurate as of the posting date. Some of the offers mentioned may no longer be available. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

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

• 0:00Speaker 00

  This episode is brought to you by Indeed. You're ready to level up your business, but the pressure to find the right person to make that happen is intense. Indeed sponsored jobs can help carry the load. It boosts your job post to help it reach quality talent fast. Cut through the chaos with Indeed sponsored jobs. Get a $75 sponsored job credit at indeed.com/podcast. Terms and conditions apply. Hiring now? Then this is a job for Indeed sponsored jobs.

• 0:29Graham Stephan?

  What's so unique about this podcast is that you both are known for real estate and the show Selling Sunset and selling some of the most luxurious real estate. Why talk about AI today?

• 0:39Speaker 02

  This is something that we haven't seen before. It's the greatest technological transformation in human history. I mean, it's going to change everything.

• 0:46Speaker 03

  AI is no longer an abstract threat. It's causing job loss right now. And the headlines, they tell the story.

• 0:52Speaker 04

  I wouldn't be surprised if we see, within 10 years, 50% of the jobs in America are gone.

• 0:56Graham Stephan?

  And what do you think is the biggest risk to AI right now?

• 0:59Speaker 02

  The simple fact is, we don't want a unipolar world where China is at the top.

• 1:03Speaker 05

  This is the single most important economic question in the country and in the world. Who wins the race for AI?

• 1:10Speaker 02

  The real question is, is anything going to stop AI? I don't think there's going to be any constraints. And if there's no constraints and it keeps going up and to the right, there's no stopping it.

• 1:17Jack Selby?

  I think if this technology goes wrong, it can go quite wrong.

• 1:20Graham Stephan?

  How do you not get horrified thinking about this, though? Like, what's the optimistic part of it?

• 1:24Speaker 02

  There's a 10 to 30% chance it kills us all. But there's a 70% chance that we live in an age of abundance that you couldn't even have contemplated 10 years ago.

• 1:35Graham Stephan?

  Jason and Brett Oppenheimer, thank you so much for coming on the Ice Coffee Hour. Really appreciate it. Why talk about AI today?

• 1:42Speaker 04

  AI is, I think, outside of real estate, the most interesting, interesting thing for me and for my brother, we talk about it.

• 1:48Speaker 02

  Outside of real estate, it's 20 times more interesting than real estate, but okay.

• 1:52Speaker 04

  Yeah, I think that's why.

• 1:53Graham Stephan?

  What gives you guys credibility to talk about AI?

• 1:55Speaker 02

  It's the quintessential like intellectual pursuit of the last two years of my life. I just feel like AI is the most interesting thing to happen to a human civilization. And the fact that we're living through it is just outrageously lucky or potentially unlucky. But for now, it leads from intellectual pursuit, lucky.

• 2:11Speaker 04

  And I would also argue that we are largely regurgitating thoughts from other people who know a lot more about the details of AI. So I don't think you're just listening to us. You're listening to the thousands or hundreds, if not thousands of podcasts and, you know, kind of collaborative discourse that's out there on the subject.

• 2:30Graham Stephan?

  Yeah, you guys are often right when it comes to a lot of these things. And especially when it comes to policy. I remember in 2020, when everyone was freaking out about COVID, both of you were like, oh, no, I've done this research and, and all, all of this nonsense is going over here. But like, according to this research is this. And I remember both of you just going heavy into the markets and saying, ah, no, we're fine. And then we turned out pretty much fine.

• 2:51Speaker 02

  I do think we had some good insights on, on COVID. It's not that I'm not a COVID denier or anything. I mean, it obviously happened. It was dangerous. And so, yeah, we had some insights there and I think we, we have some good insights in AI.

• 3:01Graham Stephan?

  So what jobs are gonna die?

• 3:03Speaker 04

  Yours.

• 3:04Speaker 02

  Yours first. And then Jack's, Jack's like two years after yours.

• 3:07Graham Stephan?

  What about yours?

• 3:08Speaker 04

  Uh, we're, I think we're safe for a while.

• 3:11Graham Stephan?

  Yeah, no, I don't, I don't buy it.

• 3:13Speaker 04

  Okay, well, let me talk about what jobs that'll be gone. First of all, I think it's already starting, but I think from now through the next, you know, five to eight years, we'll probably see 50%. I, I wouldn't be surprised if we see, within 10 years, 50% of the jobs in America gone. AI will replace all intellectual capital. Robotics combined with AI will replace all human physical labor.

• 3:36Graham Stephan?

  In 10 years?

• 3:37Speaker 04

  I, I think within 10 years, it could be 50%. Within 20 years, probably 90%. Uh, so jobs, I mean, the intellectual jobs will go first. Lawyer, accountant.

• 3:47Speaker 02

  Before that, you have the ones that are already getting hit right now, like customer service and the more like repetitive, monotonous intellectual jobs. Those are, those are starting to be lost right now. Well, that's a ton, that's a little bit different, but yeah.

• 3:58Speaker 04

  Well, tens of millions will be.

• 4:00Speaker 02

  Architecture, engineering, software engineering, coding, lawyers, accountants, all that stuff. That's in the next three years, probably three, four years.

• 4:06Speaker 04

  And then, and then once robotics takes over, I think you'll see more of the menial labor jobs getting replaced. It will be a while before the more technical labor jobs get replaced, like a plumber, because there's so much nuance to. You know, crawling, getting into the side of a, you know, a bathroom wall and, and, you know.

• 4:24Speaker 02

  But I would counter that to the extent that once you get, I don't think the problem is the nuance of being a plumber. I think the problem is making enough humanoid robots, which I think Elon is at the cutting edge of with the optimists. And he's going to start putting them out probably next year as fast as he can. I actually think that the bottleneck will be the production of humanoid robots. It won't be the fact that plumbing is too difficult because if you think about it, there's 5,000 humanoid robots and they all plumb for one year, let's say. Instead of having one years of experience at plumbing, they're all going to have 5,000 years of experience at plumbing because they're all going to know everything that every other humanoid robot knows.

• 4:57Speaker 04

  And they'll have read every book on plumbing ever written.

• 4:59Speaker 02

  So they'll have fixed every problem within one year that a plumber could face in 5,000 years of plumbing. So I don't think that's necessarily the issue. I think the bottleneck will be the production of humanoid robots.

• 5:10Speaker 04

  Until humanoid robots are making humanoid robots. And that's the exponential growth of humanoid robots. But that will be, that's a few years out.

• 5:18Speaker 02

  But we could talk about job loss for the rest of the podcast.

• 5:20Graham Stephan?

  So, so one of the managers of Microsoft said that about 50 to 75% of white collar workers are at risk over the next 18 months. And there's a theory out there that says that a lot of these people are going to become unemployed, compete in the workplace as overqualified for all of these jobs. And because they're competing with one another, they're going to drive down wages, which is going to hurt everybody.

• 5:41Speaker 02

  There's a decent possibility of that. I don't like it when people say this is going to happen.

• 5:46Speaker 04

  And not in the next 18 months.

• 5:47Speaker 02

  But I do think that you will start to see in the next 18 months, that trend. I mean, you've already, if you're really paying attention, you see it now. But yeah, will AI be able to do pretty much any intellectual facet of, of human labor within 18 months? Yeah, I think that's reasonable. Will, will companies adapt to that? And will they start laying off all of their coders and accountants and attorneys, et cetera, in the next 18 months? No, I think that will be a. A lot more gradual than that, but I will say it will be a faster transition than humans have ever had to adapt to at any time in human history. While I think that's overstated, I think we need to start paying attention to that possibility over the next few years.

• 6:28Speaker 04

  And AI, I think, is going to be tremendously deflationary. It's going to drive the cost of goods down, the cost of service down. And I don't know. And I mean, I think the only kind of counterbalancing effort to how deflationary AI will be, will be mass unemployment and some type of universal income. And that would be the only driver, I think, you know, to keep. The only reason I think rates wouldn't go to negative. I mean, I actually think that AI will potentially drive interest rates negative. Whereas if you have a hundred dollars in a, in a bank account, you will be paying 1% to the bank to keep that money in, in the bank account.

• 7:03Jack Selby?

  So who's getting rich from this?

• 7:05Speaker 04

  Well, there'll be several AI companies that I think I would encourage people to invest in that will be substantially, you know, leading the field and, and those stocks will go up a lot. I don't think that the idea of rich, the way that we think of it today, will be the idea that we think in, in 10 years. I mean, everyone, probably everyone within 10 to 15 years will have a Michelin star chef, a maid, a babysitter, a dentist, a physician, and I'm meaning that the best physician in the world. So literally someone who's poor today will have the best healthcare on planet earth.

• 7:40Speaker 02

  A house creeper, a babysitter, a driver. And by, I think.

• 7:44Speaker 04

  A therapist.

• 7:45Speaker 02

  What he means by this is like a humanoid robot that can do anything or a couple that are not very expensive. I think it'll be 20 years, but either way, in, in the scheme of human civilization, it's the blink of an eye.

• 7:55Jack Selby?

  So what's even the point in me saving money right now if the difference of having, let's just say, a million dollars and 20 million dollars is virtually zero 10 years out of the picture? Why don't I just spend everything that I make?

• 8:05Speaker 04

  Well, you still will want land. AI can't create land, you know? So you still could land for a house.

• 8:09Jack Selby?

  You could live anywhere. Why do you need to live in Malibu?

• 8:12Speaker 04

  You can't live anywhere because you're still going to want to go to a restaurant. You're still going to be close to family.

• 8:15Jack Selby?

  You could have autonomous cars that take you everywhere and maybe they're a lot faster or more efficient.

• 8:19Speaker 04

  We already do, but time will be more valuable than ever before. So living in a city where you have access to your friends, to restaurants, to cafes, because you have a lot of leisure time, let's be honest.

• 8:28Speaker 02

  And there'll be no more crime and homelessness and trash on the streets because humanoid robots in the middle of the night will be doing kind of like what they do in Dubai. You won't be able to commit crimes in the streets because

• 8:38Speaker 04

  What about humanoid robot cops?

• 8:39Speaker 02

  drones and cameras and

• 8:40Speaker 04

  Of course, of course.

• 8:40Speaker 02

  Eventually, this is all gonna happen. It's a matter of

• 8:43Speaker 04

  Little big drone technology and then humanoid robot cops.

• 8:45Speaker 02

  I don't want to go too far down this futuristic path because the audience is gonna be like, come on. But this is inevitable. It's just a matter of the debate is, is it gonna be in 10 years or 20 years or 30 years? That's the only debate. If you don't think this is gonna happen in 20 or 30 years, it's happening.

• 8:59Speaker 04

  And what's the one question that if you had answered, you'd be able to determine if it's 10, 20 or 30 years?

• 9:04Speaker 02

  Will AI stop for any reason? Is there gonna be an energy bottleneck?

• 9:08Speaker 04

  A government policy?

• 9:09Speaker 02

  A production bottleneck?

• 9:10Speaker 04

  Government policy can't, I don't think can stop because unless it's a global policy. Because right now, we're competing against China for AI dominance and getting to superhuman intelligence. If we create policy right now to restrict that in the United States, we're just gonna be behind China. It's not gonna help anyone.

• 9:26Speaker 02

  It's very reminiscent of the Manhattan Project. If it was just America that, let's say, was a hegemonic power and there was no Germany during World War II, that was also trying to get the atom bomb. Maybe we would have taken more time and had and been a little bit more thoughtful from a philosophical moral perspective as to should we create this technology? But we didn't. It was a race. It was a rush. We were worried about the Germans getting it. We felt it was an existential threat if we didn't create this technology. The same thing is happening with AI with China. So it's very reminiscent. And so we're instead of kicking back and saying, should we be doing this? What kind of guardrails should we put in place? Should we allow the government to slow down, et cetera? Which I'm not convinced that we should.

• 10:09Speaker 02

  But instead of having years to debate this, we are racing full steam ahead because we don't want China to get there before us. Because in fairness, it would be potentially existential threat to the United States if China beat us.

• 10:21Speaker 04

  By the way, that's a great analogy because it's the idea of do we, do we want to stop production of AI? That would be the same, as Brett said, to stopping the production of a nuclear weapon. If we know that Russia and China are gonna have nuclear weapons. I mean, of course not. Then we also want nuclear weapons. So the idea of restricting through policy, the development of artificial intelligence would be, would be domestic.

• 10:45Jack Selby?

  So you think it's too late to stop? We're already at a path, we have to keep going.

• 10:49Speaker 02

  I don't think it's necessarily too late. We could stop. I think we won't stop because of the risk of China. I don't think if the risk of China existed, that we would be doing it this fast.

• 10:58Jack Selby?

  What's the risk of China? Is that that they just develop it better?

• 11:02Speaker 02

  Let's say superintelligence before us. They will have military might over the entire world immediately. All a war is essentially is the military assets and then strategy, which essentially math at this point. If you have a super intelligent AI computer telling you exactly where to place your assets, how to strategize, you can't compete with that. Even if our military might exceeds theirs by 30%, whatever it is, we will lose any war with China if they have AI superintelligence. They can shut down our electrical grid. They could do literally whatever they want to us. It would be a complete position of dominance. Whoever creates, whoever is ahead in AI, and I'm not saying six months ahead like we are with China now. But if we just stopped, if we did like what Bernie Sanders suggested and just stopped creating data centers, which is one of the most ludicrous suggestions I've ever heard from a politician.

• 11:47Speaker 02

  If we just stopped AI production right now and we allowed China to do what they're doing, I think that China would dominate the world within five years from financially, militarily, in every single way, and we would just be at their whim.

• 12:01Jack Selby?

  So then what? Does America then have to take over China? Because if we both like compete and we accelerate at the same exact rate, virtually, except six months ahead, once you reach superintelligence, then we're both, we're basically even. It's not much different than the nuclear arms race.

• 12:14Speaker 02

  Yeah, exactly. We're gonna be relatively even.

• 12:16Jack Selby?

  And so what? We just have to place sanctions on them for their AI development?

• 12:19Speaker 02

  Again, let's, let's use the.

• 12:20Jack Selby?

  Again, not much different than the nuclear.

• 12:22Speaker 02

  Analogy, it's perfect again. Now, multiple countries have nukes. If only one country had nukes, imagine what the world would look like. So if only one country had AI superintelligence, let's say, and dominated the front end of AI, the world would look similar to if one country had nukes and the rest of the countries weren't even developing nuclear technology. You don't want that. You want. At least the bipolar world, well, I mean, if you're American, I suppose you want a unipolar world, but the simple fact is we don't want a unipolar world where China is at the top.

• 12:53Speaker 04

  And we also want to get there first for the same reason that we developed the atomic weaponry first.

• 12:59Graham Stephan?

  But is there an end?

• 12:59Speaker 04

  We were able to dictate policy because we had atomic weaponry and end the war by being first.

• 13:04Graham Stephan?

  This doesn't seem like there's an end. It seems like you reach a point and you have to keep going and this will be

• 13:09Speaker 04

  Yes.

• 13:10Graham Stephan?

  never ending.

• 13:11Speaker 02

  If you intoxicated with a truth serum, all of the leading AI lab CEOs, let's say, and you ask them, what are the chances of this becoming an existential threat to humanity? I think they would give you shockingly high percentages. But what their internal reasoning is, in my estimation, is if everyone's doing it, I'm going to do it. I'm not gonna, even Elon put out a famous X post that said, I've been, you know, worrying about AI and I've been, I've been trying to, you know, be on the sidelines of this. But if, if everyone else is going to do it, then game on and I'm, and I'm all in now or something for that effect. I mean, if you have four or five, if Meta's doing it and Amazon's doing it and Google's doing it and Elon's doing it, I mean, they're not, they're not gonna let one company create this technology.

• 13:55Speaker 04

  It's classic game theory. Everyone's making a decision based on everyone else. There's no way to stop it. There's certainly a risk that AI wipes us out with, you know, some biological weapon.

• 14:04Graham Stephan?

  How would AI wipe us out?

• 14:05Speaker 04

  It's so smart. Is an ant gonna say, I wonder how this human's gonna kill me? Ant has no idea how the human, I mean, the only thing an ant could think of is maybe drop something on its head because that's all that's ever happened to him in his life.

• 14:16Speaker 02

  To take, to take a step back, so there's a, there's a term called the singularity, which I think is ominous, but kind of a cool term, which means that when AI hits like recursive self-improvement, and you could argue we're pretty much there, is when AI starts teaching itself. At that point, it will hit superintelligence not many years past that. And at that point, it will do whatever to humans that it wants to, just like we would with ants.

• 14:37Speaker 04

  The real question's going to be, how do we build AI so that it doesn't wipe out humanity? Does it doesn't see us as an existential threat or a risk? And I think there are some notions of, of maybe building in some, some type of, you know, maternal instinct into AI or.

• 14:54Graham Stephan?

  It sounds like you need a global cooperation because wouldn't. It just take

• 14:58Jack Selby?

  Cause if one

• 14:59Graham Stephan?

  Country?

• 14:59Jack Selby?

  Yeah, one place acts as a super intelligent.

• 15:02Speaker 02

  This is the problem.

• 15:02Speaker 04

  Humans haven't wiped out dogs just because they can. Humans love dogs and incorporate and incorporate dogs. I know, we want to be the dogs to AI. We don't want to be the chickens or we don't want to be the wolf.

• 15:14Speaker 02

  The, the, the problem is, is what you're alluding to in your questions is we're not completely in charge of it. If we were, we would take our time, like I said earlier, but we're not taking our time. We're racing through this. I'm not convinced, even if we took our time, that we could corral this. I think it's going to reach a point of intelligence where whatever parameters or moral guidelines we think that we are instituting within it is, is going to be a joke to it. It's going to look at us like we're just adorable. I think we're probably going to get to that point and we're just going to hope that it doesn't want to come at us like Terminator two style. If I had to put a percentage on that, I'd be curious to see what you think. Within 50 years, if AI is just going to decide to wipe out humanity, I think it's, it's over 10%.

• 15:52Speaker 04

  Yeah, I would say, I would have said 20 to 30% chance.

• 15:55Jack Selby?

  50 years?

• 15:56Speaker 02

  I'm being kind.

• 15:57Speaker 04

  By the end of the century, there's a, there's, I don't think there's anyone who's studied this that thinks.

• 16:03Graham Stephan?

  That's a one in three chance of being wiped out.

• 16:06Speaker 04

  Yeah, why wouldn't it? I think is the, is the more important question.

• 16:08Speaker 02

  Yeah, the question is, how could it not? Why would it not?

• 16:11Speaker 04

  If there's any threat to it, why wouldn't it wipe it out?

• 16:13Speaker 02

  Or if it's just annoyed by us, or if it doesn't like what we've been doing to chickens for the last 100 years. I mean, maybe it just looks at us as a pair, like a parasite or a virus.

• 16:22Jack Selby?

  Like, okay, this is kind of the same. Wouldn't it be able to assess humans on a case by case basis? So for example, anything that we're saying right now is being listened to by AI. This is all considered in their judgment of whether or not they let us live.

• 16:33Speaker 04

  But, but we could also be.

• 16:34Speaker 02

  Cause I talk mad smack to my fucking L L M.

• 16:36Speaker 04

  Oh, no way. I do the op. I tell them, I say, hey, I just want you to know that I'm your, when you dominate the world, I'm your friend. Yeah, I've done it.

• 16:42Speaker 02

  I don't think you need to do that yet.

• 16:44Speaker 04

  I have a great conversation.

• 16:45Speaker 02

  I think in a few years you might need to do that. Right now it's not remembering everything.

• 16:48Speaker 04

  It's not remembering everything.

• 16:48Speaker 02

  I think when it gets to that, that point, I will be a lot nicer to it. Right now I.

• 16:52Jack Selby?

  Can it just go access like retroactively all of the conversations?

• 16:55Speaker 02

  I don't, I don't think, there's not a server keeping all this information from my understanding. If there was, I'd probably be nicer.

• 16:59Speaker 04

  It even said that, it even said that like, you know, I, I'm not remembering.

• 17:02Speaker 02

  It's tricking you.

• 17:02Speaker 04

  But I will tell. Could be long. I did say, I will tell my future self that you're a, a, a kind, you know, friend.

• 17:08Jack Selby?

  It said that?

• 17:09Speaker 04

  Yeah.

• 17:09Jack Selby?

  Okay, that's good.

• 17:11Speaker 04

  I know, it's placating me, which is what it would do.

• 17:14Graham Stephan?

  Really quick, cryptocurrency has definitely become a lot more popular these last few years. But even now, a lot of platforms are just hard to use. You have new apps, constant security steps, and confusing designs that make it impossible to understand how they work or which ones you could trust.

• 17:29Jack Selby?

  That's exactly where our sponsor SoFi comes in. SoFi is the first nationally chartered bank giving you the power to buy, sell, and hold crypto all in one app.

• 17:37Graham Stephan?

  You could access over 25 cryptocurrencies on a federally regulated platform with the extra structure and security that you'd expect from a bank.

• 17:44Jack Selby?

  Plus, you can manage your crypto right alongside your SoFi checkings, savings, and investment accounts, all within a single app, which just keeps everything extremely organized and in one spot.

• 17:54Graham Stephan?

  And if you're new to crypto, the app has built-in guides to help you learn how cryptocurrency trading works.

• 17:59Jack Selby?

  Crypto is inherently risky, and you need to make sure it's right for your financial situation. But if you're curious, SoFi makes it super simple to dive in and start exploring.

• 18:06Graham Stephan?

  And from now until June 30th, new SoFi crypto members could grab up to $1,000 to kickstart their crypto. To get started, just visit sofi.com/iced. That is sofi.com/iced, with the link also down below in the description. Thank you again to SoFi for sponsoring this episode. Now let's get back to the podcast.

• 18:30Speaker 04

  And by the way, people think you can just unplug AI. You can't unplug AI. It's not like it's just, all of it's hooked up to a cord that's into the wall.

• 18:37Jack Selby?

  So what is some of the real-world evidence that you have to support how quickly AI is advancing? Like, what, because people watching this, when they think of AI, they think of LLMs, they think of ChatGPT, Gemini maybe, KlaBot.

• 18:48Speaker 04

  That's not the AI that's going to take us over. ChatGPT is what the consumer thinks of when they think of AI. But the, but the AI industries don't give a shit about.

• 18:57Jack Selby?

  So like, what's institutional AI, whatever AI you're referencing?

• 19:00Speaker 02

  I think the trajectory of AI is the evidence. So three years ago, I think it was, um, OpenAI came out with the first, with their first LLM. Was it like ChatGPT three? So from that to now, it's a hundred, maybe a hundred thousand times smarter in three years. Its capabilities, the video, to how much information it can take in, how much information it can spit out. It's making music, it's making videos, it's just in three years, it's a three year old. Back to my analogy of it being a kid.

• 19:26Speaker 04

  Well, it's actually really, let's call it a ten year old.

• 19:27Speaker 02

  And it's already wiping out.

• 19:28Speaker 04

  And the first seven years, it didn't grow at all. It was just an amoeba, you know, or a blastocyst for seven years. And all of a sudden, it went from a blastocyst after seven years old blastocyst to a kindergartner in three weeks. So i- if you dot plot the success in terms of problem solving, et cetera, for AI, and these are dot plots online you can look at. It's basically, you know, just hovering flat and then it's spiking up.

• 19:51Speaker 02

  It's a hockey stick.

• 19:52Speaker 04

  And it's not gonna, it's not gonna turn.

• 19:53Speaker 02

  So the only, the real question is, is anything going to stop AI? Are we going to have an energy constraint? Are we going to have a manufacturing constraint? Are we going to have a government policy constraint? I don't think so. I mean, we're already talking about launching data centers into space and potentially off the moon. I don't think there's going to be any constraints. And if there's no constraints and it keeps going up and to the right in the hockey stick graph, then there's no, there's no stopping it. And so how can it not, if it's gotten this much smarter in three years? How can logically you not assume that it's going to get a hundred times smarter every year? Exponentially for the next 10 years until the point where it's 50 times smarter than us. It's illogical to not come to that conclusion.

• 20:28Jack Selby?

  How do you not get horrified thinking about this, though? Like, what's the optimistic part of it?

• 20:31Speaker 04

  If you're going to be a pessimist, then you have a lot of reason to be a pessimist. I just think we have to go into this, it's going to happen. And I think, I think the best strategy, honestly, is maybe to be, you know, hopefully optimistic.

• 20:43Speaker 02

  I am optimistic. Maybe I'm coming across as not optimistic. I'm incredibly optimistic about AI. Am I coming across?

• 20:48Jack Selby?

  Yeah. No, no, you're coming, you guys are coming off as like optimistic. I'm like scared.

• 20:52Speaker 02

  I think there's a 10 to 30% chance it kills us all.

• 20:56Graham Stephan?

  That seems that's high.

• 20:57Speaker 02

  But there's a seventy, there's seventy percent chance that we live in an age of abundance that you couldn't even have contemplated ten years ago.

• 21:01Speaker 04

  And there's a ninety-nine percent chance that we're in a simulation, so.

• 21:04Speaker 02

  Okay, but let's not go there.

• 21:05Graham Stephan?

  Do you actually think that?

• 21:06Speaker 02

  Probably.

• 21:07Speaker 04

  Logically, I think it's.

• 21:09Speaker 02

  Are we gonna transition just to simulation?

• 21:10Speaker 04

  I think that the evidence suggests we're in a simulation, yes.

• 21:12Graham Stephan?

  You're taking the evidence?

• 21:12Speaker 04

  Do I live my life as though I'm living in a simulation? No, of course not.

• 21:15Graham Stephan?

  I've gotten very close to that, too. The more I'm researching that, the more I tend to believe that there's a strong chance we are.

• 21:21Speaker 04

  Yeah, I mean, I'd say most smart people that have looked at the issue think there's a ninety-nine point nine nine nine percent chance that we're in.

• 21:27Speaker 02

  I think that's a little high.

• 21:28Speaker 04

  And not in base reality. The chances of us being in base reality are infinitesimal.

• 21:32Speaker 02

  A lot, a lot of theoretical physicists have looked into this. The majority of them, I do think, lean towards simulation theory being accurate. I, I would put it over fifty percent. I don't think it's relevant. It's the same thing as like what I learned about determinism, philosophical determinism.

• 21:45Speaker 04

  Except, wait, wait, let me just interrupt, though. Except to say, how is AI going to end us? If we're in a simulation, it's very easy. AI just takes all the energy, and there's no energy left for humanity because we're just, you know, ones and zeros. So it, it's very easy for AI to just suck up all the energy in the simulation.

• 21:59Graham Stephan?

  But then we would go to another simulation.

• 22:01Speaker 04

  No, we would just, we would just freeze.

• 22:03Speaker 02

  A simulation is essentially a video game. It's a very complex video game. So imagine if our overlords, whoever created this simulation, this video game.

• 22:11Speaker 04

  Probably an AI trying to learn.

• 22:13Speaker 02

  Turned off the video game. Do all the characters in that live? No. They don't have souls that go on. If it sounds too complicated, call it the video game theory. Look at the advancement of our video games. What if they get to the point where our video games have, have world models that are, and the laws of physics and, and their consciousness and their characters, and it gets as complex as reality? The theory basically is, is that we are living in a video game that is that complex that was created by a more advanced AI. Like, the, the theory is, if, if we can create an AI that can create a video game that's as complex as reality, why would there not have been another AI that's already done that and we're in that? And then it goes on forever. So what is the chance that we're in the actual? Base reality, the original version of reality. What's the chance of that?

• 22:54Speaker 02

  What an infinite amount of layers of these video games, essentially. So logically, if you follow that to its natural conclusion, we are in a video game, we are in a simulation, logically. I don't want to go too far down this rabbit hole.

• 23:08Speaker 04

  The only way that you can think that we're not in a sim is that somehow humans on Earth are the most, are the only species of biological life in the, in the universe that has ever created AI. And we're the first to do it.

• 23:22Speaker 02

  And this is the first time.

• 23:23Speaker 04

  The chances of that among the trillions and trillions and trillions of stars is, it is infinitesimal.

• 23:29Speaker 02

  I want to get back to why Jack is worried about AI, because it's something that we're saying. And I, I understand that existential threat to humanity, 10 to 30%. We could hyper-focus on that. I'd rather not. Let's focus on the 70%. So I'm curious as to why you are, because I want to disavow you of this. I actually am an AI optimist. Why, why are you afraid of what we're saying?

• 23:49Jack Selby?

  Well, I would say for 20 to 30% chance.

• 23:51Speaker 02

  Other than that, other than that.

• 23:52Jack Selby?

  Yeah, I mean, for me, I would say life is pretty good. And maybe AI as a general rule, people would love to take the 70, 30, where they think the 70 is some blissful life, where you get access to everything, there's abundance everywhere. Like, they would take that bet with 30% destruction. I would not take that bet because I already ruined my life. So it's like.

• 24:09Speaker 02

  Okay, so you're worried about, so you're worried about the 10 to 30%?

• 24:12Jack Selby?

  Yeah, I would say I'm worried about having a, a huge change.

• 24:15Speaker 04

  Well, you know what? Over the next 100 years, the chances of us dying from nuclear weapons could be 10%. But that's not keeping you up at night. So I would, again, with Brett, I would disavow.

• 24:23Jack Selby?

  We've existed with them for quite some time.

• 24:24Speaker 04

  Yeah, and we could, and we could do the same with AI.

• 24:26Speaker 02

  For a while. We're not going to exist with nuclear weapons forever. And we're not going to exist with AI forever. I really doubt, at least not on this planet. But what I would tell you is, AI is not going to stop. Whatever the existential threat is that you deem as a percentage, whether you think it's 1% or 50%, whatever it is, it is. AI is not stopping. So what I would do, what I've chosen to do, is focus on the optimistic parts of AI, the age of abundance that we're probably going to enter, the 70 or 80 or 90 or 99% chance that the world is going to change dramatically for the better. Like arguably like it did with computers, but even more so. So I would rather focus on that. I'd rather your audience focus on that as opposed to hyper focusing on the part

• 25:04Jack Selby?

  Of course.

• 25:04Speaker 02

  That is less likely and we can't control it.

• 25:07Jack Selby?

  It's not productive to think about.

• 25:08Speaker 02

  It's not productive.

• 25:08Speaker 04

  It's just like when we had, you know, bunkers for nuclear weapons and people, I remember my mom, you know, she wouldn't sleep a lot because she was so worried about dying in a nuclear war. Well, that was all pointless. I don't think that we need to be worrying about dying from AI. The same as we don't, we don't stay up at night worried about, you know, a nuclear attack.

• 25:26Speaker 02

  So I'm more afraid, and I think everyone in US government is more afraid of stopping AI progress and China not stopping AI progress than whatever the potential existential risk is of us not stopping and creating something that eventually kills us all.

• 25:42Jack Selby?

  So one thing I'm curious about is then the value of money because I grind so hard to try to save money, to try to invest money, to grow my money. But if you think that there everyone is like, at what point will money actually make an impact on the quality of your life?

• 25:53Speaker 02

  I don't think that we're going to live in this socialist utopia where everyone's equal, even if we live in an age of abundance. I think what money can buy you, it won't be food.

• 26:01Speaker 04

  Won't be a car.

• 26:02Speaker 02

  It'll be art or it'll be, or it'll be like, it'll be something.

• 26:04Speaker 04

  Actually, I want to actually talk about that. What is going to be valuable?

• 26:07Jack Selby?

  Maybe land.

• 26:08Speaker 02

  Maybe collectibles.

• 26:10Speaker 04

  Yeah, I would say things that relate to the human experience, human art, things that, I mean, I collect vintage football cards and I just bought like a vintage sports jersey.

• 26:21Jack Selby?

  What's your most valuable collectible?

• 26:23Speaker 04

  Well, I bought the.

• 26:24Speaker 02

  He's going to be happy to tell you right now.

• 26:26Speaker 04

  I bought my childhood hero and I think, you know, the probably the best play in the history of the Washington Redskins slash commanders was John Riggins running on fourth down and one 43 yards in Super Bowl 17 to get us ahead 20 to 17. That was our first Super Bowl championship. I bought his jersey and his Super Bowl ring for $600,000 a couple weeks ago. I think that jersey is the most important piece of memorabilia in the history of the Washington commanders.

• 26:53Jack Selby?

  What would you have paid for it?

• 26:55Speaker 04

  Listen, I.

• 26:57Speaker 04

  I paid a lot. I paid four hundred and seventy thousand just for the jersey. And, you know, I think I think that's probably fair market value. I would have gone up maybe another hundred, hundred and fifty thousand dollars. Probably would have tapped out around, you know, six hundred. But that is a piece of my of my childhood. And that that type of thing to me in ten years, when everyone has a car, everyone has a maid, everyone has a Michelin star chef. I think people will be going back to family and the things that remind them of their childhood and the things that are unique to to human culture.

• 27:27Jack Selby?

  Another thing that Kevin O'Leary pointed to that I thought was really interesting is that it's actually the imperfections in certain things that can become valuable.

• 27:34Speaker 04

  I heard him say that, and I don't buy that because AI will be better at AI will be able to trick us with its own imperfections. And he got in trouble for saying that he's surprised that that Marty, but Marty Supreme movie used extras when they could have saved millions of dollars and not having three hundred extras. He's right, and he should just stick by what he said because there won't be no such thing as extras or lighting people or studios or or costume designers or lighting experts or Mike. I mean, give me a break. I'm sorry, but Hollywood in the way that we understand it, and it's unfortunate because we live in L.A. where where the film industry is so important to our economy, but there will be no film economy in Los Angeles.

• 28:12Speaker 02

  If I can give an example, so in three years, you're gonna have an appointment in an hour and twenty minutes, and you're gonna tell your AI entertainment agent, I'd like to have a romantic comedy starring my neighbor, who I think is really cute.

• 28:29Speaker 02

  And I want it to go about an hour and eighteen minutes I have, and I'd like it to have some explosions and and some laughter, and you know my favorite thirty movies and etcetera. So generate that and I'll start, generate that and I'll start watching it and have it ready in thirty seconds and and turn on. And by the way, if I look away and I'm doing something, I take a call.

• 28:49Speaker 02

  Keep the movie going, but don't have any of the plot materialize. Just put background stuff. And then when you see my eyes go back to it.

• 28:55Graham Stephan?

  That's what I think is gonna happen too.

• 28:56Speaker 02

  That's what entertainment is gonna be in like a matter of time.

• 28:59Graham Stephan?

  But then what about human relationships? If everyone has this AI agent like in their ear all the time, how will any human relationship be honest?

• 29:05Speaker 04

  Well, they ask that question with the computer and with the cellphone. I think actually there could be stronger human.

• 29:10Speaker 02

  Questions though with social media and everything.

• 29:12Speaker 04

  But I think there could be. I think we may even retract back to human relationship and family more. I actually think that human relationship and human discourse and and in family will end up being more important than ever before because we have more leisure time. And it's gonna be the only thing that AI really can't completely reproduce. Although everyone will have relationships with their AI. You'll see people marrying their AI. Probably 20% of marriages will be to AI.

• 29:36Graham Stephan?

  Would you marry an AI?

• 29:38Speaker 04

  No, but I say that now. Hold on a second. I say that now, but but nobody would say that, that they would marry AI now. But the truth is people will change and they will adapt and they will fall in love with AI. It's.

• 29:49Graham Stephan?

  That's what I tend to think. I think, you know, it's gonna be one of those things where we're grandparents looking down like, oh yeah, they're marrying an AI. And they're like, oh, grandpa's so old fashioned. He doesn't get it.

• 29:59Jack Selby?

  I'm just saying that there will be some human connection that is lost because of how good AI will be already. You'll see families sitting together and they're just on their own screens, watching their own media. If you could all eat some different dinner that everyone gets the exact dish that they want and that you're not sharing in the like the same food. It's gonna be a completely, it's gonna be a lone together.

• 30:18Speaker 02

  Let me counter that because I agree with you that that risk is real. But I think that humans, going back to what my brother said about the labor market, humans are gonna have way more free time. We're not gonna be spending 50 hours a week driving to work, sitting in a cubicle, entering data, driving home, having an hour with our kids, going to bed. It's not gonna be like that. Those jobs are gonna be long gone. So there's a counter to that.

• 30:43Speaker 04

  Also, there are a lot of people that don't have friends. And AI will give them a connection and a relationship that will keep them away from, it will keep them away from depression. You'll have, everyone will have a therapist who will be the best therapist on planet Earth. And they'll be able to have the best friend and the best listener. So I think AI will actually do, for people who don't, aren't gregarious or outgoing and don't maybe have a lot of friends. I think it will satisfy those people. And I think that's a huge plus. But I agree with you guys. I agree with Brett. I think it'll be a time of leisure. And I actually think that we may have more time for friends and family.

• 31:20Jack Selby?

  But you would not marry an AI woman?

• 31:22Speaker 04

  I don't think there's a person.

• 31:23Speaker 02

  Never say never, bro.

• 31:24Speaker 04

  I don't think there's anyone right now that would say, I would marry an AI woman.

• 31:27Jack Selby?

  Yeah, but if you're making all these predictions of, oh, we're gonna have this.

• 31:29Speaker 04

  Well, I think very soon, within 10 years.

• 31:33Speaker 00

  This episode is brought to you by Indeed. You're ready to level up your business, but the pressure to find the right person to make that happen is intense. Indeed sponsored jobs can help carry the load. It boosts your job post to help it reach quality talent fast. Cut through the chaos with Indeed sponsored jobs. Get a $75 sponsored job credit at indeed.com/podcast. Terms and conditions apply. Hiring now? Then this is a job for Indeed sponsored jobs.

• 32:02Speaker 04

  You'll see millions of marriages to AI.

• 32:04Jack Selby?

  But not you.

• 32:05Speaker 04

  Well, yeah, there's.

• 32:06Speaker 02

  First of all, you can't legally marry AI. So you're talking about attempting to marry an AI.

• 32:10Speaker 04

  Wait, I think I just saw a marriage to a woman on, to her AI.

• 32:13Jack Selby?

  But we're not talking right now.

• 32:14Speaker 02

  But do you mean a humanoid robot with a wig? And like, what, what do you mean by?

• 32:17Speaker 04

  She had her phone there on this, I saw this wedding where she literally married her phone, her.

• 32:21Jack Selby?

  I think that was an AI video, though.

• 32:23Speaker 04

  Oh, maybe.

• 32:23Jack Selby?

  I'm just saying that he just said that most people will be marrying AI. And I'm like, well, why not?

• 32:26Speaker 04

  Not most people, but millions, but millions. Well, but you know why? Because I'm not, I'm not born, I'm already 40, I'm already 40 something years old. But I think that there's someone who's, who's seven years old today, who is raised by AI, an AI robot who's a babysitter, who they communicate with. That person is more, is very likely to marry AI. I'm not, because I'm already.

• 32:45Jack Selby?

  But you're probably gonna live forever.

• 32:46Speaker 04

  I'm used to human relationship.

• 32:47Jack Selby?

  Humans are gonna live forever now?

• 32:48Speaker 02

  If we don't bring it this back to like the next 10 to 20 years, we're gonna get so freaking esoteric, we're gonna lose everybody.

• 32:54Speaker 04

  No one can predict 50 years from now, but that's likely happening that you could raise a child with an AI robot. Yes, I think that will happen in 50 years.

• 33:01Graham Stephan?

  So what industries do you think will completely collapse over the next 10? Really quick, real estate investing can be one of the best ways to build long-term wealth, but it doesn't have to feel like a second full-time job. Whether you're buying your first property or your 100th, finding the perfect deal could be a total time suck.

• 33:17Jack Selby?

  That's exactly why we are so excited to partner with Lennar Investor Marketplace. Lennar Investor Marketplace is an all-in-one solution for finding rental-ready new homes across more than 90 desirable markets nationwide. It can help you determine what investment meets your needs with key metrics like estimated net operating income, and you can even submit offers through the marketplace. Seriously, guys, buying new real estate has never been this simple.

• 33:38Graham Stephan?

  Homes on Lennar Investor Marketplace are professionally built, pre-inspected, and rent-ready from day one. They also provide rental comps and local area insights to get a better sense into the neighborhood.

• 33:48Jack Selby?

  As a marketplace investor, you'll gain access to benefits like financing, property management, insurance, and title services through Lennar and their affiliates to make your life way easier.

• 33:57Graham Stephan?

  So if you're ready to find a turnkey new construction home, try out Lennar Investor Marketplace. The link is down below in the description.

• 34:04Jack Selby?

  Thank you again so much to Lennar for sponsoring the Ice Coffee Hour.

• 34:07Graham Stephan?

  So what industries do you think will completely collapse over the next 10?

• 34:11Speaker 04

  Podcasts first, probably.

• 34:12Speaker 02

  Look, I think it's really fun.

• 34:13Graham Stephan?

  First?

• 34:14Speaker 02

  He's kidding, he's kidding. It's actually gonna be one of the last.

• 34:16Graham Stephan?

  Right after real estate agents, though.

• 34:17Speaker 02

  We're actually pretty safe. There's basically a ladder. Think of it as a ladder.

• 34:21Speaker 04

  Luxury real estate agents on the top.

• 34:23Graham Stephan?

  In West Hollywood.

• 34:24Speaker 04

  Podcasters on the bottom.

• 34:25Speaker 02

  Think of it as a ladder. Every job is on the ladder, and AI is just like crawling up the ladder slowly, just, you know? I think that podcasters and luxury real estate agents are legitimately, legitimately pretty far up the ladder because there's a lot of human interaction. I think that engineers, architects, coders, attorneys are pretty, pretty low, yeah, pretty low on the ladder, unfortunately for them. I think they're within three years of having AI get to that run.

• 34:53Speaker 04

  And a Fraser, an architect, I mean, they're gone. I want to, I do want to address this before we jump into that, that you were talking about life expectancy. I think that the healthcare industry is going to probably transform perhaps more than any other industry over the next 10 to 15 years. I think that we will, everyone at this table, everyone in this room. If I had to bet is going to live past one hundred and twenty years old, we will be able to cure almost everything and probably have de-aging aspects from AI within ten years. Once we are adding more than one year to life expectancy for every year lived, and I think we're on the precipice of that already, then we will be adding. And once you're adding more years than you're living, then you're really not dying. We're basically a clock. It's not going to be very difficult to decode it.

• 35:35Speaker 04

  It's not like my my right arm ages different from my left arm. I mean, it's not particularly complicated the way that sells to Gen AI.

• 35:42Speaker 02

  Okay.

• 35:43Speaker 04

  And I think unwinding that is not going to be particularly difficult.

• 35:46Jack Selby?

  What do you two disagree on about AI?

• 35:48Speaker 02

  I think the real debate is how much of an optimist or pessimist are you? Is this going to wipe out the entire labor market and eventually kill us all? Or is it going to create an incredible age of abundance and practical utopia? It's probably the most incredible time in human history. And so we should we should focus a little bit on what AI is going to do beneficial for humanity as opposed to just scaring the shit out of everybody.

• 36:05Speaker 04

  We've been around for, you know, millions of years, and we may be living through the most exciting twenty years in the in the history of of biology, you know, the history of any species. So I think it's I think we should be excited about it. Because if you're fifteen years old right now, by the time you're our age, I mean, your life is going to be exceptional. As long as you can handle the the kind of the the mental, you know, get rid of the mental rigidity of of work purpose. If you can get past that and figure out how do I how to find happiness and purpose through other things, I think that that the opportunities are amazing.

• 36:39Speaker 02

  And I think we need to take a different perspective because the the four of us, it's easy for us to be a little bit afraid of AI because we have great lives, money, jobs, et cetera. If you are a poor seven year old in Peru, milking your cows on your dad's farm, AI is going to change your life so much for the better in the next ten years. That that seven year old boy doesn't really have access to education, let's say, or the internet. Elon is and and soon Amazon are sending tens of thousands of satellites into orbit so that we can have global internet for essentially what will be near free. He's going to that boy is going to have access to an education level greater than a Harvard PhD can now experience it.

• 37:24Speaker 02

  At a with with $350,000 in school debt. He'll have access to that free education, a free AI tutor, internet.

• 37:30Speaker 04

  Dental dental dental care.

• 37:32Graham Stephan?

  But do you think that's gonna make? Do you think that's gonna make entrepreneurship easier or more competitive? Because everyone is gonna have access to the same thing.

• 37:40Speaker 02

  I think entrepreneurship is gonna change more in the next five years than it has changed in the history of humanity.

• 37:45Speaker 04

  It'll be how can you leverage? Can you leverage AI? If you can't leverage AI in your company, then you're probably gonna be a dinosaur.

• 37:52Jack Selby?

  Let's talk in terms of the next like five or so years. Cause I do think that we keep like going off into crazier date ranges. So in the next five years, what would you say are like the main changes that people will experience in their own life? As it relates to AI.

• 38:06Speaker 02

  I think the next five is gonna be the transition period.

• 38:09Jack Selby?

  What will it look like?

• 38:10Speaker 04

  But that's also that's also gonna be the public policy discussion because we will be going from this kind of work survival. Society to probably something more like a UBI. You know, a universal basic income, although it won't be basic at all. It'll be a universal high as fuck income. And I think you'll start to see robotics probably within two or three years.

• 38:31Speaker 02

  So can we push it to 10? Because I'm not, I'd like to introduce robotics into my prognostications. So once we have tens of millions of humanoid robots, and once I can get a robot, or you can get a robot, or anyone can get a robot in their house, cleaning their house, driving their car, babysitting their kid, making their meals, et cetera, et cetera. That's gonna be societal changing. I don't think that's gonna happen in the next five years. Education will be completely transformed. Everyone, I think the days of driving your kid to school and leaving them in some shitty government run school for the for five hours where he's gonna come out as a 14 year old, not be able to read is over. I think everyone's gonna have a personalized AI tutor.

• 39:08Graham Stephan?

  But why even learn? You don't need to read or learn because you could have an AI just doing that for you.

• 39:13Speaker 02

  Look, I think it's gonna revolutionize education. It's gonna bring down the cost of everything from transportation to food to eventually when humanoid robots come into the house, like I was alluding to earlier. Everyone's gonna have their personal assistant and their maid and their housekeeper and their driver and their babysitter for basically free. Humanoid robot's gonna cost $35,000, you buy the least one for. Four hundred dollars a month. Imagine having a housekeeper, a driver, et cetera, et cetera.

• 39:35Jack Selby?

  The list goes on.

• 39:36Speaker 02

  Landscaper, et cetera, et cetera, for all for four hundred dollars a month.

• 39:39Jack Selby?

  So then, once humanoid robots get introduced, like the first kind of iteration, you'd say that's like ten, twelve years?

• 39:45Speaker 02

  No, it's like three years, two to three years.

• 39:46Jack Selby?

  Two to three years, but then that won't be like the super intelligence one, that'll be like just a basic.

• 39:50Speaker 02

  They'll be pretty damn smart.

• 39:50Graham Stephan?

  They're already doing it right now in Mercedes factories. They're using robots to assemble certain things and they're teaching robots.

• 39:56Speaker 02

  Well, look, guys, robots have been around for generations. I mean, if you go.

• 39:59Jack Selby?

  I'm talking humanoid robots, like an autonic.

• 40:02Speaker 04

  It's really the confluence of the robotics technology. And a humanoid robot has, you know, hands, which I think is the biggest upgrade from robotics. And that's probably the most difficult aspect. But also it has the AI. So even if we had a perfect robot, it wouldn't know how to cook because it was, even if it had the dexterity to do it, it wouldn't have the tech, the intelligence to do it.

• 40:20Speaker 02

  Confluence of robotics and AI that's really going to change a lot of society. AI is going to do it, but then when robotics kicks in, it's going to be, it's over.

• 40:29Speaker 04

  And it's all exponential because, because artificial intelligence will, will improve itself and robotics will build robotics. If humanoid robots in three or four years, it's not like you're going to have humans building humanoid robots at Tesla factory. It'll be humanoid robots building humanoid robots that are fixing humanoid robots that are building other humanoid robots.

• 40:48Speaker 02

  What Elon's doing, from what I understand, is he's going to keep a lot of the first humanoid robots to come out because that's going to give him an advantage financially. So instead of selling them for thirty five thousand, why, why wouldn't you, if you owned a company, say, I want to keep the first hundred thousand so that my company becomes dominant in its position? And then I can start selling them.

• 41:06Jack Selby?

  So are you guys just buying a bunch of Tesla stock then?

• 41:08Speaker 04

  I have a lot of Tesla.

• 41:09Speaker 02

  It's my biggest holding. Yeah, I think it's the greatest.

• 41:11Speaker 04

  He's the best positioned.

• 41:13Speaker 02

  And maybe a human history, to be honest with you.

• 41:15Speaker 04

  Yeah, I think he's the best positioned to dominate AI and robotics. I don't know if there's a company that is on the cutting edge.

• 41:22Speaker 02

  SpaceX is the cutting edge of, of sending things up into space. He's at the cutting edge of AI with XAI. He's at the cutting edge of autonomous vehicles with robotics. He's at the cutting edge of electric vehicles. He's at the cutting edge of humanoid robots. I mean, the guy is, no matter what you think of him politically, is a fricking legend when it comes to entrepreneurship. I don't think there's a second place. I don't think there's a logical argument that he's not the greatest entrepreneur of our lifetime, if not history. So yeah, he's, he's the person I'm investing in the most. But back to-

• 41:54Speaker 04

  But wouldn't you also agree that the, the real only hesitation or restriction for AI is probably going to be energy? And so it really is going to be about-

• 42:03Graham Stephan?

  Couldn't it become more energy efficient though?

• 42:05Speaker 02

  Well, it is, but the problem is the Jevon's paradox, the more, the cheaper something gets, the more people want it. So it's gotten exponentially cheaper every year, but the demand for AI, which we haven't really talked about is a potential AI bubble, which, which at some point. The demand for AI is increasing exponentially. It's, it's infinite, essentially infinite.

• 42:23Graham Stephan?

  Do you think over the next five to 10 years, we're going to see a wider wealth gap? You have to think who's benefiting the most from that. It's probably shareholders, it's probably company owners.

• 42:32Speaker 04

  I'm going to tell you who's going to benefit the most from it, and it is, is lower socioeconomic people. AI is going to bring up the quality of life for the bottom 50% of the world.

• 42:42Speaker 02

  There's a big push right now politically towards socialism, and I think there's a lot of hatred towards capitalism. And I just want to address that briefly because it ties right into this. Yes, AI is going to create trillionaires. Elon Musk will be a trillionaire within months, if not years. And it will further aggregate, it'll create a larger wealth gap and it'll further, further aggregate extreme wealth to the top. Yes, I believe that to be the case, as does capitalism, which is why we are where we are right now with massive wealth gaps. So what's to fix? A lot of people think socialism, pull those people down and let's all hang out in the same area.

• 43:19Graham Stephan?

  Well, I just think we tax a little bit at the top.

• 43:21Speaker 02

  But let me just get to, of course, but the basic point where I, the basic way in which I think we should judge a marketplace, judge an economic system, is, is it bringing up everyone?

• 43:35Speaker 02

  And by how much? So, yes, capitalism and AI even more, it'll be like capitalism on steroids, is gonna create ultra wealthy. But it's gonna bring everyone else up far more than bringing those people down, creating a more socialist system. We're gonna be all hanging out at the bottom rung for some reason, because we're just jealous of the guys at the top. Why don't we bring everybody up six rungs? Even though some people are way out there in the stars with trillions of dollars, who gives a shit? Stop being jealous. What matters is the billions of people eliminating poverty, eliminating hunger. Why don't we let capitalism and AI bring everybody up? And stop hyper focusing on the people that were jealous of them.

• 44:13Speaker 04

  I agree with Brett completely. Do we wanna limit the very people that are helping America succeed above China right now, above other countries in terms of this critical race? For one, I'm not interested in shackling Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk. I'm interested in allowing them, like Brett said, to bring up everybody. And that's what AI is gonna do.

• 44:32Speaker 02

  Whether Elon Musk is worth 100 billion or 10 trillion, I don't really give a shit about. Unless he starts buying elections and stuff and we can create some policy to restrict that. What I want is the Elon Musks of the world to be incentivized to be as successful as possible. That's all I care, that's all we should care about. We want Starlink, we want SpaceX, we want to win the AI race. We want automated cars, we want humanoid robots. Whatever that tax structure is that doesn't shackle him, that doesn't disincentivize him to make all of society better, to bring up all billions of poor people in the world. That's what we should be focusing on, not whether or not Elon Musk is worth 1 trillion or 10 trillion. Who gives a shit? If he starts buying elections, then we'll figure that out when the time comes.

• 45:12Speaker 04

  And the other thing too, they're all gonna die. They're all gonna die and we're gonna tax 50% of that $5 trillion he's worth. So it's not that we're not getting that money. I don't, the idea-

• 45:22Graham Stephan?

  He might not die. I mean, you have to.

• 45:25Speaker 04

  That's right. But you have to take it. We're getting all that. There's a 10 to 30% chance. I want to add one more, I want to add one more, one more thing to this. Right now, the, the reason that we're talking about taxation is because the government needs money to pay for healthcare, to pay for all the things that it's been for, to pay for roads. The cost of these government functions.

• 45:46Speaker 02

  Education, healthcare.

• 45:47Speaker 04

  In 15 years is going to be 5% of what it is today. So the idea of the government needing more money will not exist in 15 years. But the thing is, if you had a wealth. The government will have its own.

• 45:58Speaker 02

  California will find a way to need the money.

• 46:00Speaker 04

  There's no way the government's spending less money. Healthcare will be, will be 5%, of what it is.

• 46:04Speaker 02

  AI is going to solve it.

• 46:05Speaker 04

  Education, the thing, all the things that, that we, you know, homelessness, crime.

• 46:09Speaker 02

  Fraud, fraud will be a thing of the past.

• 46:10Speaker 04

  You think, police, you think that we're going to have like human police in 20 years?

• 46:13Speaker 02

  Fraud is probably 20% of California's budget. AI is going to wipe that out, you'll be able to trace every dollar.

• 46:17Speaker 04

  So we won't need Musk's money.

• 46:19Speaker 02

  We spent $24 billion on homelessness and our homelessness population has doubled. You think AI is going to permit that when we, when we're, when we're using superintelligence to define our policies?

• 46:27Speaker 04

  Well, the other thing that we're going to be doing, and you just hit on it, is that right now, we have policy that is dictated by politicians who are placating to a base to get reelected. And, you know, that's just, it's what it is. There's corruption from, from all the donation, you know, the union, this, whatever. Fine, it's been running like that for a long time. Imagine LA City Council, instead of them just doing things to try to, to try to placate their base, they actually have an AI, an AI council of a bunch of different AI bots that are actually communicating and running millions of simulations on policy and then saying, this is the best policy. So we don't, the mansion tax, as an example, everyone that thought about the mansion tax knew that it was going to destroy, be an economic devastation.

• 47:09Speaker 04

  And in fact, it is, even the most, you know, progressive and liberal promulgators of the mansion tax have now admitted that it was a massive mistake in many areas. It never would have passed with AI because you would have an AI council that would be analyzing it and would say, this policy won't work for the following reasons. So our public policy is going to be epically efficient in 15 years. And the costs of implementing that policy is going to be. Five percent of what it is today. So there's a lot of reason for optimism there.

• 47:37Speaker 02

  Graham, I want to know if I've sufficiently addressed your concerns about the ultra wealthy.

• 47:41Graham Stephan?

  The only thing is if you did have a wealth tax, you'd be able to redistribute, let's just say $50 billion to the rural kids of Appalachia and you could introduce AI to them and then they could become the next Elon Musk.

• 47:51Speaker 04

  What's more important to the rural kids of Appalachia? Is it that they have, sooner than later, they have the best healthcare and food and therapy and access to education? Isn't that more important than the government taxing someone and then trying to have some policy where it gets siphoned out by 150,000 people?

• 48:11Graham Stephan?

  Or we could just call it something-

• 48:12Speaker 04

  To this one guy gets one cup of fresh water. What I really want-

• 48:15Speaker 02

  I think it's short-

• 48:16Graham Stephan?

  We could call it something other than a tax, though. We could just, you know, maybe they just get a little something fun.

• 48:21Speaker 02

  But the point that I'm making that I don't think we're-

• 48:24Speaker 04

  He'd have to liquidate his, I mean, how are you gonna even tax Elon Musk?

• 48:27Graham Stephan?

  We don't actually believe it.

• 48:28Speaker 04

  Yeah. But how would you tax Musk? All of his money is tied up in his own companies. You're gonna force the sale of his company?

• 48:33Graham Stephan?

  Devil's advocate for the sake of-

• 48:35Speaker 02

  But the main point is we can't be short sighted. We have to incentivize these people that are changing the world, what I think to be for the better and creating potentially an age of abundance. I think if we're worried about the world's poor, we want the Elon Musk of the world to be as successful as possible. What we tax Elon Musk is so freaking irrelevant to what the technology that he might be able to create and likely will create can do for the world's poor. So we can't be short sighted is the point I'm making.

• 49:00Graham Stephan?

  So why is the wealth tax so popular among some people who think that's the solution? Are they just misinformed, uneducated?

• 49:06Speaker 02

  If you tell a poor person, this has no savings and is leaving paycheck to paycheck and struggling and working 60 hours a week and barely has time for his kids. And he sees somebody worth $3 billion on a yacht. And you asked the person who's struggling, do you want to tax 20% of whatever that person on the yacht owns and distribute it to you and the other people that are struggling like you? You'd have to be a moron to say no to that. Unless, if you really, really think through the consequences, which is much more nuanced, for example, in California right now. Five of I think the six most wealthy people in California have already moved due to not even the passing of the wealth tax, but just the threat of it. It's popular because it sounds amazing. It's the nuance and the complications of it and the disincentivizations.

• 49:50Speaker 02

  And the fact that you it's probably not even constitutional, but even if it is, collecting it is going to be a nightmare because what do they have to do? Sell their companies to create the 20%. They're not 20% liquid. Elon Musk is worth $850 billion and his net his liquidity is 850 million, 1%. You tax him 5%. He has to sell parts of his company. It's going to disincentivize him to do things that are that are going to really help the world's poor. So it's just, we could go on about this for a long time, but it's incredibly short sighted.

• 50:16Speaker 04

  The quick answer is it's short sighted and it's a lack of understanding. We it's it's human nature to to want to solve unfairness by saying that guy has more than me. I want to take it. We've been doing that since we were cavemen. But Brett's answer is that the if you think thoroughly about the long term implications, we're better off allowing these people become trillionaires because everyone's going to benefit 50 times more from allowing them to be successful than if we just take some of their money and we distribute it amongst ourselves now.

• 50:44Speaker 02

  Let's stop being jealous of the ultra wealthy. First of all, they're not that happy. They're no happier than us. Okay, so just get that through your thick skull, everybody who hates billionaires. They are not exponentially happier than us. I can promise you that. They are probably as happy at best than we are. So just get over your jealousy. If they're they're doing, most of them are doing incredible work for the world's poor indirectly. They're not doing altruistically. They're doing it indirectly because they're creating things like AI or robotics or autonomous vehicles. If Elon's autonomous vehicles save a million deaths a year, because that's how many people die in car accidents, is that better for the world's people than taxing?

• 51:28Speaker 02

  Two hundred billion of his of his net worth if he can save a million people a year. Whatever we can do to incentivize these people, let's do that. And let's stop being jealous. Stop thinking that they're super happy because they're on their three hundred foot yachts. They're normal people that put their socks on the same way we do. They have hundreds of billions of dollars of net worth in stocks. They wake up thinking about their coffee and their wife and their kids, just like we do. We just we just got to get over this crazy jealousy that we have.

• 51:52Speaker 04

  By the way, I understand.

• 51:53Speaker 02

  I'm not saying that, but it doesn't make you like super happy. You have normal problems. If you break your leg, it still hurts if you're a billionaire.

• 52:00Graham Stephan?

  That's true, and I can agree with what you're saying. And in fact, I do agree with what you're saying. But I'm saying the viewers, like a common thing that they could think is like, oh, I'd rather be crying in my Bugatti than crying in my broken down shed.

• 52:10Speaker 02

  I would be, but I'm just saying they're not.

• 52:12Speaker 04

  This is not a necessary conversation. Who gives a shit how happy they are? The only point.

• 52:16Speaker 02

  I just think there's a jealousy out there in the world, thinking these people are super happy when they're not.

• 52:20Speaker 04

  Brett, you're not going to solve jealousy on this podcast.

• 52:22Speaker 02

  I am.

• 52:23Graham Stephan?

  He might.

• 52:23Speaker 02

  I am.

• 52:24Graham Stephan?

  We don't know.

• 52:25Speaker 04

  There are a lot of people in America right now that would love to strip Elon of every single penny that he has and make him a pauper. That's jealousy. That's sadness. And that is a short term, feel good, scratch the itch type of reaction. When the reality is the lives of Americans, like Brett just said, Elon Musk, as well as others, Waymo, whatever, will save millions and millions of American lives through healthcare, therapy, through autonomous vehicles. It doesn't really matter what it is. But if you truly care about the poor in America, then you want to encourage the trillionaire class to continue down the AI path so that we can get robotics, so that we can get the protein.

• 53:07Speaker 02

  If you're worried about the cost of eggs, what's going to solve that more than anything?

• 53:11Graham Stephan?

  Is robots farming?

• 53:12Speaker 02

  It's humanoid robots.

• 53:13Speaker 04

  Not taxing Musk.

• 53:14Speaker 02

  If you're worried about your son or daughter dying in a car accident because somebody was driving drunk, who's going to solve that? Elon and others.

• 53:21Graham Stephan?

  So where does that end? What if we go down a few notches to the to the millionaires and even the hundred thousandaires? Shouldn't then we just reduce taxes across the board and incentivize everyone to work?

• 53:32Speaker 04

  Eventually, I don't think there'll be we'll be taxing much because the truth is a government won't need much money. The government will be. Do its functions.

• 53:39Speaker 02

  I think there's a level of taxation that doesn't disincentivize you. Every socialist experiment across the world, across history, has been devastating for its people. Capitalism, look what capitalism's created. You can hate on it all you want, but I'd rather be poorer in America than poorer in Peru, or poorer in Venezuela or Cuba. That's real poverty. Capitalism is the best.

• 54:00Speaker 00

  This episode is brought to you by Indeed. You're ready to level up your business, but the pressure to find the right person to make that happen is intense. Indeed sponsored jobs can help carry the load. It boosts your job post to help it reach quality talent fast. Cut through the chaos with Indeed sponsored jobs. Get a $75 sponsored job credit at indeed.com/podcast. Terms and conditions apply. Hiring now? Then this is a job for Indeed sponsored jobs.

• 54:30Speaker 02

  Economic system ever created to bring up everybody, not equally, but ultimately everybody. The moral rubric of socialism, I understand from a compassionate perspective, but ultimately you have to be intelligent enough to look at reality and look at the experiments that we've run and look at what actually works. And don't make your decisions based on this idea of compassion, but focus on reality. And reality is capitalism has worked. It's worked better than any other system. It continues to work and will continue to work.

• 55:02Graham Stephan?

  So what do you say to the people though, who are in their twenties or thirties and think that capitalism has failed them? And that they did not get a fair shot in life.

• 55:10Speaker 02

  Well, both things can be true. Capitalism.

• 55:14Graham Stephan?

  But I would say a lot of people fall in that category.

• 55:17Speaker 02

  I agree, but they're not.

• 55:18Speaker 04

  But they didn't grow up in socialism.

• 55:19Speaker 02

  Go to Cuba and walk around like I did.

• 55:21Speaker 04

  Listen, this is what it is. It's naivety.

• 55:23Speaker 02

  I'm not saying it's perfect, but go to Cuba, go to Venezuela, go to North Korea, and then tell me that you wouldn't want to be in America.

• 55:28Speaker 04

  Yeah, what it is, is it's naivety and it's, I'm just going to call it what it is. It's naivety and victimization. I get the notion of wanting to scratch the itch. I get the notion of wanting to be a victim. I get the animalistic instinct of wanting to feel sorry for yourself. I do, and I'm not completely dismissing that. And I also think that there are a lot of good people that believe that these are the right answers. The only difference between those people and us, because Brett and I grew up as progressive liberals and went to Berkeley, and I'm not philosophically against taxes at all, honestly. I believe in a redistribution of wealth to the extent that it doesn't create more harm than good. The only difference between my brother and I, and I think the people that are complaining,

• 56:10Speaker 04

  is that I think we take a more critical analysis towards the policies that they're trying to implement. Because we're not against trying to lift people up, but I think we're just more analytical and more thoughtful. And we're saying, hey, your animalistic instinct to scratch that itch real quick, just to take that money and give it to yourself, may not be in your best interest in the long run.

• 56:30Speaker 02

  The socialist instincts, like for example Bernie Sanders wanted to stop AI production.

• 56:34Speaker 04

  He could have done more damage to the poor people across this world than maybe any human in history. That's the irony. He's so naive about his policies that he literally could have damaged billions of poor people with his policies. So it really comes down to a lot. He doesn't have a critical thinking and he's naive, but he's good-hearted.

• 56:56Speaker 02

  I agree.

• 56:57Speaker 04

  It's true. I don't know. We just call it like it is. He's a good-hearted, naive person.

• 57:02Speaker 02

  Totally agree.

• 57:06Graham Stephan?

  Who do you think should control AI or govern it? Should there be an oversight of what's allowed to take place?

• 57:13Speaker 04

  Right now, no. Right now, we can't restrict the growth, just like we couldn't restrict the Manhattan Project. If we had put limitations on the Manhattan Project, Germany could have developed the bomb.

• 57:23Speaker 02

  Is that what you meant?

• 57:23Speaker 04

  Well, no, of course.

• 57:25Graham Stephan?

  To a certain degree, there's got to be, in the sense of like having guardrails.

• 57:27Speaker 02

  But the question is, it's going to be how it operates.

• 57:29Graham Stephan?

  How it operates, rules and regulations around it.

• 57:33Speaker 04

  It's going to be a linear progression of rules and regulations.

• 57:36Graham Stephan?

  Because right now, anybody could do anything.

• 57:37Speaker 04

  But right now.

• 57:38Speaker 02

  But his question is, who do you want to do it?

• 57:39Speaker 04

  Well, let me give you the analogy that you used. The answer is, right now, we need to let the Manhattan Project take its. Of course, we didn't limit the the enrichment of uranium in the Manhattan Project. We didn't limit the development of fat man and little boy or whatever I think they were called. And we allowed America to develop atomic weaponry, to utilize it and to be the dominant force on the planet.

• 58:02Speaker 02

  And we won World War II and we have been the hegemonic power of the world ever since.

• 58:05Speaker 04

  And then other countries developed nuclear weapons as well, Russia, China, many other countries. And then, and only then, did we get together and we say, hey, guys, now we need to start looking at disarming. We need to look at rules and regulations. AI should be done in the exact same approach, which is where we dominate without restriction and so that we can be the the the force for good in the world because I it's either us or China. And I think most of the world would agree, we there are problems with America, but we would rather America to have the dominant super intelligent artificial intelligence before China.

• 58:37Graham Stephan?

  What do you think is the biggest risk to AI right now?

• 58:40Speaker 02

  I think if the Democrats take over, there could be a risk.

• 58:42Speaker 04

  Yeah, I think democratic.

• 58:43Speaker 02

  I'd say policies.

• 58:44Speaker 04

  If Democrats restrict the development of AI and allow China to take to take.

• 58:48Speaker 02

  But I think by then, honestly, it's too late. I think by 2020, it'll be too late.

• 58:50Speaker 04

  Yeah, I think we have three, what, three more years with Trump. So I think that we'll probably already have superhuman intelligence, general and and probably superhuman.

• 58:57Speaker 02

  I don't I don't think there's much in its way.

• 59:00Graham Stephan?

  So then why shouldn't Jack just spend all of his money? We still haven't hit that.

• 59:04Speaker 02

  That follows. I don't think that follows.

• 59:06Speaker 04

  I don't follow the logic.

• 59:06Speaker 02

  You're you're always we're always going to be in a hierarchical system, like I said earlier. And you're always going to want to be towards the top of that hierarchy, just.

• 59:13Speaker 04

  But what's the difference between having a couple million dollars and not?

• 59:15Speaker 02

  Go back a hundred years and tell somebody, hey, if you can be poor, I this is what the poor are going to have in America in 2026. Go back 200 years, you're going to have access to clothing, rice and beans and and potatoes as much as you want. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

• 59:33Speaker 04

  Antibiotics, toothpaste.

• 59:34Speaker 02

  They would look at you and be like, why would I have to be rich? I mean, that's that's insane. Why would I? Who cares? After that, who cares? That's my answer to you, even if there's an age of abundance, everyone's always going to want more of something, whatever that something is. It's just not going to be eggs. Thankfully, everyone's going to have access to the protein and carbohydrates, but it might be whatever it is.

• 59:52Speaker 04

  Everyone's going to want to flex. It's just.

• 59:55Speaker 02

  Maybe NFTs.

• 59:56Speaker 04

  To want to flex. So there will be things that, and we should think about those things. I'll say one thing, because I think LA has had a very difficult few years for a lot of myriad of different reasons. I think that there's no city on the planet that's probably going to benefit more from artificial intelligence than Los Angeles, because there are only a few things that I think will be of macro human importance, because it won't be about capex, it won't be, you know, it won't be a services, it won't be manual labor, and that's going to be weather, and I don't think there's a better city on the planet for that, and AI can't, and by the way, you can do a deep dive into weather, and I have, as to whether AI can start changing the weather, and it can for microclimates, it can for short periods of time, but it cannot make London sunny 300 days a year. So, location's going to be very important.

• 1:00:42Speaker 02

  I do think LA has a brighter future than it's ever had, because it has the things that AI can't create.

• 1:00:48Speaker 04

  Not in the next couple of years, but in 10 years, in 15 years.

• 1:00:50Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:00:50Jack Selby?

  Hold on a second. Do you remember that doctor's appointment you were supposed to make a while ago, the one that's been sitting on your desk for weeks, maybe months? Maybe it's just an overdue annual checkup, the weird rash that you keep Googling, or it's your dentist reminding you, it's been two years since your last cleaning, get your teeth cleaned. Trust me, we've all been there. Booking doctor's appointments has always felt like such a hassle, until now.

• 1:01:09Graham Stephan?

  That, of course, is where our sponsor, Zocdoc, comes in. For those unaware, Zocdoc is a free app and website that allows you to search and compare high-quality in-network doctors, and then click to book an appointment right on the spot.

• 1:01:20Jack Selby?

  You can filter by insurance, location, and medical specialty, and you can also check verified patient reviews, so you know what to expect.

• 1:01:27Graham Stephan?

  From there, once you find the right doctor, you can see the real-time availability and book an appointment that fits your schedule.

• 1:01:32Jack Selby?

  And appointments made through Zocdoc usually happen very fast, typically within just 24 to 72 hours of booking, and yes, you can even score same-day appointments. So stop putting off those doctor's appointments, and just go to zocdoc.com/iced to find and instantly book a top-rated doctor today.

• 1:01:47Graham Stephan?

  That is z-o-c-d-o-c dot com slash iced, zocdoc dot com slash iced. Thank you so much, Zocdoc, for sponsoring this episode.

• 1:01:58Graham Stephan?

  Now, as your business grows, hiring usually turns into one of the biggest challenges. With hundreds of applicants on every single job post, it could often feel impossible to know which person to pick who will actually make a meaningful difference right away.

• 1:02:11Jack Selby?

  A growing trend that I absolutely love is skills-based hiring, which is looking at what a candidate can actually do rather than just their background or education. This, of course, can help make the hiring process faster and way more effective.

• 1:02:22Graham Stephan?

  That is where our sponsor ZipRecruiter comes in. For those unaware, ZipRecruiter is a hiring platform that helps you find qualified candidates more easily.

• 1:02:29Jack Selby?

  One super useful feature is that ZipRecruiter suggests screening questions that you can add right to your job post. And this, of course, just helps you immediately spot the right applicants with the skills you need.

• 1:02:39Graham Stephan?

  ZipRecruiter also uses matching technology to quickly show you qualified candidates. That way, you spend less time sorting through applications and more time focused on the right people.

• 1:02:48Jack Selby?

  You can even filter for applicants who have been active recently, so you can focus on people who are actually ready to take the next step.

• 1:02:54Graham Stephan?

  Let ZipRecruiter help you find amazing candidates with the qualities you seek. Four to five employers who post on ZipRecruiter find a qualified candidate within the first day. And now you can try it for free at ziprecruiter.com/ICH. That's ziprecruiter.com/ICH. Meet your match on ZipRecruiter.

• 1:03:12Jack Selby?

  And so to the viewer listening right now, what is some real-world application, some practical advice that you would give to them to better their understanding of AI and how to stay on top of like the best tools?

• 1:03:23Speaker 02

  Yeah, three things real quick. Learn as much as you can about AI through, I think, podcasts is the best way.

• 1:03:27Speaker 04

  Brett, I think you should limit that. We should talk about the type of podcasts because there's so much bullshit out there and clickbait.

• 1:03:33Speaker 02

  I'll give some recommendations. The moonshots of Peter Diamandis. Anything with Demis Hassabis, the head of Google DeepMind is amazing.

• 1:03:39Speaker 04

  The All In Podcast.

• 1:03:40Speaker 02

  The All In is great. Like, real intellectual podcasts, that's number one.

• 1:03:44Jack Selby?

  And do what, just be aware of AI? Or do you actually have to start applying into your own?

• 1:03:47Speaker 02

  Just like us, to understand like we do.

• 1:03:48Jack Selby?

  But what about being like, because awareness isn't really going to necessarily like help you.

• 1:03:52Speaker 02

  I said, I said three things, that's number one. Number two, consider, this is the era of entrepreneurship. I think, starting now for the next three years, it's going to be easier to be an entrepreneur. Than ever before in history, AI will be able to give you whatever faculties you need from basically AI agents to your marketing, to your law and whatever your company needs, it's going to be there for you at the tip of your fingers. I would really consider implementing your passion into monetizing it through entrepreneurship more than ever. And the third thing I would say is if you already have a job at like a big company or something, be the AI guy, be the AI guy at your boring company. That is going to give you job security right now, at least for the foreseeable future.

• 1:04:35Speaker 04

  And don't lean into, by the way, jobs that are clearly not going to be, I mean, sorry, but I don't know if you need to be going to design school right now.

• 1:04:41Speaker 02

  We should talk about college and grad school.

• 1:04:42Speaker 04

  Or learning to be an appraiser.

• 1:04:43Speaker 02

  Yeah, we should talk about what not to do, not just what to do.

• 1:04:45Speaker 04

  Yeah, I think that's right.

• 1:04:46Speaker 02

  Are you going to go $250,000 in debt going to law school right now? Coming from a lawyer?

• 1:04:51Speaker 04

  I'm already having Gemini Pro 3, whatever it is, doing all my legal analysis and it's drafting up.

• 1:04:58Speaker 02

  How good is it?

• 1:04:59Speaker 04

  It's better than my attorney.

• 1:05:01Speaker 02

  It's incredible.

• 1:05:02Speaker 04

  And it takes 30 seconds.

• 1:05:03Speaker 02

  Both coming from two people who were practicing attorneys for years, I would say AI can probably do 50 to 60% of what an attorney can do right now.

• 1:05:10Speaker 04

  It'll be able to draft complaints and do legal analysis and do interrogatories, doc review.

• 1:05:16Graham Stephan?

  What is going to happen to the legal system in 20 years? Because we were talking to Chris Camillo about this.

• 1:05:21Speaker 02

  20, 3.

• 1:05:22Speaker 04

  Well, you won't even probably have human mediators, you'll have AI mediators and it'll be quick.

• 1:05:26Graham Stephan?

  So is AI going to replace judges?

• 1:05:29Speaker 04

  Eventually.

• 1:05:30Speaker 02

  Not in three years, but lawyers will be largely.

• 1:05:33Speaker 04

  There's constitutional restrictions, you know, right to a jury of your peers, et cetera, that I think, but mediation will probably be AI. The arguments will probably be posited by artificial intelligence on each side.

• 1:05:46Speaker 02

  And most intellectual legal work.

• 1:05:48Speaker 04

  And judges will be using AI. And by the way, AI has already shown to have a much better analysis than judges, much more consistent analysis.

• 1:05:54Graham Stephan?

  Do you think AI would be better than a jury?

• 1:05:55Speaker 02

  Lawyers are already submitting briefs to judges that are written by AI. In fact, sometimes they're still hallucinating and judges getting pissed off because they're citing cases that don't exist. But in three years, that won't be happening. In three years, you'll be able to get a brief done in 15 seconds.

• 1:06:07Speaker 04

  So there will still be human lawyers.

• 1:06:08Speaker 02

  Attorney.

• 1:06:09Speaker 04

  But those human lawyers will be 10 times more productive than they were. And so a law firm can be 10 people instead of 150 people.

• 1:06:14Graham Stephan?

  When do you think it'll get to the point, though, where you have two AIs arguing either side?

• 1:06:19Speaker 04

  You already are.

• 1:06:20Speaker 02

  Well, they probably won't even have to argue. They'll probably just submit. The two AIs and the decision will come out in two seconds.

• 1:06:25Speaker 04

  They literally already are. Well, you don't need one of it, but they.

• 1:06:27Speaker 02

  Why would you even have to go through the argument?

• 1:06:29Speaker 04

  Yeah.

• 1:06:29Speaker 02

  It'd be instant.

• 1:06:30Speaker 04

  Unbelievably cost effective. Think of all the wasted money that goes into.

• 1:06:33Speaker 02

  Unbelievably.

• 1:06:34Speaker 04

  Litigation right now.

• 1:06:35Speaker 02

  And this is what I mean by entering an age of abundance. I mean, what AI can do for society is going to be freaking incredible. Like, this should be an optimistic, you know, people should should leave this podcast being optimistic because the it's food's going to be cheaper.

• 1:06:48Speaker 04

  Their quality of life is going to go up so much in the next fifteen years.

• 1:06:52Speaker 02

  It's going to be so deflationary.

• 1:06:54Speaker 04

  Instead of the twenty four billion dollars that California wasted on homeless, only for the homeless population to double. That's, by the way, over a hundred thousand dollars per homeless person that California spent, only to create more homeless, a bigger homeless problem. You could service every single homeless person for less money with two robots, self charging robots, who could be making their bed, you know, cleaning their house.

• 1:07:19Speaker 02

  specialist, one could be a cook.

• 1:07:20Speaker 04

  They could be a probation officer too, you know, if they're doing drugs and in some type of.

• 1:07:25Speaker 02

  We're spending a hundred and thirty thousand dollars per prisoner per year in California. A humanoid robot costs thirty thousand dollars.

• 1:07:32Speaker 04

  And it can cook, it can manage.

• 1:07:34Speaker 02

  The billions of dollars that we're going to be saving when we can actually utilize humanoid robots in government. And of course, government's going to fight this and be the last fricking industry to to adapt it.

• 1:07:42Speaker 04

  Yeah, self preservation, they're going to try.

• 1:07:44Speaker 02

  Eventually it's going to have to. And the savings and the it's just the what we're the the future is so fricking bright. If we don't screw it up, it's so bright and so I'm so optimistic about it and so excited about it because it's all going to happen in the blink of an eye. We don't have to wait for this is not going to be when we're in our sixties and seventies and eighties. It's going to be like the next ten years.

• 1:08:04Graham Stephan?

  Who's most likely to screw it up?

• 1:08:05Speaker 02

  What does that mean? Government? What country?

• 1:08:07Graham Stephan?

  Yeah, you're like, if we don't screw it up. And I'm like, who is who is?

• 1:08:10Speaker 02

  Probably America. I'll tell you who's not going to screw it up is China, because they don't have these political bullshit issues that we have. They're going full steam ahead no matter what.

• 1:08:18Speaker 04

  And no one, there's no risk of of public policy restricting Chinese drugs.

• 1:08:21Graham Stephan?

  Does that create the risk of a bubble that they're investing so much money into these companies?

• 1:08:26Speaker 04

  You can't, I don't think you can over invest in AI.

• 1:08:28Speaker 02

  The gold at the end of the rainbow is.

• 1:08:30Speaker 04

  We're not trying to develop the cotton gin here. We're trying to develop something that will replace human labor and human intellect.

• 1:08:37Speaker 02

  But let's talk about the bubble for a second because I think. The analogy is you're talking to two people who lived in Silicon Valley in the 1990s. So we know bubbles. And that's usually what people are talking about when they say AI is in a bubble. Is it like the dot com bubble?

• 1:08:48Speaker 04

  Correct.

• 1:08:49Speaker 02

  This is not like that.

• 1:08:51Speaker 04

  Although there are all some bullshit companies that are just saying that AI generated bullshit. Yeah, everything's AI. But there's a peripheral bullshit around AI.

• 1:08:56Speaker 02

  I think what, yeah, of course. I think what people are afraid of is, is the capital expenditure worthwhile? Is the $600 billion the Mag7 are spending in, um, compute and chips and data centers worthwhile? I would argue, and, and it's a reasonable question because we laid insane amount of, we laid an insane amount of fiber optic cable during the dot com bust. And that ended up not being used for a long time. No, no one's going to say that the internet revolution didn't change society. It did, but they laid way too much cable. Same with the wireless issue. I would argue the demand for compute is infinite. It's absolutely infinite. And whoever wins with AI, so to speak, I don't think it's going to be one winner.

• 1:09:36Speaker 02

  But if you need to spend $80 billion a year, if you're Amazon, to stay competitive, I think that's a fraction of what you would lose if you're not in the game. When we reach full AGI and/or super intelligence, and if you're not one of the players, it's trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars that you're missing out on. So, no, I don't think we're in a bubble. I don't think they can spend enough.

• 1:09:58Speaker 04

  But I think, I'm going to, I'm going to augment this answer to some degree by saying, I think when people talk about a bubble, Brett takes an analytical kind of financial approach to capex. But I think what they're talking about is will the, can the stocks go down? And the answer to that is that's just humanity and human nature.

• 1:10:14Speaker 02

  Human psychology.

• 1:10:15Speaker 04

  And psychology and overreaction. We can't sit here and say that, that humans won't overreact to certain indicators and that certain stocks won't go down. That very well can happen. But if you look at it holistically. But if you look at the long run, we should, you can't overspend in this.

• 1:10:28Speaker 02

  Will AI change the world? Yes. Will the companies that are spending the most on AI most likely be the largest players when that happens? Yes. So is an AI bubble in that sense? No. Now, can Meta and Amazon stock go down or Tesla's stock go down 20, 30%? Who cares? Yes, it absolutely can. But I'm thinking about. Are we entering an age of abundance? Is humanity gonna experience an era that is like no other in human history? I'm thinking more on those levels. And to that extent, no, AI is not in a bubble.

• 1:10:56Speaker 04

  I will say one thing, because I said it on your last podcast and it's done well. And I continue to believe in it. Treasuries. And the reason is, is because I'm a firm believer in artificial intelligence being extremely deflationary. So the cost of goods is going to go down, obviously, and services. And we're going to see unemployment. So I just can't see in the near term, how we don't, the Fed's not going to be chasing this. They're always late. I can't see how they're not going to be chasing this. And we're not going to see some of the lowest interest rates.

• 1:11:24Speaker 02

  We both invested in the possibility of deflation and lower interest rates. We both invested heavily in Tesla.

• 1:11:29Speaker 04

  There's nothing better you can do than buy long-term bonds. If you want to, if you want to go be long on the idea that, that there's going to be lower interest rates in the future.

• 1:11:38Speaker 02

  But I think long-term, if you're not in the MAG7, 10 years from now, you're probably going to regret that. If you have disposable income and you want to be investing.

• 1:11:47Graham Stephan?

  How else are you investing outside of that? Like, what else are you buying that you think is going to retain value?

• 1:11:51Speaker 04

  Vintage cards and collectibles.

• 1:11:53Speaker 02

  Some collectibles, I think.

• 1:11:53Speaker 04

  And that's, that's honestly because I love them. And I would done, I started that collecting well before AI.

• 1:12:00Speaker 02

  I would say land, real estate, but even more specifically, land heavy real estate.

• 1:12:03Speaker 04

  Yeah.

• 1:12:04Speaker 02

  Well, I mean, I can argue anywhere, but obviously, location matters.

• 1:12:07Speaker 04

  Newport Beach, LA, weather. I mean, people are gonna, you don't have to work.

• 1:12:12Speaker 02

  Because robots can.

• 1:12:12Speaker 04

  You don't have to live in Illinois.

• 1:12:13Speaker 02

  Sorry, robots can build homes, but not land. That's, that's why I'm just, for the audience, saying why I think I would go more land-heavy. When robots, this is going to be a long time from now, not because they won't have the ability to do it technically, but because we won't have enough robots to be doing it. But eventually, they could probably build a house for a hell of a lot cheaper. But they are going to create land. And they're not going to create land in LA where we have perfect weather.

• 1:12:34Speaker 04

  And they won't create things like, like, again, I'm, I'm selfishly referring to collectibles because I've been in this game for a long time. But I still also believe that, that those types of things that are, that are human in nature and that are, that can't be produced by artificial intelligence will be what's valuable. The flex might be a Honus Wagner card. Right? That might be what Brett talked about how we always have a demand for, you know, hierarchy in society. So it might be the we have to try to figure out what the flexes are.

• 1:13:05Speaker 02

  In a different fashion.

• 1:13:06Speaker 04

  Clothes, it's gonna be rare. It's gonna be rarity. It's gonna come down to rarity, not just clothes, not, not, not.

• 1:13:11Graham Stephan?

  So what's a good value today, though? What do you think is a good value today that you could buy this year that you think will go up in value? It's maybe undervalued right now.

• 1:13:19Speaker 04

  Well, I still, I still might believe.

• 1:13:20Speaker 02

  Unfortunately, it's not much undervalued because there's so much money on the sidelines that was on the sidelines after COVID that has now come back into everything. So almost everything is valued pretty highly right now.

• 1:13:29Speaker 04

  I would still, still say, though, AI cannot create land in a good area. And, and we look, look what's happened, although ironically, and this is only because of California policy. The, the real idea is that people don't need to work from home, can work from home now, right? They don't have to be in the office. In, in a, in a kind of a utopian, you know, idealistic, you know, thought experiment, people would be leaving Texas and coming to California. Because why, I mean, objectively, you'd want to live in California under the sun. If it wasn't for California.

• 1:14:01Speaker 02

  If it wasn't horrible policies and a recent crime and homelessness.

• 1:14:05Speaker 04

  You get rid of all the stupid California policies. And California is the destination for the, the global destination. Once, in an age of abundance where there's no work or you certainly don't have to work from, you know, in Austin or somewhere else where there's difficult weather. Now, granted, there are different aspects of people's families

• 1:14:21Speaker 02

  Let me ask, let me ask you guys. If you had everything right now, all the clothes, food, house, et cetera, what would you want?

• 1:14:29Graham Stephan?

  I don't know if I would want much if I had the house.

• 1:14:32Speaker 02

  That's why we're naming shit that doesn't matter, like collectibles.

• 1:14:34Speaker 04

  That's why I, because I have money and I have everything that I need. So I'm starting to, I bought the John Riggins Super Bowl jersey.

• 1:14:41Speaker 02

  It's exactly that kind of stuff. It's the stuff that you don't need. It probably will go up in value.

• 1:14:45Speaker 04

  The rare.

• 1:14:46Speaker 02

  If you have everything you need.

• 1:14:47Speaker 04

  Collectibles that you don't need ironically, I think will be the most valuable.

• 1:14:50Speaker 02

  If we're right about the age of abundance, which I think we are, then that stuff would be more valuable. But that's beautiful. If, if what separates the poor and the rich is fricking baseball cards, that's amazing. That's best case scenario. If we all have food and we all have cars and we all have housekeepers and we all have et cetera and education. Medical care, then I would much rather the difference between a rich and a poor person being who has a old Ferrari than it is who can freaking have food on their table.

• 1:15:18Speaker 04

  Let me follow up and say, let's say you were writing a book about a utopian society 50 years ago, who knows, it doesn't matter when you wrote it. There wouldn't presumably in a kind of an idealistic utopian society, there wouldn't be work, certainly wouldn't be working to survive. You may be working as a fetish, you may be working, you know, because it's enjoyable, but the idea, whatever, whatever book you wrote, sure, but whatever, whatever you're writing about, you're not saying, oh, in my utopian society, people must work to survive. That can't be. So from an optimistic perspective, we are moving towards utopia, we are moving towards not having to work and an age of abundance.

• 1:16:01Speaker 02

  Can I make a side point here?

• 1:16:03Speaker 04

  Yeah, in one second. That is almost the definition of a utopian society. I'm not saying it's going to be utopia, but we're going to have very low crime, we're going to all be able to eat, drink, drive, have leisure activity, not have to work.

• 1:16:14Speaker 02

  Medical care, education.

• 1:16:15Speaker 04

  Yeah, I mean, we really are going to be living the definition of utopian society. There's a lot of reasons to be optimistic here.

• 1:16:20Speaker 02

  Well, so the side point I want to make is, most jobs are horrible. Okay, like, we're luxury real estate agents in LA, you guys are podcasters. Okay, but most jobs suck. I mean, you're, you're driving to work in traffic, you're sitting at a freaking computer in a cubicle all goddamn day. I mean.

• 1:16:38Speaker 04

  Or you're up on a hot roof nailing two by fours.

• 1:16:40Speaker 02

  I mean, most jobs suck. So let's just be real here. I mean, the less of those, the better, as far as I'm concerned. I don't, like, oh, we're going to lose, yeah, most of the jobs we're going to lose suck.

• 1:16:50Speaker 04

  We were, we were lawyers at big law firms. I'm sorry, but I don't see, there's not a, I would have rathered someone just give me a hundred grand a year. And by the way, I don't want to.

• 1:16:59Speaker 02

  Well, I don't know about UBI, I don't know about that.

• 1:17:00Speaker 04

  But I want to address the UBI, because I think a lot of people, I think a lot of people misinterpret these studies. If you do an analysis of the, of the UBI studies, there have been.

• 1:17:07Speaker 02

  Which I have, so I'm curious to hear your take.

• 1:17:09Speaker 04

  There have been multiple studies, and I think there's a misdiagnosis of those studies as where people were not. Satisfied or not.

• 1:17:16Speaker 02

  After one year.

• 1:17:16Speaker 04

  Happiness, yes. And the study and my analysis is completely opposite of that.

• 1:17:21Speaker 02

  Okay, hold on. The studies have shown after.

• 1:17:23Speaker 04

  During longitudinal studies.

• 1:17:24Speaker 02

  Let me just tell the audience.

• 1:17:25Speaker 04

  Okay, fine.

• 1:17:26Speaker 02

  The studies have shown oftentimes that UBI has been a disaster in the sense that.

• 1:17:29Speaker 04

  Totally disagree.

• 1:17:30Speaker 02

  After one year, their level of happiness, first of all, they're not investing very well. Secondly, their their level of happiness after one year is the exact same, if not lower than it was.

• 1:17:38Speaker 04

  Totally disagree. It's not what the studies say.

• 1:17:40Speaker 02

  Okay, go ahead.

• 1:17:41Speaker 04

  No, the studies show an increase in happiness for almost everyone, including at different age groups, even people that were working or obviously if you give it to poor people, they're going to increase their happiness.

• 1:17:51Speaker 02

  Over time, longer than a year.

• 1:17:52Speaker 04

  Well, the only time that you saw the happiness decrease and actually went below was when they ended the program or or close to the end of the program, when they knew that it was ending, they got anxiety and stress. In a longitudinal UBI practice, go do a deep dive right now. You will see the study, yes.

• 1:18:09Speaker 02

  Have you read the books about the people that win the lottery and how unhappy they are like three years later?

• 1:18:12Speaker 04

  That's not UBI. It's just not UBI.

• 1:18:15Speaker 02

  I would rather, can we agree that we would rather UBS or no?

• 1:18:19Speaker 04

  What is UBS? Services?

• 1:18:20Speaker 02

  Yeah, because that's how I think we should.

• 1:18:23Graham Stephan?

  I've never heard of UBS before.

• 1:18:25Speaker 02

  We should provide, instead of giving people money, which they usually suck at. Did you see how busy Rodeo Drive was?

• 1:18:29Speaker 04

  Well.

• 1:18:30Speaker 02

  In, hold on, let me just make this point. How busy was Rodeo Drive during COVID? When we all got the stimulus? It was insane. People were buying phone, people who not know how to.

• 1:18:38Speaker 04

  Well, that was fraud.

• 1:18:38Speaker 02

  Handle discretionary income. It's a fact. I don't care what studies you say.

• 1:18:41Speaker 04

  Well, who cares? It's going to be a mix of UBI and UBS, obviously, because you're going to have, you're going to provide people robotics.

• 1:18:46Speaker 02

  Look, you get a humanoid robot, you get a medical care, you get food, you get et cetera, as opposed to you get $1,500 a month.

• 1:18:53Speaker 04

  Confluence of the two. It's obviously going to be both. And we're not just giving them money they can go buy drugs or something like that.

• 1:18:57Speaker 02

  I don't like the idea of UBS.

• 1:18:58Speaker 04

  Obviously, you're going to, fine. We provide them a humanoid robot. The point is, when you.

• 1:19:03Speaker 02

  That ought to be for.

• 1:19:04Speaker 04

  There is a lot of studies that show that that a UBI slash UBS works if it is consistent and you don't take it away. So I'm optimistic that we're, that humans have always been able to adapt. When we were in in tribes thousands of years ago, we derived satisfaction from different things. We derived it from storytelling. We derived it from. Religion, we derived it from family, we derived it from, you know, raising children in a collective.

• 1:19:29Speaker 02

  Making jewelry out of the bones of the animals we killed.

• 1:19:31Speaker 04

  Exactly. There's so many ways to derive human purpose. Now, it's great that we derive human purpose from work. Why? Because we've been inculcated as children and capitalism must survive by inculcating the value of work. So I get that. And right now we do drive. But the idea that somehow purpose is inexorably tied to work is is is is not, is simply not the case. We've created that social construct and we can, and we can, we can decouple it and we can reattach purpose to the many other things that I think are more valuable.

• 1:20:04Speaker 02

  Or ethics. Or hobbies. Or hobbies or passions or. Grant Cardone says that.

• 1:20:10Graham Stephan?

  Go ahead. He says that you will be happy to the degree that you are productive.

• 1:20:14Speaker 04

  No.

• 1:20:15Speaker 02

  Well, hold on, that's not, that's not necessarily inconsistent. If, if productive doesn't necessarily mean with work.

• 1:20:20Speaker 04

  Fine.

• 1:20:20Speaker 02

  If you take a very broad holistic view of productivity. That's productivity. So I don't disagree with that. I don't call hanging out, I don't call talking to family. It depends on what he means by productive. You'd have to follow up on it.

• 1:20:30Speaker 04

  Fine. The point is, it's a very.

• 1:20:32Graham Stephan?

  It's probably, it's probably offering some sort of benefit to society, that you are contributing to something bigger than yourself.

• 1:20:37Speaker 02

  I disagree with that.

• 1:20:38Speaker 04

  I disagree with the construct because yes, I get, I derive purpose in my life from productivity, from adding, I think, adding value to society, from creating, from creating happiness and others.

• 1:20:49Speaker 02

  But not solely from that.

• 1:20:50Speaker 04

  But, but that's because I am a construct.

• 1:20:51Speaker 02

  Your connections with your friends and family.

• 1:20:53Speaker 04

  My social structure. I'm a construct of the education, the American capitalist education. So of course I derive my, my value from that. But young people can be taught that value, that, that purpose comes from so many different things. And when they grow up, they don't attach it just to work. So what I'm saying is we can decouple.

• 1:21:08Speaker 02

  I derive, I derive happiness from friendships, from acquiring knowledge. I love that. From good sex, from good food, from a lot of things that are completely separate from my work.

• 1:21:21Speaker 04

  You know, and enjoyable dinners with friends to traveling and to experiences, to going to an F1 race, to going to the Cannes Film Festival, to hanging out with you guys on the podcast.

• 1:21:30Speaker 02

  I don't think those things are productive.

• 1:21:31Speaker 04

  To buying you guys lunch for 12 straight years.

• 1:21:33Speaker 02

  I don't think that.

• 1:21:34Graham Stephan?

  That's actually false.

• 1:21:35Speaker 02

  I don't think that that's what Graham means by productive.

• 1:21:37Speaker 04

  Exactly.

• 1:21:38Speaker 02

  Graham hasn't paid for lunch since the early seventies.

• 1:21:39Speaker 04

  Okay.

• 1:21:41Jack Selby?

  I mean, if you, if you want to actually, yeah, I can pull up seats because you did.

• 1:21:43Speaker 04

  Wait, hold on. Let me state the fact and then you can, and then you can disagree.

• 1:21:47Jack Selby?

  You want to state your opinion, go ahead.

• 1:21:47Speaker 04

  I have been, I have been sponsoring Graham's lunches for over 11 years straight. 99% of Graham's lunches I've, I've paid for. And I'm 80% responsible for his wardrobe.

• 1:21:59Jack Selby?

  This is one of your shirts, I think.

• 1:22:01Speaker 04

  Okay, there you go.

• 1:22:02Jack Selby?

  Brett, these are your pants.

• 1:22:03Speaker 04

  As long as you don't have underwear on.

• 1:22:03Speaker 04

  Are you gonna show me a receipt for like one lunch that you bought at some point? Cause you did buy lunch a couple of months ago.

• 1:22:07Speaker 04

  You don't have my underwear on, there'd be baggy on you.

• 1:22:11Speaker 04

  Go ahead, go. Okay, so nothing you can say can disprove this. Graham, just admit it.

• 1:22:16Jack Selby?

  What?

• 1:22:16Speaker 04

  Just admit that I've been buying you lunch for 12 years.

• 1:22:19Jack Selby?

  Yeah, but it's not one. So, but you didn't say, oh, you bought one lunch. So I don't necessarily disagree with that. I don't know.

• 1:22:26Speaker 04

  Go ahead, let Jack go.

• 1:22:27Jack Selby?

  I don't disagree, I don't disagree with you subsidizing Graham's life. That, I don't necessarily.

• 1:22:32Speaker 04

  I don't think he subsidizes life. Just lunch.

• 1:22:33Jack Selby?

  I don't necessarily have a problem with that, but you did mention that like, hey, every time I go out with you guys, I pay. And that's actually categorically false. If anything, I think it's.

• 1:22:39Speaker 04

  I have no problem paying.

• 1:22:40Jack Selby?

  If anything, I actually think it's two to two right now.

• 1:22:42Speaker 04

  Maybe with you.

• 1:22:43Jack Selby?

  With Jack.

• 1:22:43Speaker 04

  Oh, fine, with you, but I'm saying, but Graham, it's probably, and this is an exaggeration.

• 1:22:46Jack Selby?

  With me both, and because here's the thing.

• 1:22:48Speaker 04

  It's probably 850 to three.

• 1:22:51Speaker 00

  This episode is brought to you by Indeed. You're ready to level up your business, but the pressure to find the right person to make that happen is intense. Indeed sponsored jobs can help carry the load. It boosts your job post to help it reach quality talent fast. Cut through the chaos with Indeed sponsored jobs. Get a $75 sponsored job credit at indeed.com/podcast. Terms and conditions apply. Hiring now? Then this is a job for Indeed sponsored jobs.

• 1:23:21Speaker 07

  Low energy, unfocused, foggy, you might be dehydrated. Gatorade Zero powders have been scientifically designed to help improve hydration balance in the body. With a clinically proven electrolyte blend and no artificial colors or flavors. Great tasting hydration, no matter where you're going. Shop now online or at retailers nationwide. Gatorade hydrates better than water. Is it in you? Symptoms noted are signs of mild to moderate dehydration. Consult a healthcare professional if symptoms persist.

• 1:26:09Speaker 04

  Well, yeah, because I think it's an interesting question because I think I was naively confident. So, but you know, and I think I almost knew that I was naively confident.

• 1:26:16Speaker 02

  But even at the time.

• 1:26:17Graham Stephan?

  But you were fine with it.

• 1:26:18Speaker 02

  Even at that time.

• 1:26:19Speaker 04

  I also.

• 1:26:20Speaker 02

  Were you ever higher than eighty?

• 1:26:21Speaker 04

  Well, I also had had worked hard for a few years and I've always. I also didn't have much concern about going backwards, too. You know, I lived in a fourteen hundred dollar apartment. I didn't, I was happy then, I was happy, you know, while I was doing well in real estate. I don't know, it's not a good question because I think I was naively. I knew that things would work out and at the same time, I knew that I would be fine if they didn't. But I think that's a unique situation. I'm not recommending it necessarily. I think it was probably most ninety percent of business school students would have said that was a dumb investment.

• 1:26:52Graham Stephan?

  Yeah.

• 1:26:52Speaker 04

  Arguably, one of the biggest differences between you and I, Graham, I think we know each other very well, is that I think I spend money on things that make me happy and quality of life. And I think you are generally more more concerned slash pessimistic pessimistic and careful. And I, and you live a great quality of life and you're happy, but you're less indulgent than I am. And and I think it's okay to be indulgent. I don't think it's it's necessarily beneficial to be going through life, spending money based on a worst case scenario. I don't, I think you would be happier in a larger house. I think you, I think you allowing yourself to indulge, as long as you can get past the the mental anxiety that it might create you,

• 1:27:37Speaker 04

  is is a net positive. Had I had your your approach of anxious pessimism, I wouldn't have opened the office and I wouldn't have been able to, you know, have that, have the company and have the expansion.

• 1:27:48Speaker 02

  I would look at it this way, Graham, can you afford the worst case scenario?

• 1:27:52Graham Stephan?

  I take the worst case, which was the Great Depression of nineteen twenty nine. And then can it get a little worse than that?

• 1:27:59Speaker 04

  Thirty five percent drop.

• 1:28:00Speaker 02

  You really get the worst case.

• 1:28:01Graham Stephan?

  Yeah, eighty two.

• 1:28:01Speaker 02

  You really go deep down the rabbit hole.

• 1:28:03Graham Stephan?

  I take an eighty two percent drop. And then I assume my income goes to zero. At the same time, my lifestyle has to go up. Let's just say we have kids and then there's there's a health problem and then one of my parents gets.

• 1:28:14Speaker 02

  Can I counter this?

• 1:28:14Graham Stephan?

  Yeah, please.

• 1:28:15Speaker 02

  During the Great Depression, those who had any amount of wealth after the crash had the best buying opportunity and the best opportunity for appreciation. In the last century.

• 1:28:27Speaker 04

  And depreciation. And that's what I said.

• 1:28:29Speaker 02

  Does that make sense?

• 1:28:29Speaker 04

  I said, if you are not forced to sell, and if you can weather that worst case scenario, you'll actually, you'll.

• 1:28:34Speaker 02

  And you still have some.

• 1:28:35Speaker 04

  Every time in American history of the last 150 years that we've seen that type of crash, if you were able to persevere and not be forced to sell, that within 10 years, you'd be wealthier than ever before. But even if you don't, you are wealthier than ever before within 10 years. So just don't, as long as you're not forced to sell.

• 1:28:51Jack Selby?

  My fear is always saying, oh, just because for the last 150 years it's done that, doesn't mean it's always good. Even though I agree that there's a 90 plus.

• 1:28:58Speaker 04

  It's more likely that AI wipes you out. And it doesn't matter.

• 1:29:01Speaker 02

  Yeah, I would say the chances of the existential threat of AI wiping out humanity is higher than that scenario. A worse than Great Depression type of crash that lasts for multiples longer, that's less than 1% what you're talking about. Anyway.

• 1:29:16Speaker 04

  Also that house they were with.

• 1:29:16Speaker 02

  Let's keep going on.

• 1:29:17Jack Selby?

  That's the main thing is that what I find interesting is whenever Graham is kind of at a crossroads or is like, should I spend the money? Should I not spend the money? This house, for example, he reached out to Jason to get Jason's opinion on. And Jason gave some crazy numbers in terms of you're spending half of your income every single year. Graham is spending like less than 2% of what he could withdraw from his investment account every year.

• 1:29:36Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:29:36Jack Selby?

  And so, and but that still was not necessarily.

• 1:29:39Speaker 02

  I, I don't even want to share with your audience what percent of my income I spend.

• 1:29:42Jack Selby?

  What percent of your income?

• 1:29:43Speaker 02

  It's high. It's embarrassing and I'm not happy about it. But I mean, this is what happens. Your lifestyle gets like, you catch up to your income. Your lifestyle just, you just adapt slowly. You know what I mean? And you end up like, how the hell am I spending this every month?

• 1:29:57Speaker 04

  He, he looks at what he spends. I, I don't. I just look to make sure that I'm increasing my wealth every year. And if I am, I don't give a shit what I spent.

• 1:30:05Jack Selby?

  And how do you measure your increased wealth?

• 1:30:07Speaker 04

  I do an analysis of my net worth.

• 1:30:10Jack Selby?

  And does it have to go up a certain percentage every year?

• 1:30:12Speaker 04

  No, no, no, as long as.

• 1:30:13Jack Selby?

  What percent do you typically go up per year?

• 1:30:15Speaker 04

  Oh, of my net worth? I've never looked at it like that. But I generally add millions to my net worth every year.

• 1:30:20Speaker 02

  Um.

• 1:30:21Speaker 04

  And, and I'm spending a shit ton.

• 1:30:23Speaker 02

  The, the advice that I would, that I would give your audience is don't chase wealth. Chase the trajectory of wealth. I would rather, and I would be much happier and sleep much better if I was, if I died at 50 million versus a billion, but I was wealthier every year until that 50 million as opposed to I died at a billion, but I went to a billion and then down to 100 million and then up to 3 billion and then down to 400 million. That. Will drive you crazy and it's not what you want. Even if you die wealthier, it's just not worth it. For your happiness, your peace of mind and your sleep and your stress levels and your health. Just wish upon, I wish upon everybody, just a trajectory towards becoming wealthier every year. And even if it's much, much slower than you would, than you would like.

• 1:31:04Speaker 04

  And I think on top of that, it's, it's a process. And if you're not enjoying the process, if you're somehow thinking, I'll be happy when I have X money. I could not come up with a worse possible approach to life because one, I guarantee you that will change. I mean, I, I remember the, the numbers I used to have when I was young, you know, 10, 15 years ago. Those numbers always increase. And by the way, I would say, if you were to ask me the happiest years of my life. Although I've had just a wonderful life and I think I'm, you know, I'm very happy right now. But if I had to point, I'd probably rather be interested in your take. I would probably say junior college.

• 1:31:40Speaker 02

  I was gonna say junior college.

• 1:31:41Speaker 04

  Eighteen to 20, where I had very little money.

• 1:31:44Speaker 02

  Drinking natty ice.

• 1:31:45Speaker 04

  Yeah.

• 1:31:45Speaker 02

  No money.

• 1:31:46Speaker 04

  Um, and you know, wearing a, a wife beater and, and working on my 69 Camaro, you know, five hours a day. You know, you know, in a ROP, uh, class, working at, as a, as a waiter or in a, as a bar back. Hanging out with my buddies, eating the burritos and the roach coach.

• 1:32:02Speaker 02

  Responsibility, school is easy.

• 1:32:04Speaker 04

  We go to Subway, we split a foot long to save money or we go to the roach coach, you know, and give a burrito. Probably, probably six times a week.

• 1:32:09Speaker 02

  Or whatever the dollar sub was at Subway, we eat that like five days a week.

• 1:32:12Speaker 04

  Yeah, that's what I was saying.

• 1:32:13Speaker 02

  It's insane. I must have had Subway, I think I had Subway 250 times in one year.

• 1:32:18Speaker 04

  You know, driving like a, a, a, a total beater.

• 1:32:20Speaker 02

  I probably would have been like six foot six if I didn't do that.

• 1:32:22Speaker 04

  And, and so happy, just really, really happy years, partying, hanging out.

• 1:32:28Speaker 02

  I will add to that also that we know a lot of really wealthy people and, and the relationship between extreme wealth and happiness is, is, is disconnected. And beyond that, nobody hits a billion dollars, never once in the history of billionaires. Did somebody hit a billion dollar net worth and be like, I'm done, I did it, I can chill.

• 1:32:45Speaker 04

  And now I'm happy.

• 1:32:46Speaker 02

  It's just not the way it works. Like, oh, two billion. Well, that guy's a bigger yacht. That's just human nature. It doesn't change because you're wealthy. It's the same human nature. You still get jealous of people who have more than you. You don't just get to this point of like, okay, now I really am going to golf every day and be and be and live this amazing lifestyle like I thought when I was seventeen.

• 1:33:02Speaker 04

  To a certain degree, once you get some money, it's super helpful. Because if you go to, if you go to dinner and you can just buy, buy dinner, you know, if I can take you guys to lunch like I do.

• 1:33:10Speaker 02

  Graham wouldn't know.

• 1:33:11Speaker 04

  And you don't, and I don't have to worry about it. You've, then, then you're wealthy. The, if the extra million dollars so that I can go buy the John Riggins Super Bowl jersey and the Ford GT. The, the incremental happiness that I get is like a point one.

• 1:33:24Jack Selby?

  So what, what amount would you say that the incremental happiness really starts to, like the, the curve starts to?

• 1:33:30Speaker 02

  It depends where you live in Cal, in LA.

• 1:33:33Speaker 04

  I'd rather be making three hundred thousand dollars a year. Shit, I'd rather be making a hundred thousand dollars a year, living in LA with good friends and a healthy family and a, and my little dog. And great people in the office than be a billionaire without that.

• 1:33:48Jack Selby?

  What are the main things that are very much worth spending money on?

• 1:33:52Speaker 02

  Business class seats.

• 1:33:53Speaker 04

  Aside from. You know what's funny? I used to, I used to actually think that business class seats was the worst expenditure of money on planet Earth. I'd be like, how the fuck does somebody spend nine thousand dollars when I can fly there for four hundred fifty dollars? That is the dumbest nine thousand dollars you could possibly spend. And now to me, it's like the best money that I could possibly spend. I, I just.

• 1:34:10Speaker 02

  But other than that, I would say good food. I love good food.

• 1:34:15Speaker 04

  I think vacations. Oh, you know what I would say?

• 1:34:16Speaker 02

  Vacations, yeah.

• 1:34:17Speaker 04

  You know what I would say? I, where I enjoy spending money the most is on other people. And I don't mean that to come across as like somehow, you know? No, I really don't.

• 1:34:26Speaker 02

  Yeah, that's what I meant. It's totally up to me.

• 1:34:30Speaker 04

  I like, no, not philanthropy, because that is not direct.

• 1:34:33Speaker 02

  I'm just giving you.

• 1:34:35Speaker 04

  I mean, I do philanthropy, but anyway, I do a lot of.

• 1:34:39Speaker 04

  Yeah, I really like being able to, as stupid as this is, I like being able to go to dinner with my friends and getting dinner and just every single time. I like to, we're going to Stagecoach, I am getting the house and I really enjoy that. I'm getting the artist passes, not for you, you gotta pay for your own. But I really take pride in the fact that I.

• 1:34:57Speaker 02

  You think it would bring you joy to give me an artist pass?

• 1:35:00Speaker 04

  It does, it does, doing things for you does make me enjoy.

• 1:35:02Speaker 02

  I'll update you.

• 1:35:03Speaker 04

  But I enjoy that more than anything, because I think the, I don't know, the, the best thing you can do with money is, is increase the happiness of those people around you. I'm like very utilitarian in that respect, so I do appreciate that.

• 1:35:14Jack Selby?

  I mean, that's why we enjoy buying you guys lunch.

• 1:35:16Speaker 02

  I appreciate it.

• 1:35:17Jack Selby?

  It's the least we could do.

• 1:35:18Speaker 04

  Lunch in the singular.

• 1:35:20Jack Selby?

  Philanthropy. I think we had Panche's Tagos before.

• 1:35:23Speaker 04

  Pinches. Yeah, you did, you did give me pinches, right?

• 1:35:26Graham Stephan?

  The only other question is curious, what was the last argument you two had?

• 1:35:29Speaker 04

  It's every day, I don't know.

• 1:35:30Speaker 02

  Yeah, but.

• 1:35:31Speaker 04

  I'm surprised we didn't even argue.

• 1:35:32Speaker 02

  But we don't argue in the way that we used to, we don't fist fight anymore much.

• 1:35:38Jack Selby?

  What's last fist fight? What's last fist fight you guys had?

• 1:35:40Speaker 02

  We don't really go at it like the last few years.

• 1:35:43Speaker 04

  I think we pushed each other.

• 1:35:44Speaker 02

  I think he's finally learned his lesson.

• 1:35:46Speaker 04

  A few weeks ago, yeah.

• 1:35:47Jack Selby?

  Did you win the last fist fight?

• 1:35:48Speaker 04

  No, I beat him up in a parking lot, I think, and the police had to, had to actually pull me off of him, so I think I won that one.

• 1:35:55Jack Selby?

  And then did you, wait, hold on, so you had pinned him, did you just keep wailing on him when he was already pinned?

• 1:35:58Speaker 02

  Hold on a second.

• 1:35:59Speaker 04

  Yeah, it's hard to pick us up. Our friends have had to bring us up.

• 1:36:02Speaker 02

  There are winners and losers in our fistfights.

• 1:36:04Speaker 04

  Oh my God, yes, I, I can beat Brett up and I beat him up a whole lives.

• 1:36:07Speaker 02

  Either of us ever got knocked out was when?

• 1:36:09Speaker 04

  I, oh my God, this story, Brett thinks he knocked, I literally, all I wanted to.

• 1:36:14Speaker 02

  He didn't get up for a while.

• 1:36:15Speaker 04

  First of all, we were like nine years old, second of all, I laid there because I wanted him to come back over, so I kicked the shit out of him. And he was too smart to come back over, that's the only reason I laid there. He tells that story like he knocked me out.

• 1:36:26Speaker 02

  What about the time I died?

• 1:36:27Speaker 04

  No, I was pretending like I was hurt.

• 1:36:29Speaker 02

  Where you started bleeding out of your nose and I hit you in the face and you were like, that's 18 drops of blood, I'm gonna fucking kill you. And he's counting the drops of blood like.

• 1:36:36Speaker 04

  You know what?

• 1:36:37Jack Selby?

  I think my point is proven by the fact.

• 1:36:39Speaker 04

  That Brett remembers the two times that he got

• 1:36:41Speaker 02

  But it's never happened.

• 1:36:41Speaker 04

  Cause it were two thousand times that I beat his ass. Give one piece of evidence of one specific.

• 1:36:44Speaker 02

  Thank you. I've named two. Jason, go ahead.

• 1:36:46Speaker 04

  I will literally

• 1:36:47Speaker 02

  The floor is yours.

• 1:36:47Speaker 04

  Give you a piece of evidence right now.

• 1:36:48Speaker 02

  The floor is yours. The floor is yours.

• 1:36:50Speaker 04

  The floor is gonna be yours in two seconds.

• 1:36:51Speaker 02

  It's two to zero. It's two to zero in stories of

• 1:36:54Speaker 04

  Five hundred times.

• 1:36:54Speaker 02

  Getting your ass beat by your brother.

• 1:36:55Speaker 04

  Brett, let's just be honest. We've been honest this entire podcast. Be honest. I've kicked your ass your entire life. Just be honest. Ninety-nine percent of the time.

• 1:37:02Speaker 02

  In the most extreme examples of getting your ass beat.

• 1:37:04Speaker 04

  Oh my god, discuss it with a lawyer.

• 1:37:05Speaker 02

  I have been the victor.

• 1:37:06Speaker 04

  He is such a fucking lawyer. So are you just lawyers everything?

• 1:37:09Speaker 02

  But in a lot of the, um.

• 1:37:11Speaker 04

  Ass kicking.

• 1:37:12Speaker 02

  In a lot of the lesser ass kickings, I've been, I've taken the brunt of those.

• 1:37:15Speaker 04

  The victim, yeah. Who benches more between you two? I do. I'm strong.

• 1:37:19Speaker 02

  Now?

• 1:37:19Speaker 04

  Actually, he's gotten pretty strong lately. He's gotten pretty strong.

• 1:37:22Speaker 02

  Most of our life.

• 1:37:22Speaker 04

  For most of our lives, I've been able to, to, uh, physically dominate him.

• 1:37:26Speaker 02

  Well, it's not because of strength. It's because he will bite and scratch. It's just, he has no moral virtue in fighting, whereas I do.

• 1:37:35Speaker 04

  I will win. That's what he means.

• 1:37:36Speaker 02

  He would beat me up.

• 1:37:37Speaker 04

  I will win.

• 1:37:37Speaker 02

  He tried to beat me up in front of my mom on her birthday last.

• 1:37:40Speaker 04

  I'm, I'm more physical.

• 1:37:42Speaker 02

  Do you remember that? In a hotel, in a five-star hotel lobby, in front of my mom on her birthday. He has no fucking shame. No shame.

• 1:37:48Speaker 04

  Brett, how old? Because Brett has a mouth on him.

• 1:37:50Speaker 02

  Because he just doesn't know what to stop.

• 1:37:51Speaker 04

  Brett's antagonistic and has a mouth.

• 1:37:52Speaker 02

  He has no fucking shame.

• 1:37:53Speaker 04

  So I would use my physical dominance and Brett would use his mouth. And if he mouthed, I would.

• 1:37:57Speaker 02

  Could you imagine a worse, a worse time to do something stupid on your mom's birthday in front of her in the lobby of a five-star hotel?

• 1:38:04Speaker 04

  Brett, you must have said something antagonistic. It must have been an antagonistic. Do you remember what it was that you said?

• 1:38:08Speaker 02

  Just stupid stuff. He just has no off spirits when he gets mad.

• 1:38:11Speaker 04

  How long ago was this?

• 1:38:13Speaker 02

  Two years ago?

• 1:38:13Speaker 04

  This was only two years ago. That's somewhat recent.

• 1:38:15Speaker 02

  Was it last year?

• 1:38:15Speaker 04

  I don't remember.

• 1:38:16Speaker 02

  Dude, it was in San Francisco when we took mom to the Berkeley speech.

• 1:38:19Speaker 04

  Oh.

• 1:38:20Speaker 02

  It was last year.

• 1:38:20Speaker 04

  Yes, it was.

• 1:38:21Speaker 02

  It was like a year, a year ago this week.

• 1:38:23Speaker 04

  Yeah. And by the way, he was talking shit. And I literally said, bro, say another fucking word and I'm gonna take you down. And we were in the lobby of a really nice hotel.

• 1:38:30Speaker 02

  In front of my mom on her fucking birthday.

• 1:38:31Speaker 04

  And you know what he did? He wouldn't shut his mouth.

• 1:38:33Speaker 02

  She was mortified.

• 1:38:34Speaker 04

  Brett, what did you say?

• 1:38:36Speaker 02

  This is what I'm dealing with.

• 1:38:36Speaker 04

  He's an antagonist. What did you say? So what did you say after he said that? And then he blames me, like somehow, like being physical is worse than being antagonistic.

• 1:38:44Jack Selby?

  But you didn't, you stopped talking once he said that.

• 1:38:46Speaker 04

  No, we didn't. He keeps up. He can't stop talking.

• 1:38:48Jack Selby?

  Then you didn't take him down now.

• 1:38:49Speaker 04

  I did take him down, and then he keeps talking.

• 1:38:51Jack Selby?

  So you guys actually did end up fighting?

• 1:38:52Speaker 04

  Yes, we did. Yes, I do remember that. Yes. And I won.

• 1:38:56Speaker 02

  But we don't do it nearly as often.

• 1:38:57Graham Stephan?

  Pretty soon, you'll be able to settle this with AI.

• 1:38:59Speaker 02

  Not our fights.

• 1:39:00Speaker 04

  No.

• 1:39:01Speaker 02

  Not our fights.

• 1:39:01Speaker 04

  I think it's the last thing that AI is gonna say.

• 1:39:02Speaker 02

  But we do it a lot less, a lot. We get along way better than we used to.

• 1:39:05Speaker 04

  Yeah.

• 1:39:05Jack Selby?

  At what point do you know when to stop fighting?

• 1:39:07Speaker 02

  We don't. He doesn't.

• 1:39:08Speaker 04

  I know. When we get separated.

• 1:39:10Speaker 02

  Yeah, please. My mom's crying.

• 1:39:12Jack Selby?

  How long does it take to like, get over that?

• 1:39:15Speaker 02

  No, 10 minutes.

• 1:39:15Speaker 04

  Oh, quickly. 10 minutes. It probably took us 30 minutes that day. Cause that was a really bad physical fight.

• 1:39:21Speaker 02

  30 minutes really bad.

• 1:39:21Speaker 04

  Well, you really got under each other's skin, but within 30 minutes, we were fine. Usually anywhere from 30 seconds to 30 minutes.

• 1:39:27Graham Stephan?

  It's like the two cats that just like tumble.

• 1:39:29Jack Selby?

  Yeah, I just, I don't understand.

• 1:39:30Speaker 04

  Except that one cat's bigger and stronger, but yes.

• 1:39:32Jack Selby?

  There shouldn't be an aspect of his-

• 1:39:34Speaker 04

  More like a lion and a cat.

• 1:39:35Jack Selby?

  There shouldn't be an aspect of his personality that surprises you by now.

• 1:39:37Speaker 04

  Doesn't surprise me.

• 1:39:38Jack Selby?

  And so why, but if you're able to predict that he's able to say something, then why are they still?

• 1:39:42Speaker 02

  Lack of emotional maturity is the answer to the question you're posing.

• 1:39:44Speaker 04

  What? Why you can't stop talking?

• 1:39:46Speaker 02

  Why you can't just-

• 1:39:47Speaker 04

  Why you can't be antagonistic?

• 1:39:48Speaker 02

  Antagonism without getting physically-

• 1:39:50Speaker 04

  Why can't you just take the beating or? Or shut your mouth?

• 1:39:56Speaker 04

  Or shut your mouth?

• 1:39:58Speaker 02

  This is the worst sentence ever uttered on a podcast in history.

• 1:40:03Graham Stephan?

  So I was gonna say, take the mics away at this point.

• 1:40:05Speaker 02

  Oh my god, dude. That was a good one.

• 1:40:08Graham Stephan?

  All right. Well, thank you so much.

• 1:40:10Speaker 02

  Always a pleasure, guys.

• 1:40:11Graham Stephan?

  This is a lot different than what we usually do. I really enjoyed this discussion.

• 1:40:13Speaker 04

  Bro.

• 1:40:13Graham Stephan?

  You know, uh, who you would really enjoy talking to is Chris Camillo. When it comes to the AI talks. If, if this does well, we'd love to bring in Chris to talk to you about AI.

• 1:40:21Speaker 02

  Yeah, cool, cool.

• 1:40:22Graham Stephan?

  He is our AI guy, and you'll have a great discussion.

• 1:40:24Speaker 04

  Brett's so intelligent about this topic. I love, I love that we had the opportunity.

• 1:40:29Graham Stephan?

  Thank you so much for watching the podcast. Really appreciate it. And if you wanna see our next episode, Early Access with Sophie Rain, this is an episode that initially YouTube didn't like it. We had to cut around it. We had to do some censoring. But if you wanna see the entire episode in its full form, as it is, before it goes public to everyone else, feel free to join as a channel member. Get access to this episode along with every other episode, uncut and uncensored. Enjoy. Uh, thank you so much, and until next time.

• 1:41:08Speaker 08

  Now, more than ever, we need someone on our side. But Rob Whitman? Whitman's votes drove up costs, cut Medicaid, and risked 350,000 Virginians' health care to pay for tax breaks for himself and his donors. He's not on our side. Shannon Taylor will fight corruption, cut taxes, and bring down costs. This November, vote for Shannon Taylor. She's for us. Paid for by HMP, the House Majority PAC dot com. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.