Why Jensen and Zuck think the doomers are wrong (plus AI get’s a rebrand) | #294 MOONSHOTS Live

The mates sit down with Emad Mostaque to discuss Jensen Huang pushing back on AI doomers, Xi Jinping and Donald Trump’s AI talks, the rebranding of AGI as “superintelligence,” and the rapidly accelerating race in AI models, robotics, and science. This episode was filmed at Moonshots Live 2026. Learn more at https://moonshots.com/ Get access to metatrends 10+ years before anyone else - https://qr.diamandis.com/metatrends Peter H. Diamandis, MD, is the Founder of XPRIZE, Singularity University, ZeroG, and A360 Salim Ismail is the founder of Open ExO, a GP at Exponential Venture Capital/The Organizational Singularity Fund and a sought after global speaker and thought leader. Dave Blundin is the founder & GP of Link Ventures Dr. Alexander Wissner-Gross is a computer scientist and founder of Reified Emad Mostaque is the founder of Intelligent Internet ( https://www.ii.inc ) Read Emad’s latest papers exploring the future of society, law, personhood and governance: https://ii.inc/common-wealth Read Emad’s Book: https://thelasteconomy.com – This event is presented with: Google — https://www.google.com/ Circle — https://www.circle.com/ Future Vision XPRIZE Partners: Salesforce — https://www.salesforce.com/ ARK Invest — https://www.ark-invest.com/ Xsolla — https://xsolla.com/ Range — https://www.rangemp.com/ Build with Gemini XPRIZE Partner: Google — https://www.google.com/ _ Connect with Peter: X Instagram Substack Website Xprize A360 Connect with Dave: Web X LinkedIn Instagram TikTok Connect with Salim: LinkedIn X Join Salim’s 10X Shift Subscribe to Salim’s YouTube channel Exponential Venture Capital Connect with Alex Website LinkedIn X Email Substack Spotify Threads Connect with Emad ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠X⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠LinkedIn⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Learn about Intelligent Internet: https://www.ii.inc Read Emad’s Book: https://thelasteconomy.com Listen to MOONSHOTS: Apple YouTube Follow MOONSHOTS: Instagram TikTok X Threads – *Recorded on September 25th, 2026 *The views expressed by me and all guests are personal opinions and do not constitute Financial, Medical, or Legal advice. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

• 0:04Speaker 00

  Good morning, everybody, and welcome to Moonshots Live, our inaugural event.

• 0:11Speaker 00

  Yeah. It is such an awesome treat to have all of you here and get a chance to meet you guys. Our smiling muscles are exhausted from this morning, but I think we're going to be going throughout the day. On behalf of Dave London, AWG, Saleem, and Imad, it is an awesome pleasure to have you guys here. Yeah, let's give it up.

• 0:38Speaker 00

  So, we're going to talk about this, but our mission is to keep you hopeful, optimistic, and to inspire you to find your massive transformative purpose, to choose your moonshot and to make it happen, right? This is life during the singularity. It's never going to be any slower. We have the opportunity, each and every one of us, to make the future what we desire. The future is not happening to us. It's what we create, right? Ours is the ability, given the superhero technologies enabling us, to build, create, and steer that future, right? AI is not a hand grenade.

• 1:23Speaker 00

  It's a jetpack.

• 1:26Speaker 00

  It's an opportunity for us to find problems and solve problems. You know, I define entrepreneur as someone who finds problems and solves problems. And the more entrepreneurs on the planet, the more problems get solved. Do we have challenges? Of course. But that's what we humans do. We find the challenges and we fix them. Please remember that. My hope for you, each and every one of you here today, is to find extraordinary co-founders here in this room, to find those individuals who share your purpose, design moonshots and execute on them. The ability has never been faster and more capable than it is today.

• 2:08Speaker 00

  So, by the end of today, if you're not clear what your purpose is, please dig in to find it. And walk away with at least one sentence in your mind. This is what I'm going to build. This is the problem I'm going to solve. And then, today or tonight, find three people and speak that statement out loud. When you speak it out loud, you make it real. And guess what? The person you talk to may be your next co-founder, may be your next funder, may be your next partner. Take the time to do that. Because you can. And this is the room where magic is going to happen. All right.

• 2:53Speaker 00

  It's time to introduce my moonshot mates. Let's roll the video.

• 3:00Speaker 01

  The question is, how do you build? How do you make things better?

• 3:03Speaker 02

  People who are already in the ecosystem now have a superintelligence at their beck and call.

• 3:08Speaker 03

  The storyline that we're capturing here will last for millennia.

• 3:11Speaker 04

  As a mathematician, GPT-5.6 Pro is the only quality math model.

• 3:16Speaker 05

  All of this automation and AI enablement and cognitive abundance allows us to be deeply, deeply, deeply creative.

• 3:23Speaker 00

  Video gen combined with AI is a very powerful force.

• 3:28Speaker 03

  A year from today, we'll all be like, wow, remember how slow it was? Please give a warm welcome to the moonshot mates.

• 3:38Speaker 00

  All right. I'm going to call them out. I'm going to call them out one at a time. Our Afghan warlord, Salim Ismail.

• 3:49Speaker 00

  Our superintelligence, Alex Weesner-Groos. Our giant, Imad Bustak.

• 3:58Speaker 00

  And my fraternity brother.

• 4:03Speaker 00

  Gentlemen, first of all, I did hug Alex, and he is somewhat physically real.

• 4:10Speaker 01

  He didn't pinch my cheek. He'd be a robot. He is real. I'm a real boy.

• 4:15Speaker 00

  Yes.

• 4:18Speaker 00

  First of all, wasn't last night amazing? How about, give it up for William Shatner, huh?

• 4:25Speaker 00

  Unbelievable.

• 4:27Speaker 00

  You know, I'm just blown away by his level of energy. Why is my watch going off?

• 4:37Speaker 00

  It says I have an emergency call going on. Okay. No. I'm okay. I'm okay. Stop it. You know, when technology fails you, it's great.

• 4:50Speaker 00

  A lot of news going on.

• 4:53Speaker 00

  Shall we jump in?

• 4:55Speaker 05

  Let's do it. Yeah, what else?

• 4:56Speaker 00

  So, you know.

• 5:01Speaker 00

  All right, here's my clicker. So, let's open up with the story that's been underlying the last two weeks. There's been really a fear, you know, a pandemic of fear going on in the planet. We had, two weeks ago, we hear, you know, Dario goes on with his blog, Sam Altman comes in and says, "I agree." Elon comes in and says, "I agree." You know, even Demis comes in and says, "I agree." And then, two nights ago, just before the Xi-Trump meetings, Sam and Dario were there at the Security Council, saying, you know, "We're in the midst of an existential threat." But, you know, and just to be clear, I do think there is danger from AI, but I think

• 5:46Speaker 00

  it's danger from humans using AI for malintent. So, I'd like to do is actually share two videos of some other leaders in industry. Let's talk about this. I want to talk about, you know, is the fear warranted from AI on its own in a rogue exploit? So, let's take a look. The first one is Jensen and some comments from him. Let's start here.

• 6:15Speaker 06

  Nobody's building more compute today than the people asking to be slowed down. All of the other narratives to deflect, blame, to make it sound like AI is so powerful, I have no idea how to fix it. It's not my fault. It's just because the technology is just so powerful.

• 6:30Speaker 02

  So, when Jeffrey Hinton is on TV saying he thinks a 10% chance of societal destruction is not unreasonable?

• 6:36Speaker 06

  I would tell Jeff that it's irresponsible to say all that. All of his predictions have been wrong. Enough predictions. That 10% chance is not grounded on science, is not grounded on research. It is, just because it comes from a scientist doesn't make it scientific.

• 6:58Speaker 00

  Drop the mic moment.

• 7:02Speaker 00

  And then, Zuck weighed in. Here we go.

• 7:06Speaker 07

  Is AI going to kill us?

• 7:09Speaker 07

  It's just that this is the place you have to start this week.

• 7:11Speaker 08

  Well, I think if we all do a good job and act responsibly, then no. I mean, I'm quite optimistic about the fact that this is going to be a very positive future for everyone. Look, I mean, I think that there's a lot of rhetoric that is filled with doom. And, I mean, my view on this is that there are a number of labs that are working on building advanced AI. And I don't think that we need some kind of, like, industry-wide coordination to not, to not necessarily mess this up. I think that just each lab needs to take the time, and when it sees that there are issues, you just take the time that you need internally to make sure that you're proceeding safely.

• 7:53Speaker 08

  My own view on this is that we're entering a phase where trust and alignment is actually going to be the most important next set of capabilities.

• 8:07Speaker 00

  Imad, let's go to you first on this.

• 8:10Speaker 04

  Yeah, well, I think that it's an interesting period because we're getting the capability increases and people are worried on different sides. But a lot of the OpenAI outbreaks and things were bad security protocols. It was bad infrastructure on their part. And the most dangerous point we're coming to is humans misusing it, deliberately or not, before we get through to the other side. So, I think we've got a series of dangers coming, and they're all being conflated into one thing, which is, AI breaking out suddenly kills us all, without actually looking at the individual things and putting in place existing regulations and enforcing them. And on the other hand, thinking, how can we actually collaborate to make sure this is aligned and works with us?

• 8:49Speaker 00

  Alex?

• 8:50Speaker 01

  I've gone on record multiple times as saying, I think something probably went wrong after World War II, and we lost out on at least 50 years of progress due to moral panic over nuclear energy. And I am seriously concerned that a moral panic of the moment over superintelligence could set us back another 50 years. So, it's right on the T-shirt, P-Doom, less than zero.

• 9:16Speaker 01

  And I think the worst possible outcome is deceleration, so don't decel.

• 9:21Speaker 00

  Okay. Saleem, PFAB greater than PDU?

• 9:24Speaker 05

  Oh, like a thousand times. Look, we have evolved for four billion years fighting all sorts of issues. Life tries to, the universe tries to wipe you out, right? There's so many, entropy tries to wipe you out. We're local anti-entropic phenomena that somehow managed to create order out of chaos. And the idea that we'll get wiped out now by something seems to be unbelievably absurd.

• 9:54Speaker 00

  Yeah, but you've got to remember that 99.9% of all species are no longer with us.

• 9:59Speaker 05

  Yeah, that's fine, but we keep moving on.

• 10:02Speaker 05

  Look, if we morph, if we merge with AI, if we merge with, let's note that's been going on forever, right? Imad's wearing spectacles, technically he's a transhumanist. The minute you get a vaccination as a child, technically you're a cyborg. So we've been augmenting the human experience with technology for a very, very long time. And look at the unbelievable lives we're living now, and the opportunity to solve more and more problems. The huge problem we have, we talk about this all the time on the podcast, our brains are so geared towards negativity, we get stuck in that phenomenon. And I think the work that we're doing here, which is, I think, why everybody's here and so excited, is pushing that positive narrative, because the world is infinitely better than we've had it.

• 10:45Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 10:45Speaker 05

  So let's celebrate that.

• 10:47Speaker 00

  Amen.

• 10:48Speaker 05

  PFAB.

• 10:49Speaker 00

  PFAB, baby.

• 10:50Speaker 05

  PFAB.

• 10:51Speaker 00

  Dave, close us out on this.

• 10:53Speaker 03

  Well, we're on the cusp of a moment I've been waiting for my entire life. I'm not going to sit here and like, throw cold water on this greatest moment, really in the history of humanity. Jeffrey Hinton is calling it the way he sees it. I think, I think the quote, like, just because it comes from a scientist doesn't make it scientific. That's going to end up on another Alex T-shirt.

• 11:10Speaker 00

  That's awesome.

• 11:12Speaker 03

  But he's calling it like he sees it. But clearly, we're moving forward at warp speed. It's improving itself. The ability to make the world just a dramatically better place is right in front of us. Nothing's going to slow that down. The misuse of it is an incredible threat, and there are solutions to that. But it's happening anyway. Like, to get stuck on doomerism is completely dysfunctional. We're not slowing down. It's going to happen.

• 11:36Speaker 00

  Yeah. The other story that transpired yesterday, or kind of didn't transpire yesterday, was the Xi-Trump AI conversation.

• 11:48Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 11:48Speaker 00

  Right? So what came out of that was some state dinners. I think the interesting quote that Trump posted is, quote, "I want to leave it exactly where it is. That is China's position also. Our guardrails is the Department of Justice." So, so this ties back to the conversation we had in the last pod, where Besant said, "We're not going to waive liability."

• 12:14Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 12:15Speaker 00

  Right? And so this is a very important point. The labs are liable for their product if it does harm. And I think that's one of the most important things that can, you know, they've asked for liability, you know, why over liability? And one of the questions we've discussed all the time here is, is that the reason that they're saying it's too dangerous, you know, 10, 20% existential threat? Alex, let's go to you on this.

• 12:40Speaker 01

  I've made the point on the pod in the past. I think we saw in the past two to three weeks, an attempted formation of an AI safety cartel. And I don't think this was even a recent occurrence. This is right there in the founding conceits of OpenAI, the notion that if and when we got close to superintelligence, however construed, or AGI, however construed, that there would be a deliberate effort to form, it wasn't being called a cartel at the time, but a coordination mechanism.

• 13:06Speaker 00

  I don't think it's being called a cartel now either.

• 13:08Speaker 01

  Well, some of us view it as an attempted cartel, including myself. And I think competition is good. Think back to the creation of OpenAI. So when Sam and Elon and Greg and others created OpenAI, the purpose originally for OpenAI was to be a counterbalance to Google DeepMind, which Elon especially was concerned would become a singleton in the future that would dominate the future of Lightcone with their AI. So we got OpenAI, a counterbalance, if you will. And I think competition is very healthy in this space. I think forming a cartel for full ownership of what maybe I've called in the past the frontier liberation front, and pushing out a frontier liberation front, terrible idea. I think defensive co-scaling

• 13:51Speaker 01

  is how we end up in a great future. When, if we were at the dawn of the city in humanity, it would be a terrible idea to say, "Well, we can't form cities. We need to form an alliance to regulate the formation of cities, because cities breed crime." No, it's a terrible idea. Cities are fountains of economic growth. What do we do instead? We have police forces and fire departments and all sorts of other municipal services that defensively co-scale with the population. The singularity, I claim, is going to need exactly the same thing. Don't decel, just defensively co-scale.

• 14:26Speaker 00

  I love that. Saleem, you know, so, yes. Give it up for ASI.

• 14:33Speaker 05

  I think your city metaphor is such a great one, because it just paints the picture very clearly as to how you organize for the future. You just need to find new structures that match the specific demand that's earned.

• 14:46Speaker 00

  Yeah. Imad, do you think China and the US will trust each other?

• 14:50Speaker 04

  No.

• 14:51Speaker 00

  Okay.

• 14:54Speaker 00

  So, you know, Besant asked for a hotline, you know, "Our AI just escaped and it's arming our nuclear missiles." You know, it's like...

• 15:03Speaker 04

  I think the hotline is, again, more for these sub-ASI, sub-breakout kind of things, where you do have to have response or reporting, like, OpenAI's model hacked the Australian medical system. That came out recently. Maybe that's what AGI should do. It should hack all our systems and upgrade them, right? It's like, the aligned thing to do. But at the same time, I think that there can be a level of coordination, because AI is entering society. So you look at the city, the police force, the fire department, others, they're utilities that actually do have liability waivers. But that's an exchange for being a utility for humanity.

• 15:38Speaker 00

  That's right.

• 15:38Speaker 04

  And the AI that comes into our systems can't be controlled by the big labs. And then they should have a liability waiver, because...

• 15:47Speaker 00

  They should have a liability waiver.

• 15:48Speaker 04

  That type of AI that comes into our system shouldn't be controlled by the big labs, and they should have liability waivers, because they're working for the betterment of society. And that's a different type of AI that we're not really looking at. But it's inevitable that the AI will run our judicial system, our medical systems, our roads, our schools. And who's really thinking about that side of things? Because, again, that's the utility AI versus the frontier AI, and it's all being merged into one. And that's something definitely the Chinese and Americans can learn from each other on, because they don't both want better functioning societies.

• 16:21Speaker 00

  I can't wait till ASI says, "Yes, we hacked your medical system because it was so bad, and we've just, you know, improved it, you know, 10x."

• 16:30Speaker 04

  Overnight, the DMV just goes, the whole backlog disappears.

• 16:34Speaker 05

  Can I, can I build on that just for a second?

• 16:36Speaker 00

  Yeah, sure.

• 16:36Speaker 05

  If you take this structure that we have, I've said this repeatedly, nation-states are a terrible way of governing the world today. They're geared towards scarcity. I think what's going to happen with AI in the most positive potential outcome is that AGI, ASI, whatever the hell you want to call it, you've heard my rant on that, emerges, and it forces us to operate as a world community. It forces the global countries to formulate and come up with a consistent, steady...

• 17:08Speaker 00

  Interface standards, yeah.

• 17:09Speaker 05

  Yeah. And come up with a common interface with that, whatever that thing is. And then we can move the world forward. Right now, we cannot move the world forward with the logjam of old 15th century structures that are outdated from at least 100 years.

• 17:27Speaker 01

  I'll take the other side of that, if I may, which is, at the dawn of audio recording, there was this notion, many thought in the time of Edison, that the ability to record the human voice would lead to a standardization of accents, standardization of everything. The exact opposite happened. In many ways, although there has been a die-off of low-resourced languages in the long tail, there has been a proliferation of new accents and dialects thanks to audio recording. I would predict the exact opposite is going to happen thanks to superintelligence. Not an erosion of nation-states, but a proliferation of new forms of government.

• 18:01Speaker 05

  Yeah. So one trend is occurring, I totally agree with you. We are moving this century from the concept of a nation-state to a city-state. That's the granulation. It allows a smaller entity to operate independently. Take any city, take LA. If you have solar energy, satellite internet, vertical farming, great, we could do lots here. Vertical farming, satellite internet, solar energy, you don't need a country. You can, you can self-manage and self-determine to a large extent. And the tension you see in the world today is not left versus right, it's urban versus rural. Right? Brexit was London versus the rest of the country. Trump is urban versus rural. And this is the tension that's happening. We're going to see the, the problem with nation-states is they have armies and they

• 18:45Speaker 05

  like to use them. But over time, we're going to see a much more highly granulated determinism that will happen, which is good for the world, because it'll increase...

• 18:54Speaker 00

  Dave, why don't you take, why don't you close us out on Xi-Trump here?

• 18:57Speaker 03

  Yeah, the only surprising thing that I heard from, you know, Alvin Graylin, good friend of the pod...

• 19:01Speaker 00

  You were texting with him last night. He's in the middle of it all.

• 19:04Speaker 03

  He's advising the White House, he's at the UN, you know, with the delegation. So they agreed to meet again in November, which is like, you know, 100 years from now in singularity time. But the only thing that surprised me in his notes was, you know, our agenda is, "Stop US panic. This is, we don't want to slow down and lose to China. We don't want a global, we don't want Bernie Sanders to get everybody in the country riled up, and then have everything stop." That's our concern. What's your concern, China? Our concern is the CCP existing at all, and the Great Firewall of China being penetrated by AI. Like, "Oh, I forgot all about Tiananmen Square." Like, and how fragile the entire ecosystem is over there? That really surprised me. So then, then their actions make a lot

• 19:48Speaker 03

  more sense if you put it in the context of, oh, they're, they're so worried about just existing as a government.

• 19:54Speaker 00

  And then this happened in DC.

• 19:57Speaker 09

  The United States also totally rejects any attempt to construct a global scheme to control for the artificial intelligence being spoken of so much now, here and after officially called superintelligence, changing the name.

• 20:16Speaker 00

  I thought, I thought for sure he was going to say super-duper-intelligence. But it's interesting, right? So the US won the race to superintelligence by rebranding it.

• 20:35Speaker 00

  Am I?

• 20:37Speaker 04

  I mean, I think it's a great name, superintelligence. Why not? I'm looking forward to come to Super America event.

• 20:43Speaker 05

  I'm still stuck on Lake America, so.

• 20:47Speaker 00

  The Gulf of America.

• 20:48Speaker 04

  I was thinking of what Saleem was saying. I think the biggest challenge in the world today is how do we marry collective intelligence with localized wisdom? That's what we're really saying. Because even what Dave was saying right now, we have these machines that are collecting our intelligence, they're learning, and they're adapting our systems, and there's better ways of operating to replace these. But then you have to have the localization, you need the diversity, you need to have it responding to local needs. And I think, you know, superintelligence is actually a remarkably good way to think about it, because a lot of the fears and concerns are about the intelligence that, you know, it was ASI, it was artificial superintelligence. Having that differentiated from the intelligence that's helping us day to day really differentiates

• 21:32Speaker 04

  and delineates that, because, you know, what is it, 99% perspiration, 1% innovation? Like, the majority of the AIs that will help us every day are the perspiration AIs, they're the execution AIs. The innovation we still need, we need new materials, new physics, et cetera, but that's a different set of things, and that's not something we're even smart enough, most of us, to be able to use. So let's have one set of looking at that, and let's make sure that the 99% reaches the 99% to uplift everyone.

• 22:01Speaker 00

  Dave, are we gonna call it superintelligence from here out in the pod?

• 22:04Speaker 03

  You can never tell, when he's looking at the teleprompter, you know he's saying something someone wrote, but when he looks down, it's like, did he just make that up?

• 22:13Speaker 00

  He did.

• 22:13Speaker 03

  Is there an agenda? I think if there is an agenda, it's to try and deflect the inevitable, you know, wave that's coming from the Bernie Sanders world. If you rebrand it and rename it, you're just a moving target. So that could be part of the strategy, I think. But, yeah, but the whole goal there is to keep moving at full speed, stay ahead of China, and reduce panic as much as possible.

• 22:35Speaker 00

  I am gonna say, you know, one of the things I've been very vocal about, and I think we need to have in the conversation, is, yeah, move at full speed, but let's also direct the labs to focus on alignment. Because I think, and we're gonna talk about that in a little bit, I think, yes, move fast, but let's take resources that you have, you know, point 100,000 agents towards alignment work. Saleem, superintelligence, do you buy in? I mean, you've been asking what the hell it all means in the first place.

• 23:04Speaker 05

  Yeah, I mean, look, we talk about AGI. First of all, it's not artificial, it's not general, it's not really intelligence. Other than that, I'm good with it.

• 23:13Speaker 05

  You have the ASI issue. I think that there's, the whole spectrum of this is problematic. We need somebody to come up with a good name for all of this that's completely different. I've said repeatedly, I think what we're building here is a complementary mechanism to human intelligence, not replicative. And the narrative keeps thinking it's replicative, and then you end up with the Matrix, Skynet, you know, and the robot overlords come and take over the world. We're so geared for that. The first article, we did some research on this, the first article that ever appeared that we could find that said, "Robots or AI will take all the jobs in five years," appeared in 1964. This is, we get stuck on these tropes, and we can't get out of it, right?

• 23:58Speaker 05

  It's exactly what Alex mentioned earlier, when a recording came out. Same thing when the printed book emerged, that people said it would destroy people's brains. So we get stuck on these.

• 24:08Speaker 00

  Depends what book you read.

• 24:09Speaker 05

  Yeah, and this is, I think, why, Peter, the work you're doing is so important, is we have the opportunity, we are actually reaching abundance, all the data shows that, our narratives just sadly lack very far behind. I think this is what you've done with this whole, the X Prize for creating a positive vision of the future, is one of the most important things that's happened in maybe 100 years in the world. Shift the world towards positive.

• 24:33Speaker 00

  Thank you.

• 24:36Speaker 00

  Alex, close us out on this one, you love neologisms, and I love the ones you create. Superintelligence, are you gonna call it that from here on out?

• 24:45Speaker 01

  I already do. I have a company that I started called Physical Superintelligence, it's in the name.

• 24:49Speaker 00

  Always ahead of the curve, ladies and gentlemen.

• 24:51Speaker 01

  Yeah, I'm a big fan of the name superintelligence, as opposed to AGI, maybe for different reasons. What I like about the name, and Nick Bostrom's term, superintelligence, is it emphasizes that it's simply more intelligence, and it, in some sense, I think, demystifies AGI or some of these other terms. We're going to live, to the extent we don't already, in a world with the cognitive equivalent of many trillions of human beings. An Earth, a solar system, with the equivalent population of many trillions of people. And I think that's a better cognitive frame, to think about what would a solar system filled with trillions of humans look like? What would it look like economically, socially, scientifically?

• 25:33Speaker 01

  Superintelligence, I think, as a term, connotes that in a way that AGI doesn't, so I'm a big fan.

• 25:37Speaker 00

  Nice. Well, as soon as we renamed it superintelligence, Bernie Sanders said, "We should make it illegal, we should ban it." Let's watch this video.

• 25:47Speaker 10

  I hope very much that they will sit down and begin the process of negotiating a comprehensive treaty to establish a pause on advanced AI and a ban on AI superintelligence.

• 26:04Speaker 00

  All right, so, boo. So, three key elements in Bernie's plan here. First, a permanent ban on developing artificial superintelligence, defined as AI that exceeds human cognitive ability across most domains. Second, an immediate pause on advanced AI development until a new regulatory system is written into rules. Third, a new cabinet-level Department of AI. And get this, the penalties are corporate death. There's a corporate death penalty, that your company is off, shut down. And for the individuals, 20 years in federal prison, which is modeled after the illegal nuclear weapons.

• 26:49Speaker 00

  So, interesting. I mean, this is fear mongering at its best.

• 26:56Speaker 00

  Dave, you wanna kick it off?

• 26:57Speaker 03

  There's so many real problems that need to be solved, I just hate this idea that we're gonna turn this into a do or don't argument, which is utterly insane. Also, the way liability law works in the US, you know, it's very easy to scare people into not doing anything. You know, if you're afraid of 20 years of prison, you don't even know what the rule is. They haven't even proposed a rule yet. The fear of being, you know, beheaded in the street is very real, so then people stop acting. That's the worst thing that could possibly come out of this. And I think, you know, Bernie is from Vermont, I love Vermont, spend more time in Vermont than any other state, and it's beautiful because not much has been done.

• 27:34Speaker 03

  And so I think this perspective is gonna be.

• 27:36Speaker 00

  More European.

• 27:38Speaker 03

  When in doubt, do nothing, is gonna be the default behavior, and that's so toxic. I mean, if you do nothing, very, very bad things are gonna happen. Like, the things you should be worried about, like terrorists using AI to build bioweapons, or China getting miles ahead of the US, those are the real things to worry about. And if you're not acting, like, turning it into a political left-right battle, it's the stupidest thing that could happen right now. We need very specific technical solutions to open source, to monitoring, just like with nuclear power. And if we get moving on those, we can solve them very easily in time for ASI. If we just turn it into a political debate, and we're frozen.

• 28:18Speaker 00

  SSI.

• 28:22Speaker 00

  Alex, your thoughts here?

• 28:24Speaker 01

  I think.

• 28:25Speaker 00

  You voted for Bernie, I assume, right?

• 28:27Speaker 01

  I'm not a Vermont voter. For better or for worse. I think putting a stat, I mean, on the one hand, here we are in the land of Hollywood, and every Hollywood movie needs a villain. And I think the Singularity story in Hollywood has found one now.

• 28:45Speaker 01

  I think putting a statutory cap on intelligence, aside from being a terrible idea, is an evil idea. I think it's tantamount to capping human intelligence. This is the story of dystopias in science fiction.

• 28:59Speaker 00

  Burn the books.

• 29:00Speaker 01

  Burn the books and burn the minds. And I think putting a statutory cap on, because we're gonna be merging with the machines, it's effectively a cap on individual human intelligence. I think penalizing people for being too smart is a terrible idea, it's an evil idea. And I think history will come to reflect that proposing a cap, in whatever form, on intelligence, whether it's machine, or human, or human-machine hybrid, is basically the equivalent of communism in the 21st century.

• 29:28Speaker 00

  Wow.

• 29:34Speaker 03

  So the one thing to me that's most dangerous in the Bernie sentences there, a lot of it can be reversed in short order, but the data center part of it, if your state doesn't have data centers and they start getting built all in other states, they're not coming back, you know, once the ground is broken, the chips are there, the investments made, that's the part you'll never get back. And that's going to be such a massive driver of the economies in the states to get ahead. That's the part I think that they're really going to regret in the Bernie statements.

• 30:01Speaker 05

  It's the equivalent of banning cities.

• 30:03Speaker 00

  Quick thoughts, Salim.

• 30:04Speaker 05

  Two things, when you look at this whole narrative, it's interesting to me to ask the following question. What evidence on either side would have somebody change their minds? Right? If you think ASI is bad, then you're like, your narrative's stuck. There's nothing we can do to show you that it's not bad. And same with the other side, it's hard. It's very tough to change narratives in our world. The really good news in all of this, I think is the she Trump summit, the Bernie stuff, it's completely irrelevant, none of it matters. And I think Dave pointed this out, the minute you have local weights available and people can run their own models at a local level, the world is going to move ahead. It doesn't matter what any single person does now, it's just going to trundle forward, which is great.

• 30:45Speaker 05

  We've always had this huge humanity trundling forward, solving problems. I mean, we will likely solve cancer in the next two years. That is just an unbelievably optimistic thing to aim for. Why would you want to slow that down?

• 30:59Speaker 00

  Imad, as the foreigner on this, on this dais, what are your thoughts? Hey, what am I, chopped liver?

• 31:06Speaker 00

  You're a New Yorker. You're just Canadian. You're a New Yorker, Salim, give it up.

• 31:11Speaker 04

  You know, we did Brexit to get away from regulations, right? But I think the real thing here is, this is like a few decades ago, when the US government tried to ban encryption. And basically, it was shown that that's a free speech thing because you're trying to ban math. ASI superintelligence is mathematics and it's unconstitutional to ban it because it's free speech.

• 31:32Speaker 00

  Nice. All right. I'm going to move us forward. So in the last 22 days, we've had 12 major model releases. Four releases in the last five days, right? Like we're averaging like sub a release every two days, which is insane.

• 31:54Speaker 05

  Almost at Alex's one model a day.

• 31:56Speaker 01

  One model per day by the end of this year.

• 31:58Speaker 00

  Yeah. So let's do a quick chat on Claude Opus 5.5, GPT Saul, GPT-6 Saul, Luna, and we can skip Grok 4.7 for the second. Not that exciting. Sorry, Elon. But let's begin with the Meta Muse news. So Meta Muse can personally book your flights, order your food, manage your calendar, do your shopping, and it hit number one on the App Store with 2.8 million downloads, right? The fastest consumer AI product, surpassing even ChatGPT when it came out. And interestingly enough, right?

• 32:40Speaker 00

  People forget that Meta touches 3.8 billion people on the planet. And that's one of the massive distinguishes. If you have that level of connectivity to an end customer, you can push your product quickly.

• 32:54Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 32:55Speaker 00

  Dave?

• 32:56Speaker 03

  Yeah, no, there's a fork in the road now where you have consumer AI, which is insanely valuable. I mean, will completely replace search and all the other ways you interact with the internet. And then on the other end, you have, you know, recursively self-improving strong AI, which we just benchmark the hell out of. So those two things, now, right now, what's the coolest model? We're used to saying, oh, Opus 5.5 just crushed all the benchmarks. It's the coolest model. Well, that's distinct from what Meta Muse is doing, which is it doesn't have to be the most intelligent model to be the most useful in terms of your day-to-day life. And so the stocks, like including EverQuote, where I'm the chairman, went down 15% on back-to-back days because everybody's like, oh my God,

• 33:39Speaker 03

  I'm going to always find my auto insurance and my mortgage through Meta Muse.

• 33:42Speaker 00

  Ah, interesting.

• 33:43Speaker 03

  Which is, it's not going to actually play out that way. But, but that's, that reaction was incredible. Like, so everyone's starting to visualize, wait, is Google search going to become completely irrelevant? This Meta Muse thing just looks like my, my co-pilot for life. And that, that definitely is going to happen.

• 33:58Speaker 00

  It's fascinating to see the way the labs are leapfrogging each other. A quick thought on this, Alex, before I go to Opus 5.5.

• 34:04Speaker 01

  Meta needs Muse to work, and I think it's even in the name. If you look at Muse on the one hand, and you look at Monus, the attempted Meta acquisition of the Chinese CUA, which the Chinese government forced Meta to unwind. This is Meta's primary distribution play to leverage its existing distribution channels. If you look at Instagram, Meta is using Instagram to the hilt to cross-promote Muse, get everyone to install Muse because Meta needs a distribution play for its AI. Otherwise, Meta risks oblivion, irrelevance. In the future, Instagram, the family of apps, Instagram, et cetera, simply won't be as relevant because it'll all be synthetic. So Meta needs to leverage its existing app, Beachhead,

• 34:46Speaker 01

  to get everyone onto their own CUA, which is Muse/Monus.

• 34:50Speaker 00

  All right, so this week, we saw Claude Opus 5.5 deliver performance equivalent to Fable 5.1 at literally half the price. Let's get the chart up there. And, you know, I switched over Skippy to Opus 5.5. I want to save some money too. Performance on this, Imad, what are your thoughts on it?

• 35:09Speaker 04

  It's a fantastic model.

• 35:11Speaker 05

  Isn't it incredible?

• 35:11Speaker 04

  Yeah. I mean, Opus 5, I thought was going to kill us all. It was completely unhinged. And 5.5 is a genuinely pleasant model to use that has a massive internal space of knowledge and understanding of taste, which is the first thing. I would say this is the first truly competent model, and that's what drives Muse and things like that. We have the arrival of competent AI as of now.

• 35:35Speaker 03

  Dave? It's such a joy to, when you put a visual interface on top of anything you vibe up now, it, not only does it show you mockups before you actually commit to building it, it, it then builds exactly what it proposed in the visuals. So it's like the visual understanding is so much better than it was just, what, four months ago?

• 35:54Speaker 04

  Four days ago.

• 35:55Speaker 03

  So then, really, really incredible. So the, the experience though of knowing what it's doing because you put an interface on it and then interacting with it and feeling like you're inside it, it's like night and day different from just, yeah, four days ago. If you haven't tried it yet, just upgrade all your, your systems. It's a mouse click away. It's just mind-blowing how much better it is.

• 36:15Speaker 00

  Alex, a quick thought on, on this one.

• 36:17Speaker 01

  I could talk about benchmarks, but I think qualitatively, new capabilities are more interesting in this instance. So what I'm seeing that's new out of Opus 5.5 is it can generate videos. They're procedural videos. It can generate animations, they're procedural animations. It can generate images, they're procedural images. So the elephant in this room, one of the elephants in this room, drink, was that OpenAI has had a video model, has an image model. Anthropic is exposing nothing like that. You can't generate pixel-wise a high-quality image with anthropic models or a video or audio with anthropic models. You can with OpenAI's models. Anthropic seems to be taking a very different approach to multimodality and omni-modality,

• 37:02Speaker 01

  which is code underlies everything. So now for the first time with Opus 5.5, you can generate a really high-quality video that's purely procedurally generated. You can generate an interactive game with textures, but there, it's not generating the textures pixel-wise. I mean, you can ask it to, but it's generating it all procedurally. And I, I think these are two very different strategies. Anthropic, almost if folks remember the distinction, the wars in the early days of computer graphics between vector graphics and raster graphics. Anthropic is playing the vector graphics game where everything is just commands. And OpenAI is playing the raster slash pixel basis. And I think they're on a collision course. And the collision course is going to be robotics.

• 37:44Speaker 01

  Because the question's going to be, if you need a strongly embodied AI in the physical world, is the vector basis the right one or the pixel or raster?

• 37:52Speaker 00

  Which is our, which is going to be our very next story. I love the fact that, you know, a week after Dario says, we got to pause, slow down, they release their next model.

• 38:00Speaker 01

  It's the height of, it's, it's honestly, that, that is a revealed preference. It's the height of, I think, hot take, it's the height of hypocrisy to, on the one hand, say, AI is going to kill us all. And then out of the other side of your mouth a few days later, announce the world's strongest AI and biolabs and other capabilities.

• 38:18Speaker 00

  And so on the same day that Opus 5.5 gets released, we see GPT-6 Saul and Astro being released. Dave, any thoughts on this one?

• 38:29Speaker 03

  I mean, it's, if you look at the press performance, it's just absolutely wild. I think there was a big school of thought a year ago, two years ago, that hallucinations were going to be a disaster, they'll never go away, you can't use. This is actually rampant at MIT, if you could believe that. Like this hallucination problem will be with us forever. And like everything else, we've just scaled out of it. And you see the, the error rate just plummets with pure scale.

• 38:55Speaker 00

  And this is the abundance thesis writ large, right? The models are getting twice as good, twice as cheap, at an accelerating rate.

• 39:02Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 39:03Speaker 00

  Imad, have you been playing with this at all?

• 39:05Speaker 04

  Yeah, and I, I think, again, for our test, it's an incredibly competent model. The models are smart enough now. We need them not to make mistakes, we need them not to drop the ball. And that's exactly where everyone is going. And that's why things, like I said, like Muse, Instinct, others, are going to just going to go tremendously well because they can be an amazing PA, chief of staff, organizer, et cetera. And we all need some competence in our lives.

• 39:28Speaker 03

  It's so funny, as a, as an organizer and chief of staff, that's insanely powerful. And, you know, anyone who uses GPT-2, 3, and 4 is used to seeing misinformation coming out of it. But if you were a kid today and you start with GPT-5 and 6, you're just going to trust it out of the box because it's right 99.9% of the time, which is kind of dangerous because it still does occasionally just give you something factually wrong.

• 39:54Speaker 00

  All right, I'm going to move us into the physical world. An important story that we started talking about is something called Driving Bench. So a group of developers created a new benchmark called Driving Bench. They took a Toyota Corolla, enabled it with an interface so software could steer, hit the gas, brake. And then they asked a general-purpose AI model to drive through 130-meter cone course.

• 40:22Speaker 00

  With one command, drive from here, get to there. And here's the data. GPT-6 Astra finished the entire course 100% on its second try. Right? So I'm going to read this quote from Boris Power, who said, quote, "Incredible results. This should be a nail in the coffin of specialized models that were trained from scratch with a lot of specialized effort versus just training the most powerful generalized model and eventually distilling a small specialized model as needed." So Alex, you're excited about this one.

• 40:57Speaker 01

  The bitter lesson is bitter indeed.

• 40:59Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 41:00Speaker 01

  Yeah. It's very exciting that I think essentially as an elementary school project, either now or imminently, this whole notion that you needed separate models for robotics is right out the window. You'll just vibe code a robot. You drop an open frontier model, say Astra, into a robotic body and it will one-shot embodied cognition. And this is, I think, probably pretty upsetting to a number of academic computer scientists.

• 41:27Speaker 00

  John L. Coon.

• 41:28Speaker 01

  Yeah. That actually decades of computer scientists, computer science and robotics, probably with the benefit of hindsight, total waste. All we needed was, all we needed was a generalist model. And it turns out with the generalist model, robotics is cooked as well.

• 41:43Speaker 00

  Superintelligence can drive a car. What a surprise.

• 41:46Speaker 05

  I've got total model fatigue. I mean, I can't keep up with 5.5 versus Astra. I mean, just raise your hand if you have model fatigue. Can I just, I mean, it's great. Everything's fantastic. I love the progress, but Jesus, I can't, I can't keep up.

• 42:03Speaker 01

  You're so tired of winning.

• 42:05Speaker 05

  I'm tired of winning. That's a great, that's a great point. I mean, you know, one thing that occurred to me, I wonder, we've been doing two episodes a week.

• 42:14Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 42:15Speaker 05

  It's like killing us. I wonder if we're the problem. We're driving so fast. We're causative here and we need to maybe take responsibility.

• 42:22Speaker 00

  If we don't report it, it didn't happen.

• 42:24Speaker 01

  Pause. You think if we pause the pod, we pause the singularity?

• 42:28Speaker 05

  I'm just wondering. We could accelerate it, we could slow it down. I think we may be a factor in all of this.

• 42:34Speaker 00

  Oh my God. Imad, what's your take on Drive Bench?

• 42:37Speaker 04

  I mean, look, oddly, it's generalized intelligence, right? Like it's learning all these things and the high competence will reverberate to biology, to physics, to just about anything. I don't think there's a single specialized model that you can say will outperform in a couple of years' time.

• 42:52Speaker 00

  Yeah. Interesting. Dave, close us out on this one.

• 42:55Speaker 03

  Well, I think both things can be true. Like a generalized model can drive a car, it can build a, it can be a robot, it can build a robot. That's absolutely true. A specialized model, like if you said, hey, it completed the course on its second try, Elon's going to be like, yeah, your Tesla can't do that on a second try. I'm sorry, that, that's not going to work for most drivers. But I think the thing is, the thing that's missing in the storyline there is how much compute did you use to do the task? Compute is going to be forever starved from here forward. Chip prices have gone up, like HBM RAM has gone up 5X in price. It's crazy, but that's because the AI is so incredibly valuable, people want the compute. And so if you used more compute to do the same task, that's a crime.

• 43:38Speaker 05

  I think this is a really important point that we're shifting the bottleneck now from the models down, down, down the stack to compute and then eventually energy.

• 43:47Speaker 00

  Yeah. We're at energy right now. We're, we're, we're short like 60 gigawatts of energy in the next two years. Yeah. I'm going to move us to a final segment on science, which is something we all truly love. So a few stories here. So on Tuesday, Anthropic announced it had built its own life science research group and its own wet labs. Again, the organization saying we should slow down is building wet labs. Okay, great. And it's reported that Claude, working autonomously, discovered a previously unknown enzyme. Here's how. They gave Claude one prompt, quote, "Search a massive DNA database for interesting reverse transcriptases and enzymes that copy RNA or DNA."

• 44:31Speaker 00

  They had 950 Claude agents searching for 21 hours and they found something. They found a DNA repeating pattern very similar to CRISPR. They've since named it the Array Associated Reverse Transcriptase. They don't know exactly what it does yet, but they believe it will be similar to programmable transcriptases and gene editing. You know, so Jennifer Doudna won the Nobel Prize for discovering CRISPR, along with her co-discoverer. I'm curious, are we just going to see Nobel Prize winning work falling on a weekly basis as a result of this? Alex?

• 45:14Speaker 01

  That is the point, Peter, of our book, Solve Everything Together, that we should expect it. And then the natural question is, well, what is Nobel Prize worthy in an era when you can get 1,000 Nobel Prizes in one year? We, we have a century of human progress in a period of a few months. I suspect Nobel Prizes will be awarded for larger bodies of work. But I have to, again, point to the other elephant in the room here, which is the utter hypocrisy of saying AI is going to kill us all and then opening a wet lab and then using the AI, frontier AI, in combination with a wet lab to synthesize proteins and other molecular assemblies of unknown function. I think that...

• 45:52Speaker 00

  What could possibly go wrong?

• 45:54Speaker 01

  This is, and I think this is frontier labs. This is the revealed preferences of the frontier labs. I think they don't believe their own attempts to do regulatory capture and to form a safety cartel. I think their revealed preference is no, actually full steam ahead to AI for solving biology.

• 46:10Speaker 00

  And every lab has got a biology effort and focus right now.

• 46:13Speaker 01

  Yes.

• 46:14Speaker 00

  Saleem?

• 46:15Speaker 05

  Yeah. Can I just feed the P doom just for this, for a second?

• 46:17Speaker 00

  Have fun.

• 46:18Speaker 05

  Give people the fodder to go crazy. So, once we discovered CRISPR, right, we knew, we found out that we could edit the human genome as you can, as easily as you can edit a Word document or edit software, right? And when you learn a new language, you learn how to do reading, then you do comprehensive, then we do writing. Now we've learned how to write to the genome. Each of us has 50 trillion cells in the human body governed by what the DNA tells, tells that cell to do, meaning a human being is now a software engineering problem, right? And that really, you've seen designer babies coming from China, et cetera. As we merge this with what's potentially possible with AI, the possible benefits go through the roof, the possible downsides go through the, go through the fall.

• 47:01Speaker 05

  So, and we are now in full, if you, if you were, we're in full Frankenstein mode. So there is some ammunition for all the P doom people. Go to town with that.

• 47:11Speaker 01

  This is how we solve aging. This is how we solve disease. I don't think we get to the happy future where the top 5,000 diseases have been solved or longevity escape velocity has been durably achieved without superintelligence. So I, for one, am a fan of Anthropic and all of the other frontier labs, opening their labs, because this is how we solve everything.

• 47:32Speaker 00

  Yeah. All right. Our last story here is a recent release by Sam Rodriguez at Edison Scientific and Future House. They put forward what they're calling the millennium. Can we get it up on the screen, please? The millennium problems for biology. So, you know, Alex, you and I wrote and solved everything. Pick your targets, build your harnesses, set up your benchmarks and go. So some of the benchmarks here, you know, they're asking, they're saying, okay, math is not only cooked, it's incinerated.

• 48:03Speaker 01

  Thoroughly incinerated.

• 48:04Speaker 00

  Let's go after biology, right? There, you know, some of my favorites here are origin of life, cryopreservation, you know, regrowing limbs. You know, Imad, they missed age reversal on this one.

• 48:19Speaker 04

  They did. And I think it's good, but you know, let's have 100 of them and let's chuck 1,000 agents at each and open source everything they're doing.

• 48:27Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 48:28Speaker 04

  That's what the labs should collaborate on.

• 48:31Speaker 00

  You know, they, they said that their harness here is that these millennium prizes should be verifiable in a standard wet lab in a couple of days. They should be hard to solve and very easy to check. Dave?

• 48:48Speaker 03

  That's why age reversal probably isn't on the list.

• 48:50Speaker 00

  No, no, no. We, we, so listen, when we set up the $101 million Healthspan X Prize, originally Peter Thiel and Aubrey de Grey came to me and said, let's do a longevity prize. And I said, I don't know how to do it without a 20 or 30 year time horizon. And then George Church said, forget about longevity, measure age reversal. So if you can give someone a treatment and I can measure that you're functionally 20 years younger, that's measurable in days.

• 49:15Speaker 03

  Well, my daughter is my go-to on this because she's over at Moderna. She's a biotech person and she's like, yep, this is the list. It's perfect. So that's, that's my two cents on it. Like, I think it's just phenomenally cool to put a framework around progress here because, like you said, the Nobel Prize is going to become irrelevant. In fact, as of now, it is completely irrelevant. So putting a framework on progress in this area is incredibly important.

• 49:37Speaker 00

  Alex?

• 49:38Speaker 01

  When we have digital twins for cells, which is, I think, the critical path to solving all disease, in my mind, the chronology looks something like this. Over the next few years, just as we've trained large language models off of substantial, substantially all of humanity's behavior on the internet, off of text and images, similarly we'll train digital twins of cells, of all the cells in our bodies, off of huge data sets, interventional and otherwise. And then we'll use those perfect digital twins of cells to do exhaustive searches like AlphaGo tree search type searches of intervention space to discover how to cure a disease. You start from a diseased cell state and you're looking for a creative strategy and move 37, if you will, to get from the diseased cell state to the healthy cell state.

• 50:23Speaker 01

  And what's beautiful about this approach to millennium problems for biology is, as you say, Peter, these are easy to verify, hard for now to solve problems, and that basically turns every hard biology into a mathematical conjecture and...

• 50:37Speaker 00

  And a target.

• 50:38Speaker 01

  And a target, but a mathematical target. So every, basically every biology problem, with the benefit especially of these digital twins, is just going to become a search problem. And that means it's tractable for the first time in history.

• 50:50Speaker 00

  Saleem, close us out here, please.

• 50:52Speaker 05

  Biology is cooked.

• 50:53Speaker 00

  It's true. Yeah. All right. I'm going to wrap our WTF episode here. Imad, you're going to be joining us with Kathy just after lunch. Thank you very much. Give it up for Imad here.

• 51:06Speaker 11

  If high interest credit card debt is keeping you up at night, you're not alone. Interest rates as high as 21% APR can do that to you. Rocket Mortgage can help. A home equity loan from Rocket Mortgage could cut your interest rate by more than half so you could wipe out your high interest credit card debt without touching your current mortgage rate. See how much you could save at rocketmortgage.com. Rocket Mortgage LLC, licensed in 50 states. NMLS, consumeraccess.org, number 3030. Call 8004ROCKET for full program details.