Ilya Sutskever on Dwarkesh Patel Reaction, NVIDIA’s Response to Google’s AI Progress, Trump Unveils Genesis | Diet TBPN

Our favorite moments from today's show, in under 30 minutes. TBPN.com is made possible by: Ramp - https://ramp.com Figma - https://figma.com Vanta - https://vanta.com Linear - https://linear.app Eight Sleep - https://eightsleep.com/tbpn Wander - https://wander.com/tbpn Public - https://public.com AdQuick - https://adquick.com Bezel - https://getbezel.com Numeral - https://www.numeralhq.com Polymarket - https://polymarket.com Attio - https://attio.com/tbpn Fin - https://fin.ai/tbpn Graphite - https://graphite.dev Restream - https://restream.io Profound - https://tryprofound.com Julius AI - https://julius.ai turbopuffer - https://turbopuffer.com fal - https://fal.ai Privy - https://privy.io Cognition - https://cognition.ai Gemini - https://gemini.google.com Follow TBPN: https://TBPN.com https://x.com/tbpn https://open.spotify.com/show/2L6WMqY3GUPCGBD0dX6p00?si=674252d53acf4231 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/technology-brothers/id1772360235 https://www.youtube.com/@TBPNLive

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

• 0:00John Coogan?

  Timeline was in turmoil over the weekend and yesterday. We covered a little bit about the nucleus dust up on the timeline. The biggest news in tech, in AI, is that Ilya Sutskever, Dwarkesh Patel podcast has dropped. The opening clip is iconic. It's very funny. It's a bit of a hot mic moment.

• 0:20Speaker 01

  But all of this is real.

• 0:23Dwarkesh Patel?

  Yeah.

• 0:23Speaker 01

  Don't you think so?

• 0:25Dwarkesh Patel?

  Meaning what?

• 0:26Speaker 01

  Like all this AI stuff and all this Bay Area, yeah, that it's happening, like, isn't it straight out of science fiction?

• 0:32Dwarkesh Patel?

  Yeah. Another thing that's crazy is like how normal the slow take off feels. The idea that we'd be investing 1% of GDP in AI.

• 0:42John Coogan?

  Hasn't even set up the cameras yet.

• 0:43Dwarkesh Patel?

  Felt like a bigger deal, you know, where right now it just feels like.

• 0:46Speaker 01

  We get used to things pretty fast, turns out, yeah. But also it's kind of like it's abstract, like, what does it mean? But it means that you see it in the news.

• 0:54Dwarkesh Patel?

  Yeah.

• 0:55Speaker 01

  That such and such company announced such and such dollar amount.

• 0:58Dwarkesh Patel?

  Right.

• 0:59Speaker 01

  That's all you see.

• 1:00Dwarkesh Patel?

  Right.

• 1:02Speaker 01

  It's not really felt in any other way so far.

• 1:04Dwarkesh Patel?

  Now, should we actually begin here? I think this is an interesting discussion.

• 1:07Speaker 01

  Sure.

• 1:07John Coogan?

  It's like one of the greatest podcast intros of all time. So good, so good.

• 1:12Dwarkesh Patel?

  That's gonna be a new meta.

• 1:13John Coogan?

  Yes, yes. You can't fake that. It's amazing. Also, it's just funny because, you know, it's effectively getting caught on a hot mic. But I was joking, I was like, of all the things that you could say on the hot mic before you sit down, oh, okay, we're actually recording. His is just completely reaffirming everything we know about Ilya Sutskever. It's just completely the same, like, okay, he is a true believer. It's not like he was sitting down and being like, like, no, we gotta go on my private plane. I just sold so much secondary. It's crazy what's going on with this stuff. Like, if people really think this AI thing is gonna pan out. I'm making billions of dollars. I'm cashing out. I don't believe any of this stuff is real.

• 1:56John Coogan?

  No, he wasn't caught on a hot mic. Look at that. His hot mic moment is like, wow, it's exactly like science fiction. Everything.

• 2:01Dwarkesh Patel?

  It's all real.

• 2:02John Coogan?

  It's all real. Yeah, which is just iconic. Tyler, did you have any other takeaways from your speedrun? You're listening to it at 5X, right? Does he pop the scaling bubble? Does he give a bearish take about AI at any point?

• 2:14Speaker 03

  So I wouldn't say he's like anti scaling, but he does kind of give this interesting take, which he basically says that like AI companies, like there's too few ideas for the amount of companies and for the the scale that we're at. You can think of AI progress as being in these kind of distinct ages, right? So he says 2012 to 2020 was like the age of research where you're trying all these like different ideas and the scale of things is very small, right? Like to train the original AlexNet was like two GPUs to do the original transformer was like eight, maybe 64, but like, you know, very small amount of GPUs. Once we kind of figured out that that transformers work, we entered this age of scaling. And that's basically from from 2020 to 2025.

• 2:56Speaker 03

  And now we're basically at this point where like, yes, you can keep scaling and models will get better, but even if you scale 100x, like, are we really going to get super intelligence? It'll get better on the benchmarks and they'll become more useful. But it's not like this. He doesn't think that just raw scaling alone is basically what's going to bring us there. I mean, this has been echoed by a lot of people. We still need a couple of different kind of paradigms for this to work. The reason that that Opus 4.5 was better is not just because they scaled pre-training. It's scaling generally. The scaling has gone from pre-training and now it's RL.

• 3:28John Coogan?

  Yeah.

• 3:28Speaker 03

  And so we basically, we need to find another paradigm. And the way you do that is just doing like research. And so he talks about SSI as basically being this like all they do is research.

• 3:37John Coogan?

  Return to research.

• 3:38Speaker 03

  Yeah, it's small kind of training runs, even though, you know, they only raised three billion, which is like small compared to other

• 3:44John Coogan?

  Sure.

• 3:45Speaker 03

  to other research institutions. The fact that they're basically putting it all on these kind of, I mean, I don't know if they're moonshots, but they're these small training runs where they're doing experiments.

• 3:54John Coogan?

  Yeah.

• 3:54Speaker 03

  And then they're going to scale it up eventually, but they're not just basically trying to win the AI race by just scaling up and doing the same thing as someone else.

• 4:01John Coogan?

  Yeah, yeah, they're trying to find a new, a way to actually bend the scaling curve, find a new scaling law or find a new technology that like they can scale against. I was thinking about Ilya's talk at NERIPs last year. He pulls up this chart of the relationship between the mammal's mass and the brain volume.

• 4:24John Coogan?

  And it's a pretty linear graph and so like the elephant is a lot bigger than the mouse and so it has a proportionally larger brain to its body volume. And it's this perfect, it's this perfect linear curve. I should, I should just try and figure it out if I, uh, I can maybe text it in. Boom. So basically, the, the mammals have this like very clear linear trend. But then the, uh, non-human primates are a little bit higher up on the chart and they're just doing a little bit better. But then hominids, the actual humans have a different, there's a very distinctly different curve. It was making me think like, like, maybe that's what we're supposed to see when we think about, yeah, this, this.

• 5:09John Coogan?

  When we say like straight lines on log graphs, when we say we are seeing scaling happen with the current architectures, which line are we scaling against? Are we, are we actually scaling on the, on the human curve? Or are we waiting for divergence from that current scaling?

• 5:29Speaker 03

  Scaling has taken all the air out of the room.

• 5:30John Coogan?

  Hmm.

• 5:31Speaker 03

  Right? Where like basically we have more than enough compute to try these like different ideas.

• 5:35John Coogan?

  Yeah.

• 5:35Speaker 03

  But they're just all going straight into, to training the next big model.

• 5:38John Coogan?

  Yeah.

• 5:39Speaker 03

  Using the next paradigm and maybe it's slightly different, right? You have a different way of doing RL or whatever, but it's still fundamentally the same thing, right? And he talks about, uh, maybe continual learning is really the, the better approach, right? We've been in this era of like having a pre-training thing for so long that we think of like AI is like you train this thing and then you release it and it's like done. And RL is like a little bit different now because

• 5:59John Coogan?

  Yeah.

• 5:59Speaker 03

  there's this idea of post-training and you can kind of integrate.

• 6:02John Coogan?

  I also thought the interesting thing was, uh, with, with, uh, pre-training, you use the whole internet. So you don't have to decide anything. You're just applying this algorithm to just all the data, all the compute and there's no decisions. But then with RL, you have to decide, okay, we're putting in these math equations and we're maybe not putting in something else because we're actually creating the data and we're, and it's not just this.

• 6:22Speaker 03

  He says like, this is maybe why, um, we see these kind of like models that are super well.

• 6:27John Coogan?

  Yep.

• 6:27Speaker 03

  They do super well in evals, but not so much.

• 6:29John Coogan?

  Yeah. Some of the overfitting and.

• 6:30Speaker 03

  And the reason is because the data that we choose is not the correct data because researchers are basically being reward hacked maybe, uh, into like just solving for benchmarks.

• 6:40John Coogan?

  It's interesting to hear this, uh, like, like the conclusion is we need another breakthrough.

• 6:47John Coogan?

  And and then simultaneously consensus beer like, but like, we're definitely going to get that breakthrough in like the next decade.

• 6:53Jordi Hays?

  I feel like it echoes a lot of even what Mike Newp has been saying, like, we need new ideas.

• 6:58John Coogan?

  Yeah, totally.

• 6:58Jordi Hays?

  Saying this for for months.

• 7:00John Coogan?

  But it's way, it's way harder to predict the rate at which breakthroughs will arrive as opposed to like, you can actually chart out, okay, the formation of capital, the time it takes to build a data center, how long it takes to, you know, manufacture a bunch of GPUs, rack them, run the training run, like, that's much more predictable than like, human came up with new algorithm, that's sort of random.

• 7:20Speaker 03

  And he brings this up as the reason why you see companies doing this, because it's just, if you're raising money, it's so much easier to to justify the raise by saying, we're going to buy this data center.

• 7:29John Coogan?

  Totally.

• 7:30Speaker 03

  Do this training run.

• 7:30John Coogan?

  Totally.

• 7:31Speaker 03

  It's going to cost exactly those much.

• 7:31John Coogan?

  Oh, yeah.

• 7:32Jordi Hays?

  It's very underwritten.

• 7:33Speaker 03

  Yeah, then the model will be this good, and then we can use it to monetize this way.

• 7:36John Coogan?

  Totally.

• 7:36Speaker 03

  Where if you're just saying like, oh, yeah, we're just going to pay a bunch of like, really smart researchers to do a bunch of research, and then they'll, they'll figure something out.

• 7:42John Coogan?

  Yep.

• 7:42Speaker 03

  That it's like, you can't really.

• 7:43Jordi Hays?

  Yeah, in some ways, it feels like SSI is set up for like, somewhat of a mini AI winter, or like, at least riding the hype cycle down.

• 7:52John Coogan?

  Yeah.

• 7:52Jordi Hays?

  Because it doesn't sound like he's sitting there being like, we raised three billion, and we're spending it in the next 12 months, it's like.

• 7:57John Coogan?

  2.9 was debt.

• 8:00Jordi Hays?

  No, not, not, not.

• 8:01John Coogan?

  No, no, no, that's the point, it's not, it's like equity, it's just sitting there, it's like, he can clearly pull back.

• 8:06Jordi Hays?

  Yeah, I'm going to give each researcher, different teams, like a shots on goal.

• 8:11John Coogan?

  No, I love it.

• 8:11Jordi Hays?

  We're going to keep taking those shots until, obviously, he'd be able to raise like another 10 billion dollars whenever he wants, especially if he has like a key breakthrough insight, and they can be first to scale that. We're delighted by Google's success. They've made great advances in AI, and we continue to supply to Google. Nvidia is a generation ahead of the industry. It's the only platform that runs every AI model and does it everywhere computing is done. Nvidia offers greater performance.

• 8:39John Coogan?

  Versatility and fungibility.

• 8:40Jordi Hays?

  Versatility and fungibility than Asics, which are designed for specific AI frameworks or functions.

• 8:46John Coogan?

  That is a crazy thing to post.

• 8:47Jordi Hays?

  Crazy, crazy, crazy thing to post.

• 8:50John Coogan?

  Sometimes we get stuff from Nvidia.

• 8:51Jordi Hays?

  I don't know, boys, but having the largest company in the world sending tweets to defend their main product is not very reassuring.

• 8:57John Coogan?

  I feel like this would be so much better delivered. I actually don't have that much of a problem with the actual text here. This should be delivered by Jensen with some nuance in a conversational setting. It just hits a lot different when this is in at exactly 9:00 AM. Like clearly scheduled, clearly typed out in a document. It feels like a press release, which is just an odd, odd thing when it, when it should be. This should be an answer to a question. Someone, Bobby Cosmic in the chat was saying like, oh, the mainstream media is just now picking up on the Gemini 3 story. And there's articles in the Wall Street Journal and other places saying like, oh, maybe Google's back. Like, you know, buy Google. Like, it's very exciting. And so Nvidia feels, feels the need to respond to that.

• 9:42John Coogan?

  But it's a lot different when it's actually a response. Instead of just like, we're putting out a press release, like, who knows why?

• 9:50Jordi Hays?

  Yeah.

• 9:50John Coogan?

  As opposed to like Jensen saying like, well, since you asked, talk show host or news anchor or whoever he's top podcast host, whoever he's talking to, Dork Ash, whoever he's talking to, maybe us. We'd love to have him. I can ask him that question. He can defend this here.

• 10:05Jordi Hays?

  Well, the timing is, is, uh, seems important because they are coming under a huge amount of pressure right now. There was an article in Barron's this morning by Tay Kim.

• 10:14John Coogan?

  Yep.

• 10:14Jordi Hays?

  The headline is not what Nvidia's comms teams would have liked it to be. Nvidia says it's not Enron in private memo refuting accounting questions.

• 10:25John Coogan?

  That's a crazy thing to say.

• 10:26Jordi Hays?

  Let me, let me get into the, to the coverage. So Tay says, "A series of prominent stock sales and allegations of accounting irregularities have put Nvidia in the middle of a debate about the value of artificial intelligence and its related stocks. Now Nvidia is pushing back in a private seven-page memo sent by Nvidia's investor relations team to Wall Street analysts over the weekend. The chipmaker directly addressed a dozen claims made by skeptical investors. Nvidia's memo, which includes fonts in the, in the company's trademark green color, begins by addressing a social media post from Michael Burry last week, which criticized the company for stock-based comp dilution and stock buybacks. Barry's bet against subprime mortgages before the 2008." Financial crisis was depicted in the movie The Big Short, of course. Nvidia repurchased 91 billion shares since 2018, not 112 billion.

• 11:11Jordi Hays?

  Mr. Burry appears to have incorrectly included RSUs. RSU taxes, employee equity grants should not be conflated with the performance of the repurchase program, Nvidia said in the memo. Employees benefiting from a rising share price does not indicate the original equity grants were excessive at the time of issuance. That makes sense. Barron's reviewed the memo, which initially appeared in social media posts over the weekend, and confirmed its authenticity. Burry told Barron's he disagrees with Nvidia's response and stands by his analysis. He said he would discuss the topic of the company's stock-based comp in more details. Burry is, of course, now over on Substack. He's charging $380 a year. And if you are a perma-bear, I can't. This is like Christmas coming early.

• 11:55Jordi Hays?

  Nvidia didn't respond to Barron's for requests for comment, but they also responded to claims that the current situation is analogous to historical accounting frauds Enron, WorldCom, and Lucent that featured vendor financing and SPVs. Unlike Enron, Nvidia does not use special-purpose entities to hide debt or inflate revenue. Nvidia also addressed allegation that its customers, large technology companies, aren't properly accounting for the economic value of Nvidia hardware. Some of the companies use, we've talked about this, use a six-year depreciation schedule for GPUs. Burry said he believes the useful lives of the chips are shorter than six years, meaning Nvidia's customers are inflating profits by spreading out deep depreciation costs over a long period.

• 12:36Jordi Hays?

  The TPUs equal bad for Nvidia take is up there with the dumbest, maybe worse than DeepSeek as it completely misses what actually happened in the last six weeks. And I will remember who is who in the zoo, my view. One, demand for AI is bananas. No one can meet demand. Everyone is spending more. Google said just yesterday they have to double capacity every six months to keep up. Two, scaling laws are intact. He's referencing Gemini 3. The flywheel is about to speed up. Somehow, the mid-curve crew thinks this is zero-sum competition. None of this suggests that. If you think the race is hot now, wait until you see what comes out of large coherent blackwell clusters. All the magic from the, quote, "God machines" is pretty much still hopper-based. Lastly, a quick GPU-TPU lesson.

• 13:20Jordi Hays?

  The cost and performance specs on the box aren't what you get in real life. And Google is going to get a... That margin too doubled. What matters is system level effective tokens to watt to dollars and TCO. Nvidia GPUs have higher FMU because they are they're already embedded in workflows slash the ecosystem is massive. By the way, this is a good test. If you have an opinion on this topic, but you have to look up FMU, then perhaps curate better source.

• 13:46John Coogan?

  MFU.

• 13:47Jordi Hays?

  What?

• 13:48John Coogan?

  MFU. MFU.

• 13:50Jordi Hays?

  What? I said MFU. The above effective token watt gap also likely widens with Ruben. Add in that Jensen can actually deliver volume in a tight market, plus future flexibility, multi-cloud capable, programmable for paradigm shifts, and he'll sell every GPU he makes for years. Google will too, since everyone wants a second supplier and TPU is a fantastic chip. But this is as far from either or as it gets. The one benefit of this confusion is that it is likely to give Google a brief stint as the world heavyweight champion, the most valuable company. I would guess the midwits put the strap on them in less than two weeks.

• 14:25John Coogan?

  Put the strap on them? What does that mean? Just like, like, like pile in? It seems like he's predicting that, that people will overplay the Nvidia bear take and overplay the Google opportunity.

• 14:39Jordi Hays?

  Overplay Google's opportunity.

• 14:40John Coogan?

  And that will result in Google becoming the most valuable company in the world. And he uses the phrase, put the strap on them in multiple, in less than two weeks.

• 14:49Jordi Hays?

  According to today's Wall Street Journal, AI-related investment accounts for half of GDP growth are reversal would risk recession. We can't afford to go backwards. The article is how the US economy became hooked on AI spending. President Donald J. Trump unveils the Genesis mission to accelerate AI for scientific discovery. Today, Trump signed an executive order launching the Genesis mission, a new national effort to use artificial intelligence to transform how scientific research is conducted and accelerate the speed of scientific discovery. The Genesis mission charges the Secretary of Energy with leveraging our national laboratories to unite America's brightest minds, most powerful computers, and vast scientific data into one cooperative system for research. The order directs the

• 15:32Jordi Hays?

  Department of Energy to create a closed-loop AI experimentation platform that integrates our nation's world-class supercomputers and unique data sets to generate scientific foundation models and power robotic laboratories. The order instructs the assistant to the president for science and technology to coordinate the national initiative and integrate and integration of data and infrastructure from across the federal government. There's one more note here on strengthening America's AI dominance. Trump continues to prioritize America's global dominance in AI to usher in a new golden age of human flourishing, economic competitiveness and national security.

• 16:05John Coogan?

  Yeah, I'm very interested to hear how like how the public-private partnership actually works here. There was a time when every, basically every cool technology was coming out of DARPA, coming out of the US government. The US government landed on the moon and since then, you know, I think a lot of people in technology have lost faith in the US government overseeing the development of technology, even academia. I mean, the people, people think like, you know, AGI will emerge from a private C corp. That's where people believe that the best work will be done. Give Ilya Sutskever, give the best scientist $3 billion, let them go cook. Like, that's the thesis currently.

• 16:47John Coogan?

  This feels like somewhat of a rejection of that in some ways. There's obviously lots of different places where having AI resources, having science and technology resources within the government make a ton of sense. But it'll be interesting to see, like, where are the interfacing points between the two, between the two categories? By default, I think most people in our audience in technology would, would say, hey, like, let's leave the, let's leave the space travel and the, and, and the AI research to the, to the private sector. Should we run through the Astral Codex 10 piece on trait-based embryo selection? This is from Scott Alexander in Astral Codex 10. He says, suddenly trait-based embryo selection.

• 17:31John Coogan?

  When a couple uses IV, so in 2021, Genomic Prediction announced the first polygenically selected baby. When a couple uses IVF, they may get as many as 10 embryos. If they want one child, which one do they implant? In the early days, doctors would just eyeball them and choose whichever looked the healthiest. Later, they started testing for some of the most severe and easiest to detect genetic orders, like disorders like Down syndrome and cystic fibrosis. The final step was polygenic selection, genotyping each embryo and implanting the one with the best genes overall. Best in what sense? Genomic Prediction claimed. The ability to forecast health outcomes from diabetes to schizophrenia. For example, although the average person has a 30% chance of getting type 2 diabetes,

• 18:14John Coogan?

  if you genetically test five embryos and select the one with the lowest predicted risk, they'll only have a 20% chance. So you get a 10% bump there. That's nice. Since you're taking the healthiest of many embryos, you should expect a child conceived via this method to be significantly healthier than one born naturally. Polygenic selection straddles the line between disease prevention and human enhancement. In 2023, Orchid Health, founded by Noor, who we've had on the show, enter the field. Unlike genomic prediction, which tested only the most important genetic variants, Orchid offers whole genome sequencing, which can detect the de novo mutations involved in autism, developmental disorders, and certain other genetic diseases.

• 18:56John Coogan?

  Critics accuse GP and Orchid of offering designer babies, but this is only true in the weakest sense. Customers couldn't design a baby for anything other than slightly lower risk of genetic disease. You're basically just selecting out of what you already got. They're not editing the genes. They're merely sequencing them and then allowing you to select. These companies refused to offer selection on traits, the industry term for the really controversial stuff like height, IQ, or eye color. Still, these were trivial extensions of their technology, and everyone knew it was just a matter of time before someone took the plunge. Last month, a startup called Nucleus took the plunge. They had previously offered 23andMe-style genetic tests for adults. Now they announced a partnership with genomic prediction focusing on embryos.

• 19:38John Coogan?

  Although GP would continue to only test for health outcomes, you could forward the raw data from GP to Nucleus, and Nucleus would predict extra traits, including height, BMI, eye color, hair color, ADHD, IQ, and even handedness.

• 19:52Jordi Hays?

  And it's worth noting that Nucleus is now being sued by genomic prediction.

• 19:57John Coogan?

  Even though they have this partnership.

• 19:59Jordi Hays?

  I'm assuming the partnership is no longer. We can ask.

• 20:02John Coogan?

  Yeah.

• 20:02Jordi Hays?

  But I'm assuming it's no longer because one of GP's co-founders left the company to join Nucleus.

• 20:11John Coogan?

  Interesting.

• 20:12Jordi Hays?

  And allegedly turned off all the security cameras.

• 20:17John Coogan?

  Is that a metaphor? Or is that actually?

• 20:20Jordi Hays?

  The lawsuit alleges that he turned off all the security cameras on his last.

• 20:24John Coogan?

  That's not a metaphor for, like, you know, sharing a Google Drive of PDFs.

• 20:29Jordi Hays?

  It's his last day at work.

• 20:30John Coogan?

  Okay.

• 20:30Jordi Hays?

  And he was allegedly like.

• 20:34John Coogan?

  Turned up, okay, so he turns off the cameras allegedly and, and the implication is that maybe he was rummaging around, like literally taking documents or something like that. That's at least what the timeline is.

• 20:44Jordi Hays?

  That's what the lawsuit alleged.

• 20:46John Coogan?

  Okay, wow.

• 20:46Jordi Hays?

  People at Nucleus were emailing the former co-founder at his old email address. Evidence of them violating the, the, uh, the agreement that they had. So anyways, it's very, very, very, very messy. We can ask.

• 21:03John Coogan?

  Yeah, there's like four or five companies involved in this.

• 21:06Jordi Hays?

  And all of them are controversial because this is the most, I think, the most controversial, probably like category that you can be in.

• 21:13John Coogan?

  Yeah, it's, it's certainly up there. Uh, and also there's just like the, uh, there's just, it's so easy to throw, I mean, in the same way that people are throwing Enron at, uh, at Nvidia, like it's so easy to throw Theranos at any biotech company that's not, you know, uh, that's accused of anything. And also biotech, it's like, it's, it's pretty hard to understand the underlying science. It's not, it's not a, it's not as popular as, uh, okay, like, does the website work? Does the business make money? You know, what's the cash flow like? Uh, it's way more complicated. And so, uh, it, it does attract even more attention. So one of the other companies in the space is Harasite, uh, and, uh, Astral Codex 10 continues here. Uh, they entered the space with the most impressive disease

• 21:55John Coogan?

  risk scores, yet an IQ predictor worth six to nine extra points and a series of challenges to competitors whom they call out for insufficient scientific rigor. Their most scathing attack is on Nucleus itself, accusing its predictions of being misleading and unreliable. Let's start with the science and then move on to the companies to see if we can litigate their dispute. In theory, all of this should work. Polygenic embryos, polygenic embryo screening is a natural extension of two well-validated technologies, genetic testing of embryos and polygenic prediction of traits in adults. So genetic screening of embryos has been done for decades, usually to detect chromosomal abnormalities like Down syndrome or simple gene editing disorders like cystic fibrosis. It's challenging. You need to, we've talked

• 22:40John Coogan?

  about this before, you need to take a very small number of cells, often only five to 10, from a tiny protoplacenta that may not have many cells to spare and extract a readable amount of genetic material from this limited sample. But there are known solutions that mostly work. And so the companies that we're talking about today aren't Necessarily doing like the fundamental lab equipment development, building the machine, figuring out how to sequence data from the first. It's more about the analysis that happens on top of the results.

• 23:12Jordi Hays?

  And the recommendations.

• 23:14John Coogan?

  And the recommendations.

• 23:15Jordi Hays?

  Which is probably, which I would say is the most controversial part of this.

• 23:20John Coogan?

  Uh, I don't, I don't know that any of them are recommending, hey, we think you should take, we think you should pick this baby. They're more just saying like, we think that according to the data, this baby might be taller than this one.

• 23:31Jordi Hays?

  But if you're giving somebody a risk fact, if you're giving, if you're.

• 23:33John Coogan?

  Yeah, but that's not a recommendation. If I tell you this car is 700 horsepower and does zero to 60 in two seconds, and this one does 800 horsepower and does zero to 60 in 2.4 seconds, this one's faster in a straight line, this one's faster on the curves, and then like you pick, like I didn't make a recommendation, I just told you the stats. If a company engages in malpractice, i.e. plagiarism, providing products they should know are bad to customers, etc., is it water under the bridge if they can clean up? That's obviously a reaction to my question was, you know, is there a redemption arc in his mind? Somebody says Volkswagen can answer this question really well. I think that's because Dieselgate. I just feel like the next, the, the next turn of discussion needs to be, okay, we tested

• 24:14John Coogan?

  the models, we tested the data, we, we tested the claims at a, at a, at a lower, at a, at a higher level of rigor, I guess.

• 24:22Speaker 03

  Sedgwick is also accusing Kion of using a Chad filter.

• 24:25John Coogan?

  This happened before. Um, so, so when, uh, when Kion came on the show, uh, maybe six months ago, um, growing Daniel accused him of using a, a Chad filter and went super viral. And, and I was kind of like, oh, like that's, uh, that's, I don't know, I don't know how to, you know, even respond to that. That's a very silly claim. Um, I, I have no idea if this is real. I can't, I can't tell at this point.

• 24:56John Coogan?

  On a Zoom call at this resolution, what do you think? Do you think this is real? Are you guys just cracking up? Because everyone, does everyone think it's real?

• 25:03Speaker 03

  I don't, I don't think that he used a filter.

• 25:06Jordi Hays?

  I don't think he used a filter.

• 25:07John Coogan?

  I don't think he used a filter either.

• 25:09Speaker 03

  I think he just grew a beard and.

• 25:10John Coogan?

  I think he's just been mewing, maybe.

• 25:12Speaker 03

  Maybe he's misphotogenic.

• 25:13John Coogan?

  Yeah, it is possible that he just, he just, you know, flexed his jaw muscles and like, you know, has low body fat. I don't know. I feel like it would be extremely high risk to run a chin augmentation filter.

• 25:26Jordi Hays?

  Filter goes down for a second. I mean.

• 25:28John Coogan?

  Because, because you, you know, that's what happens, right? When you're using like the Snapchat filter or like the TikTok filters, like sometimes they pop in and out. And if they pop out, like you're done.

• 25:37Jordi Hays?

  Just gotta get the nucleus test for the GigaChad test and.

• 25:41John Coogan?

  The mewing, the mewing.

• 25:43Jordi Hays?

  Publicize the, the results.

• 25:45John Coogan?

  Everyone's cracking up in the studio, having a wild time. Anyway.

• 25:48Jordi Hays?

  This is actually insane. Apparently, uh, according to X, I don't know if this is true, but the robbery that took place yesterday in which an armed thief posed as a delivery driver and robbed somebody for a million, 11 million dollars of Ethereum and Bitcoin, um, was, uh, Locky Groom that was targeted.

• 26:09John Coogan?

  Whoa, what? An armed thief posing as a delivery guy, finessed his way into the 4.4 million dollar miss, uh, Mission District home, shared by investor Locky Groom. Yes, Sam Altman's ex-boyfriend and another tech investor named Joshua.

• 26:22Jordi Hays?

  Okay, so it was not Locky, but Joshua?

• 26:28John Coogan?

  Um, Gary Tan posted the footage, panicked enough to delete it minutes later. Crypto security experts are now saying what everyone thinks. Self custody is great until someone shows up your door with a fake UPS label and a Glock. San Francisco's tech leader about to hard pivot into vault custody, private security, zero public flexing because this heist wasn't random. It was a warning shot.

• 26:47Jordi Hays?

  Very chat GPT written.

• 26:49John Coogan?

  Mario Nahal.

• 26:50Jordi Hays?

  Um, but, uh, anyways, very sad.

• 26:53John Coogan?

  Yeah. We will be back on Friday.

• 26:55Jordi Hays?

  Friday.

• 26:55John Coogan?

  For Black Friday, we have a fantastic lineup of a bunch of different entrepreneurs, e-commerce founders, brand builders.

• 27:04Jordi Hays?

  Some of the most savage.

• 27:06John Coogan?

  Operators.

• 27:06Jordi Hays?

  E-commerce operators in the world. Cannot wait.

• 27:09John Coogan?

  It's gonna be a great time.

• 27:10Jordi Hays?

  A lot of friends. Have a wonderful Thanksgiving. We are thankful for each and every one of you. Thank you for being a part of this and we'll see you Friday. Goodbye. Cheers.