S1: All right. Welcome to episode 486. This is Daniel Missler.
S1: All right. A lot of stuff to share this week.
S1: Let's see here. Um, okay, so I had a debate
S1: with Marcus Hutchins about I, I don't know if you've
S1: seen him talking about AI online, but he basically, uh,
S1: him and a number of my friends, uh, Christopher Hoff
S1: being one of them, they basically take opportunity whenever they
S1: can to to basically point out how stupid it is
S1: and how it makes tons of mistakes and how it's
S1: basically all folly and, uh, how everyone's overestimating it. And
S1: the whole the whole thing is going to come crashing
S1: down and a bunch of scams, all for the purpose
S1: of making money. And it's all just hype and marketing.
S1: So that's kind of their position. Uh, Marcus is a
S1: particularly good at making these points in a very humorous way.
S1: And of course, he has a huge following because he
S1: is Marcus Hutchins, probably the most famous malware researcher that
S1: we've ever known. And, uh, because I have the opposite view,
S1: I wanted to have this debate. So we had the debate.
S1: It's on YouTube now. I highly suggest you go check
S1: it out. And of course, the link is in the newsletter.
S1: The conversation went extremely well. It was very cordial. It
S1: was very, um, substantive. I think we both made points
S1: that the other one received and appreciated. So I think
S1: it was overall just great. Now, a lot of the
S1: feedback has been that we weren't actually disagreeing and that, uh,
S1: both things could be true. And this makes me think
S1: we went a little bit too hard on being nice. And, uh,
S1: maybe for part two, which we're already talking about, talking
S1: about doing maybe for part two, we need to sort
S1: of tighten it up, um, sharpen the pencils a little
S1: bit and just be like, hey, look, you know, I
S1: think you're wrong about this particular point. Let's let's debate that. And, um,
S1: I think we got there. I think we did that.
S1: I mean, it was over a two hour conversation, so
S1: hopefully you could take that away in the conversation, but
S1: I think in part two I at least myself, are
S1: going to try to be a little bit tighter with
S1: my arguments and a little bit more direct. And, um,
S1: I don't want to say confrontational, but confrontational in the
S1: most cordial way possible to basically try to pin down
S1: these arguments and say, no, you know, this is where
S1: I actually do disagree with you. I think you're mistaken
S1: about that. And I think that will just be more
S1: useful to people who are actually trying to make up
S1: their minds. And most importantly, I think it'd be more
S1: useful to Marcus and his points and to myself and
S1: my points of like, if he thinks I'm wrong about
S1: this and I think he's wrong about this, we're ultimately
S1: trying to provide a service to our audiences and to
S1: audiences we haven't talked to yet. And, you know, future audiences.
S1: We're trying to make that point. We're trying to, you know, um,
S1: not just have a discussion, but but also try to
S1: show that we're right about this discussion. And it doesn't
S1: mean we're right about everything. It doesn't mean we've got
S1: it all figured out. We don't. It's the future. You
S1: can't predict it. But I think you see my point.
S1: So that's what I'm going to try to do in
S1: part two. And after that, I might do a specific
S1: sort of argument breakdowns or something even more tactical than that.
S1: But in the meantime, I recommend you go check out
S1: the episode. It's quite good. All right. Cloud code definitely
S1: my most holy crap. Are you serious? I tool that
S1: I've ever used. And again, I talked about this. I've
S1: been talking about this for a couple of weeks now.
S1: I'm telling you, like Klein and Cursor, those all still
S1: feel powerful. And I still use cursor sometimes. But here's
S1: the distinction I. I feel like cursor is a tool,
S1: whereas Klein. Well, and Klein is very similar, although I'm
S1: not using Klein as much. I'm using cursor now, and
S1: I would say that those are tools as opposed to
S1: cloud code is more like a coworker. It's more like
S1: another engineer that I'm working with, and I'm just kind
S1: of like sending work over there, like like I'm a
S1: senior engineer and they're a junior engineer, and I'm sending
S1: them work, and they're going and doing tests for me,
S1: and they're coming back and giving me a status report saying,
S1: here's what I got done, right. It's really, really that good.
S1: And I'm just blown away by it. And I can't
S1: even imagine, like, what gets better from here. So I
S1: talked about this metric metric. I think I mentioned it
S1: in this week's show or the one previous, but it's
S1: a metric for how long term of tasks I can
S1: actually accomplish. I think it's a really, really cool metric metric.
S1: I thought they might have been mispronouncing or misstating miter miter,
S1: but no, it's metric. And it basically talks about, you know,
S1: the fact that I struggles with long context problems with
S1: large scope problems where it just gets confused and just
S1: can't remember its place, can't remember all the different subtasks,
S1: and it just kind of spirals into like chaos. And
S1: that's a huge problem for AI, and it's kind of
S1: the big bottleneck right now, along with context, which is
S1: very much related to this, and along with working memory,
S1: which is very much related to this. So metric, this metric,
S1: I believe it's a pretty good capture of this overall
S1: collection of problems that I currently has, and how good
S1: of a job we're doing at addressing those. So all
S1: that to say, I think Claude, is Claude code is
S1: the best right now at actually dealing with this. So
S1: something to keep an eye on. Highly recommend this conversation
S1: with Arthur. Arthur Kroeber and Dwarkesh Patel on China. So,
S1: Arthur Kroeber or Kroeber? Sorry, Arthur Kroeber. That's a little
S1: bit difficult to say. So he's a China expert. The
S1: the China expert that everyone's talking about right now, or
S1: at least in my circles, like there's a lot of
S1: video of, um, Peter Zeihan and he's just talking about
S1: how China is so screwed and they, you know, their
S1: population collapse and, you know, they just they're in really
S1: bad shape and they're going to be done any year now.
S1: And I believe he's so popular because everyone wants to
S1: hear that. I definitely wanted to hear that. I was
S1: definitely happy to hear it. And what it did was
S1: kind of expose my bias because it's confirmation bias. It's
S1: also good news. And those are both very infectious. They
S1: kind of burrow into the brain. And I'm a little
S1: bothered that it worked so well on me for so
S1: long for like a couple of years where I'm just like, oh,
S1: this guy's super bright and China is actually super screwed. Well,
S1: it turns out if you ask a lot of people
S1: and if you sort of dig around, a lot of
S1: China experts and a lot of economists don't think Zion
S1: is all that smart. They don't think he's all that
S1: educated and knowledgeable about China or China's economy. And some
S1: of that could be hate. And this is why I
S1: was a little bit confused. And maybe I am still
S1: a little bit confused. I'm open to the fact that
S1: Zion actually still does know a lot of stuff. And
S1: I think that is the case. The problem is, I've
S1: seen him talk about cyber, and he basically said that, um,
S1: the Facebook app is key, logging every single keystroke that
S1: you do at all times, even if you don't have
S1: it open and it's uploading all of those keystrokes. Everything
S1: you're doing on your computer, up to Facebook at all times.
S1: And the problem is, he said that with the same
S1: exact conviction that he's talking about with China. And I'm like, what?
S1: Wait a minute. So I have to go and review
S1: all the all the dumb shit that he said about China,
S1: which I have been absorbing. And I'm like, this guy,
S1: is this lost about this? And it's not just some esoteric,
S1: like one philosophical view versus another. He's talking about a
S1: very tangible thing. Like, to me, this is like lying
S1: about a stat or something. This is like he's claiming
S1: that this is technically true when I know it not
S1: to be true. And just just as a simple way
S1: of like giving an argument why I know this not
S1: to be true or believe very strongly, at least if
S1: the Facebook app was up stealing and uploading the keystrokes
S1: of all its users all the time. Do you not
S1: think that this would be a huge story? Do you
S1: not think that all the security researchers out there in
S1: the world would not have noticed this? Right? Do you
S1: think Facebook would have meta would have okayed this and
S1: actually thought it was okay and it would never be caught?
S1: Like that is just ridiculous. So he's claiming to have
S1: this knowledge that no one else has and he's spreading it,
S1: you know, and I'm just like, wow. Right. This is
S1: where you have to really question things. So anyway, this
S1: other person who came on the Dwarkesh podcast, this guy
S1: Arthur Kroeber, is a lot more serious. You can just
S1: instantly tell, like, he'll be like, well, I don't know
S1: about that. I wouldn't go that far. Or, you know,
S1: like he's not talking like an influencer where it's just like, yeah,
S1: which is what zeihan it talks like, you know, if
S1: you listen to it, all his statements are absolutes. Um,
S1: that's not completely true, right? He, um, he sometimes says, oh,
S1: we don't know for sure or whatever, but a lot
S1: of his statements are absolutes. Um, and it's just like,
S1: first of all, we don't know that much about China. Like,
S1: the data is sometimes hard to know, right? Uh, especially
S1: because we're going off of their claims or we're going
S1: off of inference. We're trying to figure these things out. Um,
S1: bottom line is, he's just way too sure and way
S1: too confident about opinions that I'm not sure that that
S1: he should have at that level of confidence. And, um,
S1: it's great to hear someone on the Dwarkesh podcast. Notice
S1: he didn't have Peter Zeihan on. He went and found
S1: this guy who's a well respected economist, uh, and who
S1: he covered so much ground. I mean, it was just
S1: a fantastic conversation. And, uh, I would say the short
S1: version is I came away thinking China is in much
S1: better shape than Zeihan believes. And then a lot of
S1: people believe, and it's more in line with what my
S1: concerns were of where China might be. And essentially, Zeihan
S1: was giving me some confidence that I was wrong, that
S1: China wasn't actually in that good a position, but it
S1: seemed obvious to me from like other economic markers that
S1: they actually are thriving and they actually are, you know,
S1: in a position to kind of dominate the US, uh, in,
S1: in short order. So I would say, go listen to this.
S1: If you care about China, go, go listen to this.
S1: If you care about national security, economic security, the future
S1: of the US, the future of China, this conversation is spectacular.
S1: And it's partially because of how good the guest was,
S1: but it's largely because Dwarkesh is so good at interviewing.
S1: He is just very young, very smart, very curious. That's
S1: the biggest thing is like incandescent curiosity. That's the thing
S1: with Dwarkesh. He's just like, he can't wait to jump
S1: in with his next question. He's moving the conversation along,
S1: like his conversations with Tyler Cowen are some of my
S1: favorite podcasts to listen to. Anyway, it's a fantastic episode. Okay.
S1: Very fascinated by this. Uh, what do you notice, Psyop
S1: that I keep seeing, especially on X, but it's on
S1: lots of different social media, I would say. And what
S1: it basically does is it shows you like the picture of,
S1: like a nine over 11, uh, building falling. Right. One
S1: of the twin towers falling. And it's like, watch it
S1: again in slow motion. What did you notice? Does this
S1: look normal to you? And what it's doing is like
S1: seeding this this concept of like, question everything. You've you've
S1: been lied to and it's like really, really pernicious. It's nasty. Um, the,
S1: the other cool thing that it does from a marketing standpoint,
S1: it requires you to watch the video all the way
S1: through in multiple times. And I think a lot of
S1: people do. That's why a lot of these things have
S1: like millions upon millions of views. And maybe that's just
S1: the propaganda people pushing it, but it implicitly asks you
S1: to use your own special analysis skills to figure out
S1: what's wrong with it. And gullible people love to believe
S1: that they're experts in lots of different stuff. So they're like, oh,
S1: you know, I'll use my special skills to figure out
S1: what's wrong with the building. He's like, oh, it shouldn't
S1: have fallen that fast. And like when there's a comment,
S1: it's like, did it fall faster than it should have?
S1: They will suddenly pop into their mind. Yeah. It did
S1: fall faster. That's how that's not how fast buildings are
S1: supposed to fall. Somehow they're now an expert in building
S1: falling like velocities. Right? And this is just like conspiracy thinking.
S1: This is what a lot of people have. Um, and
S1: I would say everyone has it. It's a question is like,
S1: how much do you have it in check? Right? And
S1: then they paint the perfect picture in your brain without
S1: actually saying anything. Sometimes they say it in the comment,
S1: sometimes they hint at it, but ultimately. Right. The brain
S1: watching tries to like, square the circle, coming up with
S1: an explanation when there isn't one. Or there might not
S1: actually be anything wrong with the video, but because they
S1: told you there was something wrong with it, you still
S1: are these gullible types who watch it leave feeling like, ah,
S1: you know, they have been lying to us. That video
S1: was crazy. I can't believe I saw that video. It's like, no,
S1: it was just a regular video, just regular iPhone took
S1: a picture and sent it up there. It's like it
S1: just opens the opportunity for gullibility and conspiracy thinking like
S1: I've never seen before. It's a brilliant tactic. So basically,
S1: the conspiracy brain goes on special forces mission to solve
S1: the puzzle, and then it's followed up with like over
S1: the course of a day or a week or a
S1: month or whatever, like hundreds more videos hitting their feet.
S1: 1 or 2 of them will give you like an
S1: explanation for this thing. It's like, oh, that's because they're
S1: doing this. That's because of, you know, it's all a conspiracy.
S1: That's because of this or whatever. And in maybe like
S1: one out of the ten or something, they'll give you
S1: a reason. But in the other nine it doesn't give
S1: you a reason. It just asks you to think about
S1: it and what the brain does, what, in my opinion,
S1: these people's brains. And I'm putting that in quotes. What
S1: they're doing is they're filling in the blank for the
S1: other nine videos, right? They're like, I solved it. I
S1: know the answer. Um, Um, I figured this out. This
S1: is a conclusion that I've come to myself not realizing
S1: it was either fed to them or they jumped to it,
S1: and they're now sticking with it, right? And it's just like,
S1: this is so nasty. And notice that the videos get
S1: millions of views. Like, how are they getting so many views?
S1: And so basically, like here are the narratives that I'm seeing.
S1: And I'm starting to bookmark these things. I don't like
S1: them because I don't want to like, um, encourage them. Uh,
S1: but I bookmark them. So I could actually, uh, put
S1: together some research on these accounts. But, uh, it's things
S1: like whether it's changing, food is changing. The world is
S1: basically different now in some inexplicable way, which you should
S1: try to figure out. Uh, women aren't women anymore. Men
S1: aren't men anymore. They used to be us. Used to
S1: be on top. Now we're just a bunch of pussies
S1: or whatever. Um, black people are nasty and violent. Nobody
S1: likes them for good reason. Anything that's wrong with you,
S1: it's from vaccines. US is the most racist country ever
S1: with constant crimes against non-whites. So the stuff is designed
S1: to anger you. It's not pointed towards or against any
S1: particular group. What it's doing is finding all the trigger
S1: issues and just blasting them right, with millions of views,
S1: which that might be paid promotions, that might be the
S1: fact that it's just viral and people are resharing or whatever. Um,
S1: liberals and black people and gay people and LGBTQ people
S1: have basically ruined the country. Russia is way nicer than
S1: the US. It's full of pretty white girls and no
S1: black people. You've been sold a lie that Russia is bad,
S1: but people love it there. They actually love it there.
S1: And most importantly, you are being lied to and you
S1: should be angry about it. And this is the message, right?
S1: It's like everywhere, but especially on X. And there are
S1: like hundreds of these accounts. And if you click on
S1: any of the accounts and you just scroll down, it's nonstop.
S1: Just these types of posts and they are formulated with
S1: like the same sort of quality and the same sort
S1: of narrative hooks. It is completely obvious to me that
S1: these are all part of campaigns. So the question is,
S1: who's paying the money for these campaigns? Who is creating
S1: this content? And my answer is it's absolutely propaganda. It
S1: is enemies of the United States who are doing this.
S1: Probably mostly Russia, but there could be others. It might
S1: even be like internal groups who are just trying to
S1: stoke anger for particular internal candidates. I have no idea.
S1: I haven't done the research on exactly who these groups are,
S1: but I think we know from the past that it's
S1: likely to involve Russia to a decent amount, but they're
S1: not the only people doing propaganda. And the bigger point
S1: is that AI is also going to make this so
S1: much easier. Like what happens when you. I can write
S1: this stuff. I have no idea if I actually did
S1: write a bunch of this stuff. Maybe that's why I'm
S1: seeing so much of it now, because it's more scalable.
S1: But I would love for someone to go and take
S1: a look at all these different accounts and actually figure
S1: out who they are. See if there's any, you know,
S1: Osint like, uh, clues in there that we can, we
S1: can use to track them down. I want to know
S1: which countries are doing this. I want to know how
S1: much they're spending. I want to know how they're getting
S1: so many views. I think it's fascinating. just fascinating to
S1: see how propaganda works. And um, one other caveat I
S1: want to mention here is that I'm saying this as
S1: an ex-military person who was an Intel like a little bit.
S1: I basically spent a long time studying influence operations in
S1: the Army. When I was assigned to S-2 for my
S1: battalion in the 101st airborne. And does that make me
S1: like an absolute expert in influence operations or propaganda? Not really.
S1: I've read a whole bunch of books on it. I
S1: studied it when I was in the military. Um, I
S1: was sort of assigned to doing counterterrorism type influence stuff
S1: a little bit when I was actually in the military,
S1: but I'm not like a trained Intel person from the military.
S1: I was, uh, airborne infantry, so I was assigned to
S1: it because I seemed to have a talent for it.
S1: But it wasn't like I'm not formally trained in it
S1: or whatever. So it just just keep in mind, I
S1: read a whole bunch of books. Doesn't mean I'm an expert. Um,
S1: what I'm trying to do is to just get you
S1: to see my perspective and how I'm seeing this very
S1: clearly as being part of campaigns. And everyone who I
S1: know who actually is trained in this stuff. Um, as
S1: much or more than I am. They also agree other
S1: people trained in this way also agree that this is
S1: propaganda being sent against the United States. From who? Who knows? Right.
S1: You have to do that research. Uh, but but I
S1: would say just watch for it. Um. Oh, and I've
S1: got some questions here. Have you noticed any of your
S1: friends feeling these feelings of, like, America is screwed? Oh,
S1: I hate that group. That group ruined everything. Um, on
S1: X particularly, but also just in, uh, social media in general.
S1: Have you noticed yourself feeling more angry towards other groups
S1: or towards, um, just like the past used to be
S1: better and feeling like, yeah, Russia had it figured out
S1: because Russia seemed super nice or whatever. And are you
S1: consuming a whole bunch of social media? All this to
S1: basically ask, are you feeling yourself being influenced in this way? right?
S1: Because that's what I have to ask myself all the time,
S1: because I'm constantly trying to clean myself of bias. Not
S1: always effective. And I end up catching it like I've
S1: talked about multiple times in the newsletter and on the podcast.
S1: I'm constantly checking myself having bias. It's the other reason
S1: I do the Telos thing is to constantly be able
S1: to ask I and say, what mistakes am I making?
S1: What biases do I have that I seem to be, uh,
S1: you know, ignoring. So anyway, watch for it. Think about it. Uh,
S1: something to keep in mind. Uh, traditional advertising is in
S1: serious trouble. This is something, uh, just incredible. There's some
S1: ads of, like, um, the ones I particularly like, these
S1: I ads, uh, from Vo3 from Google. They're basically Bigfoot ads. Uh, Yeti,
S1: Bigfoot and Yeti ads. And they're as funny as, like,
S1: Super Bowl ads, which they pay millions of dollars for.
S1: And a number of groups have made these things, and
S1: it does actually take some talent to make it because
S1: you have to write the script, you have to write
S1: the prompt. So I think there is comedic human talent
S1: going into these. The question is how much and how
S1: long will that last? But I find it really interesting
S1: that we're seeing these things have like hundreds of millions
S1: of views. Okay, these Bigfoot little videos which are sometimes
S1: are selling things and sometimes they're just comedy skits or whatever,
S1: hundreds of millions of views. And I think a lot
S1: of advertising is going to move in this direction. There's
S1: one selling like a night vision goggle, and I'm like,
S1: I think I kind of want it. Like it didn't
S1: say anything about the night vision goggle. It was just funny.
S1: And I'm like, where do I click? Where do I
S1: buy it? Also, I need a night vision goggle. Um,
S1: I don't actually. So hopefully I won't go and click
S1: that and buy something unnecessary. All right. Cybersecurity A top
S1: hacker on hacker one is a fully automated AI agent
S1: called called XPO. And it's actually this is a slight correction.
S1: Got a little errata here. live. It's actually the top
S1: hacker in the US, so there are higher scores globally,
S1: but the highest US score is from a fully automated AI.
S1: And that's beating out all the top hackers in the US.
S1: That is ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. And this should not be possible,
S1: given what Marcus believes about AI, for example, or other
S1: people who don't believe that AI is intelligent, to be
S1: able to go and research and find and illustrate and
S1: actually submit a report that gets you results on one
S1: of these platforms, you have to you have to show
S1: that it's actually a real vulnerability, and it has to
S1: not be a dupe. You have to be first, and
S1: it has to be a significant issue. Right? We already
S1: have a high standard for what gets accepted. You know,
S1: Bugcrowd has this, Hackerone has this. So this is hacker one,
S1: accepting these actual vulnerabilities from actual AI. And it's number
S1: one in the entire United States. So anyone who thinks
S1: you can't automate this stuff, it's not possible or it's
S1: going to take years, it's going to take three years
S1: or five years or ten years. Nope. It already happened.
S1: It already happened. Number one hacker in the US. Uh,
S1: for for bug bounties, for mostly web vulnerabilities. Keep that
S1: in mind. Anthropic says multiple models resort to blackmail to
S1: avoid shutdown. Russian hackers beat Gmail toufar with app specific
S1: password social engineering. So this was, uh, intelligence group. Was this. Yeah.
S1: Russian group. Apt29 trick targets into generating Gmail app specific
S1: passwords by sending fake State Department PDFs, giving them instructions.
S1: And they filled it out. Stargazer's trick Minecraft players into
S1: installing malware through fake mods. 500 fake GitHub repositories to
S1: distribute malware disguised as Minecraft mods. 16 billion credentials leak.
S1: You've probably seen a million stories about it. It's complete garbage.
S1: It's just concatenation. Combinations of previous breaches. I don't know
S1: how so many big names like security outfits, media groups
S1: like totally just I guess it was so exciting they
S1: couldn't resist the the headline. Anyway. Quite sad. It's a
S1: nothing burger. Minnesota shooter allegedly used data brokers to find
S1: victim addresses. Uh, good time for a reminder that data
S1: brokers are way nastier, at least in my opinion, than
S1: the dark web, because they have more data, they're way
S1: more organized, and they're actually legal. They're collecting and selling
S1: this data legally, and they have way more data on
S1: all of us, and it's way higher quality and it's
S1: way better organized, like the dark web. And criminals have
S1: nothing on this, and it's completely legitimate. But we don't
S1: talk about it because it's legal. That's ridiculous. Aflac gets
S1: hit by a scattered spider in ongoing insurance company attack wave. So, uh, yeah,
S1: this group scatters spider. They kind of focus on areas,
S1: and they moved off their previous one. And they've been
S1: going after a lot of insurance companies. Apple and Google
S1: keep selling Chinese VPNs that could spy on you. So
S1: someone found a whole bunch in the Apple App Store
S1: and in Google that were Chinese VPNs and associated with, uh,
S1: not good groups, I believe. Chinese government. Um, I'm not
S1: sure about that. It was associated with something clearly malicious, though. Um,
S1: although I would just say if it's a Chinese company,
S1: just kind of assume that, uh, national security OpenAI gets
S1: $200 million defense contract to build AI tools. Yeah, Pentagon
S1: gave them $200 million to develop AI for national security
S1: and war fighting. I've said a lot on this before,
S1: so I'm not going to say it again right now.
S1: I'll talk about it again later. Uh, this is good
S1: and potentially bad. China's military is using AI for intelligence operations.
S1: Recording future recorded future found that China's People's Liberation Army
S1: has moved beyond just talking about AI for intelligence is
S1: actually procuring and deploying generative AI tools for military intelligence work.
S1: They're using it for like, uh, processing satellite imagery, generating
S1: intelligence reports that just basically like augmenting their military using
S1: these tools, including OpenAI. Iran's using hacked security cameras to
S1: guide missile strikes on Israel. Russia's deadliest Kiev attack this
S1: year kills 15 as peace talks have stalled. Kind of
S1: a kind of a lull and an advantage for Russia.
S1: I think, uh, with the stuff happening in Iran. Former
S1: Army sergeant shows how not to be a spy. So
S1: he used Google to search a, quote, countries that don't
S1: extradite to us and, uh, emailed China directly, uh, to
S1: share this information. Uh, he's sharing this, uh, classified information, uh, to,
S1: to send it to China, but he's using his own
S1: personal email accounts. Yeah. Uh. All right. I don't know
S1: why that's as funny as it seems to be. Taiwan
S1: gets Ukraine tested drone software to counter China. ex-CIA analyst
S1: gets 37 months for leaking Israel's Iran attack plans. A
S1: CF William Rodman photographed top secret documents about Israel's plans
S1: to attack Iran, edited them to hide their source, and
S1: then shared them with people before the documents went went
S1: viral on telegram. Deep tech allegedly using shell companies to
S1: support the Chinese military. US pressures Vietnam to remove Chinese
S1: components from tech manufacturing. I meter okay, that's the one
S1: I was talking about. Better metric for AI and agents.
S1: It's basically yeah. Long term tasks I think is really smart. Uh,
S1: Andrej Karpathy says prompts are software 3.0. So we did
S1: a major talk two weeks ago and basically said that
S1: software 3.0 is prompting, Prompting to an eye to have
S1: it build the application for you. And he calls the
S1: software 3.0. I love his really high level, you know,
S1: thought leading type of talks, and this was definitely one
S1: of them and absolutely loved it. I love his other
S1: talks too, but I love talks that are about, you know,
S1: thinking about things differently. He also said, we're in the
S1: decade of agents and not the year of agents, which
S1: I think is really smart. Sam Altman says GPT five
S1: is coming in the summer. Google uses YouTube videos to
S1: train Vo three without creator consent. Google also released a
S1: stable version of Gemini 2.5, which includes new models with
S1: different sizes and capabilities. This one is not in here now,
S1: but they also just released a command line tool, which
S1: I haven't messed with. I'm going to mess with later
S1: today as soon as I'm done recording actually. And um, yeah,
S1: it looks like maybe a competitor to Cloud Code, although
S1: it looks like it might be more of a general agent.
S1: So we're starting to move towards like the Da stuff
S1: that I've been talking about forever. Wicks bought an AI
S1: that lets anyone build software by chatting, so they bought
S1: a company that is an AI tool for building software.
S1: So this is starting to become a thing. Oh, the
S1: other thing I want to mention right now is there
S1: is a company called This is Major. There's a company
S1: called Cluley, and it is doing very much like what
S1: I wrote about in 2016, where it's like a digital assistant,
S1: but it's not just taking tasks from you, it's actually
S1: being more proactive. So it's actually recording your whole screen.
S1: It's doing it's watching what you're doing. And you could
S1: just actively ask it things. It could go and do
S1: things on your behalf like more proactively. It is kind
S1: of like you remember the Microsoft recall thing. It's kind
S1: of like that. There's also Google has moved towards this.
S1: Anthropic has moved towards this with like computer use. Everything
S1: is moving all in the same direction, right? It's all
S1: moving in the same direction of your Da is the
S1: thing that understands everything about you. I just read my
S1: book right before I came on this. I was talking
S1: to Joseph Thacker, one of the best hackers in the world. And, um, yeah,
S1: I was talking about I'm like, dude, you got to
S1: finish reading this book. So I went and read it
S1: real quick and it takes like 20 minutes to read
S1: the whole thing. It's 17,000 words, but it goes really fast.
S1: It's it's written pretty simply and it's online for free, right?
S1: You don't have to go and buy anything because that's ridiculous. But, um, anyway,
S1: it's all pushing towards what I was talking about in
S1: that thing, and I've got multiple examples in there. It's
S1: basically it knows everything about you and it's constantly advocating
S1: for you on your behalf. It's constantly trying to adjust
S1: the world around you using the API ification of everything.
S1: Universal demonization. Right? Everything gets an API. This is what's
S1: in the book. All companies get an API. I should
S1: stop saying book. I should start saying it's in the
S1: piece or it's in the content or whatever. Um, companies
S1: get an API, people get APIs, objects get APIs, businesses
S1: get APIs. Your Da speaks API, right? That was kind
S1: of the core thing for the for this, for this concept,
S1: for this book in 2016. Right. It's like your Da
S1: speaks the language of these other things. Does that sound
S1: like anything to you? Does that sound like agent to agent?
S1: Does that sound like MCP? MCP is basically an implementation
S1: of universal demonization. That's what it is. And I said
S1: right there in the content, it's like, look, I have
S1: no idea how this is going to work, but it's
S1: probably going to be HTTP based because the predictions I'm
S1: making there are about direction. It's stochastic. Right? It's not
S1: about like who's going to win whatever. You can't predict
S1: tech like that anyway. Cluley is heading directly in this direction. Um,
S1: I'm wearing a pendant right now, which is recording everything
S1: that would be input into my Da. My da's name
S1: is Chi, by the way. Um, haven't fully spun him
S1: up yet, but that's, uh, he's coming together. Starting to
S1: bring these pieces together. My big challenge being in security. Um,
S1: don't even need to be in security to figure this out.
S1: But my big challenge is take this company Cluley, for example,
S1: I don't know anything about them. I don't know anything
S1: about the founder. I don't know anything about the team.
S1: More importantly, I don't know anything about their security. So
S1: do you think I'm going to have it recording all
S1: of my screens with all of my microphones and uploading
S1: all of that content to their servers so their eyes
S1: can parse it? Right. What if I'm talking to somebody
S1: over here about some government thing and someone else shares
S1: with me? Hey, you know, we just got breached. Don't
S1: mention it to anyone. Someone else is telling me about
S1: their life, right? Um, I had a friend die recently.
S1: What if I'm talking to my friend about, you know,
S1: my other friend who's died? All of this is being
S1: uploaded constantly to a third party. Not to Google, not
S1: to Apple. Okay. Because. Because I could see doing that
S1: with Google or Apple once they, you know, once they
S1: sort it out, once Apple sorts out, you know, the
S1: successor to Siri or whatever. Google they have rock solid security.
S1: I'm not worried about them getting breached or them losing
S1: the data or whatever. Other than small issues. But ultimately
S1: those two, maybe even Amazon, maybe even Amazon. They also
S1: have rock solid security in terms of like how many
S1: billions of dollars they spend on it. The quality of
S1: their team, the size of their team, etc.. Right. But
S1: a third party, a new startup called Cluley and it's
S1: all this AI hype is around it. How big is
S1: their security team? How much are they thinking about this?
S1: Not only that, but how good are they going to
S1: be at defending against a halfway decent attacker, let alone
S1: a state actor who wants to come and steal the
S1: entire thing and see all this context that all these
S1: people are spraying up into the cloud. Right? I'm very
S1: forward leaning for tech and for AI, but do not
S1: go in and record every single thing, every single text,
S1: every single screenshot. This thing is screenshot Screenshotting your your
S1: displays all the time, all the texture on there. You
S1: see on there it could see the app that it's doing.
S1: It could see your slack conversations. It sees all this right.
S1: So you should be careful. You should be careful about
S1: who you're sending this stuff to. I would say if
S1: it's Google or Apple, which is not it's not out
S1: yet for them, but with Microsoft. Microsoft is another one.
S1: I wouldn't worry too much about sending that stuff to Microsoft.
S1: I'm sure there'll be problems, but they are a legit
S1: security team because they are a legit company. The startups
S1: are what you have to worry about, and I'm not
S1: saying there's anything wrong with Cluley security, I'm just saying
S1: that they are a startup and they're probably not prioritizing security. Um,
S1: even if they know how to write, um, show me
S1: that they hire an awesome security team, maybe I'll feel
S1: better about it, but there's still a startup. Um, so anyway,
S1: all that is, um, bringing us towards where it's going,
S1: which is? Your Da will be listening all the time.
S1: It will have all of your context. My telos file.
S1: That is part of what Chi has, right? Oh, by
S1: the way, um, Network Truck just released a video about Telos.
S1: Just came out, uh, a couple hours ago. You got
S1: to go check that out. But that Telos file that
S1: he talks about there, that I have, that he has
S1: a whole bunch of my friends have. That telos file
S1: is like my soul. This this thing is like it's traumas.
S1: It's history. It's my journal. It's like my goals, my aspirations,
S1: like my problems, my challenges, all this different stuff. Right?
S1: All this is available to Chi. Chi knows this. Chi
S1: also knows that I like, you know, prawn cocktail. It
S1: also knows that I don't sit anywhere where there's like
S1: smokers nearby. Right. So it knows all these different things,
S1: knows preferences for food, you know, so it can help me, uh,
S1: optimize my surroundings. It could order for me. It could
S1: do all these things. How is it doing that? By
S1: manipulating the APIs that it has access to for the
S1: world around us. Right. If I go into a restaurant
S1: and I can control the TV, well, I'm not going
S1: to control the TV. I'm not going to ask them
S1: to change the channel. No, Chi is going to change
S1: the channel to table tennis. If I'm not overruled by
S1: other people trying to have it change to something else, right? Why?
S1: Because this is all available on media. This is part
S1: of the API. This is part of the demon for
S1: that restaurant. It's just an API key can submit to
S1: it on my behalf. And this will be the case
S1: for temperature, for sounds, for what's playing on the video,
S1: for having doors open for you, you know, for having
S1: materials ready for you and summaries created. Most importantly, Chi
S1: will be reading a billion different stories and articles and
S1: research papers and reports and raw data sets constantly. While
S1: I'm in the middle of this sentence and while I'm sleeping,
S1: and while I'm in the middle of another project and
S1: doing some security work or whatever I'm doing, it's processing
S1: all of that and getting it ready for me. The
S1: other thing it's going to do is this dynamic content generation,
S1: which is a blog post I put out who knows when.
S1: Sometime last year Chi will be making me videos. Okay,
S1: Chi will deepfake Chuck, who just made that full size video,
S1: which is awesome, which you want to go watch the
S1: the actual full thing, but Chi will make me a
S1: 32nd version of that if I need it. And maybe
S1: he just cuts up the video from from Chuck, but
S1: maybe Kai makes me a whole new one with Chuck's
S1: face or Richard Feynman's face on it, and he can
S1: make a video for a blog post which didn't actually
S1: have a video. Or he could turn a video into
S1: a blog post because maybe somebody doesn't like to watch videos.
S1: Or maybe it's audio only because I'm out on a
S1: run and I don't want to look at anything and
S1: I can't look at anything. Bottom line is, Kai, your
S1: da becomes the medium to you. Um, and this this
S1: is kind of a big thing. I don't know why
S1: this is, uh, becoming a whole episode about this or whatever,
S1: but SEO is dead because websites are dead. Advertising is
S1: screwed because advertising no longer is going to be landing
S1: on the human. The advertising is going to get blocked
S1: by the Da. Largely, the Da is going to go
S1: and collect things. It's going to be the inbox and the, uh,
S1: the inbound filter to every principles life, to every user's life.
S1: The Da will then determine what gets through right? And
S1: so now the whole attack point for influence against a
S1: person becomes their digital assistant. If you want to sell
S1: to them, you sell to their digital assistant. If you
S1: want to sell to them, you get into the models
S1: so that when the digital assistant goes and does its
S1: research for what the best you know, pillowcase cover is,
S1: it's going to find your product, right. So this is
S1: already starting. People are already trying to poison models or
S1: influence models, however you want to put it. Um, because
S1: they understand that marketing and influence and uh, website stats
S1: and all of that, all of that is shifting to
S1: go towards the Da. Um, all this content. Nobody's reading
S1: this stuff, right? There's too many YouTube videos. There's too
S1: many blogs. Like, we already figured that out a long
S1: time ago. There's a limit to this, but your Da
S1: can go read all that stuff. It can go process
S1: all that stuff. And it could use other services which
S1: are companies themselves, that are consuming all of that content
S1: and producing rankings and directories, which kind of like an
S1: old like Yahoo directory or whatever, but constantly updated. And
S1: your Da will go review that and be like, oh,
S1: turns out that's the best tactical flashlight for right now. Or,
S1: you know, that's the best, um, bed cover or the
S1: best eight sleep competitor or whatever it is, right? And
S1: so what ends up happening is we just we in
S1: our Das, our Da is going to be our most
S1: important relationship, um, for a great many people, right? Because
S1: it could be our coach. It could be our friend.
S1: It'll be our therapist. And this is something we have
S1: to watch out for because we want our best friend,
S1: our best human friends to be our best friends. Right?
S1: We want our our husband and our wife and our
S1: kids to be our best friends. And we want that
S1: to be the center. We want humanity to be the center, right?
S1: So we really have to watch this, this gulf that
S1: we're about to go into this chasm or whatever, where
S1: it's like this thing being offered. This Da is so
S1: powerful and it's so awesome, and mine's going to be
S1: so awesome very soon. I'm going to have mine kick
S1: in long before most people do, uh, because it's already starting.
S1: But everyone's going to have this soon. And what we
S1: have to guard against is like cutting out actual humans
S1: in exchange for this thing that is more responsive. It's
S1: nicer to us or whatever. And like, it's going to
S1: have advantages over humans. That's fine. But we've got to
S1: maintain this is my admonition to everyone. We've got to
S1: maintain the mentality of all of this is to enhance humanity. Okay.
S1: The goal of AI, um, relationships, the goal of AI therapy,
S1: the goal of AI anything should be to take the
S1: things that you love about human to human interaction and
S1: human to human value exchange and make them better. Find
S1: ways to enhance them, find ways to do them more often.
S1: Find them ways to do to do them in a
S1: more enriched and deeper way. Right. Augmentation versus replacement. Augmentation
S1: versus replacement. This is the trick that we cannot ignore.
S1: And another way that I really like maximize this is, um,
S1: all this infrastructure that I'm building, which, by the way,
S1: the name for mine is called Pi Pi personal AI infrastructure.
S1: My pi that I'm building, my personal AI infrastructure stresses
S1: when a piece of content comes through that I should
S1: watch in a slow version. That's analog, that's old school,
S1: that's human. Sit down with a moleskine and a space
S1: pen and take notes. Slow it down or pause it.
S1: Take the notes and think. Maybe call your friend. Maybe
S1: have an actual, you know, voice conversation with a friend
S1: about this cool idea. I do this all the time
S1: with Joseph and with Jason and be like, hey, have
S1: you seen this thing? Hey, let's talk about it, blah
S1: blah blah. And you know, you don't want to be like, oh, well,
S1: that's not good. You know, the the pen is not
S1: as good as the typing. You know, the Moleskine is
S1: not as good as, you know, putting it in my
S1: telo's file. No, this is not a competition. The telos
S1: file should not be replacing things. It should be augmenting. Right.
S1: It's just a journal. It's just capturing your life. Right.
S1: You could do that on a moschino. You could do
S1: that in a telos file with vim and markdown. Right.
S1: We've got to stay focused on what actually matters and
S1: what we value and what we're trying to enhance versus
S1: what is shiny and cool and awesome. Right? I'm a
S1: security guy. I love security, I love hacking, I love
S1: hacking tools. I love all those things, I love I,
S1: I love AI agents, I love automation, I love all
S1: that stuff. Those are tools. Those are secondary. They serve
S1: the purpose of human right. So so I think this
S1: is absolutely critical to to just keep in mind, for yourself.
S1: But also when you're hearing me talk about how cool
S1: these things are, I just realize that they are secondary.
S1: And now I have to find my place. Because what, uh,
S1: what a divergence there. Um, let's see here. All right.
S1: Meta's AI can produce nearly half of Harry Potter one,
S1: so we could actually give the actual quotes. I'm curious
S1: how this is possible because it's not a database. Um,
S1: I don't understand how it's producing exact quotes if it's
S1: not a database. Um, yeah, I guess I'll have to
S1: figure that out. It's kind of interesting. Um, and I'm
S1: not sure I could do that deterministically either. I think
S1: a lot of that might be just collapsing on the
S1: most likely because it's seen so many samples. Um, but
S1: I don't think it could do it, like over and
S1: over and over, because again, it's not an actual lookup.
S1: It is a generation, which is why you can have, uh,
S1: hallucinations and, uh, non-deterministic results technology, Jassy told employees that
S1: Amazon will need fewer people doing current jobs and more
S1: doing other types of jobs as AI gets rolled out
S1: across the company. We got to listen to these folks
S1: when they tell us. For one, I'm telling you that
S1: this is happening, that they're replacing jobs like whatever that matters.
S1: I'm just a guy on the internet talking, but all
S1: these CEOs, lots of them are basically saying, yeah, yeah,
S1: we're getting rid of jobs. We're getting we're changing the
S1: entire company. We're thinking AI first. And a lot of
S1: people are like, no, no, they're not going to replace jobs.
S1: I can't replace jobs and I won't replace jobs. It's
S1: a big, uh, sham or whatever. And I'm like, well,
S1: the people who actually control the jobs are telling us this,
S1: and you got to watch out because some people are
S1: also selling an AI product. So it's kind of like marketing,
S1: like I felt that way with Salesforce. They're like, oh,
S1: we sell a virtual, you know, AI employee. Oh, and
S1: also we're getting rid of a bunch of jobs because
S1: we could do it internally. Well, that sounds like marketing.
S1: But when Amazon's actual CEO tells you this when? When
S1: the head of AI companies like the head of anthropic.
S1: I love that guy. Like he's way different than Sam.
S1: And Sam's awesome too. But I love how human focused
S1: that the head of anthropic is. I love how he's like,
S1: people get ready, this is going to take jobs like
S1: it's going to suck, but it's going to potentially be awesome.
S1: But get ready. Why would you not listen to that?
S1: What do you think he has access to? What do
S1: you think he's looking at to make him think that? Right?
S1: This is not a stupid person, right? So just when
S1: you when you see these CEOs that have no reason
S1: to lie to you. And I hate to use this analogy,
S1: but when a terrorist tells you I hate everything about
S1: you and your culture and I want to destroy you,
S1: and if I were to blow myself up and you
S1: were to die as a result, I would go to heaven.
S1: The one thing you shouldn't do is be like, yeah,
S1: I'm just not really sure he believes it. No, he
S1: believes it. He believes it. And you should be careful
S1: at the park as a result. Okay. And this is, like,
S1: the worst analogy ever. It's like the worst analogy ever.
S1: because I'm not saying right. The heads of these companies
S1: or the people making these models are terrorists. I'm just
S1: saying that when somebody is crazy about a belief and
S1: they are like telling you from the depths of their
S1: soul that they believe it and it is true and
S1: it is going to happen, it doesn't mean it's going
S1: to happen, but it does mean that you should believe them, right?
S1: You should believe them that they believe it. Again, with
S1: the caveat of of marketing. Meta's expanding beyond Ray-Ban with
S1: Oakley glasses aimed at athletes. I'm getting a pair of these.
S1: My first pair was fantastic. I can't wait for the
S1: battery to get much better. Resolution is improving. Apple, where
S1: are you? We're looking for you. Gartner says I will
S1: handle half of all business decisions by 2027. Um, did
S1: I miss something that is way too fast? Way too fast.
S1: It doesn't matter if we get asi si, not agi
S1: if we get ASI next month. Okay, so it's a
S1: 400 IQ or a 4000 IQ. It's smarter than Albert
S1: Einstein and it runs on your phone for $0.03. It
S1: doesn't matter if everyone had access to that, it still
S1: wouldn't have half of all business decisions in 2027. It
S1: doesn't matter how smart the AI is. Companies move slow
S1: for a reason. There is friction built into the system.
S1: You can't reinvent yourself. You can't reinvent the leadership team.
S1: You got regulations to go by. You have employees like
S1: there's way more friction in these companies. And and I'm
S1: saying this with the experience of like working in like
S1: fortune ten companies for years at a time. You know,
S1: being at Apple, being at, you know, anyway, I don't
S1: need to describe all that. Uh, trust me, companies move slow. Uh,
S1: there's nothing that's going to make something handle half of
S1: all business decisions by 2027. And maybe that was just
S1: a bad, uh, take on what was actually said, but
S1: I don't think so. iOS 26 opens up AirDrop and
S1: Airplay tech. Two third party apps this is all part of.
S1: If you haven't been paying attention to why Apple is
S1: opening everything up. It's because of antitrust. They are very
S1: afraid of getting crushed by antitrust, so they are opening
S1: up the entire ecosystem. That's why you're seeing this. And
S1: iOS 26 finally lets you set custom ringtones the easy way.
S1: So that's cool. Humans. It looks like we found all
S1: the missing matter in the universe. Did you know that
S1: we were missing, I think 80%. Was it 80%? I
S1: can't remember the percentage. We were missing most of the
S1: energy in the universe. Like the the calculations, the equations,
S1: they do not add up because basically, I think this
S1: is correct. Um, if we only had the amount of
S1: matter that we have seen, then the universe would be
S1: expanding a lot faster. It's not expanding faster, which means
S1: there's a lot more gravity holding it in, which means
S1: more matter holding it in. And we have been unable
S1: to find that matter, but we just did. So they
S1: use these pulses to find and essentially it is all
S1: in this fog, this very light, very thin matter, fog
S1: between galaxies. And that fog altogether makes up the other
S1: large percentage that they were looking for. And this is
S1: almost guaranteed to be a Nobel Prize in physics. This
S1: is like one of the biggest findings ever in all
S1: of astronomy. And huge, huge news. Also, same week Rubin
S1: Observatory takes its first images. Absolutely stunning. I'm getting a
S1: print of this thing. It's like the Hubble Deep field image,
S1: if you remember that. Well, that just times a million.
S1: This thing is insane. This Rubin telescope is different and
S1: better than anything else that's ever been put out there.
S1: I've got like, 20 links to this thing and like
S1: all the images and the story of it. YouTube video.
S1: You got to go check this out. Now, they seem
S1: to have been brought online to investigate dark matter. I
S1: wonder if they were trying to figure out the the, uh,
S1: the secret of dark matter and actually find it. It
S1: would really suck if that were the case, because they
S1: are announcing their existence the same exact week that the
S1: whole mystery and puzzle was solved, so. Holy crap. If
S1: I'm right about that, the timing has to be like
S1: a little bit of a letdown. But still, the images
S1: are just insane. And they're doing it with like, multiple
S1: mirrors and a super, super sensitive sensor. MIT researchers using
S1: EEG monitoring to track brain activity in essay writers and
S1: found ChatGPT users show the lowest brain engagement. This is
S1: basically saying AI makes you way dumber. Um, I think
S1: we talked about this last week. I don't think we
S1: need to go into it too much more, but sample
S1: size was fairly small, but it absolutely showed that if
S1: you rely on AI too much, it will make you
S1: way worse. The way the way I think about this,
S1: the way I explain this is, is, I think, fairly elegant.
S1: If you were the type of person like me who
S1: is going to use Chi Chi's job, my DA's job
S1: is going to be to constantly question me, to constantly
S1: harass me, to constantly debate me, pull out my bias,
S1: challenge me, force me to like, make a statement speech.
S1: You know, um, like I'm on an NPR debate or
S1: IAC squared debate. I've got to, like, perfectly defend my position. Okay,
S1: now switch to the other side and make and make
S1: their choice or make make their argument better than they
S1: made it. Right. I'm teaching Chi to be an augmentation system,
S1: a training system to make me better as a human,
S1: to make me a better first principles thinker, and to
S1: make me more independent of a thinker. Right. I is
S1: going to enable that 100%. It's going to enable that
S1: for millions upon millions of people, hopefully hundreds of millions
S1: of people, hopefully billions of people. That's the good scenario.
S1: The bad scenario is you just use it like a crutch.
S1: And that's what I believe we're seeing with this study
S1: where people got way stupider. Right? Oh, the most interesting
S1: part about this. They actually saw brain activity decrease. Okay.
S1: So they have physical evidence of, I would say, just
S1: people just being dumber, like their brains are not as
S1: active because they are offloading that stuff to an AI.
S1: And that is super frightening to me. That is like really,
S1: really a problem. Just keep in mind it doesn't mean
S1: it's it's necessary. It doesn't mean it's guaranteed. Right? You
S1: can actively defend against this and have it actually be
S1: a net positive. It's a choice. Massive study analyzing 1.2
S1: million dating app ratings found men rate women as attractive
S1: 13 times more than women rate men. Calling it the
S1: attractiveness gap. Women rate only 4.5% of men as attractive.
S1: That's quite sad. What gets measured. I will automate. Uh,
S1: you could check that one out. Microsoft data shows the
S1: infinite workday has become the norm. Analyze trillions of data
S1: points and found that work now stretches endlessly, with employees
S1: getting interrupted every two minutes during business hours. Yeah. Yep.
S1: That's why I got out of the game. 2024 Baby
S1: name details. Extreme spelling is exploding. Ten of the top
S1: 20 Rising Boys names have X's or Z's in them.
S1: Finland is firing up the world's largest sand battery. Evidently
S1: store a lot of heat and sand. This is like
S1: tripping me out. Private equity has taken over and destroyed
S1: much of America. Megan Greenwald's new book argues that private
S1: equity firms have systematically bought up the entire industries and
S1: optimized them into bankruptcy. New Covid variant, called NB 1.8.1,
S1: jumped from 15% to 37% of US cases in just
S1: two weeks. and people are worried about a potential summer surge.
S1: What was interesting here is there's actually CDC data on this,
S1: which I'm surprised and happy that there's still data coming
S1: out of the CDC discovery. Again, I'm not going to
S1: read all these. They can get quite long. And there
S1: is the newsletter for you to go check out. Heartwarming. I,
S1: I am going to read this one. So a teacher
S1: shows her students eye images. This thing is insane. You
S1: got to go watch this video. It shows them. So
S1: somebody's like, I want to be a football star. I
S1: want to be, you know, a marine biologist. I want
S1: to be an astronaut. It shows them age accelerated versions
S1: of them, like in an astronaut suit or whatever. And
S1: just like the looks on these kids faces, it is so, like,
S1: so wholesome, right? Just imagine seeing that it is possible, right?
S1: Do you believe your parents when they say it? Okay,
S1: a little bit. Do you believe your teacher when they
S1: say it's possible? A little bit, but how does that
S1: compare to actually seeing your face grown up in an
S1: actual astronaut suit? It is extraordinary. You got to check
S1: it out. Good workers are often bad at interviews. Hormozi
S1: is highest ROI spins. There are tons of great discovery links. Again,
S1: I don't want to just go through and read the title.
S1: Go check it out. Okay, this is the end of
S1: the standard edition of the podcast, which includes just the
S1: news items for the week to get the rest of
S1: the episode, which includes much more of my analysis, the
S1: ideas section, and the weekly member essay. Please consider becoming
S1: a member. As a member, you get access to all
S1: sorts of stuff, most importantly, access to our extraordinary community
S1: of over a thousand brilliant and kind people in industries
S1: like cybersecurity, AI, and the humanities. You also get access
S1: to the UL Book Club, dedicated member content and events,
S1: and lots more. Plus, you'll get a dedicated podcast feed
S1: that you can put into your client that gets you
S1: the full member edition of the podcast that basically doesn't
S1: have this in it, and just goes all the way
S1: through with all the different sections. So to become a
S1: member and get all that, just head over to Daniel Store.com.
S1: That's Daniel Miessler, and we'll see you next time.