Oil Expert: We Can’t Predict Iran Anymore

Ed Elson is joined by Matt Smith to break down how Trump’s latest threats are driving oil prices and where he thinks they’re headed next. Then, Jonathan Cohen returns to discuss the state of the sports betting market and what the regulatory landscape could look like going forward. Finally, Ed explains why he thinks the AI debate is the dumbest conversation of the year. Matt Smith is the Director of Commodity Research at Kpler. Jonathan Cohen is the Policy Lead at the Institute for Boys and Men and author of Losing Big: America’s Reckless Bet on Sports Gambling. Subscribe to the Prof G Markets Youtube Channel Follow Prof G Markets on Instagram Follow Ed on Instagram, X and Substack Follow Scott on Instagram Send us your questions or comments by emailing [email protected] 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.

• 0:01Scott Galloway?

  Support for the show comes from VCX, the public ticker for private tech. The US stock market started history's greatest wave of wealth creation. From factory workers in Detroit to farmers in Omaha, anyone can own a piece of the great American companies. But today, our most innovative companies are staying private longer, which means everyday Americans are missing out, until now. Introducing VCX, a public ticker for private tech, now available wherever you buy stocks. Visit getvcx.com for more info. That's getvcx.com. Carefully consider the investment material before investing, including objectives, risks, charges, and expenses. This and other information can be found in the fund's prospectus at getvcx.com. This is a paid sponsorship.

• 0:46Speaker 01

  There are sales teams out there who never seem to stop moving. Always a step ahead, always working with a level of precision that doesn't seem normal. It's no secret they're on Attio, the Agentic CRM. Attio runs the work behind every win. It's built for humans and agents, with the guardrails of human software and the scale of Agentic infrastructure. This is the frontier of go-to-market. Teams like Parallel, TurboPuffer, and Wordsmith are already using Attio to set the pace. Now it's your turn. Try Attio for free by going to attio.com/fox. That's A-T-T-I-O dot com slash fox.

• 1:33Speaker 02

  This episode is brought to you by Google Chrome. You think you know a browser, but Gemini and Chrome, that's new. It can help you with practically anything on the web, like restoring a vintage motorcycle from a 50-page restoration block, or finally break down that long article you've had open for weeks. Gemini and Chrome is here for it. Ready to make anything online make sense? There's no place like Chrome. Check responses set up required. Compatibility and availability varies 18 plus.

• 2:03Speaker 03

  Money markets, Matt. If money is evil, then that building is hell.

• 2:13Ed Elson?

  Welcome to Prof G Markets. I'm Ed Elson. It is September 23rd. Let's check in on yesterday's market vitals. The Nasdaq climbed to another record high, boosted by a rally in chip stocks. Meanwhile, the S and P was flat, while the Dow declined. Brent crude was volatile, more on that in a second. And finally, the yield on 10-year Treasuries was flat for the day.

• 2:39Ed Elson?

  Okay. What's happening? Oil tumbled to its lowest point in two weeks yesterday morning, but by midday, those gains were mostly erased. Early on Tuesday, Brent crude had fallen 3% to around $97. That was on hopes that Saudi Arabia's crucial east-west pipeline would restart this week, and that there might be diplomatic progress at the United Nations General Assembly. But just a few hours later, hope sank, and oil prices climbed back above $100, following President Trump's speech at the UN. He said that he had a big decision to make about whether to strike a deal with Iran or to, quote, annihilate it. He also said that a deal might be made after the midterms.

• 3:22Ed Elson?

  Then during a meeting in the afternoon, Trump claimed that his team just concluded a, quote, "very good" meeting with Iran's representatives. Brent crude settled the day at $98 a barrel. So, lots to unpack in the world of oil. Today, we're speaking with Matt Smith, Director of Commodity Research at Kepler. Matt, great to see you again. I was going to begin with a question about what is going on in Saudi Arabia, but then Trump goes to the UN, and he suggests annihilating Iran. And I think that matters, but I'm not sure. What do you think?

• 4:00Speaker 05

  Oh, gosh. Well, that's the thing. We came, we came into Tuesday, and there was the, the bearish influence of both Trump talking about sort of tentative diplomacy. And you had the same signaling from Iran as well. And so you don't know if they're both playing games or what, right? Yeah, I think Trump has come to terms with the fact that we're probably in a holding pattern, and nothing's going to happen till after the midterm elections here. Iran, on the other hand, is perhaps chancing its luck and saying, yeah, sure, like, we could open the Strait in, in seven days. All you have to do is remove your blockade and unfreeze all our assets. And so that's the, that's the path that we're faced with here.

• 4:40Speaker 05

  And so after, you know, initial positivity in the move lower on, on that news, really, we're, we're just back in a holding pattern here, Ed. And, and so perhaps the Saudi stuff has, has more relevance in this case.

• 4:55Ed Elson?

  Is there any evidence that the relationship with Iran or the progress towards some form of a deal or some sort of peace talks, that it's moved in, in any substantive direction? Like, I mean, he says that he's open to meeting with the president, but then he also suggests annihilating the nation. I mean, is it better or worse? Or is it just, we have no idea?

• 5:22Speaker 05

  I think we have no idea, particularly, you know, when, when President Trump talks so, for so long, every single day, he, he throws out so many things, right? Some of them are helpful and some of them are not. And so I think really we have to look beyond these headlines and just assume that we're in a holding pattern here until after the midterms.

• 5:42Ed Elson?

  JP Morgan, their commodities team, they put out some research. They officially abandoned their baseline forecast for oil markets. They said, quote, "We simply don't know how to model the end game," which to me is quite striking. I also kind of respect that they're basically just saying, we don't, we don't even know. What does that say about the situation we're in? And what was your reaction to them sort of coming clean in that way?

• 6:10Speaker 05

  I think a lot of us could relate to that. We've all been feeling it at certain points over the last six and a half months here during the conflict. And so, you know, to have a base case is very difficult at this point, even with ourselves. We revised our balances pretty strongly at the beginning of September here, because even if we do get some kind of progress with the, the Strait of Hormuz, it's not going to be a, a straight path to, to normalcy. It's a very thing, a very difficult thing to model here. You know, the concern really is that we do get escalation once the midterm elections are out of the way. And that escalation being, you know, whether it is Trump trying to define his legacy in, in terms of boots on the ground or whatever that may be.

• 6:55Speaker 05

  It's just very difficult to see how we see an end to this conflict here. The kicker to all of this really is that, as you mentioned, there were all prices around sort of $98 here. On the product side of things, we're seeing them absolutely ripping, you know, on, on a retail basis in the US. Diesel is at $6.50 a gallon. You know, that's up sort of 75% year on year. We're really starting to see that biting, you know, in, in terms of inflation, but in terms of everything, right? That it, that those higher costs work their way into. But the, but just in terms of the Strait of Hormuz, the ironic thing is that we've been seeing oil prices rising over the last month. Well, we've actually been seeing improving volumes coming out of the Strait as well.

• 7:38Speaker 05

  And so there's more barrels getting out, but I think it's the risk premium involved that is the, that's what the issue is, is that while there's increasing flows, there is an increasing chance that you're going to get hit by, by Iran there. And I think the main option that Iran has, right, to deter these flows or keep leverage over the Strait. And so I think on a certain level, we should expect them to be doing more of that going forward here.

• 8:04Ed Elson?

  To me, if the, if the price is reflecting a risk premium about just reflecting an anxiety that this war could flare up or could be sustained in some way, that sounds like a structural problem. That sounds like something that isn't going to change. As you say, even if oil flows increase through the Strait of Hormuz, which then makes me think this is not going away anytime soon. This is something that will sustain itself for a long time, and perhaps we will continue to see diesel prices at record highs, gas prices at close to record highs in America for quite a long time. Is that your assumption at this point?

• 8:45Speaker 05

  We're just going back to what JP Morgan said, right? When they said they, they just don't know how to model or plan for this end game, whatever that may be. And that's the biggest challenge here, because there's either the potential that Trump just, you know, walks all of this back or walks away. The other is, is on the escalation side of things, and that, that could really turn out to a full-blown boots-on-the-ground war. And so both of those options don't seem attractive whatsoever, right? At this point. And so, because even if Trump does walk away, that doesn't, that's not the end game. You've still got the, the Strait of Hormuz partially blocked or under control there. It, it doesn't resolve the situation.

• 9:28Speaker 05

  And so even if we get all of the situation resolved with the Strait of Hormuz over the next three months, it's going to take six months, nine months to resolve all the problems that we're seeing in the products markets. And then you have the US that's talking about doing a diesel export ban, which would just like, just send things absolutely crazy, right? Because when you think about global waterborne diesel exports, the US accounts for about 20% of those. And you've got Russia that has already banned its exports because Ukraine has just been relentlessly striking its refineries with drones there. Russia is about 10% of global exports, so they're already off the market. Middle East is about 10% of global exports as well for diesel. They're

• 10:13Speaker 05

  pretty much out of the market too because the straight and so you combine those three and say US doesn't export ban, that's 40% of global diesel exports not actually coming to the market.

• 10:25Ed Elson?

  What would be the downstream effects of that? I assume just inflation globally because of the amount of products that diesel is an input into. Is that the end game here?

• 10:38Speaker 05

  Exactly. You take diesel to the price where you cause massive demand destruction because there simply isn't enough barrels out there to meet the needs. And so you just drive those prices higher globally. Even from the US perspective, if you're going to put the diesel ban export in place, all that's going to do is cause refiners to dial back, take maintenance and that. It may have an influence particularly in the US Gulf Coast to reduce diesel prices where there's those, you know, 50% of US refining capacity is. But ultimately, it's just going to have all manner of different, you know, unintended consequences here. And yet, at the same time, it feels like it's being seriously considered.

• 11:19Ed Elson?

  You speak with oil traders and commodity traders, you are in the commodities world. And so you have access to the conversation that is closest to this conflict in a lot of ways. Just on sort of a social or maybe even a political level, how have feelings about this war changed among traders and among the commodities community? Like, it seemed as though there was a time where a lot of traders weren't too worried about this, or they thought that this was something that they were kind of used to, or that, you know, it shouldn't necessarily be priced in

• 12:01Ed Elson?

  in a permanent way. Seems like maybe that's changing. But how have reactions in that community changed over the past several months?

• 12:15Speaker 05

  So the market keeps us humble, right? And so we have seen certain markets being able to adapt to get the supplies that they need. And on the flip side, other things haven't happened that perhaps we expected. Like I've been on your show before, you know, March, April time, we're expecting prices on oil to be much, much higher than where they actually went. And so there's that piece of it. But then the second piece of it is that markets fix themselves, right? Economics drives everything and you ultimately see, like we're talking about with diesel, prices rise to the point where you kill demand. I think that the challenge right now is that it's very difficult to, A, fathom what is going to happen next, and B, see how it is fixed

• 12:58Speaker 05

  over the short to medium term. And so there remains a lot of unknowns in this market here. And I think everybody is continuing to scratch their heads here. So while a lot of our clients are still very much focused on what is happening in the Strait of Hormuz, we have all manner of other situations that we're trying to figure out from Chinese demand to Chinese rebound to Russian diesel export bans, all of this stuff. And the complexity of it is only increasing, and that's not going to go away anytime soon.

• 13:30Ed Elson?

  Matt Smith is Director of Commodity Research at Kepler. Matt, appreciate your time. Thank you.

• 13:35Speaker 05

  Thanks, Ed.

• 13:38Ed Elson?

  After the break, sports betting. And for even more markets insights, you can subscribe to my weekly newsletter, simply put, at edwardelson.substack.com.

• 13:58Ed Elson?

  Support for the show comes from NetSuite. Successful business owners know how crucial it is to keep up with changing technology. So when it comes to adapting AI for your business, it couldn't be easier with NetSuite Next. You probably know NetSuite, the AI-powered business management suite that securely connects all your data, unites your financials, inventory, commerce, HR, and CRM into a single source of truth, and it's trusted by over 43,000 customers. NetSuite Next is the next big leap in how business gets done because AI is built into everything you do. It automatically surfaces custom insights throughout your day. AI agents work alongside you to solve problems and handle routine work. And anytime you have a question about anything, just ask like you're talking to a colleague. Whether your company earns

• 14:39Ed Elson?

  millions or even hundreds of millions, it's time for NetSuite Next, where your business meets AI. For the first time ever, you can try NetSuite Next for free. If your revenues are at least in the seven figures, go to netsuite.ai/profg. Build for every industry, ready for every boardroom. netsuite.ai/profg.

• 15:03Ed Elson?

  Support for the show comes from AlphaSpace by Yahoo Finance. Instead of bouncing between countless tools and tabs to manage your portfolio, AlphaSpace by Yahoo Finance brings your entire investment workflow into one easy to use platform. AlphaSpace by Yahoo Finance utilizes a Yahoo Scout-powered assistant to build a personalized view around exactly what you want to analyze, then syncs it with your portfolio for real-time tracking. You can compare multiple tickers, explore everything from candlestick and line charts to fundamental data, and layer in indicators like moving averages, Bollinger Bands, RSI, MACD, and more. My co-host Scott Galloway is a fan of the platform. What did you think of it, Scott?

• 15:45Scott Galloway?

  I have been using Yahoo Finance as my homepage for finance, or for the web, actually, for 30 years. And as someone who has advised hedge funds, run my own money, prides themselves on being good at investing, and it takes up a big part of my life, I think they do a fantastic job.

• 16:06Ed Elson?

  You can explore AlphaSpace with 50% off your first year of Yahoo Finance Gold at yahoofinance.com/profg. That's yahoofinance.com/profg. Bill is $239.70 for the first year, then $479.40 thereafter. Offer valid for new subscribers in the US. Offer ends October 31st, 2026.

• 16:34Speaker 02

  This episode is brought to you by Google Chrome. You think you know a browser, but Gemini and Chrome, that's new. It can help you with practically anything on the web, like restoring a vintage motorcycle from a 50-page restoration block, or finally break down that long article you've had open for weeks. Gemini and Chrome is here for it. Ready to make anything online make sense? There's no place like Chrome. Check responses set up required compatibility and availability varies 18 plus.

• 17:03Ed Elson?

  We're back with Prof G Markets. Football season is underway, which means it's a lucrative time for the gambling industry. But one of America's largest sports books just hit a speed bump. The New York Times reported on Saturday that DraftKings has built a machine learning model that scores customers on what it calls elasticity. The score predicts how much a customer will lose after getting a free bet or bonus. Customers who are expected to lose more will then get more offers. Reportedly, the company has also built a model to flag customers heading towards a gambling crisis, but it actually shelved that safeguard. The news

• 17:44Ed Elson?

  lands in a bad year for the stock, which is trading near a 52-week low, down more than 50% from its peak in 2025, now facing increased competition from prediction markets, which captured roughly a quarter of US sports betting volume during the World Cup. Investors are left wondering, where is the sports betting industry headed? Here to break this down, we are speaking with Jonathan Cohen, Policy Lead at the Institute for Boys and Men, and author of Losing Big: America's Reckless Bet on Sports Gambling. Jonathan, thanks for joining us. Good to see you. First, tell us a little bit about this New York Times report on DraftKings. It sounds

• 18:24Ed Elson?

  like they are using AI to figure out who loses the most money and then get them to lose even more money. Is that what's going on?

• 18:31Speaker 06

  Yeah. And on the one hand, this is a crazy news story. And on the other hand, this is sort of business as usual for the sports gambling companies. You know, I don't think it will be a surprise to any industry observer that a gambling company knows who loses the most money and targets them with promotions and tries to entice them to gamble more money. What what's sort of new and special about this, and as you know, I listen to your podcast and you have to talk about AI these days and you put AI in the title of something and then the number goes up. And the New York Times sort of did a good job of sort of framing this, not just about, you know, the company targeting people, but using machine learning, using AI specifically to target people to do a better job than, you know, Vinnie at the sportsbook knowing which guy who walking into the casino deserves a promotion.

• 19:15Speaker 06

  And that, I think, scares people because of how micro targeted, just how precise these algorithms can be relative to a human sort of making that same decision.

• 19:23Ed Elson?

  I think the part that is maybe surprising or maybe not surprising, depending on your view of these companies, is this idea that they are actually targeting the people who are most vulnerable to gambling addictions. And a lot of the the policy communication from these companies has been, no, we protect those people. We're just a platform. And if you have a gambling problem, if it's clear to us that you are in danger, we will put some sort of safeguards in place to protect you. But they're not doing that. Is that commonplace in the industry?

• 19:55Speaker 06

  I would say this is something we've known actually for a long time, that modern online sports betting would afford us an amazing opportunity, right? Better data on gamblers than we ever would have been provided when people sort of walk into Vegas and cash tips or whatever. And then the question has sort of always been, okay, who gets that data, right? Does the does the VIP team, the people who, you know, are whose job it is to like ply big gamblers with free iPhones to keep them betting? Or does what's called the responsible gambling team, the team whose job it is to monitor for problem gambling and to slow players down? And as the reporting makes clear, and this has sort of been consistent in the industry over the last eight years or so, that is, in many companies, I think particularly at

• 20:37Speaker 06

  DraftKings, that is a very much a sidelined section of the company. That it's their job is basically contrary to the rest, the other 90% of the company. And at DraftKings in particular, that has been a disempowered and almost disemboweled department.

• 20:52Ed Elson?

  Just looking at the data, revenues on traditional online sportsbooks, 11x from 2020 to 2025. It's gone from a one and a half billion dollar industry to a $17 billion industry that is just online sports betting. What is causing this rapid increase? And to what extent is it dependent as an industry on a handful of the most vulnerable gamblers?

• 21:21Speaker 06

  The number one driver is availability, right? Since the 2018 Supreme Court decision, 39 states in Washington DC have legalized sports betting in some form, 32 of them providing it online. So whereas previously you had to like get on a plane and get your butt to Nevada, now you can bet on Malaysian women's doubles badminton from the comfort of of your home.

• 21:40Ed Elson?

  Great.

• 21:40Speaker 06

  To your to your last point, it's a very, it's a very, it's a very keen observation, right? Lots of industries rely on a small subset of of customers and gambling is no different. During the 2023-2024 NFL season, 82% of revenue for sports betting companies came from just 3% of customers. And those are the kinds of folks who we assume are going to be targeted through the program that the the Times uncovered from DraftKings.

• 22:02Ed Elson?

  Having said that, the stock has gotten hammered recently. It's down around 57%. FanDuel is also down 70% from last year. I assume this is a result of the fact that they are now competing with these other players in prediction markets, which are of course getting into online sports betting as well. What do you make of of the fact that investors are starting to stay away from these companies?

• 22:30Speaker 06

  Yeah, I mean, I would say a lot of it is prediction markets. A lot of it is also just sort of natural maturation, right? These companies shot up to, I think, 80, 70, 80% of the market share immediately after legalization. And it was sort of inevitable that over time, specifically a company like Fanatics would begin to chip away at at the pole position that DraftKings and FanDuel had had asserted for themselves. And then the prediction markets is really weird. You know, 69% of of prediction market trading volume on sports is coming from folks in states without legalized sports gambling, 43% alone from Texas and California. But DraftKings is leaning really hard into prediction markets. FanDuel and Fanatics are launching prediction markets as well, but they clearly are not investing as much energy and as much advertising behind it as DraftKings is.

• 23:14Speaker 06

  So you would think that the rise of of Calci and Polly Market wouldn't do as much damage as it is doing to a stock like DraftKings, but clearly the market knows a lot better than me because of course it does.

• 23:24Ed Elson?

  How bad of a problem is this? I mean, we can talk about these companies from an investment perspective and they're printing money and some people will say, okay, great, I'll invest, maybe I'll get some outsized returns. But then, of course, there's like the downside here, which is it seems like they are preying on vulnerable people, presumably vulnerable young men, who are probably lost and trying to figure out what to do with their lives. And they find this addictive substance called sports betting. I would imagine that it's been quite harmful to a lot of people. To what extent do we have evidence of that? To what extent is this a real problem?

• 24:05Speaker 06

  Yeah, so we have evidence specifically when it comes to sports betting, not prediction markets. And I'll spare your listeners an explanation of the methodology behind staggered difference and difference modeling. But basically, because of because different states legalize sports betting at different times, we can sort of see, okay, how does state X change, whereas statewide does not because state X legalized sports gambling? And the results are are pretty clear and pretty consistent. You know, following the arrival of sports betting, online sports betting specifically, we see a 10% increase in personal bankruptcies, a 6% to 8% increase in auto loan delinquencies, increase in child maltreatment cases, increases in food insecurity, and all sorts of other super great trends that we love to encourage. And these are just at the aggregate level, right? This is just sort of at the statewide level.

• 24:48Speaker 06

  And again, only focused on sports betting, not not to mention prediction markets, loot boxes, day trading apps, all sorts of other things that are, we think are sort of gambling and like gambling and causing harm like gambling, but are harder to track the exact results of.

• 25:02Ed Elson?

  I want to ask you about Sydney Sweeney. I'm sure you you were expecting.

• 25:06Speaker 06

  Thank God, finally, finally.

• 25:08Ed Elson?

  Who got a lot of pushback recently for an ad that she was in where she was basically half nude promoting this this company.

• 25:15Speaker 06

  Not half, not half.

• 25:16Ed Elson?

  Not half, fully. A lot of people criticized her for sexualizing women's sports. This is what a lot of the criticism is based around. To me, the problem wasn't what she was or wasn't wearing. To me, the problem was what she was advertising for, which was another sports betting company. And we are seeing a lot of this. A lot of celebrities are partnering with these gambling companies and advertising for these gam- I mean, Kevin Hart with DraftKings, Jamie Foxx with Bet MGM, and now Sydney Sweeney. I mean, what do you make of this trend of a lot of celebrities advertising for sports betting companies?

• 25:54Speaker 06

  I mean, it feels a little reminiscent of crypto circa 2021, don't you think? Especially when it comes to prediction markets, which we can get into this whole conversation. The regulatory hammer might fall down next year. You're right, the Supreme Court might basically wipe these things out of existence come 2027, specifically when it comes to sports. But can I offer a take on the on the Sydney Sweeney ad, having seen it a few dozen times that I think is might be relevant for for you? So I think it's a brilliant, brilliant advertising and a perfect distillation, actually, of this entire issue. The opening words of the ad, she walks up, she's naked, she turns to the camera and says,

• 26:27Speaker 01

  Think you know sports? Prove it.

• 26:30Speaker 06

  I think there's no better distillation of what young men are looking for from sports gambling than a naked Sydney Sweeney challenging them to make money from sports, right? Where else, what what better encapsulation of young men's desire for mastery, for for sexual standing, for for success in an economy where on the lower ends of the labor market, men are really, really struggling, than a naked Sydney Sweeney telling them to prove that they can make money betting on sports? I think it's just a perfect, perfect encapsulation of this entire issue. And she's the only celebrity, in many ways, who could pull that off. No offense to naked Kevin Hart, I just don't think young men are as enticed by by him challenging them to to to make money on a prediction market platform.

• 27:15Ed Elson?

  Well, I think this gets to one of the more important points, which is, it does seem as though this is a men problem. And you work at the Institute for Boys and Men. What I can tell you is that nearly half of young men today have an online sportsbook account, which is certainly higher than women. To what extent is this related to being a man? And to what extent is the betting industry dependent on specifically young male Americans?

• 27:47Speaker 06

  You sort of hunt where the ducks are, right? For lack of a better term. And and men are already sort of inclined toward not just gambling, but it's obviously also sports, right? And so you sort of put the confluence together, not to mention the fact that, as I said, young men are struggling in the labor market, struggling in higher education, already prone to, let's call it, unwise decision making, in the case of young men especially. And you can imagine how very quickly, even without a naked Sydney Sweeney challenging them to make money, they are sort of primed to be these companies' key customers.

• 28:20Ed Elson?

  Just before you go, what does the regulatory picture look like going forward? And do you have any predictions for what we'll see in the coming years?

• 28:28Speaker 06

  Okay, so I would say we're on the cusp of sort of two big trends regulatorily. The first would be what I think is a rising sort of pushback to online sports betting in its in its current form. And I think this would have happened a lot sooner and would be a lot further along had it not been for prediction markets that have really sort of sucked the air up of the the sort of conversational vacuum around gambling. But I think that it really is starting. There are a couple of states that are that are trying to rein things in, and Colorado actually just passed a reform package last year. And then on the on the on the prediction market front, the Wild West, the closing of the frontier is coming, right? One way or another, the Supreme Court is, it looks like it is going to take up a case that is going to decide once and for all whether sports event contracts, which constitute

• 29:11Speaker 06

  roughly 80% of prediction market trading volume, whether they violate state and travel gaming law. And if the court rules that they do, those contracts are done and prediction markets as we know them, other than things like election and the Emmys, are done. But that is that is of course for the court to decide. And you know, these things nominate the cases about one thing, but actually it's about a whole other host of things. So I'm not a lawyer, much to my mother-in-law's chagrin, so I don't have, you know, I don't have a prediction about which way that's going to go. But even if the court doesn't do it, this is the kind of thing that Congress could do. Or if there's a change in the in the power in the White House, the Commodities Future Trading Commission could do if they somehow had more than one commissioner. So I think the the the writing is on the wall a little bit for prediction markets

• 29:53Speaker 06

  one way or another, whether it's through Congress, whether it's through the Supreme Court, or whether even through the court of public opinion, because lots of people are big mad about these things and they might be, they might not be long for this world.

• 30:04Ed Elson?

  Jonathan Cohen is policy leader at the Institute for Boys and Men and author of Losing Big: America's Reckless Bet on Sports Gambling. Jonathan, always appreciate it. Thank you so much.

• 30:15Speaker 06

  Thanks, Ed.

• 30:21Ed Elson?

  It's been more than two weeks since ex Anthropic researcher Jacob Cox and tweeted that AI might kill us all and the AI extinction debate rages on. Cox's tweet has now received more than 170 million views. It has been endorsed by Anthropic's current head of alignment, who said the chances of human extinction are 10%. It was also endorsed by an OpenAI staffer, who said the chances are 70%. Sam Altman has weighed in, Elon Musk has weighed in, Obama has weighed in, and of course, so has Donald Trump, who has called this whole thing a quote hoax. We have heard a lot of opinions, but what we haven't heard is a lot of facts.

• 31:01Ed Elson?

  In fact, aside from the hugging face incident, which we knew about months ago, zero evidence of anything has been brought to the table. Yes, Cox's tweet might have been scary and genuine, but he didn't actually tell us anything that we didn't already know. Meanwhile, the statement that there is a 10% probability of human extinction was not based on any actual data or even any calculation. It was just an opinion with a random number attached to it, and the number made it sound more statistically significant than it actually was. And the same is true of the take about 70% probability of extinction. The same is true, by the way, of all of the accusations about this whole thing being a hoax. Some

• 31:44Ed Elson?

  say this was a setup by China to slow America's progress on AI. Others say it was all a setup by Anthropic to achieve regulatory capture ahead of their IPO. Does anyone have any evidence of any of these claims? No, they don't. Like the extinction claims, they are opinions. They might be interesting, but that doesn't mean that they're true. This is why the AI debate might be the dumbest conversation of the year. Because unlike productive conversations, which are grounded in data and in evidence, this conversation is grounded in almost nothing. It started with a guy's opinion, and the world piled on with more opinions. But similar to a Daily Mail tabloid, facts never really played much of a role.

• 32:29Ed Elson?

  Now, that isn't to say that AI safety isn't an important topic. It is, and we have to take it seriously. But that means changing the way we have this conversation. It means focusing on evidence and also accountability, two things that have been sorely lacking from this debate. Without those, this will continue to be a dumpster fire of a conversation, and we will continue to run around in circles. It is time to make the AI conversation a little bit smarter. It's time we focus on the facts and not the opinions.

• 33:08Ed Elson?

  Okay, that's it for today. This episode was produced by Claire Miller and Alison Weiss, and engineered by Benjamin Spencer. Our video editor is Brad Williams. Our research team is Dan Chalon, Kristin O'Donoghue, and Mia Silverio, and our social producer is Jake MacPherson. Thank you for listening to Prof G Markets from Prof G Media. If you liked what you heard, give us a follow. I'm Ed Elson. I will see you tomorrow.

• 33:36Speaker 07

  This podcast is supported by Anthropic, the public benefit corporation behind Claude. Everyone's got a hard question about AI. Anthropic was built to surface those questions and share what it finds along the way, because there's hope in hard questions. Ask yours at claude.ai/spotify and keep thinking. That's claude.ai/spotify.