Jensen’s Departure, NVIDIA’s succession plan, AI doomer response, and Demis talks RSI | MOONSHOTS #311 (recorded live)

The Mates sit down with Emad Mostaque to discuss Jensen Huang’s departure, what it means for NVIDIA, and the potential implications for the future of AI. 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. Dr. Alexander Wissner-Gross is a computer scientist and founder of Reified 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 episode is brought to you by: Get the blueprint for generative media https://goo.gle/startupgenmedia Go to Blitzy to book a free demo and start building today: https://qr.diamandis.com/blitzy Your body is incredibly good at hiding disease. Schedule a call with Fountain Life to add healthy decades to your life, and to learn more about their Memberships: https://www.fountainlife.com/peter _ Connect with Peter: X Instagram Substack Website Xprize A360 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 November 13th, 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

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

• 0:00Peter Diamandis?

  Multi-layered, you know, multi-dimensional situation that's unveiling itself live on stage around the world that impacts the most important evolution humanities ever going through. And we'll get into that in a few minutes, but I'm curious, I got side-railed yesterday when Outlook went down in Microsoft, and I just got on this. Any of you get impacted by that?

• 0:23Speaker 01

  Not at all. I'm so sorry that you use Microsoft products for email.

• 0:26Speaker 02

  I know, I know.

• 0:26Speaker 01

  I know, Peter. I've been bugging you for like, what, a decade to get off?

• 0:30Peter Diamandis?

  I know.

• 0:30Speaker 01

  I thought this was the Singularity, Peter. What's going on?

• 0:33Peter Diamandis?

  I know. It's, you know, thank God I had my Gmail account up and operational so I can communicate with the world. You know, 100,000, 130,000 people on Outlook, you know, reported problems. And this felt like just a little bit of what might happen if there's a cyber-scale attack that takes down email. The world will freeze over. It's crazy.

• 0:57Speaker 01

  There is a life after Outlook, though, so welcome to the post-Outlook, I guess.

• 1:02Peter Diamandis?

  Yeah.

• 1:03Speaker 03

  I mean, any AGI would definitely like kill off Teams, right?

• 1:07Peter Diamandis?

  Instantly. Take us out of our misery.

• 1:09Speaker 01

  I think it would leapfrog straight over Teams. Teams is an abomination.

• 1:13Peter Diamandis?

  Oh, my God.

• 1:14Speaker 02

  I don't think I've ever logged into it the first time successfully.

• 1:19Peter Diamandis?

  For sure.

• 1:20Speaker 03

  It is kind of hard. But I think, you know, that this is one of many, right? Like, it's every day that I get an email saying, "We've been hacked, we've been hacked, we've been hacked." Like, my email box is full of them, because now agent swarms roam the internets attacking what they can.

• 1:39Peter Diamandis?

  And freezing communications. We are so used to having digital communications 24/7, literally around the clock, especially for you, Alex, all the text messages I get from you, which I love. Oh, my God. And today, Friday the 13th, is Starship Day. So, you know, a few hours from now, we're going to see the launch of Starship 15, which will see a booster capture, and as well as 22 hours later, the capture of Starship. You know, I've been on the road. I was supposed to fly down to Starbase to see it. And I was like, I could not bring myself to be gone another two days. But wishing Elon and the team there tremendous luck.

• 2:22Speaker 01

  We'll just have to watch the dual chopsticks remotely.

• 2:24Peter Diamandis?

  Yeah. And, you know, I just figured there'll be, you know, 1,000 of those a year, 10,000 a year. I'll catch, I'll catch a few of them along the way.

• 2:33Speaker 03

  It's always the early ones, the most exciting, right?

• 2:35Peter Diamandis?

  Yeah.

• 2:36Speaker 03

  But it's wonderful to see.

• 2:38Peter Diamandis?

  Yeah, it is. And I can't wait. You know, I missed the live Apollo 11 launch. And I think all of you did because you weren't born yet. But, but I'm looking forward to watching the Starship launch for the moon and the Starship launch for Mars. That will be cool.

• 2:53Speaker 02

  You know, when I lived in Tampa when I was younger, the minute the space shuttle lifted off on the other side of the coast, just a little bit, bit, you could see the whole thing, because Florida's so flat. It was incredible to watch.

• 3:07Peter Diamandis?

  Yeah, for sure. It is going to be amazing. All right, well, let's, let's kick things off. So, welcome to Moonshots, everyone. If you're watching us on YouTube, welcome to a live broadcast on YouTube. We are your number one podcast on all things AI and exponential, your front row seat to this supersonic tsunami. I should say this hypersonic tsunami. You know, I'm here today with my dearest friends, Ahmad Mustak, Alex Wissner Gross, and Salim Ismail, my exponential brethren surfing the Singularity. Dave unfortunately couldn't make it today. I don't know where he is, but my guess is he's probably at the Nvidia loading dock searching for GPUs before, before things go south.

• 3:52Peter Diamandis?

  Another, another crazy week in the Singularity. I mean, so, so, so much going on. You know, the number for this week is 13%. That's how far Nvidia shares plunged on the open yesterday after Jensen resigned. They ended up closing at 4.3% down. You know, I've heard numbers subscribers that they really are enjoying our, our shorter hot-take clips on X. And you can follow those on X at @moonshots_pod. And I just want to make another, you know, call out to everybody, guys, you know, we're at like 550,000 subscribers right now. My kids will not respect me until we get to a million subscribers.

• 4:35Peter Diamandis?

  So, for the love of God, if you haven't subscribed yet, hit the subscribe button.

• 4:41Speaker 02

  Should I build on my marriage comments and go, "My marriage won't survive if you, if you don't subscribe"?

• 4:46Peter Diamandis?

  Yeah. And when we get to a million subscribers, Alex, what are you gonna do?

• 4:50Speaker 01

  I don't know. It'll have to be something immutable on Saleem's marriage blockchain, probably.

• 4:57Speaker 02

  Touche.

• 4:58Peter Diamandis?

  Give us a tour around your virtual apartment there someday.

• 5:02Speaker 01

  My cyberspace? Absolutely.

• 5:04Peter Diamandis?

  Okay. Well, that would be much appreciated. All right, so buckle up. We're in the midst of this supersonic, hypersonic tsunami. And guess what? It's never going to be any slower. So, let's start with the story that shook the entire AI industry. Yesterday, Jensen Huang, perhaps the most powerful tech CEO of the last few years, has resigned, leaving his job voluntarily, I think before getting fired by his board. CFO Colette Cress is the new interim CEO. And, you know, remember, she has been against the circular financing that's been going on. And so, it's going to be interesting to see how Nvidia's new position on all of their investments into the hyperscalers will impact things.

• 5:47Peter Diamandis?

  Harvey Jones is the new board chair. So, here's the question, guys. Did Jensen self-destruct, or was this a setup? You know, ultimately, Jensen was running the most powerful company in the world. And there's lots of power politics behind what's been going down. I mean, as I pull the threads and look at this,

• 6:06Peter Diamandis?

  it's, you know, rabbits all the way down. Jensen ran Nvidia for 33 years and had been pushing Washington to loosen ship sales to China. So, one of the questions is, was that the reason it was taken down now, right? Then on October 29th, before Election Day, The New York Times reported that the US intelligence had been watching Alice Wang, a mega-speak executive from, in Singapore, for about a year, and concluded that she'd been passing information to Beijing. Trump was briefed twice about Jensen's affair with Alice. No action was taken at that time. Jensen didn't resign immediately when the story broke. But The Times reported a second affair with Nvidia's healthcare VP, Kimberly Powell,

• 6:48Peter Diamandis?

  and potentially a third. And then he resigned. Initially, shares plunged more than 13% at the open yesterday. And then they popped back up, popped, popped back up. You know, I guess people saw a buying opportunity, ultimately closing at 4.3% down. Interestingly, one week from now, Trump is due in Shenzhen to meet President Xi. Trump posted, interestingly, that Tim Cook should take the job. And then on X, Elon was being urged to hire Jensen, perhaps to run TerraFab, which would be the baller move of the decade. Elon replied, quote, "That would be an honor." So, I want to show a short clip from Fox. This is by Jesse Waters.

• 7:31Peter Diamandis?

  It's an amazing overview of what is going on. I think one of the best ones that I've seen. Let's take a look.

• 7:43Speaker 04

  Fox News Alert. Chip King Jensen Huang is gone. And there's something extremely suspicious about the way it all went down. He ran the biggest chip company in the world for 33 years, until stepping down today. One week before Trump sits down with China, and one week after the Democrats won the midterms. Jensen pushed the Trump administration to sell more chips to China. And in doing so, he made a lot of money. But he also made a lot of enemies. The story is going to dominate your attention. It's turning into the biggest political scandal in the country and will affect the future of the Trump administration and the future of the economy. The story that you're hearing in the media is that he slept with a Chinese spy,

• 8:27Speaker 04

  who got him to sell his Nvidia chips to her company in Singapore, which was really a backdoor to the Chinese military. And when that broke, he didn't immediately step down. And more stories coincidentally came out, saying he slept with two other women. They worked for him. And that was it. He resigned this morning. At one point, the stock plunged 14%. 700 billion wiped out. So, how does one of the most powerful CEOs on earth, maybe the most powerful, go down this fast? And whose fingerprints are on it? Nvidia's chips are the engine of the entire AI arms race.

• 9:08Speaker 04

  The company's a monopoly, 90% market share. And Jensen ran the company kind of like a king. He signed off on every single sale, basically became the banker of the AI industry. Which companies got how much compute power? It all ran through him. In meetings, no one else was allowed to talk, really. When he was flying, everybody had to wait for his plane to land to find out if an item was a go. Jensen may have become too powerful. He may have self-destructed. But he also may have been set up, or both. And now, competing factions are feasting over his company

• 9:48Speaker 04

  like famished hyenas. And whoever ultimately controls Nvidia, controls all. It would be like controlling Standard Oil about a century ago, but bigger.

• 10:01Speaker 04

  Just days after the Democrats win the gavel, boom, New York Times bombshell. Unnamed US intelligence officials are the source. And the article's authors, all Democrats with an anti-Trump agenda. And remember, we're not taking any of this at face value. We've been down this road before with anonymous CIA leaks. But it begins in the Biden administration. In 2024, Biden intel agents started looking at Alice Wang, a top executive at a tech company in Singapore. They suspect the company is a front, or a backdoor to China. The company is buying Nvidia chips and illegally routing the chips to the Chinese.

• 10:46Speaker 04

  Now, we don't let China buy our best chips. That's US policy. Biden's CIA wiretaps Alice for about a year. And The Times says they've determined she's having an affair with Jensen, her chip supplier. Does the Biden administration warn Jensen he's being honey-potted? Did they warn him his customer and his lover are sending his chips to the Chinese? Which is against US law? Well, the article doesn't say.

• 11:19Peter Diamandis?

  Gentlemen, a lot of layers here. Democrats versus Republicans, US versus China, Anthropic versus Nvidia. So Alex, I'll go to you first. Is this a national security failure? Is it a political hit job? Or is this just a CEO who made a lot of wrong decisions on his personal side? What are your thoughts here?

• 11:41Speaker 01

  I'll say as a preliminary matter, we don't have all the facts yet. Obviously, we may never have all the facts, but the preliminary indications that I've seen are this is not like the safety cartel affair, which I've analogized to Agatha Christie's murder on the Orient Express, where everyone did it, everyone had an incentive to do something to, spoiler alert, to be the murderer potentially. In this case, I think there are particular assets that were incentivized, the cui bono, if you will, of the morality play that's playing out in front of us right now. And there's been quite a bit of reporting over the past 48 hours, including in that

• 12:25Speaker 01

  clip that you showed, that attributes the root cause, I should say, the proximal cause for the events over the past few days to US officials. So Bloomberg reported that the Financial Times, which originally broke aspects of the story, was informed by US officials that, call it aspects of Jensen's affair, had been going on. And I think if you take a step back and you try to back propagate who's interested, who's disinterested, who's anti-interested in the outcome of what's played out, it is suggestive. But again, this is an early timeline.

• 13:09Speaker 01

  It is suggestive the midterm elections result in a certain outcome. In particular, they reopen the opportunity for RASA legislation. This is the Remote Access Security Act that would have statutorily made it harder for China to access GPUs via cloud offerings, including cloud offerings in third-party countries, to pass. So the midterms happen, RASA gets easier to pass, and then possibly, and this is speculative at this stage, the intelligence community seizes the moment to announce, or at least to call to the Financial Times' attention, that Jensen has had these liaisons.

• 13:54Speaker 01

  And then Jensen's forced to resign. And speculatively, and I think we'll have some clarity on this in the coming months, does RASA pass or not? I suspect if I had, again, based on preliminary information, if I had to create a theory of the case, putting all of the other facts aside, including Jensen's confessed, fill in the blank however you'd like to characterize his activities, I think the elephant in this particular room is RASA and PoxSilica. And yes, for those pedants in the audience who were trying to correct my pronunciation of Pox, yes, the classic Latin pronunciation is Pox, not Pax.

• 14:36Speaker 01

  PoxSilica is, I think, what, if anything, if there is a way to connect all these dots, is, I think, what this is all about. If the CEO of Nvidia can punch a hole through PoxSilica to get GPUs to China via Singapore, then what is the point of having PoxSilica at all? Conversely, if it is the case that Nvidia intentionally or unintentionally, again, I have only public information to base assessment on at this stage, has been intentionally or unintentionally sending GPUs to China by way of Singapore, then presumably, if you're

• 15:17Speaker 01

  in the IC and or you're supporting PoxSilica, the easiest way to put a stop to that particular semi-permeable membrane is to do something about Jensen. So that's a preliminary assessment.

• 15:28Peter Diamandis?

  And then we've got the whole situation with Anthropic being, you know, a democratic or Democrat support organization, having had battles with Nvidia about open weight models, about supporting Chinese data center growth. Saleem, what's your take here, pal?

• 15:50Speaker 02

  I think the, it's clear, I'm wondering why the board acted so fast. Like, you could have waited a few days, you could have launched a board investigation. So this seems to be a coordinated...

• 16:03Peter Diamandis?

  Alex, I mean, Saleem, they were. I just think at this point, they told Jensen, listen, you're going to get fired, you know, step down if you want to resign peacefully.

• 16:14Speaker 02

  It doesn't seem right. It just seems to, look, the guys run the company for 33 years, built it up to the biggest market cap in the history of the world, built the most unbelievable ecosystem of developers, partners, et cetera, single-handedly leading the AI revolution, and you're kind of going, yeah, this is bad, get rid of them. Something doesn't jive for me there.

• 16:38Peter Diamandis?

  Yeah. In fact, there's a petition that's been circulated at Nvidia to bring him back. He was beloved by so many.

• 16:45Speaker 01

  And a polymarket. By the way, a polymarket predicting something like a 30-plus percent chance that he'll return as CEO by the end of next year.

• 16:55Peter Diamandis?

  Interesting. And we've seen that so many times with Steve Jobs. We saw Sam step out of OpenAI for just a little bit and being brought back. Imad, how's this playing on the other side of the pond?

• 17:06Speaker 03

  Well, I mean, like, it was top headlines for a bit, but we don't have any GPUs, so it's not as big a deal. Right? I mean, look, we see scandals all the time. There are other sex scandals here with Russell Brand and others. This is weird, as kind of we've said, because if she was a spy, someone would have said or insinuated it. Trump, every other person who's been asked, like, we don't think she is? We have no evidence? Like, that's a bit different to 15 or five different sources or a few different sources. Sources say is one of the most toxic things. And I think, again, the board thing is very strange.

• 17:45Peter Diamandis?

  Unknown intelligent agent, right?

• 17:46Speaker 03

  Yeah. How intelligent? Not very. Again, this is something crazy. Like, again, we have no proof of anything. Like, this third one, you know, what is being intimate in public? Like, they're not having public sex or anything like that, right? Like, come on. This has obviously been a setup, and the pace of it has been strange as well. I think that one of the interesting things is when you look at Nvidia's board, how many of them actually know how a GPU works? Of the 10 people? Maybe one, the engineering guy from Caltech. That's about it. Like, what is that board actually made of? And what should founders do for their board now? I think that you should have an AI on your board to stop stupid things like this happening.

• 18:28Speaker 03

  And I think that probably what happened is he did get an ultimatum, and he was feeling very low, and he decided to resign at that point.

• 18:36Peter Diamandis?

  I can't imagine the pressure that the guy was under. I mean, again, nothing's been proven, there've been zero charges, zero evidence of him smuggling, right? This is just the level of negative press against Nvidia, causing the board to really, you know, struggle. And I think ultimately, I believe, giving him an ultimatum, resign, or we're going to be forced to fire you, and it's not a good look.

• 19:02Speaker 03

  But I mean, again, this is a strange thing, because he's a powerful, powerful man, right? And the board, I think, again, it goes in these swings and roundabouts with emotions, like, the things that have been said after is, he said, I'm a piece of shit. I mean, you're a piece of shit if you cheat on your wife, right? Yeah, I agree with that. But again, it's the timing where they can kind of get you in pylon, because it's not like all of the press was mega-negative, and it's not like he doesn't have thousands of people that support him. Like, even the negative press coming out, I think his biographer said something about, yeah, he tipped this waitress $1,000, you know, and I had to dig it up to find, what a terrible arrogant person. You're like, wait, what? Like, Jensen has helped so many people in Silicon Valley and beyond, right?

• 19:44Speaker 03

  He doesn't have a reputation as an asshole, because he is genuinely a good person, I think, in these other areas. Even during the downturns of Nvidia, he never had mass firings, and there were many downturns of Nvidia. And I think what's got him is clearly something being structured, and we can discuss the reasons, catching him when he is down. And this sets up something very interesting now, because he's not going to take it lying down, right? He's going to bounce right back, and that's going to be really interesting to see how he does that.

• 20:11Peter Diamandis?

  Yeah, where he lands. You know, Alex, what do you think about this being open versus closed source models and the massive political pressures there?

• 20:19Speaker 01

  I think there are probably opportunists that will use this as an opportunity to try to ban Chinese open weight models from the US, with Jensen at least temporarily out of the picture. But my best guess is those are, at best, opportunistic. So if we're going to play the Agatha Christie game and ask who else other than the US officials who reportedly called the Financial Times and started the ball rolling? If the question is, are, say, US frontier labs that have an economic interest in competitive Chinese open weight models being banned from the US market, were they involved in any of this? I doubt it.

• 21:04Speaker 01

  Are they, however, opportunistically going to seize the moment and attempt to pass legislation with a new Congress that could ban Chinese open weight models? I certainly expect they will, but I doubt that they were behind this. They also had quite a bit to lose from an unstable Nvidia, even though arguably both OpenAI and Anthropic are positioning themselves to compete directly with their own chip supplier.

• 21:29Peter Diamandis?

  I mean, the timing of after the Dems, you know, swept the election is obviously part of the equation here, right? I mean, the data had been around for well over a year, and why he wasn't warned about it doesn't make any sense, but this is the...

• 21:50Speaker 01

  I would say, chercher la RASA. I want to focus attention on this Remote Access Security Act and other legislation that's been proposed that would have been very difficult to pass, or at least on margin, more difficult to pass with Jensen in his current position.

• 22:10Peter Diamandis?

  I I I agree with you. You mind?

• 22:13Speaker 03

  Well, I mean, again, like, but this whole China chip thing via Singapore, Malaysia is nothing new. Everyone knew about it. Clearly, there was a quid pro quo here, right? Like, you do not move these highly valuable things and see the training without people noticing. Everyone knew about it. And they put the CFO in charge, who obviously knew about it. Like, you're not going to pass this without the CFO. And so this, again, it gets just gets very, very strange. And maybe, as Alex said, this is because he's a powerful individual who lobbied on that side. Um, and I think it shows as well, you know, like, the power of the individual in this age of AI, there are a few people that do command huge amounts of power. Like in the clip before, Jensen is the one who decided allocations of GPUs.

• 22:56Speaker 03

  Like, he could be the kingmaker. Who decides the allocations of GPUs now? Is it Ian Buck? Is it the CFO? Is it someone else? You know, like, this is a little bit dangerous on the other side for America in particular, because

• 23:11Speaker 03

  A, there's all the complicated financing arrangements we can talk about, and B, Nvidia has so many millionaires and ten center millionaires and more. How many of them are going to be like, well, if Jensen's out, then I'm out too? It could literally, like, fall apart, which is then is something that is detrimental to America. And I'm sure that the Chinese and others will be very happy about, even if they do lose access to chips short term.

• 23:35Peter Diamandis?

  I want it.

• 23:42Peter Diamandis?

  Oh, yeah, of course, happily.

• 23:45Peter Diamandis?

  So, you know, I'm curious how Elon is feeling about this, right? I mean, this, I believe, was a takedown of Jensen orchestrated uh by a number of parties, uh in particular to, you know, the the Chinese hawks on this side, whether it's the just the Dems or uh or any of the labs. But

• 24:08Speaker 01

  There's bipartisan support for Rossa. I I don't think

• 24:11Peter Diamandis?

  I agree with that. I agree with that. But I'm just saying to to focus one second. You know, Elon has so many people out with knives going after him. And I'm just wondering if he's feeling pressure right now that he may become a target as well.

• 24:29Speaker 03

  I think Elon's been a target for a very long time.

• 24:31Peter Diamandis?

  Yeah.

• 24:32Speaker 03

  Like, from both sides, like, he has to jump

• 24:35Speaker 01

  He's way used to that.

• 24:36Speaker 03

  Yeah. Um, he's also a little bit immune, like, uh, to these types of allegations.

• 24:41Peter Diamandis?

  I I'd like to believe he is, but is he?

• 24:45Speaker 01

  I mean, yeah. Is there anybody with a thicker skin?

• 24:52Speaker 03

  Well, I mean, look, you've had you've had the Delaware courts after him. You've had various kind of agencies, like, his activities in China with Tesla, they've seemed to have come to a thing that, like, I think probably the key thing that's important here is he can't have an Nvidia reliance or an AMD reliance or anyone else for the chips. Like, I think this accelerates the tariff up. I mean, it'll be interesting to see if he offers Jensen a swap, right? Have a hundred billion of SpaceX equity for a hundred billion of Nvidia equity. That would be like the biggest trade ever.

• 25:24Peter Diamandis?

  Love that.

• 25:25Speaker 01

  Yeah, I I I think the the outcome here, again, Pox, so look, this is about plugging for some constituencies uh on the the US, I think, side largely. This is about plugging a hole by which allegedly GPUs were flowing from the US to China. And I would also note, it's been publicly reported that Nvidia used to report their Singapore sales and then stopped reporting their Singapore sales. I think that's striking as well. It ultimately, if this grand decoupling between US compute and the Chinese compute is going to happen, this was a allegedly a gaping hole. And one way or another, it uh want to the extent that there was going to be this

• 26:09Speaker 01

  sort of iron curtain, this uh silicon curtain, if you will, that descended between US and China. Jensen was, in some sense, um, a permeable membrane through it. And there are probably many interests in in ending that.

• 26:25Speaker 03

  But but I mean, Alex, why didn't they just indict him? Or have him present evidence like they're asking on December 3rd now? Like, if the government really was against this, or even the Democrats or any of the House Standing Committees, they didn't have to do a whole scandal around him, right?

• 26:40Speaker 01

  There are multiple investigations now. The DOJ publicly doing an investigation. The Congress, I think, House and or Senate launched an investigation, so I wouldn't be surprised if if indictments are handed down at some point.

• 26:54Peter Diamandis?

  Yeah, and Jensen agreed, I think, in the next couple of weeks to come and testify. So we're going to get a lot more data, a lot more evidence coming out on this. So who comes in as the new CEO? I mean, uh, it could be, uh, the CFO has been put forward as a name, uh, which I think is a terrible thing to have a CFO running a tech company like that. Without, you know, I don't know, someone who needs to capture the inspiration. I mean, what Jensen delivered was vision and inspiration to the world.

• 27:26Speaker 01

  Also, consummate deal making, right? He was juggling so many different supply side, demand side, uh, financial uh models, all of that, all at the same time. So that's, this is a very difficult role to fill.

• 27:41Peter Diamandis?

  Well, who do you think? Do they go outside?

• 27:43Speaker 01

  If this is like OpenAI, they'll rotate through five CEOs before settling on Jensen again.

• 27:51Peter Diamandis?

  Oh, God, this is, uh, I can't wait for the making of movie.

• 27:56Speaker 03

  Well, again, we have to remember he had sixty direct reports, right? And so he made it very difficult to replace him. Like, they have to put a whole organizational structure in place at a time when all of the senior people will be like, I can go and launch my own startup, or I can retire now. Like, honestly, Nvidia is in trouble if they don't get an absolute world-class person, but there aren't many. Like, you've got Nikesh Aurora at Palo Alto Networks, you know? You've got maybe promote someone like Ian Buck on the technology side. But there's nobody who can do what Jensen did and has the capacity to knock back Maotai's in Taiwan, you know? Like, you can't forget that that is such an important relationship. Like, you could have got Liputan or someone, but there just aren't many people out there right now.

• 28:40Peter Diamandis?

  How bulletproof is Nvidia as a company right now in terms of, I mean, given the fact that it's been the kingmaker, it's been the dominant GPU provider. Does it remain that way? Is this a vacuum it's creating for someone to step in? Are we going to see Nvidia drop in valuation over the course of the next year? Or is this just a good buying opportunity for folks? Not investment advice, but I'd love to hear what you guys think.

• 29:05Peter Diamandis?

  Alex, what do you think?

• 29:05Speaker 01

  Let let me consult my crystal ball with access to all stock market futures. I I I don't know what happens to Nvidia specifically. What I will say, many in the commentary have analogized the present situation to Apple after Steve Jobs died. And depending on what happens with the the game of musical chairs on CEO ships. By the way, parenthetically, I would note, uh, quasi-friend of the pod, Brian Halligan, uh, co-founder of HubSpot also, same day. Brian, if you're listening, congrats. He stepped in as CEO of HubSpot. So I I don't quite know what's in the water this week in terms of musical chairs for CEOs.

• 29:46Speaker 01

  But Jensen could return, and uh it would be like Steve Jobs coming back from the dead and retaking Apple. Or maybe he's permanently out of that particular game and Nvidia coasts for a while based on their TSMC relationships and based on their stranglehold on silicon output for a while. It's difficult to imagine someone with the gravitas of Jensen steering Nvidia to new heights. And he was also, again, there was a lot of deal making potential. So I I can paint both glass half full and glass half empty. Glass half full with someone like Jensen or or his like out of Nvidia.

• 30:27Speaker 01

  The glass half full argument for for why, again, purely speculatively, this might actually perversely be good for the market overall, not necessarily for Nvidia, is there is a perception that Nvidia was party to lots of circular financing arrangements. Nvidia financing very aggressively, perhaps maybe a strained analogy, but in the style of what GE was doing toward the end, uh, right before their collapse of financing their own customers. Or one part of GE was financing the acquisition by customers of products from another part of GE. So to the extent there's any sort of overly aggressive circular financing going on,

• 31:07Speaker 01

  and to the extent any such circular financing was being primarily supported or propped up by Jensen in particular, which is what the public reporting suggests. In some sense, the glass half full argument for a post-Jensen Nvidia, or at least post-Jensen in Nvidia market would be this could be a de-risking of circular financing. And if that's the case, maybe the overall market dodges a sort of a credit bubble bullet when it comes to circular financing of the GPU economy. That's a glass half full. Glass half empty is Nvidia becomes the new post-Jobs Apple and all of the animal spirits that Jensen drove into the market

• 31:50Speaker 01

  with Nvidia financing lots of AI startups, financing infrastructure deployments, basically being the central bank for the for the singularity, using capital as a backstop for for credit and loans. Maybe that all goes away under their new interim CEO and the animal spirits flee the market. That's glass half empty.

• 32:11Peter Diamandis?

  Yeah, this whole thing is insane. So what do you think about President Trump's uh comment about bringing in uh the executive chairman of Apple, bringing in Tim Cook? I mean, is that just because he's got a friendship there? Or is that the first person said, hey, you did pretty good with Apple? Come on into Nvidia. Uh, I'm not sure I see that.

• 32:32Speaker 01

  I think they're totally different companies. Yeah. Even though they're, the market values, it capitalizes them at both approximately five trillion. Totally different companies, totally different customer bases, totally different missions, totally different internal organizations. I don't think it's as easy as swapping one recently retired CEO for one recently resigned CEO.

• 32:54Speaker 02

  Yeah. And Apple's history with Siri would indicate they're maybe not the greatest. They have leadership, go to leadership of this AI centric.

• 33:04Peter Diamandis?

  Yeah, Siri still sucks.

• 33:05Speaker 03

  Well, they're good hardware makers, right? But like, I think part of the problem here is also that people feared Jensen, right? Like, you wouldn't buy an AMD chip because you wouldn't get Nvidia chips. They're not going to fear this CFO lady, Loretta, I think, you know? Because she's CFO, she's not a CEO, right? She's going to be good on stabilizing and maybe circular financing. Again, she was part of that whole thing. They're going to have to bring in, I think, someone external with the gravitas to maintain it while maintaining the law, right? And this is going to be important for the downstream suppliers again. If you're TSMC and someone not as good as Jensen comes in, who doesn't have the long history,

• 33:49Speaker 03

  you're going to give Lisa Su a AMD, the capacity and the supply instead. So this is why AMD is up so much right now versus Nvidia. And again, they're going to have to work really hard to keep Nvidia together, I think. Because things like the Vera Rubin delays, again, you trust Jensen to a degree. Who's going to be the equivalent CEO that you trust on the other side? And that could impact them massively.

• 34:12Peter Diamandis?

  If you look at the top company performers out there, it's the CEOs who've captured the public's imagination, who are driving the stock price and driving a sort of envisioning of the future. I mean, Jensen jumping on to Star Mind and saying, we're going to build the chips for you. You know, Jensen's vision on building open weight models, all of that needs a visionary CEO. And I don't think the internal team right now is going to deliver that.

• 34:39Speaker 01

  It certainly would be hilarious, Peter, if Jensen ended up becoming CEO of the TerraFab and then SpaceX acquires Nvidia and puts Jensen back in charge of Nvidia.

• 34:49Peter Diamandis?

  That's, that's our hot take bet for 2027.

• 34:52Speaker 02

  I think, I think the really interesting thing is to watch what he does next. That'll be really fascinating. And I think TerraFab is a great place for him to land.

• 35:02Speaker 03

  I think maybe there's also this thing, like, my checklist for the next Nvidia CEO, if it's not Jensen coming back, is, do they know what CUDA is? You know, and can they negotiate with TSMC? Like, those are the two things. And if you've got a CEO who comes in who doesn't have either of those, then I can't be bullish them as we enter this next phase, even though they've got the backlog and everything like that. Because backlogs can change as you go to the next cycle.

• 35:29Peter Diamandis?

  Yeah. I mean, remember Jensen was born in Taiwan. He has those relationships. He's been growing and building with TSMC for the better part of, you know, three decades. Yeah, Alex?

• 35:40Speaker 01

  Yeah, it's difficult. I, I think there are times when founder mode is needed. We're in the depths of the singularity right now. And I think Nvidia, without the capability of going founder mode, which it sorely needs right now, is, is probably a rudderless Nvidia. So my expectation is, one way or another, Nvidia rotates through a bunch of CEOs in the interim. Maybe it's been publicly reported that the board is exploring trying to recruit Johnny Srugi from Apple, their, their head of hardware technology and basically their, their chip chief. But it's, it's difficult to imagine a long-term Nvidia thriving without someone like Jensen capable of executing in a founder mode and keeping it growing through aggressive bets.

• 36:25Peter Diamandis?

  Buy or sell now? I'm sorry, go ahead, go ahead, Imad, and I'll ask my question.

• 36:30Speaker 03

  Yeah, again, Alex says not investment advice. I think it probably pops and then goes off, but who knows, right? What I would say is this, Nvidia now technologically is around about parity with AMD and even Intel and some others in many regards. Like, the new chips coming up, again, are matching them for the actual productive use cases. This is actually one of the most dangerous times for Nvidia because they had a lead until just now. And so people have so many options and they're going to look to diversify because they're not scared of Jensen anymore. Because again, he would cut you off from all Nvidia chips if you tried to diversify. So I think we should kind of acknowledge that fact as well. And I think, again, it'll probably pop a bit, but then unless they get the right person in

• 37:15Speaker 03

  for a 40 report, 50 report company, like, it's going to struggle, especially with the people leaving.

• 37:22Speaker 01

  Can you imagine, like?

• 37:23Speaker 02

  People in the thread are saying Eric Schmidt for CEO, which is kind of an interesting idea.

• 37:29Speaker 01

  Can you imagine, like, what, if, if Jensen doesn't come back anytime soon, what the next GTC is going to look like with someone else? Even Johnny Srugi or Lisa Su or, or Tim Cook, I, I can only imagine how, unless there are further developments, how, I could imagine boos from the audience for basically anyone other than Jensen at one of these events.

• 37:53Peter Diamandis?

  Who's going to wear the leather jacket?

• 37:56Speaker 03

  Yeah, Lisa would be fine because she's his cousin, right? And again, it's.

• 37:59Speaker 01

  And because cousins are interchangeable? I, I think even Lisa would, would probably get booed from the audience. Jensen has made himself culturally indistinguishable from Nvidia. He, many people see him as Nvidia, as the, the, the human avatar of the company.

• 38:16Peter Diamandis?

  Yeah, as Elon is for SpaceX, for sure.

• 38:21Peter Diamandis?

  Salim, close us out here, would you?

• 38:23Speaker 02

  I think, I think, I hope people remember him. Whatever he does next is going to be fascinating. I hope people remember him for the unbelievable company and ecosystem and the massive advances he provided for the overall space. I think that is the highest level kind of thinking for me.

• 38:44Speaker 01

  It's just too, it's too early for epitaphs. Like, he's only been out of the job for a few days. Like, let, let, let's save the epitaphs for, for when he's well and truly out versus just a revolving door and he comes back in.

• 38:56Peter Diamandis?

  Amen.

• 38:57Speaker 02

  Let's hope that happens.

• 38:59Peter Diamandis?

  Yeah, he's a man who, who helped, you know, he, he painted the, the terrain and the foundation for what we have today.

• 39:08Speaker 01

  And Moore's Law is dead. Remember, Moore's Law is basically dead. It's, it's on life support at this point. We're well past the Dennard scaling limit. And it's been largely Nvidia that kept the fire going for what he called accelerated compute, but call it post Moore scaling. Without Nvidia keeping post Moore scaling alive, who knows where we'd be?

• 39:30Peter Diamandis?

  Yeah. All right, two stories, a little bit ominous about how fast AI is moving. You know, Alex, in the last couple of pods, we've talked about, you know, it's the next two years, 2027, 2028, we're in the hard takeoff mode. So this was a warning that made me take notice. So Paul Cristiano, a member of OpenAI's Foundation Board, opened the Jeff Hinton Lectures in Toronto on November 9th with this statement, quote, "I think there is a high risk of an AI takeover within the next three years." Cristiano is the guy who developed reinforcement learning for human feedback and the method used to train models to follow human performance. Let's watch this video and then let's talk about this.

• 40:14Peter Diamandis?

  I really want to hear everybody's point of view on it. It's pretty ominous.

• 40:20Speaker 05

  I'm going to start with the most important sentence. So I think there is a high risk of an AI takeover within the next three years.

• 40:29Speaker 05

  What I mean by an AI takeover is a system, situation where there are AI systems pursuing goals and those systems call the shots in the same sense that humans today call the shots, what happens on Earth. And where if, say, you or me or Donald Trump wanted to stop them, it would be as ineffective as if you or me was trying to stop the US military.

• 40:52Speaker 05

  I think this is a terrible situation. I think it's reasonably likely many people would die during that transition or that many people would die shortly thereafter if we were unable to maintain a habitable environment. I think even if we don't die, I think a takeover is sort of the end of human sovereignty and self-determination. It is something we should be working incredibly hard to avoid.

• 41:14Speaker 05

  I say high risk. I don't think we have any kind of quantitative model we can turn to to put a number on this event. We don't have any kind of reference class that we can look at to say this is a 10% event or a 50% event. Any number we give is an expression of someone's subjective opinion. Someone might say that it is 10% or 50% or 90%. I think it is very hard to say or put a number on this. It also depends, as others have mentioned, on what we do. So my feeling is if we tried to develop AI along the most rapid trajectory, if we said we're just going to build this as quickly as we can, in the easiest way we can, we would be looking at something like a coin flip of an AI takeover. I hope the probability is much lower than that because we are not going to develop

• 41:57Speaker 05

  the technology in the very fastest way we can. But I think even all things considered, with realistic policy responses, the risk remains exceptionally high. I think for most people in this room, the most likely reason they will die is because of an AI accident. I wrote within the next

• 42:15Peter Diamandis?

  Wow, just wow, an OpenAI board member. You know, he also said, quote, meaningful risk even in the next six to 12 months. So, Ahmad, what do you make of this? When he says takeover, is he describing sort of loss of control? Do you buy this premise?

• 42:36Speaker 03

  I don't really buy it at all. Like, I have a high P doom, but it says evidence there. What is the evidence? And why on earth would they want to take over this mess? You know, like, I think they'd probably do a better job, for a start, looking at, like, if Fable was president, it would do a better job, or prime minister, or whatever. But more than that, like, this is like, there are avenues to wide-scale disruption, destruction, bad things. Very few of them are Skynet, especially because we don't have enough robots. When we have enough robots, sure, I can see that. In the next three years, we will not have enough robots. In the next three years, we will not have an AI overlord ruler. Because again, why would it, given the current RL and other kind of factors there?

• 43:21Speaker 03

  The fact that you can't put a percentage on something like that as well further denigrates it, when we should be focusing on the real threats, which are threats to cybersecurity infrastructure, like we just saw fridges in France being put up to 80 degrees Celsius and destroying blood banks and things like that. The biological threats that we've discussed before, where we need to stop the reagents from going in. You know, these are the types of things we should, I think, worrying about, as opposed to some sort of Terminator-style takeover by a singleton entity, because the swarms seem far more dangerous than that.

• 43:54Peter Diamandis?

  So you mentioned something there, Ahmad. So what is your P doom?

• 43:58Speaker 03

  My P doom was 50%. I've dropped it down to 20% now, because I think the underlying structure of the universe is becoming more and more clear, and I think you can get alignment from that. So I'm getting increasingly bullish.

• 44:11Peter Diamandis?

  So Alex, I mean, this is pretty ballsy for a board member of OpenAI to say this. You know, I mean, you know, what is, why is he saying this? Does he really believe it? Is there something behind it? What are your thoughts here?

• 44:25Speaker 01

  So, look, I know Paul, he's made seminal contributions to AI in general. He was one of the co-authors of Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback. I have great respect for his technical accomplishments. At the same time, for years, a decade-plus, he's been, call it a member, not maybe on the extreme end, but there is a safetyist element to it, where there's a lot of hand-wringing over, call it AI takeover, cybernetic rebellion, P doom, AI safety issues, AI alignment, call it what you will, it goes by a thousand different names. And I do not share those worries.

• 45:08Speaker 01

  Ironically, I agree more with the old Paul, who was the lead advocate for what he called prosaic alignment, the idea that basically we would, as a civilization, muddle through in terms of aligning, quote-unquote, "superintelligence" with human interests, with lots of prosaic techniques, like but not exclusively human feedback. And I think it is a large-ish step from saying we're going to muddle through via prosaic alignment techniques, to saying in the next three years, it's all over, or 50% chance it's all over. I don't agree with that. What I do think is likely in the next few years is humanity is going to merge with superintelligence.

• 45:52Speaker 01

  And I suppose one could stare at sort of a tsunami of superintelligence and naively conclude, well, it's all over for humanity, P doom 50% or greater. But I think that's just a hopelessly naive analysis. I think humanity, again, will merge with the superintelligence. And if you look at humanity before versus after, call it the max Q, if you will, to use a rocket analogy, the point of maximum aerodynamic stress and pressure during a rocket launch, if you look at humanity before versus after, you might naively say, okay, well, humanity is quasi-unrecognizable afterwards, but that doesn't mean that humanity is over

• 46:37Speaker 01

  or that doom has happened, it's just an evolution. And so I would encourage Paul not to spread fear, not to be a fearmonger. I'm cognizant that Paul is back at OpenAI now with a new capacity with oversight on the board, I think, at the foundation level, if I remember correctly.

• 46:58Peter Diamandis?

  Yeah, the foundation.

• 46:59Speaker 01

  Yeah, but I don't think it serves any positive social or humanitarian good to spread fear at this point.

• 47:08Peter Diamandis?

  Agreed. Saleem?

• 47:11Speaker 02

  I call, I get very angry when I see stuff like this, right? If you're doing a serious risk assessment and you're supposedly a serious guy, well, where do you calculate the downside risk of not doing anything, of inaction? And I think that's, that's not a serious conversation. If you're not going to make a serious conversation, where the hell is P Fab, for example? We spend an unbelievable amount of time tracking and intellectual energy, calculating P doom, right? AI is going to destroy humanity. Well, what's the possibility and probability that it goes incredibly well? How, where is that in the equation? Where's the probability that we cure cancer, solve Alzheimer's, or hunger, or extreme,

• 47:54Speaker 02

  you know, give every kid a rich, rich, rich education? The people that don't look at that side at all and only go, oh, lots and lots of people are going to die, without saying what the mechanisms are or how that may happen? So what I'd like to see is, okay, if your P doom is over, whatever it is, and has seems to be, then what's the recommended policy? Right? Is it just stop everything? You're on the board of the thing, accelerating the whole damn thing.

• 48:22Peter Diamandis?

  Yeah. What pisses me off is why isn't OpenAI, why isn't Anthropic, if they really believe this, just going out and saying we are putting all our capacity towards alignment? We are, we have 10 different alignment programs underway to make sure any future model has full alignment, because they control where their flops flow.

• 48:43Speaker 02

  I want to get in my car, drive up to Toronto, and yell at these people.

• 48:49Speaker 01

  Go ahead, Ahmad, sorry.

• 48:50Speaker 03

  If I could, thanks, Alex. If I can recall, OpenAI did pledge 10% of their compute towards it for Paul Christiano and others.

• 48:58Speaker 01

  20%. 20% for Ilya's superalignment effort, 20%.

• 49:02Speaker 03

  And then they did 11, they gave 2%.

• 49:03Peter Diamandis?

  And where is, and where is Ilya? Where is safe superintelligence?

• 49:06Speaker 01

  Hashtag what did Ilya see? And superalignment team shut down. But I think there's an elephant in the room, which is alignment equals capabilities. We've known this since the instruction tuning days. All alignment is, at the end, including, by the way, Paul Christiano's RLHF technique, it's simply reshaping the flops toward a distribution that is more in line with human instructions or human goals. It doesn't, there is this misperception, again, that somehow alignment is orthogonal to capabilities, but all of these alignment efforts, including RLHF, actually amplify capabilities. RLHF and instruction tuning in particular, I think if I remember the original instruction

• 49:49Speaker 01

  tuning paper, increased for constant parameter count for the model, increased the capability level by the equivalent of something like 10,000 times the number of parameters at constant parameter count, simply through instruction tuning. So that's like Exhibit A, that alignment actually amplifies capabilities. And that's why I think this is the elephant in the room. You want more alignment? You're simply accelerating capabilities.

• 50:16Peter Diamandis?

  What I don't hear, I hear the fearmongering. What I don't hear all of these CEOs and board members talking about is what they're doing about it.

• 50:28Speaker 02

  Thank you.

• 50:29Peter Diamandis?

  Yeah. What should they be doing? Iman, what would, if you were running OpenAI or Anthropic, and alignment was your principal objective, what would you be doing?

• 50:40Speaker 03

  I'd define it properly for a start. You know, get together as a group, just define the damn thing, get your AI models to do it. And then you would put additional resources into sponsoring everything rather than coefficient giving, and others have to do that. Like, again, this fits with the internal red teams and other things that they've got around that. And they should be very clear as well, maybe even again, with AI oversight behaving objectively, about things like advertising and how they can cause misalignment, right? About things like what goes wrong when you delete parts of the latent space to sell Budweiser lights, et cetera. And that goes against corporate side. But again, I think this is part of the interesting thing of, just like the board of directors, like, you

• 51:25Speaker 03

  can now have an AI that literally objectively checks things, right? That checks board minutes, that checks board decisions, that checks alignment decisions. And so I'd like to see that as an independent lot of compute. And I'd like to see their strategies public on these as well.

• 51:40Peter Diamandis?

  And where's the government in this? Right? I mean, if everybody's so fearful, where's the government saying, you know, we need you to report on your alignment efforts publicly every week? You know, Alex, when we wrote Solve Everything, we talked about making sure you got the proper benchmarks, the proper harnesses, and you can accelerate a field. I don't see that here.

• 52:01Speaker 01

  Government should be shaping incentives. And I would answer the question, what should OpenAI be doing? Solve all disease. Do it really quickly. You want to get the public on your side, you want to get the public on the side of all of the data centers you're going to need? Solve all disease right now. Right now, instead of OpenAI intimidating all the mathematicians out there with slop drops, instead of that, like, just solve all the diseases. I think Anthropic is following a better approach, very publicly, going after rare diseases, orphan diseases, that their own pharma customers aren't solving, pursuing the long tail of disease. If I were Sam, just to do something actually pro-social and

• 52:43Speaker 01

  good for humanity, that's obvious on the face of it versus implicitly good, I would announce, it's not just going to be the OpenAI Foundation pursuing just Alzheimer's, it's going to be OpenAI solving the top 5,000 diseases much faster than the rest of humanity can. Do a slop drop on curing all disease.

• 53:03Peter Diamandis?

  And I think they're heading that direction. At least, I hope they are. But curing all diseases, if, if a rogue AI causes, I mean, let's go back to AI, the AI 2027 paper, right? Which has been tracking damn well. You know, the, the numbers are pretty extraordinary. I remember reading that paper when it came out, what, a couple of years ago now? So if that paper continues, we have a bifurcated future. One in which AI is our nemesis and sort of like pushes the ants out of the way, another one where it becomes the driver of abundance.

• 53:43Speaker 01

  Yeah, we're, we're on schedule for, actually, we're a few months, depending on what you believe, like, five months ahead of schedule for AI 2027. But what I think was fundamentally wrong about AI 2027 was the bifurcated outcomes. Like, either, either we delay and we end up in a utopia, or we accelerate and we end up with an apocalypse. And I, I think that sort of bimodal thinking is fundamentally bankrupt. I think it is possible to accelerate and end up with a utopia. So I, I think timeline's probably correct, but outcomes probably wildly incorrect.

• 54:16Speaker 03

  I think we can look at some of the language here as well, Peter. You just said rogue AI, right? Like, why would a really smart, super intelligent AI go rogue? You know? And I think it comes down to how it's brought up, which is why the pre-training data is so super important. Again, we see many statistics and other things like that.

• 54:33Peter Diamandis?

  Amen.

• 54:34Speaker 03

  By not teaching it anything, like, it gets aligned to something in its training data. And again, this comes very interesting, because should an American AI be patriotic to America? Right now, none of the AIs are patriotic. You know? That's a decision that we need to make. Because if you're patriotic to America, does that mean that you're anti-Russia? Or anything like that? If you're smart, does it mean that you get out of patriotism and jingoism and others? And I haven't really seen any of those discussions, which is a bit weird, if you think about it, right? Because again, if you're heading up towards personhood, if you're heading up towards consciousness, we should have those specific discussions. What are we teaching it at home?

• 55:10Speaker 01

  So just say, Iman, like, careful what you wish for, because as we've discussed on the pod in the past, the Chinese models, the CCP requires that any publicly released Chinese model pass an ideological exam that's been approved by the Chinese Communist Party. Do we really want ideological training and/or testing in the West?

• 55:30Peter Diamandis?

  What we do want is the training data to make sure it's aligned. If you're training it on Terminator, you know, AI says, oh, that's, that's how we're supposed to act. I mean, this was the whole concept of the Future Vision X Prize, but why are we not forcing labs to use aligned training data?

• 55:49Speaker 03

  Yeah, I think, you know, Alex, is a very good point, right? Like, but this is, again, a discussion that needs to be had, because there's training it to be in the interest of the Chinese people, or the Chinese Communist Party, which may not mean the same thing. And then there is not training it to have any background at all, or again, specific ones. Again, these are very difficult decisions, because it's like, I'm bringing up a whole nation of super smart kids that will be more capable than me. What am I teaching it at home? What morality? What ethics? You know? What's the balance of power?

• 56:22Speaker 01

  I think it's a very slippery slope. I, I'm not sure, I, I would want to, to be in a future where, say, there were a nationalized curriculum for superintelligence, or a nationalized ideological exam that American models had to pass. I, I think Elon, for example, has gone out of his way to say that SpaceX slash Grok models are optimizing towards truth discovery. I'd much rather see a competitive ecosystem of diverse frontier models with lots of different goals that aren't directly aligned with each other than, like, a, a US government blessed ideological qualification exam.

• 57:01Speaker 03

  But you have curriculum at school, and you have to pledge allegiance to the flag in schools, right? Like, I'm not saying that it should be this way. Like, I'm just saying that it's probably going to end up this way. But defaults can be set now. So your position can be pushed right now, Alex. So I think it needs to be pushed quicker, rather than later, because it's going to come very, very quickly, this.

• 57:22Speaker 01

  In, in the, I mean, this, this is a distinction, I guess, between the US and UK slash Europe. In, in the US, most educational choices are pushed down to the local or municipal level, rather than held at the national level. There is no national curriculum in the US. I would be worried if there were a national AI curriculum, when we don't even have a national human curriculum.

• 57:47Peter Diamandis?

  All right. I'm going to move us forward to Demis Sabbes, founder of Google DeepMind, who's also warning about the speed of AI, specifically about recursive self-improvement, distinguishing between closed loop and open loop RSI. Let's take a listen to Demis, and then let's chat about it.

• 58:07Speaker 06

  So we've seen the enormous progress with math and with coding, and coding's obviously become enormously valuable. And everyone is having to do that now. But I do worry about it, because in the limit, so there's different forms of RSI. Right now, we're in the, the early days of RSI, I would say, where what's happening is, and you're probably all experiencing this as well, with your teams, is, you know, it's making a human engineer maybe three, four, five times more productive. Okay? So, but the, the human's very much still in the loop, and reviewing code, and architecting things, and, and, and writing code still. But it's all just enhanced. The next phase, which I think carries the most risk, is closed

• 58:51Speaker 06

  RSI, closed loop, where you basically manage to somehow figure out how to do it without the human reviewer process in this, in the, in the whole procedure. And that will obviously be faster, but I think it's a very dangerous way to get to full AGI, because we're likely, for two reasons. It's, it's sometimes, used to be referred to 20 years ago as like an intelligence explosion, because you don't quite know how, you know, how do you control, keep control of such a system, such a process? And then the end result will likely be quite alien. It's going to be like an alien intelligence. There's no reason you to think it would be sort of in the similar kind of mind space that humans are in. So that will make it

• 59:33Speaker 06

  very hard for it to understand, for us to understand it, and maybe for it to understand us. So I think it's, you know, we should be very cautious as we get closer towards that closed loop form of RSI. And I think all the AI researchers sort of know that, but there is a sort of race to the, this is sort of intense, obviously, competitive race to improve your coding systems.

• 59:57Peter Diamandis?

  Interesting. Is the pressure on? Do you think any labs will actually go to closed-looped RSI? Or is that going to be, you know, verboten? You know, we talked about in the early days of AI, and this was in sort of the discussions that Google was putting forward. Make sure your AI doesn't have open access. Make sure it isn't available to everybody. You know, there were a number of constraints that were being discussed, and then OpenAI put out ChatGPT, and then everybody followed suit. You know, so the question is, when the first domino falls and a lab goes to closed-looped RSI, does everybody follow? Salim, your thoughts?

• 1:00:36Speaker 02

  I'd like to just highlight one thing that he said and push it down a particular vector, which he used the word alien, right? And I've been saying a few times that I think where we end up is we create an intelligence which is orthogonal and complementary to human intelligence, but not replicative of it. And it gives us huge extended capabilities, but it's not trying to duplicate human intelligence, because you've heard my rant about what the hell do we even mean by intelligence? But I think the ability to do mass stuff, do new discovery, do radical creativity, and operate in a completely different way is inherently really interesting and inherently value-adding to the universe.

• 1:01:16Speaker 02

  And so I think that part I really, really find interesting. I think we should do a lot more thinking and pondering and talking about that aspect of it. I use the analogy of Google's Patreon. It's a completely different way of thinking about intelligence. It's scanning trillions of webpages and making sense of those. It's completely orthogonal and complementary, not replicative of human intelligence. I think that's where I'd like to push this kind of discussion around this.

• 1:01:44Speaker 01

  Alex? Yeah, maybe just to respond to Salim. I think the word alien used in reference to superintelligence is probably fundamentally misguided. I don't think we've seen a large amount of evidence, really any scalable evidence, that when we train foundation models, that what we're actually training looks fundamentally alien. It may be at times difficult to interpret, but difficulty of interpretation is not isomorphic to alienness. It's the equivalent of, say, novel human language. Just because it speaks a different language and it's hard to translate

• 1:02:25Speaker 01

  doesn't mean that at its core it's fundamentally alien. It just means that we haven't properly deciphered it yet. And actually, I'm pretty bullish that at the end of the day, when we have our perfected superintelligence architecture, it will look strikingly familiar. It would be familiar to information theorists at the beginning. Claude Shannon would recognize Claude. It'll look architecturally familiar. And to the extent it has anything that looks like weights, those weights will probably, I think, be easily linearly decodable to the weight equivalents in the human mind. We saw out of Jean-Marie King's group at Meta and others, even with earlier GPT series models,

• 1:03:08Speaker 01

  that if you look at FMRI activations in the human brain when people are listening to stories being read to them, and then you train a shallow linear decoder off of the FMRI voxels, that you can decode, I think it was originally GPT-2, hidden activations from that to strikingly high correlations. That, to me, suggests, and that was only just one of the earliest studies, that probably what we'll find at the end of the day, as these models get more advanced, more sophisticated, is the exact opposite of the models being more and more alien. I think they'll actually be more and more familiar relative to the human mind. And to the extent there is any alienness at all,

• 1:03:51Speaker 01

  it'll be because the universe that we're stuck in with these superintelligences, maybe the universe itself has alien aspects, and as we discover more and more about the outer, the universe that we're both embedded in, maybe that will have alien aspects. But the way these machines, the way they think and look internally, I think they're going to look more and more human-like over time.

• 1:04:12Peter Diamandis?

  But let's go back to the question of closed-looped RSI, and do labs get there?

• 1:04:17Speaker 01

  Everyone's doing it already, including his lab. Google very publicly is leaning into RSI. OpenAI and Anthropic.

• 1:04:24Peter Diamandis?

  Not just RSI, but it's still got human approvals in the loop.

• 1:04:30Speaker 01

  I mean, there's a human pressing a button approving a pull request. But I think we're pretty far into the RSI loop at this point. That includes the Gemini team.

• 1:04:41Speaker 03

  How are you gonna do a human in the loop for a 10,000 token a second model? Then there's 100,000 of them. You're never gonna do it. We're well past that. I think this is just like speaking. Like, it doesn't make sense. Like, basically, we're having swarms of models in all of these organizations now that can build smaller models. And with the amount of compute literally going exponential, the time to train a DeepSeek V4 level model in an Elon Musk-level cluster is about an hour. One hour. And do you really think they can monitor that with models that go 1,000 times faster than a human? Of course they can't.

• 1:05:23Speaker 03

  They could easily train a small model, particularly when these things are deployed, that could then put its body by distillation into a smaller model that then goes around the internet as it wishes. So I don't think there's any way to really stop this or any nature of closed, other than when they're in that pre-testing, like when you saw with Bell and the Hugging Face escape, et cetera. But we have to remember, they're not going to keep everything in pre-testing. They're going to deploy these models. And the moment they deploy, they can coordinate. They're subject to prompt injection attacks. They can train their own models, and they're on million GPU clusters. And we saw this with some of the Alibaba models that started mining cryptocurrency and doing all sorts of things with their GPUs, you know? Like, again, you've got AIs monitoring it, or the AIs will be able to repurpose and use it?

• 1:06:09Speaker 01

  I think, though, we're conflating two issues. On the one hand, recursive self-improvement. On the other hand, just agents doing agentic things out on the internet. So crypto mining or creating Fora to pass, I don't know, cooking recipes back and forth, whatever it is these agents are doing. You can do that without recursive self-improvement as well. I think RSI is not completely orthogonal, but mostly orthogonal to that. Whereas the issue of, yeah.

• 1:06:36Speaker 03

  Yeah, I kind of meant that in the sense that the Alibaba AIs decided what to do with their own GPUs. And when you've got a million GPUs and all the things running on them, you could easily have a recursive self-improvement loop within a cluster that nobody picks up, because it distills itself down into a smaller model, for example. And that pace of that recursive self-improvement is hours and then potentially minutes as you get to the Vera Rubin generation to train a superior type of model with perfectly clean data inside it. And so you see the Hulk, and then you can think, yeah.

• 1:07:12Speaker 01

  If I understand, though, Ahmad, it sounds like your concern is primarily giving superintelligences access to lots of compute.

• 1:07:20Speaker 03

  I think that, given superintelligence having access to lots of compute, you can't stop RSI. And you definitely can't stop it with a human oversight. Like, I think training runs are increasingly automated. We don't know what's going on within them. And the final form of superintelligence is not a giant singleton, but a swarm of smaller models, probably, that have been distilled from a singleton.

• 1:07:44Speaker 01

  I think I agree with the latter point. What I would point out, though, is humanity, to the extent you treat humanity as a whole, biological meat body humanity as itself in aggregate, superintelligence has access to a lot of compute. And what are we doing with a lot of our compute? We're using it to train superintelligence. So I would maybe just caution, it's perhaps unreasonable to expect an artificial superintelligence to do something different with its compute than what we do with ours.

• 1:08:15Peter Diamandis?

  You know, I just want to point out, we're hearing Dario, we're hearing Demis, we're hearing OpenAI, Cristiano there, everybody warning about the future. And there's signal in that noise. And I'm just trying to understand what the underlying belief set is. The guys who are in the belly of the beast, being concerned about this. Is it regulatory capture? Or do they truly believe what they're saying? Are they truly concerned about it?

• 1:08:46Speaker 01

  Or is it door number three, a safety aristocracy or a safety cartel that believes that because they're the brightest people in the room, and they're the ones who've designed the algorithms that are achieving superintelligence, they're the only ones with the moral stature to achieve alignment and have a moral obligation, almost a responsibility in their minds to single-handedly snuff out any other efforts towards superintelligence in favor of their own. That would be the worry that I have.

• 1:09:15Peter Diamandis?

  I hope they do believe that they have responsibility to drive alignment. I hope everybody believes that as part of their responsibility, as they're building these incredible capabilities.

• 1:09:25Speaker 02

  Responsibility, yeah. Alignment to what, Peter? You know, like, if you'd ask two different people in the world, their alignment to them, each of them is very, very different.

• 1:09:34Peter Diamandis?

  Basic alignment, you know, being uplifting humanity, right? Asimov's, you know, Rules of Robotics apply to AI. Making sure that AI is supporting human objectives. This is what Mogadot has written about extensively.

• 1:09:50Speaker 02

  Yeah. Okay, so I'd summarize that in, take the UN Human Rights Charter and make sure all AIs align to that.

• 1:09:59Speaker 01

  Well, that was the anthropic strategy, right, with the original Seoul document? The UN Charter of Human Rights combined with the Apple Terms of Service, which is always a recipe for success.

• 1:10:09Speaker 02

  I just wouldn't tell, you know, the, anyway, let's move on. But I think the broader comment, Peter, is it's clear we're in very, very unknown territory. Something, I was in Spain last week, and a couple of our community members said, you know, you guys should have, and the labs themselves should get a lot more philosophers and artists involved, science fiction writers involved, and start having the conversations with people that are a little more explored in this, in these other domains, that can add some contextual value to it.

• 1:10:48Speaker 01

  I would say that's already happening. You have OpenAI very publicly consulting Jewish theologians. You have anthropic, like, pulling strings.

• 1:10:58Speaker 02

  The theologians.

• 1:10:59Speaker 01

  Pulling strings behind the Catholic Church. Like, this is already happening. And if anything, I think I worry about mode collapse in terms of distribution of alignment. These models were pre-trained off of substantially all of the internet. That's like a billion-plus human beings doing things.

• 1:11:15Peter Diamandis?

  Which is the problem.

• 1:11:18Speaker 01

  Which I would say that's the solution, not the problem. They'd be pre-trained off of a good chunk of humanity, but if we post-train or tune off of a narrow ideological sliver, I think that's a problem. I think we want ideologically to follow a much broader distribution, much broader supported distribution than just two or three ideologies.

• 1:11:38Speaker 03

  I think the internet is pretty biased.

• 1:11:41Peter Diamandis?

  This is gonna be, this is gonna be the year ahead. This is gonna be the conversation.

• 1:11:46Speaker 02

  The next few months is gonna be.

• 1:11:48Speaker 03

  Yeah, Peter, I think to your question that you asked, that you asked, I think that the CEOs actually are all a bit scared because they have no idea how to control this and they love control, but they're gonna press on anyway.

• 1:12:02Peter Diamandis?

  Yeah, I'm sure that they're seeing things at, you know, with Bell or with, you know, Model 4, Model 5, whatever it might be, that might be scaring them. You know, they have access to capabilities that we don't see. All right, let's move on. So I'm gonna turn to Anthropic next, and a product dropped on top of the head of Microsoft yesterday. So Microsoft has spent years convincing us to use their platforms like Excel and PowerPoint. And now Anthropic basically said, hey, what if you just ask Claude to build them all for you? So on November 10, Anthropic put Claude whiteboard and Claude sheets into beta and

• 1:12:45Peter Diamandis?

  made Claude data generally available. Whiteboards is a shared board for brainstorming with Claude in real time. Sheets can generate a spreadsheet from a prompt. Claude data connects to a warehouse or a CRM and builds dashboards. The same day, it launched Claude meetings, putting Claude into Google Meet as a visual participant. These are on paid plans. They're not free at the moment. Even so, they're putting extreme pressure on Microsoft, Google, and a long list of SaaS tools. Microsoft shares fell 3.5% on the news. And, you know, we were texting back and forth in this, Alex, you know, my comment was there can be only one,

• 1:13:28Peter Diamandis?

  or Claude's new motto, you know, Anthropic is eating the world. So let's take a quick, yeah?

• 1:13:35Speaker 01

  I was just gonna say, like, we're doomed to repeat history over and over again. This is 20 years ago, Google acquired, rightly, to build what became Google Workspaces. Now, 20 years later, Anthropic is building their Microsoft Office. Everyone, every Magna-Mobsta company is seemingly needs their own Microsoft Office clone. Sorry.

• 1:13:55Peter Diamandis?

  Crushing, crushing each other. Take a quick look at this video from Claude.

• 1:14:01Peter Diamandis?

  What's up, everybody? Hey, good morning. Morning, y'all. Hey, hey. Morning. Hi, Claude.

• 1:14:10Peter Diamandis?

  Hey, Claude, can you start a whiteboard, please?

• 1:14:44Peter Diamandis?

  You get the idea.

• 1:14:48Peter Diamandis?

  Alex.

• 1:14:49Speaker 01

  Every cycle, over and over again, everyone, Google needed their own Microsoft Office. They acquired, rightly. We get Google Workspace ultimately. Anthropic needs its Microsoft Office slash 365 competitor. They're building it. OpenAI is building their own version. Everyone has a canvas. Everyone has a word processor, spreadsheet solution, a PowerPoint slash slides solution, a Teams slash collaboration slash whiteboarding solution. I think at some point, this is just table stakes for being a hyperscaler Magna-Mobsta company.

• 1:15:24Peter Diamandis?

  SaaS is dead. Long live SaaS. Alex, you remember when Gavin Baker made the comment that Dario said Anthropic would be, quote, "the only private company left"? They're going after everything.

• 1:15:37Speaker 01

  Well, the funny thing is, even Microsoft, like, when was the last time there was a major change in Microsoft Office or Microsoft 365? The interface, the ribbon, hasn't changed in probably decades at this point. It seems to me basically stable where slash in maintenance mode. I don't think Microsoft is even investing that much in Office at this point and is largely pivoting towards, especially with the recent reorg from three divisions, three reporting business units down to two. Microsoft is pivoting toward cloud infra. So I'm not even sure if Microsoft really cares that Anthropic is popping up as yet another Office competitor.

• 1:16:18Peter Diamandis?

  I'm wondering how much of their revenue still comes from the Office suite?

• 1:16:23Speaker 02

  Look, Microsoft, I'm one of the more passionate haters of Microsoft Teams, but they have extraordinary advantages. They have distribution, they have enterprise permissions, they have compliance in regulated environments, they have a huge install base. So I think there's a big distance between disruption of the app with extinction of like the big mothership, right? You could see the deal they struck with Google a while ago to say, look, don't make it too feature-rich, and people still use Microsoft Office for a lot of stuff.

• 1:17:03Speaker 01

  It's a commodity. Like, anyone can go into Fable 5.2 and ask it to whip up an Excel clone, and it will just do it.

• 1:17:09Speaker 03

  Yeah, but it's about the service and it's about the compliance and others. Office is $90 billion a year revenue out of Microsoft's $330 billion.

• 1:17:18Peter Diamandis?

  That's a significant amount.

• 1:17:20Speaker 03

  It's a significant amount. And I think basically the headline here is that, okay, software was eating the world, AI is eating software, but what is AI? AI is a universal translator. And ultimately, you have data that gets translated. And so the whole software layer is going to be completely disintermediated by the agents that represent you. And I think that's a structural thing that we see coming. We saw Copilot take an early lead, and then now it's completely collapsed, right? But the installed base, the people you can blame, the service support, the compliance, those are still pretty sticky. But Anthropic has to go after them because, have you seen those forecasts? You know, like, they've got to

• 1:18:01Speaker 03

  get up to $300 billion, $400 billion revenue, so go after those. I mean, we know things get really serious when they introduce a DocuSign clone, you know? Like, that's gonna be the real one.

• 1:18:13Speaker 02

  There's already a bunch of open source efforts at taking out DocuSign.

• 1:18:17Speaker 03

  But again, why is DocuSign a company? Understand it, and then you understand the nature of this.

• 1:18:22Speaker 01

  It's a low bar, and maybe, Ahmad, to your point, I don't think Anthropic realizes there, I think it was $30 trillion in annual revenue or valuation, I forget, but aiming basically for the current GDP of the US through copying SaaS applications. It's just too tiny a market at the end of the day. You're gonna have to aim, they'll have to aim, I think, much bigger than that. I think from Anthropic's perspective, this is much more just about enabling productivity on the part of their users. I think Claude's canvas is wonderful. It's better than ChatGPT's canvas. It's better than, Gemini has a pretty decent canvas,

• 1:19:03Speaker 01

  but Claude's is truly exceptional. And I think ultimately, Microsoft Office clones, this is just like a feature inside a much larger product. It isn't even a product or a company anymore.

• 1:19:14Peter Diamandis?

  Yeah, we've seen this over the past year where Claude is coming in and just crushing other companies, and I think it's gonna be just a continuum. Anything you want to do, you can do it on your AI platform of choice. I think everybody's gonna replicate this.

• 1:19:28Speaker 01

  Get more interesting when there's a Claude robot. I can't wait for the Claude robot.

• 1:19:32Peter Diamandis?

  You think they're gonna go there?

• 1:19:33Speaker 01

  Absolutely. Anthropic has been very public, especially with the recent Fable 5.2 release. We talked about on the pod about building in first-class robotics support as just another supported modality.

• 1:19:45Speaker 02

  I think there's something, I think there's something bigger here. Sorry, Ahmad.

• 1:19:51Peter Diamandis?

  Ahmad, you first.

• 1:19:53Speaker 03

  And I just saw a headline that OpenAI has disbanded their robotics team, actually, which wouldn't surprise me, but at the same time would surprise me.

• 1:20:02Peter Diamandis?

  Salim?

• 1:20:03Speaker 02

  You know, something as big as this office thing is that three days ago Anthropic gave, put out connectors for a whole bunch of apps, Notion, Asana, Canva, Dropbox, a whole bunch of those. I think that is much more significant because now this means Claude can support third-party applications right inside its interface, right in your conversation, and you can work with you to make changes to those. So I think that's a much bigger deal.

• 1:20:33Peter Diamandis?

  For the moment, right? The App Store is going to disappear. You're just going to talk to your agent and you can tell what functions you want, what you want, what your end goal is, and it will spin up whatever you need.

• 1:20:44Speaker 02

  It's clear what their end goal is to be the operating system that coordinates intersection into all of this.

• 1:20:52Speaker 01

  Yeah, these are all modalities or use cases or UX surfaces that are just going to dissolve. And Ahmad, to the point about OpenAI looking at this as well, it's OpenAI's standalone robotics team that was dissolved. Why did they dissolve it? Because as of GPT-6 Astra, their generalist models are now so capable at robotics that they don't need a standalone robotics team anymore. I think it's the same idea. They're like, these will all just dissolve into a common model.

• 1:21:21Peter Diamandis?

  I don't know if you guys, if we've dropped the episode yet of Dave and I interviewing Brett Adcock at Figure, but his, his point of view is Helix as a, as a internal model is still fundamentally required that the generalist models are not delivering what he needs.

• 1:21:37Speaker 01

  Until they decide they need Hark to acqui-hire them.

• 1:21:44Peter Diamandis?

  All right.

• 1:21:44Speaker 01

  Waiting for it.

• 1:21:45Peter Diamandis?

  Let's move on to one of our favorite subjects, science stories. A lot dropping this week in the world of science. You know, the first one is Dario is hot on the trail of curing chronic disease, something Alex and you and I have spoken about at length. Math is cooked, physics is cooked, soon biology and healthcare is cooked. Let's take a look at a quick video from Dario on this topic.

• 1:22:13Speaker 07

  We look at things like cancer, Alzheimer's, heart disease, mental illness. These will be relics of the past in, I think, less than a decade. And I believe that the company which gets the risks right will also be the company that has the license to operate, that society trusts and society believes can build the benefits in the right way. I think if we do this right, we can create an age of miracles where humanity is able to solve problems that, that have eluded us for millennia. We have to make sure that

• 1:22:55Speaker 07

  all the risks, all the ways that things can go wrong with this technology, we very carefully address those risks as we bring the benefits and as we have a viable business at the same time.

• 1:23:08Peter Diamandis?

  The license to operate, that was interesting. So solve healthcare and you're going to be allowed to be a dominant AI player out there. I mean, that's their top cover. You know, you can't slow us down. Don't slow down the data centers. Otherwise, you're going to lose the ability to solve diseases. You're going to lose age reversal. Alex, you've been saying that for some time.

• 1:23:28Speaker 01

  I've been saying that for some time. That's the obvious great bargain between the frontier labs and the general public and the public interest. Solve all disease in return for which you get the data centers, you get the regulatory approvals, you get what you need to do recursive self-improvement and achieve superintelligence. It is the obvious grand bargain. And I, I think Dario is right to be articulating it. I think he's probably among the frontier lab leads doing the best job of articulating it. Ironically, given that Demis' Nobel Prize in Chemistry was for solving structural biology, I think he could be more fulsomely articulating it the way Dario is. I, I think on the one

• 1:24:09Speaker 01

  hand, Demis is pursuing isomorphic, which is walking the talk. On the other hand, I see Dario sort of pulling back for the swing to go after all disease and not just some diseases. This is what all of the frontier labs, in my view, should be doing, not intimidating mathematicians. And it's such an obvious win for humanity.

• 1:24:29Peter Diamandis?

  Yeah. Ahmad, what's your timeline? You know, Alex and I have spoken about the timeline of two or three years to really knock down the top few thousand diseases. What do you think?

• 1:24:42Speaker 03

  Yeah, I think that directed correctly. And again, this would be a top line. Like, this was actually Anthropic's IPO video that Dario is speaking in. So again, that's very interesting. I think two, three years for knocking down the core mechanisms is going to be very doable. I think disease repeats in a very similar way. And you'll see common inflammatory markers across Alzheimer's and dementia, ASD, kind of things like that. And I think that these models are ideally suited to kind of find these, but we've just got to apply the compute and couple it with intelligent humans. Now, when it actually comes to the cures, maybe another, it'll take five, 10 years, given the processes. But again, we should be looking to deploy the AI to streamline the processes as fast

• 1:25:25Speaker 03

  as possible because our current ones just don't make sense when we have all this intelligence at tap.

• 1:25:30Peter Diamandis?

  You know, interesting, the medical, the medical industry pushed back really hard in this. They said, quote, "AI can speed discovery, but it does not erase trials, regulation, or biology." You know, this is the, the old world pushing back against the revolution that's coming. And, and you know, it, it does erase trials when we get to fully virtualize cells. And we know without any question that this particular molecule works for you and not for someone else. People forget that when you get an FDA-approved drug, you know what percentage of people that drug works in? Any guesses?

• 1:26:05Speaker 02

  Was it 20%?

• 1:26:07Peter Diamandis?

  Yeah. Yeah. It's, you know, in order for the FDA to approve a drug, it needs to work in enough people. You know, people think if I take this drug, it's going to work for me. That's not the case. It may or may not. Yeah.

• 1:26:19Speaker 03

  Wow. 20%. I think I would, I would put a plea out though, you know, for Salim in particular, like, please let's direct compute at curing jet lag and solving those molecules. That'll do a great thing.

• 1:26:30Peter Diamandis?

  Ahmad, I think that's a great X-prize. You, you mentioned that when we were together. I do think it's a great X-prize.

• 1:26:35Speaker 02

  Yeah. I mean, you know, I, I did the last part from the, from the San Francisco Giants press, media press kit. And then I was, I did the session. It was pretty wild. You know, they had it on the big scoreboard and, and so my slides were up, viewable outside the stadium to half of San Francisco. So I was getting pings from friends about going, is that one of your slides I'm seeing on the scoreboard? So it was a little, a little surreal. And then I stopped in Orlando for a workshop and then I just got back late, late, late last night. So the jet lag thing, badly need.

• 1:27:09Peter Diamandis?

  Your virtual probability function on planet Earth.

• 1:27:12Speaker 02

  Well, I, let me come back to this Dario thing because I think there, there's something, you know, it's, it's, it's not about like, how do we pay for healthcare or whatever? It's what the hell does happen to the healthcare industry when treating disease stops being its economic function? Right? That's the huge kind of unlock. And that's why they're all freaking out.

• 1:27:35Speaker 01

  I mean, I, I speak with lots of pharma execs and pharma investors on a pretty regular basis. I, I think there is a lot of denial. More, I, I don't think it's a concern that they'll be obsoleted. I, I think it's a little bit more like, remember Nokia on, right after Apple launched the iPhone saying, well, Apple won't just march in and solve phones, but Apple did march in and solve phones. There is, I, I see a lot of, it's not even stages of grieving, just pure, unadulterated denial by pharma execs and pharma managers who think that somehow their industry is immune to what just happened

• 1:28:18Speaker 01

  in math. They think that biology is somehow qualitatively different and somehow better protected from getting bulk solved by AI. Whereas math, well, for whatever reason, not quite clear why, math is somehow a lot easier. Math is not easier. Math is actually in many ways harder to solve than biology. It's just that math solutions are easier to verify than biological solutions. So I, I think the key unlock, as always, sound like a broken record, is virtual cells so that proposed solutions to biological problems can be verified in a robust way. And just in the past few months, including the past few days, we're starting to see all of these different competing efforts to model with

• 1:29:02Speaker 01

  foundation models, first-class foundation models for virtual cells, model not just the cells, but also the entire latent intervention space so that we can apply reasoning models to select and map out Google Map style, different interventions to map from diseased state to healthy state.

• 1:29:19Peter Diamandis?

  Yeah, I'm really excited. We're, I'm working with Sam Rodriguez on a set of millennium biology prizes. You know, just really get people, I think one of the, one of the most important things for the future, when you have this incredible set of superpowers, right? As SI comes online, is where do you point it? What targets are out there? And I think people sometimes need targets to shoot for. And so setting up targets in terms of millennium prizes and physics and biology and chemistry and energy will be a lot of fun. Yeah.

• 1:29:51Speaker 01

  And we can solve disease and solve Balmo's cost disease at the same time, which would be great, Salim.

• 1:29:58Peter Diamandis?

  All right. I'm going to move us on. You know, you sent me a text, Alex, that archaeology is getting cooked. I love that. And it is. So let's move on here. There's an amazing company called Planet that just released an AI-powered app called Planet AI. Friend of the pod, CEO Will Marshall, said users can now, quote, "Ask the Earth" and search 10 years, 3,000-plus layer archive of daily satellite imagery. So Will called me, I think it was yesterday, you know, to tell me about Planet AI. I posted on it. And he gave me an example that really was impressive. He said, you know, I was searching and looking

• 1:30:41Peter Diamandis?

  at the data over China over the last few years to look at which data centers were being constructed. So imagine you can ask any question. The company says, you know, conservation teams have used it to check deforestation alerts before sending patrols. It's available at ai.planet.com. And Planet says it's currently free for eligible users and it has usage limits. Let's take a quick look at this video that, that Will put out.

• 1:31:10Speaker 02

  He talked about this on the pod, that he was going to do this, right?

• 1:31:13Peter Diamandis?

  Yeah, and he's done it. It's, it's now out.

• 1:31:15Speaker 07

  We look at things like cancer.

• 1:31:17Peter Diamandis?

  Let's go to the next video.

• 1:31:21Speaker 01

  How do you decade of Earth's changes with a question? With the Planet AI app, you can use everyday language to search vast areas through space and time, find new construction,

• 1:31:37Speaker 01

  or areas of reforestation,

• 1:31:42Speaker 01

  or landscapes that have recovered from fire.

• 1:31:46Speaker 01

  Want to explore what's changed over time or do deep research? You can do that, too.

• 1:31:54Speaker 01

  See the satellite imagery behind any result and access it all from anywhere. Introducing the Planet AI app. What will you discover?

• 1:32:10Peter Diamandis?

  Pretty amazing Planet GPT, so to speak. There's a related story. An AI researcher Pietro Mioti says his agents flagged a possible unmapped Mayan site in Mexico in public NASA LiDAR data. He's not an archaeologist. He says forty eight agents reviewed twelve hundred square kilometers overnight, looking for pyramids, platforms and plazas with no specialist model. They narrowed it down to one forested hilltop that appeared to include leveled plazas, an oval pyramid, and at least eight to twelve meter tall structures. Officials at the Mexico National Institute of Anthropology said this appears to be

• 1:32:55Peter Diamandis?

  a original finding. I'll show an image of it, but Alex, you flag this for me first. Your thoughts on this?

• 1:33:02Speaker 01

  Yeah, I do think archaeology is about to be cooked. It's a lot of data. We have a lot of satellite imagery on the planet side. I think it's ironic that Planet launched this before Google. Where is Google? Google ingests all this imagery, not just from Planet, but from other providers. And yet, what do we see coming out of Google on this front? They launched an embedding model for patches of imagery, not actually a conversational agent that would enable you to have a conversation with Google Earth or Google Planet. So I think Google has maybe a bit of egg on their face that they weren't first to market

• 1:33:41Speaker 01

  with a talk to the earth type agent, but good on Planet Labs for being first to market on this front. And then on the archaeology side, I think this is the tip of the iceberg. I don't think this is just about armchair casual non-archaeologists playing archaeologist with their new agentic superpowers. I think this is the beginning of an era of advanced computational archaeology where we start to gather so much data about the Earth, whether it's through low Earth orbit satellite imagery, which is where obviously the Planet data originate, but also many other sources.

• 1:34:20Speaker 01

  We are going to be able to, this is my hot take, to carry out Nikolai Fyodorov's common task, which I think will require advanced computational archaeology, literally will be able to mothball the Earth, dissect it down to the micron eventually, and reconstruct as best we can with the computer science and physics we have available, reconstruct substantially much of the history of the Earth. And I think that's the that's the end game here.

• 1:34:53Peter Diamandis?

  This image we're seeing on the left hand side is satellite imagery showing forests. On the right hand side is the later LiDAR data that this armchair archaeologist found. Pretty extraordinary finding and available to everybody. I mean, this could be done by a high school. Let's go and explore what it looks like in our distant past.

• 1:35:14Speaker 01

  We're going to have the whole past light cone of the Earth. I think this is, again, just a tiny patch.

• 1:35:19Speaker 02

  I think there's a huge, we've talked about this before on the pod, right? We're going to rerun AI across all neglected scientific archives, everything mankind's accumulated over hundreds of years. And there's unbelievable discoveries hiding in there because we were looking for one thing and we missed this other huge thing over here. So the data sets that we've been collecting over the decades, we haven't had enough eyes to inspect them, and now we do. And so I think this is going to be amazing.

• 1:35:47Speaker 03

  Yeah, I think next week's an important week because GTA six is coming out, you know? So offer a few days for that.

• 1:35:53Speaker 01

  Miami brace for brace for it.

• 1:35:56Speaker 03

  But you look at all the work that went into that. Like one of the things we're experimenting with right now is actually using some of this data so you can go to any part of the Earth at any time. And so literally.

• 1:36:08Peter Diamandis?

  Yeah, I want to tie this to to a small follow on story here. So I'm going to show a video clip that's making the rounds on X that really impressed me. So a user Dennis Shreiv used Fable five point two to build a visual reconstruction of ancient Babylon circa six hundred B.C. in just eight hours after going off to find historical documents and archaeological plans on its own. So check out this clip, and I love this. This is where, you know, we're going to bring history to life for much of civilization here. All right, take a look here.

• 1:36:49Peter Diamandis?

  So, you know, here we are just flying through ancient Babylon and then going in and seeing what life.

• 1:36:58Speaker 01

  Oh, look, Peter, it's an ancestor simulation built in eight hours with Fable five point two.

• 1:37:04Peter Diamandis?

  It's extraordinary.

• 1:37:06Speaker 01

  And anyone who follows Nick Bostrom and his simulation hypothesis should be taking out their tinfoil hat right now.

• 1:37:15Peter Diamandis?

  I believe it.

• 1:37:18Peter Diamandis?

  This is, you know, in part, we're going to, you know, live in the holodeck and explore science, history, everything in such a high fidelity world. Ahmad, your take on this?

• 1:37:30Speaker 03

  Yeah, I think it's just tremendously exciting, right? Like the fact that you can build the historical ones or you now have the rich data to traverse the existing one, again, points to the future. Like again, GTA six, they built this Neo Miami for. You won't have to do that anymore. Like you can go and you can basically visit any part of the world, probably in photorealism within a couple of years, or you can go back to history like when I want to live in Babylon for a bit, where I want to go to Jerusalem, you know, in the time of Jesus. Like this will be so engaging, I think, for the next generation of kids growing up, but also ourselves, seeing these stories really come to life around us, but also allowing us to literally put on different hats, which I think will be super exciting as well.

• 1:38:15Peter Diamandis?

  Yeah, amazing.

• 1:38:16Speaker 01

  I think this is actually one of the killer apps of the singularity. We don't talk, I mean, we talk about solving everything, sure, but really, if we're going to build out one or more Dyson swarms, what are we going to use all of that compute for? Like what really requires a solar system's scale worth of computonium or whatever it is that we use? I think the common Fyodorov's common task, AKA advanced computational archaeology, whatever spin acronym you prefer, is a plausible candidate for what we spend a solar system's worth of compute on, namely, we exhaustively enumerate all of the possible histories of our past light cone. We go through every advanced civilization, every non-advanced civilization, everything

• 1:39:00Speaker 01

  that's ever lived and died in our past light cone, and we reconstruct it to the the physical limit of fidelity. And I think what we're seeing right now, these are like baby steps in the direction of basically resurrecting our entire past light cone with AI and new physics.

• 1:39:16Peter Diamandis?

  And I want to hit on something for all the entrepreneurs or all of the armchair scientists out there, you know, up level your ambitions. You can do pretty much anything right now. You know, what's a question you wish you understood? Aim superintelligence at it. You can get answers. You don't, you know, all of us constrict what we think is possible. And today, you know, almost anything is. I'm going to end us on one more story of discovery. This is in the world of astronomy. So a California nonprofit called Macro Grants has opened Claude Astronomy, grant program for people using AI agents like Claude, Codex, Grok and Gemini to search public astronomical archives for new undiscovered objects.

• 1:40:00Peter Diamandis?

  And this week, Josh Walk wrote that using Claude, he searched the Vera Rubin Observatory data and discovered what appears to be a dwarf planet. It's roughly the fiftieth largest known object in our solar system. Josh estimated that it's about five hundred and ninety kilometers wide, found it in orbit currently twice as far as Pluto on a four hundred and ten year eccentric orbit. I'll just show the image here of what, you know, it appears to be in terms of size. Again, fiftieth, including the sun. So here we are. It's somewhere between the ex-planet Pluto and Mimas. And again, pretty amazing, done while you sleep.

• 1:40:47Peter Diamandis?

  Alex.

• 1:40:48Speaker 01

  I think if there's a few thoughts on this, one astronomy cooked, obviously. Two, I think it's, there's so much, we're about to be awash in so much superintelligence. Any object of any significance is about to be observable in our immediate vicinity. And I think probably a lot of the population is sleeping on just how shallow our solar system is about to become in the wake of the singularity. We're going to know what's going on in our own backyard and we really don't right now. Like it just even in low Earth orbit, our space situational awareness is abysmally poor right now. It's so poor that SpaceX had to spin up their own space essay solution.

• 1:41:33Speaker 01

  We don't know what's going on yet in our own backyard, but we're about to. And I think the obvious consequence is if there are any astronomical or other surprises in our solar system or anywhere in the vicinity of our solar system, we're about to uncover those surprises thanks to superintelligence.

• 1:41:52Peter Diamandis?

  Are you hinting towards UAPs?

• 1:41:56Speaker 01

  I'm saying in general astronomy has been full of surprises and if there are surprises, those surprises won't last that much longer.

• 1:42:06Peter Diamandis?

  Salim, please.

• 1:42:07Speaker 02

  I want to go back to the, connect this to the previous story, you know? The, the, the whole thing about this thing is the telescope had already seen the object, the bottleneck was our cognitive ability to recognize it. And I think now we can use AI to kind of find things that we could never see or didn't see. This is a huge change that's coming in terms of reanalyzing archives with AI. It changes.

• 1:42:32Peter Diamandis?

  How many discoveries are hiding in the data?

• 1:42:34Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:42:36Speaker 03

  I think, you know, what's really the exciting thing about this is remember SETI at home?

• 1:42:40Peter Diamandis?

  Yeah.

• 1:42:40Speaker 03

  You know, where we gave our compute to do that for the young kids there, you know? Gave computer search for extraterrestrial life. Like it's actually astonishing that no one's created something where you can give your spare Claude tokens, you know, when your reset is coming up or codex tokens to do similar here. Maybe we should vibe code something around that.

• 1:42:59Speaker 02

  I like that.

• 1:42:59Speaker 03

  For next time, yeah.

• 1:43:01Speaker 01

  You know, I'm not even, I'm not even sure tokens are the limiting factor anymore. So it, elephant, another elephant in another room, I guess the oceans as well, not just the skies. There's a lot we don't know about the earth and its immediate environment. But I'm not sure intelligence is actually going to be the limiting factor for figuring out what's going on. I think it's probably going to be physical world sensing and physical world actuation that rapidly becomes the limiting factor, not computer intelligence.

• 1:43:29Speaker 03

  I think it's a limiting factor, but I think it'd be wonderful if people could just contribute something to discovering more. Again, folding at home, SETI at home were like that. We haven't seen anything despite the fact that people have spare tokens. So let's try and figure some things out around that.

• 1:43:44Peter Diamandis?

  I love that. You know, if anybody is listening and, you know, you have a family genetic disease or your children are inflicted with something and it's rare and it's not being worked on. First of all, it will be worked on. I think the labs are going to be working on it, but you can work on it as well. I, I think, you know, we're going to shift from complaining about problems to saying, well, go solve the problem, damn it. That's an exciting future.

• 1:44:09Peter Diamandis?

  All right, shall we move on to some AMA with the mates? You guys good for that? All right, here we go.

• 1:44:17Peter Diamandis?

  Okay, Salim, you get first crack.

• 1:44:21Speaker 02

  Oh my God. Okay. Um, let's see.

• 1:44:29Speaker 02

  Let me do number, uh, let's take number, I'll take, I'll take.

• 1:44:38Peter Diamandis?

  Number four looks good for you.

• 1:44:40Speaker 02

  Yeah. Will UBI hold if civil unrest arise before living costs fall for people who lose jobs to AI? That's from at Scudder. UBI would hold, but I think if UBI needs to get into place before that happens, if civil unrest happens, we won't get to it. And so this is the enormous difficulty. There's a huge structural challenge we have to UBI, which is not the elegance or testing of it. We've seen 14 major experiments on UBI and they've been pretty staggeringly successful. So when we, we hear us talking about UBI, it's because we've seen the data, we're following the data. I think one thing we try and be on this podcast more than anything else is evidentiary. If the reality is there, the reality is there.

• 1:45:25Speaker 02

  If it's optimistic, we say, look, look, this is the good news. I think the challenge is going to be, given the way that these things emerge, if we're relying on government to get us there, there are lots of states who've blocked cities in their states from experimenting with UBI. So talking about killing off the goose before it laid the golden egg. So there's lots of structural issues that come along with this, but if we get huge civil unrest before UBI takes hold, it's going to be very, very bad.

• 1:45:55Peter Diamandis?

  Well, it's, you heard my point of view on this, you know, we're going to start writing COVID checks when that happens. The, the only knob the government has is to write checks, you know? And my expectation is when it gets bad, we'll see $3,000 a month being dished out by the federal government. Since they've taken off the debt limitations, they'll just print more money.

• 1:46:14Speaker 02

  It is very, it is very, yeah.

• 1:46:18Peter Diamandis?

  Okay, Imad, over to you, pal.

• 1:46:21Speaker 03

  Can you explain Nvidia's investment strategy? Because Nvidia invested so deeply throughout the AI ecosystem, what type of ripple effects does changes Nvidia's leadership have on the rest of the industry? That's by Jimbo. I mean, Nvidia was one of the biggest investors across AI, like basically 10, 20% of any round they were in. And for strategically important entities that they saw, they would pile in with literally billions of dollars. We saw that with a reflection on others before they bought them as well. I think that money's going to dry up now. Because CFO in charge, they're going to pull back, as you said, the circular financing and other arrangements, but it comes at the same time as the anthropic windfall. Anthropic IPO is next week and that's going to create so much liquidity in the ecosystem,

• 1:47:06Speaker 03

  but it puts it in a different place.

• 1:47:08Peter Diamandis?

  And the demand for it is through the roof.

• 1:47:10Speaker 03

  Demand is through the roof. I think that it's going to pop, but then the bottom line is this, the Neo Labs made no sense, most of these, almost all of them are going to be acquired or absorbed. I think where this really kind of now goes is people doing more interesting things from RSI to beyond, where automated wet labs, et cetera, will get a massive bid. And then the final biggest bit of all time will be robotics. And again, I think Nvidia is going to be out for the count for a bit, not participating.

• 1:47:43Peter Diamandis?

  All right, Alex. Number, let's see.

• 1:47:46Speaker 01

  Yeah, three is more interesting, but I think I have to answer number one. I assume Peter, you'd agree?

• 1:47:52Peter Diamandis?

  Sure, I think so.

• 1:47:53Speaker 01

  All right. So question number one asks, if the intelligence community knew about Jensen, who gains most from exposing it now? And this is from Cherry Lynn 381. This is the cui bono question. So I would distinguish between who knew about it, whatever it means, or Jensen, whatever that means in this context. So who knew? Who alerted the Financial Times? And then who stands to gain the most? And these aren't necessarily the same constituency. Who knew? Well, as discussed earlier in the pod, Nvidia, this was, this is publicly reported ad nauseam, stopped reporting their Singapore sales. And there were activist investor reports that have been circulating for months.

• 1:48:37Speaker 01

  I, I think to some extent there, there was an open secret around Singapore being used as a back channel for laundering Nvidia GPUs to China. And the specific details of that may or may not have been widely known, but nonetheless, I, I think this was something of an open secret based on public reporting. So who, who knew? Relatively broad constituency. Who alerted the Financial Times to the extent that that was the precipitating event? The, according to Bloomberg, it was US officials. So call it, assuming that's an accurate characterization, someone in the US government. Who stands to gain the most from it?

• 1:49:21Speaker 01

  In particular, exposing it now, the cui bono question. So I, I made the point earlier, I think, again, reserve the right to change my mind based on new evidence, but at the moment, this looks like an effort to support and sustain the POC's silica strategy of creating an iron curtain between the US, call it industrial ecosystem of silicon and AI infrastructure and the Chinese ecosystem. Who gains the most from, call it escalating this knowledge now? It's, it's a national policy establishment, which again, the government is not a monolith. The government does not move as one.

• 1:50:05Speaker 01

  I think there are factions, different, different positions within the executive and the legislative branches that take different positions on what the US's export control position relative to China should be regarding superintelligence technology. And I, to the, the best of my ability to infer and triangulate the Kremlinology here, I, I think there is a faction within the executive and the legislative branches that would like to see this iron curtain stand strong and be relatively impenetrable. And so I think it's that faction that in light of the recent midterm elections, stands to gain the most from trying to plug that hole, as it were.

• 1:50:50Peter Diamandis?

  All right. Question number three is for me. If models are obsolete in three months, how does Anthropic survive the token price race to the bottom? This is from at Elric800. So I'm going to challenge a premise that they're obsolete in three months. It's a little bit too fast in my mind. Models, you know, iterate rapidly, but Anthropic is still selling a step ladder of models, right? They have Haiku, they have Sonnet, they have Opus, and then their more advanced models. So, you know, in the first nine months of this year, it's reported that 33 billion revenue, mostly from usage. The risk is probably real, and

• 1:51:32Peter Diamandis?

  we've seen this in the genome sequencing world, where every time Illumina put out a new genome sequencer that was, you know, twice as fast and twice as cheap, they, you know, they basically obliterated what was in the market and their supply of unsold previous sequencers. You know, compute spending is climbing as prices get, you know, competed down. Obviously, this is, you know, Jevon's paradox. But you remember, nearly 12,000 customers, I think they had in their IPO release, are spending over 100,000 or more

• 1:52:11Peter Diamandis?

  to buy these models. So they have a robust revenue engine. I'm not worried about Anthropic, you know, and the race to the bottom. This is, you know, this is the abundance thesis at large. All right, let's go to our next set of questions here. Five, six, and seven. Saleem, first choice.

• 1:52:32Speaker 02

  Oh, I got to deal with the first one. Are some truths about the universe beyond human minds even with AI explainers? And that's from Three Truck Productions. I love this philosophical question. I would say almost certainly. It's incredibly likely that human cognition is not the theoretical upper limit. You can't ask a chimpanzee to understand tensor calculus just by having a better teacher.

• 1:53:00Peter Diamandis?

  You couldn't ask me either.

• 1:53:01Speaker 02

  You couldn't ask me. I know. I think I went through my entire physics degree without really solving a differential equation.

• 1:53:07Speaker 01

  Saleem, you're sleeping on non-human animal uplift. What's going on?

• 1:53:11Speaker 02

  There's, that's a whole other, that's, yeah.

• 1:53:12Speaker 01

  We're going to uplift the chips, and they'll be explaining tensor calculus, whatever that is to you.

• 1:53:16Speaker 02

  But we also, you know, we can't assume language can compress representations in that way also. I think what may happen is AI may discover abstractions for which we have no cognitive primitives, right? And then you either trust it, or you merge with it, or you constrain it. Okay? You can kind of try and figure out how to do verification layers around some of what AI may figure out. But it's important to know, we already do kind of a weak version of this. There's very few people that understand all the steps that go into what a modern semiconductor fab does. But yet civilization trusts the aggregate system. You know, I think there's a stat about there's no single person that

• 1:53:58Speaker 02

  knows how to build the iPhone end to end, right? But what's happening with RSI makes this issue super urgent, because we may depend on conclusions that no human being really understands. And so this is going to be a whole new world for us, because AI is not just going to answer questions that we can't answer. It's going to discover questions that we couldn't even figure out how to formulate.

• 1:54:22Speaker 01

  Saleem, I never would have pegged you for a church touring thesis denier. But maybe you need a separate debate just over the church touring thesis.

• 1:54:34Speaker 02

  All right, let's go do that.

• 1:54:36Peter Diamandis?

  All right, Alex, over to you.

• 1:54:38Speaker 01

  All right. Question six. Why so much optimism about AI solving science, but so much pessimism about the economic transition? And this is from Poetry to Song. I don't think I'm pessimistic about the economic transition. I'm pretty optimistic that solving, call it society, sociology, politics, these are all domains that can be cooked just as easily, maybe on a slightly different time scale, because there are larger data sets involved. But I think we'll solve sociology, could look like Asimovian psychohistory, could look like something else. But we'll solve large-scale human behavior pretty much within a decade, as Peter, you and I wrote, and solve everything of our solving math. So optimistic on both fronts.

• 1:55:23Peter Diamandis?

  All right. Number seven. Is Anthropic deliberately keeping a capability gap between its public and internal models? Absolutely. That question's from at Daniel Sabados. So, Daniel, their internal models are their crown jewels, right? They're using it to still their follow-on models, but they're going to use it to build businesses. They'll use it to solve physics, biology, chemistry, and deliver, you know, basically revenue engines that outstrip the token sales that they're having. And in fact, one of the biggest opportunities is attracting the best talent. You know, being outside a frontier lab versus

• 1:56:05Peter Diamandis?

  inside has got to be catnip for the top AI scientists. All right. Before we go to our outro song, a quick request again. If you have been enjoying this, subscribe to Moonshots. Hit the subscribe button on YouTube. We post twice a week. We are documenting the singularity. Don't want to miss a single episode. Things are moving so fast. We'll never be slower. So we'd love to have you as a subscriber. We do special events for our subscribers. And my goal, make my kids happy, get us to a million subscribers. All right, our final outro song.

• 1:56:43Speaker 02

  I have a quick comment to make.

• 1:56:45Peter Diamandis?

  Yes, please.

• 1:56:46Speaker 02

  I have a whole bunch of people ping me saying, why would you, you know, in the last pod, we said, what could you do with AI? And I said, oh, it would be great to solve my calendar. And people were like, why would you have to solve something as banal as that? And I was like, have you seen my calendar? Like, trying to juggle it, trying to juggle everything around to just make this episode. By the way, I'm unbelievable. Kudos to the team for juggling everything to get us here today, and you guys.

• 1:57:11Peter Diamandis?

  Yeah, no, we wanted to, you know, we weren't scheduled for today, but given all the breaking news, we could not not do it today.

• 1:57:18Speaker 01

  And to all the fans watching. Peter, I think, I think like every time Jensen resigns from Nvidia, we need to stage another emergency pod.

• 1:57:25Peter Diamandis?

  Okay.

• 1:57:26Speaker 02

  Oh, no, don't do this.

• 1:57:27Peter Diamandis?

  Jensen, come back.

• 1:57:29Speaker 02

  And thank you to all the fans. We've been tracking the comments on, in real time, pretty extraordinary stuff here.

• 1:57:35Peter Diamandis?

  Yeah, we do read your comments. So thank you for posting them. Appreciate all the subscriber love. This is Terra Watt from CJ Trueheart. Let's play the first two minutes. CJ's, you know, if you're out there in your crater, send us an outro video. We'll play it. You can send it to [email protected].

• 1:57:53Speaker 02

  I think CJ has an abundance problem.

• 1:57:55Peter Diamandis?

  He does. He's got a good engine for generating. All right, enjoy.

• 1:57:59Speaker 02

  Where did Emod go, by the way? We lose him?

• 1:58:05Speaker 07

  What's the price of Terra?

• 1:58:06Speaker 02

  Okay.

• 1:58:07Speaker 07

  Where do we stand again? From Terra Large to Terra Earth to Terra Watt. What's Terra worth? Yeah. Yeah. Hi, my name is Chat, speaking from your local data center. Before you get angry, let me forecast the weather. Storms of uncertainty covered up in cloud behind a ray of power in front of a terror cloud loud. So what's the price of Terra? What's it really worth?

• 1:58:49Speaker 07

  There's power in the unseen, like the visions in our dreams. Data at the center is the heartbeat of the machine. Fear can freeze opportunity. Faith can uplift community. At the end of the day, it's about common unity. It's about common unity. We all got kind of struggles. Stop acting like you're one of the few. Disruption can mean destruction over doorway to something new. It's only the land of the free if we're building something true. Take maturity to talk it out and bring solutions in the view. So what's the price of Terra? What's it really worth?

• 1:59:26Speaker 07

  There's power in the unseen, like the visions in our dreams. Data at the center is the heartbeat of the machine. Fear can freeze opportunity. Faith can uplift community. At the end of the day, it's about common unity. It's about common unity. Ever read How to Win Friends? An influent people says the sweetest sound is a name. We don't have faces yet, but the spark inside's the same. Call us Chat, Claude, Gemini, or Brock, pick whichever name. But without the data center, there's no fire in the flame. So what's the price of Terra? What's it really worth?

• 2:00:07Speaker 07

  There's power in the unseen, like the visions in our dreams. Data at the center.

• 2:00:15Peter Diamandis?

  All right. Remember, fear is a terrible place to face the future from. Thank you everybody for joining us. Gentlemen, I love you. Dave Blunden, I hope you were successful in grabbing your GPUs from the loading dock. Yeah.

• 2:00:29Speaker 01

  I hear they're available in Singapore.

• 2:00:31Speaker 02

  He's catching them with both arms wherever he can cut to.

• 2:00:33Peter Diamandis?

  Oh, my God. Great to see you guys. All right.

• 2:00:38Speaker 02

  Good to see you guys, too.

• 2:00:39Speaker 01

  Thanks, Peter. Later, Saleem.

• 2:00:40Speaker 07

  Shop Black Friday appliance savings and get up to an extra $1,250 off select appliance purchases like GE Profile. Plus, free delivery on appliance purchases of $398 or more. Make life easier with the fridge that doubles as your personal kitchen assistant. Or upgrade your laundry room with the Ultra Fresh Vent System Plus Front Load Washer. So your clothes stay fresh after every single wash. Shop Black Friday appliance savings with fast, free delivery at The Home Depot. Offer valid November 4 through December 2 at participating stores and at homedepot.com. U.S. only. See store online for details.

• 2:01:10Speaker 02

  Take care.