Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio news.
Speaker 2: Hello, Hello, Hello, welcome to on Air Fast twenty twenty six.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much. I'm Kristin Meinzer. I'm your MC
Speaker 2: for the day. And in case you don't know who
Speaker 2: I am, I'm a podcaster, I'm a royal watcher. I'm
Speaker 2: a culture critic. I've been very busy over the last
Speaker 2: week with some royal news you may have heard of,
Speaker 2: so you may know me from those things. But today
Speaker 2: is not about me. It is about the fantastic talent
Speaker 2: that is going to be on the stage and at
Speaker 2: this festival. Let's get to our first live taping of
Speaker 2: the day, Bloomberg's Odd Lots podcast. The hosts of Odd
Speaker 2: Lots are Joe Wisenthal and Tracy Alloway. Please welcome them
Speaker 2: to the stage, along with their very special guest, Henry Blodgett.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much. Welcome to the stage.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much.
Speaker 3: And hello and welcome to a live episode of the
Speaker 3: Odd Lots podcast.
Speaker 4: I'm Joe Wisenthal and I'm Tracy Alloway.
Speaker 3: Tracy, We're definitely not going to do this, but it
Speaker 3: definitely feels like almost.
Speaker 1: Every episode could be about AI these days. Right, Like
Speaker 1: it's just touching.
Speaker 3: So all the things we talk about are solely getting
Speaker 3: subsumed into this topic that we're not going to do it,
Speaker 3: but we probably could.
Speaker 4: It's not just that every episode could be on AI,
Speaker 4: it's that every episode could probably be made by AI
Speaker 4: at this point, right. And in fact, we've had a
Speaker 4: few people last year. I remember there were a few
Speaker 4: people who made AI generated episodes of the podcast and
Speaker 4: they weren't that bad. And I have to think if
Speaker 4: they did it today, they would be even better.
Speaker 1: It would definitely be better anyway, not better than us,
Speaker 1: but they would be better than they were. I'm not
Speaker 1: sure they'd be better than they were a year ago anyway.
Speaker 3: So we have to talk about AI and what it
Speaker 3: is doing to the market, finance, economics, et cetera. And
Speaker 3: of course we have to talk about what it means
Speaker 3: for us in the media industry. And I'm really excited
Speaker 3: to say we do have the perfect guest.
Speaker 1: We're going to be.
Speaker 3: Speaking here with Henry Blodgett, the CEO of Regenerator. He
Speaker 3: used to be my boss when I was at a
Speaker 3: Business Insider, someone who has a background in both media
Speaker 3: and of course Wall Street and finance, so the perfect
Speaker 3: person to talk about all the different dimensions.
Speaker 4: Truly the perfect guest.
Speaker 3: All right, Henry, thank you so much for coming back
Speaker 3: on odlots.
Speaker 5: Thank you for having me so.
Speaker 3: The last time we talked to was in May of
Speaker 3: last year, and the theme then was everyone was talking
Speaker 3: about here are these huge evaluations for AI companies, how
Speaker 3: could they possibly be justified? And that was an interesting
Speaker 3: conversation And it feels like the narrative has now flipped
Speaker 3: one hundred and eighty degrees where it's like these companies
Speaker 3: are so powerful they're going to destroy every other company
Speaker 3: they're wake and every software company, a payments provider, et cetera.
Speaker 3: Has been like plunging really since the start of the year.
Speaker 3: How have you like updated your views? Where are you
Speaker 3: now versus where you were in same May.
Speaker 5: We are early in the development of the industry. This
Speaker 5: looks a lot like the Internet in the nineteen nineties
Speaker 5: for the if you remember, basically, when you have a
Speaker 5: huge opportunity like this early on, you can have a
Speaker 5: huge range of reasonable predictions about what is going to happen.
Speaker 5: And here we one day it's catastrophe. None of us
Speaker 5: are ever going to have a job. Again, everything's going
Speaker 5: to create her other days, Hey, it's just a fancy
Speaker 5: word process or no worries. Open ai is way overvalued.
Speaker 5: I will say that since we talked last I believe
Speaker 5: that we were aghast at the open ai three hundred
Speaker 5: billion dollar valuation. I believe the latest one is eight
Speaker 5: hundred billion, So we are climbing. But there are other
Speaker 5: companies out there that are worth many times that. So
Speaker 5: if one does think that AI is going to take
Speaker 5: over the world and open Ai is the Google of
Speaker 5: the AI era, which is the thesis which I think
Speaker 5: is very misguided, we can get into, then one can
Speaker 5: imagine that a company might be worth many multiples of
Speaker 5: some of the companies that are out there.
Speaker 4: So one of the crazy things that happened this week
Speaker 4: speaking of AI and media, is there's a guy. We've
Speaker 4: had him on the show, James Galen aka Satriny. He
Speaker 4: runs a hedge fund also publishes an investment newsletter. He
Speaker 4: basically wrote a doom case scenario of the year twenty
Speaker 4: twenty eight where everything had become AI and because everything
Speaker 4: was AI, no one had any jobs, no one was
Speaker 4: actually buying anything in the economy, and we basically had
Speaker 4: an economic and financial crisis when I read that piece
Speaker 4: and then saw the market reaction to it, so stocks
Speaker 4: fell pretty dramatically, and people were attributing it to basically
Speaker 4: a newsletter that was a thought piece. I thought that
Speaker 4: was kind of insane, and it speaks to what you
Speaker 4: just said, which is, when we're in this really uncertain time,
Speaker 4: you can go from sort of euphoria to doomerism very
Speaker 4: very quickly.
Speaker 5: Exactly because it's all predictions. We're all looking into the
Speaker 5: hazy future saying how big is it going to be?
Speaker 5: These small changes in your assumptions make a huge difference
Speaker 5: in the current value. I will say, because that research
Speaker 5: report was both heralded and pillarid, this is exactly fully
Speaker 5: what you want analysts to do. You want them to
Speaker 5: look out and take a strong position and say here's
Speaker 5: what it can look like. And I thought it was
Speaker 5: a fascinating report. I will point out that even though
Speaker 5: as you just characterized it, that this is economic armageddon,
Speaker 5: one of the first sentences of the report says ten
Speaker 5: percent unemployment, which means ninety percent employment. Most of us
Speaker 5: still have a job, and yes there are changes in industries,
Speaker 5: but most of us are still working. So I was
Speaker 5: surprised after hearing about this predicts catastrophe that I picked
Speaker 5: it up. It's like, well, no, it predicts a big
Speaker 5: technology change that sometimes takes the economy awhile to digest,
Speaker 5: but not armageddon.
Speaker 3: What do you think though, it says like about the
Speaker 3: market right now? I mean, and it's kind of an
Speaker 3: interaction of a market story in a media story, because
Speaker 3: here's a substack piece that really did seem to move
Speaker 3: the market.
Speaker 1: Quite a bit on Monday, right yeah.
Speaker 3: What does it say about the market environment that, because
Speaker 3: it's all your right, the software stocks have been getting
Speaker 3: clovered all year, and our AI agents, I mean, we'll
Speaker 3: get into that, gonna somehow make it so we don't
Speaker 3: need to buy regular business software anymore. I don't totally
Speaker 3: understand that, but this has been the fear all year.
Speaker 3: What does it sort of say about the market slash
Speaker 3: media environment that a substack piece like this could just
Speaker 3: go absolutely megaviral like that and move the market.
Speaker 5: Everybody is twitchy. Valuations were high to begin with. We're
Speaker 5: all reevaluating our views every day saying, am I crazy
Speaker 5: thinking it could be this? Maybe I'm crazy? I have
Speaker 5: to panic a little bit so we've seen stocks roll over.
Speaker 5: The multiples are compressing a little bit again. So far
Speaker 5: from armageddon. It's people saying, okay, there may be some
Speaker 5: change here. And to your point, the big Bayer case
Speaker 5: now is that, oh my goodness, claud Code is so good,
Speaker 5: no one will ever buy software anymore. You'll just say, hey,
Speaker 5: make me the software.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I've done that.
Speaker 5: Yeah you have. You're a big experimenter. Yeah, but I
Speaker 5: would say you were probably not spending billions of dollars
Speaker 5: in enterprise software before I do.
Speaker 3: I don't know a thousands of people out in my
Speaker 3: payroll who they need to get it at Fried you
Speaker 3: know exactly.
Speaker 5: You depend on this. And one of the nice things
Speaker 5: about having a company standing behind a product is you
Speaker 5: actually can hold them accountable for it. And maybe claud
Speaker 5: Code doesn't make your enterprise software the you why you want,
Speaker 5: somebody doesn't get paid. So as I hear that, to me,
Speaker 5: that is hysteria. I don't understand it. Software companies are
Speaker 5: not going away. Companies that are not in the software
Speaker 5: business are not going to suddenly say, oh, let's have
Speaker 5: a junior person who understands AI build all our software
Speaker 5: for us. It is not going to happen, but overall,
Speaker 5: big changes coming, lots of disruption. Do we know for
Speaker 5: sure what that's going to do to profits of these
Speaker 5: companies and change in the economy. We do not, And
Speaker 5: that is called the discount rate getting higher. It feels riskier.
Speaker 5: And on that day, Monday, everybody was feeling suddenly risk averse.
Speaker 5: Today I'll point out as we tape, everyone's saying, no problem.
Speaker 5: Off to the races again.
Speaker 4: You've obviously lived and been very active and influential in
Speaker 4: a previous technological I guess cycle of disruption. What do
Speaker 4: you think people are getting wrong here, especially on Wall
Speaker 4: Street when it comes to their approach on this particular
Speaker 4: one AI versus dot Com.
Speaker 5: I think this goes way beyond Wall Street. I think
Speaker 5: there really is a big camp still, and the case
Speaker 5: gets made and then it gets tamped down, and then
Speaker 5: it comes back even more strongly that there really will
Speaker 5: be no jobs for humans anymore. And what I would
Speaker 5: say to that is, I think the bigger risk with
Speaker 5: AI is actually that somebody invents an agenttic system that
Speaker 5: actually gets out in the world and does a lot
Speaker 5: of damage. I think that is a bigger risk. If
Speaker 5: you look at technology job transitions over time, like the
Speaker 5: big one, which is agriculture to industrial. Two hundred years ago,
Speaker 5: ninety three percent of us worked on farms. Now it's
Speaker 5: two percent. That's a big transition, and yet all through
Speaker 5: that the number of jobs grow grew. And same thing
Speaker 5: with things like telephone operators with steam engines. You look
Speaker 5: at any piece of it, there is disruption and pain
Speaker 5: and I'm not minimizing that for the people whose jobs
Speaker 5: are changed or disrupted by it. But the economy overall
Speaker 5: so far in history has gone on to create a
Speaker 5: lot more jobs. And so when you see the lay
Speaker 5: waste to jobs predictions, you don't also often get the
Speaker 5: other side, which is how many new jobs are going
Speaker 5: to be created?
Speaker 4: Well, this is exactly what I want to ask you,
Speaker 4: because we hear that all the time during technological advancement cycles,
Speaker 4: new jobs are created. But I think the difficulty with
Speaker 4: AI is that it's hard to see what those new
Speaker 4: jobs are we better are.
Speaker 2: Going to be?
Speaker 4: Yeah, like, what are we better at than a supercomputer
Speaker 4: that can code a program or write an article in
Speaker 4: less than a minute.
Speaker 1: Or mimical voice and do a podcast.
Speaker 5: Okay, so how where are we three years in at
Speaker 5: this point. These job doom predictions started twenty minutes after
Speaker 5: chat GPT came out. Where are we maybe a little
Speaker 5: bit at the margin, we're seeing something maybe, but maybe
Speaker 5: it's still that companies way over hired after the COVID
Speaker 5: boom or now sort of right sizing themselves. As you say,
Speaker 5: I can go into LA, I can go to Google.
Speaker 5: I think it is drop in a topic and say
Speaker 5: make this into a great Odd Lots podcast.
Speaker 1: Some people have said that Google.
Speaker 3: Multiple people think that Google's notebook LM, which does that
Speaker 3: creates a podcast out of a document.
Speaker 1: Multiple people have said they.
Speaker 3: Trained this on Jo and Tracy like this sounds like
Speaker 3: other people are claiming that too, but yes they could have.
Speaker 5: I'm just saying, you guys continue to grow. All I
Speaker 5: hear more and more about is oh, you gotta listen
Speaker 5: to Odd Lots grow and growing, growing, growing, growing. And
Speaker 5: I don't think we were talking earlier that you've radically changed,
Speaker 5: you made the way you make the show. We're still
Speaker 5: recording it here. You didn't just queue up lams. Who
Speaker 5: is going to rush to do the big interview with Google.
Speaker 5: They're not. They're gonna come do it with you guys,
Speaker 5: because they love you, and your audience loves you. So
Speaker 5: I'm just saying, even in something that seemingly looks so
Speaker 5: ripe to be destroyed, you guys cost money. Why is
Speaker 5: Bloomberg spending it away right to defend I'm just saying optimistic.
Speaker 1: So I mean I hear both ways, and thank you
Speaker 1: for saying that.
Speaker 3: On the other hand, you know, people might not have
Speaker 3: the same affinity for someone who does claims adjusted and
Speaker 3: at insurance. They don't really care if they have the
Speaker 3: human touch for that or tech support. I want to
Speaker 3: ask a related question. It also relates to the piece
Speaker 3: that came out on one day, and it relates to
Speaker 3: this question of whether open ai is could be.
Speaker 1: The Google of the next generation.
Speaker 3: One of the arguments that the piece stipulates, and I
Speaker 3: think it sort of fits with what I have observed,
Speaker 3: is that ai doesn't seem to have network.
Speaker 1: Effects in the same way.
Speaker 3: So it's like you could switch from O chat, GPT
Speaker 3: to claude with almost no issues and it's just not
Speaker 3: an issue. Whereas after the first time I used Google
Speaker 3: in two though I never used Yahoo again, that was
Speaker 3: the last time I'd ever.
Speaker 1: Used another search engine.
Speaker 3: This seems this is one of the arguments in the
Speaker 3: piece that there isn't gonna be the same stickiness and
Speaker 3: network effects in the AI era in the way that
Speaker 3: defined the last twenty five years of the Internet. And
Speaker 3: so when you think about like open ai versus Google
Speaker 3: this year versus the dot com era, does that resonate
Speaker 3: to I.
Speaker 5: Think that what folks who would say that open ai
Speaker 5: is the Google of the era would say that more
Speaker 5: and more, you're gonna build more of your life into it.
Speaker 5: It's going to know everything about you, it's going to
Speaker 5: custom so it's gonna be the switching costs are going
Speaker 5: to grow. But to this point they have not. And
Speaker 5: I'll tell you the thing that really made me think
Speaker 5: they were in trouble, and I still think that given
Speaker 5: the valuation and given the general consensus that they've already won,
Speaker 5: was when Google Gemini came out and people said, oh
Speaker 5: it's better. Yeah, they passed them, and all the bulls said, oh,
Speaker 5: just wait till the next version of open ai comes out.
Speaker 5: I will say, if you go back into the nineteen nineties,
Speaker 5: Amazon was very controversial. A lot of people thought it
Speaker 5: would go bankrupt. It's just a bookstore. Barnes and Noble
Speaker 5: is gonna put them out of business as soon as
Speaker 5: they have a website or Walmart or whatever. Walmart and
Speaker 5: Barnes and Noble never got anywhere near Amazon. Amazon was
Speaker 5: so far out ahead always and still almost went bankrupt
Speaker 5: by the way, but nobody was ever close. And in
Speaker 5: this case, less than two years after the product comes out,
Speaker 5: the incumbent has caught up to me. That's when I said, like, whoa, Okay,
Speaker 5: maybe this actually is going to be like the Internet,
Speaker 5: which is the first five years all of us, including me,
Speaker 5: were saying like, oh, just buy the leaders, no problem,
Speaker 5: like they're the ones that are gonna survive. You know
Speaker 5: how many survived. Of that first five hundred companies that
Speaker 5: went public in the nineteen nineties, one went on to
Speaker 5: actually make investors a lot of money after the crash.
Speaker 5: That was Amazon. Two others that I know of, Cisco,
Speaker 5: after twenty five years, finally got back to its stock prize.
Speaker 5: eBay did okay for a while and then kind of
Speaker 5: sputtered out a little bit. That's out of hundreds and
Speaker 5: hundreds of companies. So I think it's very possible that yes,
Speaker 5: AI is huge. It's a great idea. We all want it,
Speaker 5: and somebody is going to come along soon and due
Speaker 5: to open ai what Google did to Yahoo, which by
Speaker 5: the way, Yahoo was the big search engine winner and
Speaker 5: then Google destroyed it. So I just think it's way
Speaker 5: too early to say that we open a eyes the Google.
Speaker 4: We started by mentioning the open ai valuation, which everyone
Speaker 4: was a gas stat last year. Now maybe not so much.
Speaker 4: But even if you assume a future where open ai
Speaker 4: or whoever comes in and disrupts every single industry, and
Speaker 4: there are thousands of employees and companies that are paying
Speaker 4: two hundred dollars a month or whatever to access the
Speaker 4: new LM whatever the new model is, open ai, at
Speaker 4: least for right now, is still losing money on every
Speaker 4: customer that's like a power user. So how does that
Speaker 4: actually translate into a working business model.
Speaker 5: It's a good question. I think what the bulls would
Speaker 5: say is the cost of what they do is going
Speaker 5: to plummet, and so the lines are going to cross
Speaker 5: here pretty soon. If they own the whole market, suddenly
Speaker 5: they start to become incredibly profitable. We are not there yet.
Speaker 5: And I think when we talked last time at a
Speaker 5: three hundred billion dollar valuation, which everybody was horrified by
Speaker 5: at that point. But if you looked at the projections,
Speaker 5: the projections were three years from now, they'll do one
Speaker 5: hundred billion of revenue. And if you at that point
Speaker 5: were looking at it saying, okay, if I believe that,
Speaker 5: then it's three times revenue, the economics will probably change.
Speaker 5: It starts to look a little more reasonable. Now we're
Speaker 5: at eight hundred billion, so it's a much bigger multiple,
Speaker 5: and you've got to actually have a much bigger revenue
Speaker 5: stream and profits. But that's the argument. I don't see
Speaker 5: it yet. I gotta say the economics are incredibly difficult
Speaker 5: for them.
Speaker 1: They seem brutal. And there's another element too.
Speaker 3: So obviously, unlike during the Web two point zero era
Speaker 3: where there was like cheap, plentiful compute, obviously, the capital
Speaker 3: expenditure budgets.
Speaker 1: To these companies are just eyewatering. They're spending like crazy.
Speaker 3: There's also this other element that I think is interesting,
Speaker 3: which is at least of a few of these labs,
Speaker 3: like the people found to them are true believers, Like
Speaker 3: they think they're like they think they're on a mission
Speaker 3: to build AGI is going to change everything. Build God,
Speaker 3: Build God, right, build a digital God, and it's like
Speaker 3: they're not going to stop at anything. They're not gonna
Speaker 3: be like, you know what, it's pretty good, let's tap
Speaker 3: the brakes. We're pretty happy with how this model works.
Speaker 1: You know, I don't, or at least I don't get
Speaker 1: that a privy.
Speaker 4: Also, they've couched it as this like existential race, like
Speaker 4: there's only gonna be one company that dominates in the
Speaker 4: and so the upper limit on spending to become that
Speaker 4: company is infinity.
Speaker 5: Yes, However, there is a limit to money. And when
Speaker 5: you look at when people are raising money, you watch
Speaker 5: where they're going for it. Sure, the vcs, that's one
Speaker 5: pool of money, and then the big strategics, and then
Speaker 5: the vcs who missed the first time and are feeling
Speaker 5: so embarrassed about it they'll pay up to get in.
Speaker 5: Then it is the international funds that are watching all
Speaker 5: this stuff. Yeah, exactly. So it's some point you run
Speaker 5: out of money, and we are talking about a company
Speaker 5: that is raising hundreds of billions of dollars just to
Speaker 5: keep the engine running and just to keep pace. This
Speaker 5: is the other problem. Google, Facebook, Microsoft are generating tens
Speaker 5: of billions of dollars of free cash flow every year
Speaker 5: that they can use to buy chips open AI has
Speaker 5: to raise it in the open market. So if those
Speaker 5: economics don't start to change soon, we're gonna run out
Speaker 5: of money.
Speaker 4: Joe and I were talking about this before we came
Speaker 4: on stage. But another thing happened recently was there is
Speaker 4: a karaoke machine making company that announced it was now
Speaker 4: an AI company, which when I see headlines like that,
Speaker 4: remind me a lot of the crypto boom, but also
Speaker 4: remind me a lot of the dot com boom, and
Speaker 4: we are starting to see more and more of those.
Speaker 4: Wasn't there a toilet company recently?
Speaker 3: The toilet owner is legit, so like apparently, no, no, no,
Speaker 3: for real, So you said it was not like, oh,
Speaker 3: we're an AI company. Apparently it's the Japanese toilet company
Speaker 3: and they have some like porcelain or something like that.
Speaker 3: It's very important for like semiconductors or something. So everyone's like, oh,
Speaker 3: get out of the toilet business. You have this access
Speaker 3: to this material.
Speaker 1: But so that one was kind of legit. The karaoke one.
Speaker 4: Okay, okay, so yeah, the toilet one. Maybe the karaoke one.
Speaker 4: When you see headlines like that, what do you think
Speaker 4: do you think like this is a rational pivot into
Speaker 4: a booming market and everyone should be experimenting with AI
Speaker 4: at the moment, or do you think like, nah, this
Speaker 4: is getting crazy.
Speaker 5: I think we are in a euphoric bubble period where
Speaker 5: we just discovered this amazing new thing. Nobody knows what
Speaker 5: the future is, nobody knows what's gonna work, and we
Speaker 5: are effectively creating this enormous R and D lab, which is, hey,
Speaker 5: what you can do something, here's some money, go out
Speaker 5: and experiment. I hope you'll be one of the winners.
Speaker 5: Fifty to one hundred years ago, all of that stuff
Speaker 5: happened in labs like Edison's lab or Bell Labs inside
Speaker 5: these big corporations. You never saw it. Now everything is
Speaker 5: a startup. You see it. It's happening in front of you.
Speaker 5: But there's no question that most of the companies are
Speaker 5: gonna fail. Happens aget in again and again. And I
Speaker 5: think what investors are saying when they see that is okay,
Speaker 5: you know that is a quick flip. It's hey, I'll
Speaker 5: get it. Other people. A lot of other people love AI.
Speaker 5: They'll buy it after I do, and it'll go up
Speaker 5: and then I'll sell it.
Speaker 3: I want to ask you a question about capital markets
Speaker 3: and how they're different to the late nineties of the
Speaker 3: dot com bubble, because one really big thing that's happening
Speaker 3: these days is, yes, these companies are in private but
Speaker 3: there is a lot of stock floating around, and there
Speaker 3: are these SPVs that will buy a choir, a chunk
Speaker 3: of Anthropic and sell them on a secondary market, and
Speaker 3: people are trying to get They're much more liquid than
Speaker 3: a private company would have been in the late nineties.
Speaker 1: I get someone someone messaged me.
Speaker 3: They're like, do you want to buy a little I like, no,
Speaker 3: I don't do that, but they're like, would you like
Speaker 3: to buy a little bit of Anthropic at a three
Speaker 3: hundred and fifty billion dollar valuation? But you must get
Speaker 3: a bunch of those sort of messages from people. And
Speaker 3: I'm curious about your perspective on this world, because the
Speaker 3: other thing is like, there's no financials, You have no
Speaker 3: idea like what their p and L is for these
Speaker 3: private company what's your take on some of this quasi
Speaker 3: liquid private market stock.
Speaker 5: Yeah, and let us just say then when our phones
Speaker 5: are ringing, yeah, I know that's the right thing.
Speaker 1: Money out there It's like, if someone is reaching out
Speaker 1: to me, I can't be that much money.
Speaker 5: Big, big warning signs going on over there. So I
Speaker 5: think one of the things that's changed versus the dot
Speaker 5: com boom in the nineteen nineties and before that is
Speaker 5: companies used to go public very early before, and you
Speaker 5: can invest in Amazon, for example, at a four hundred
Speaker 5: million dollar valuation, sounds like a lot. It's worth trillions
Speaker 5: of dollars. Now there's been incredible appreciation. Individuals can't do
Speaker 5: that anymore, and there's good reason for it. People lost
Speaker 5: a lot of money after the dot com crash. We
Speaker 5: didn't like that. We want to protect everybody. So now
Speaker 5: companies go public a lot later, the threat of lawsuits
Speaker 5: and all of the different regulation that you've got to do,
Speaker 5: so it's later. But the bummer about it is a
Speaker 5: lot of investors who actually do have the risk tolerance
Speaker 5: can't access them. And so, yes, you've had a new
Speaker 5: business that has been built around Okay, let's get that
Speaker 5: private stock. Somehow get it, I think. And the problem is, again,
Speaker 5: if you choose right great company, it works, but it's
Speaker 5: more fees packed around it. It's much more you know
Speaker 5: that intermediary that called you has to get paid, so
Speaker 5: that's somebody else. It's more difficult to trade. So I
Speaker 5: think it is the market trying to solve the problem
Speaker 5: that it's much harder to make money in open AI
Speaker 5: at eight hundred billion or Anthropic at three hundred and
Speaker 5: fifty billion than it is in the seed round when
Speaker 5: it was a few hundred million. And so you've got
Speaker 5: a lot of people clamoring to get in. But it's
Speaker 5: the same problem. You don't even infect less companies go public.
Speaker 5: They do, or they are releasing a lot of information,
Speaker 5: whereas these guys are not.
Speaker 4: Should we do some media stuff? All right, let the
Speaker 4: media naval gazing begin, Okay, So we started out by
Speaker 4: saying that, you know, we were talking about the Satrini
Speaker 4: piece that got it went viral, but it also got
Speaker 4: a backlash. You did your own AI newsroom experiment newsletter
Speaker 4: on substack that also got a bit of a backlash.
Speaker 4: Were you surprised at that one?
Speaker 5: Yes, I was surprised. Basically, what I did I left
Speaker 5: business inside or I started this new thing Regenerator and
Speaker 5: a podcast too. Trying your business.
Speaker 4: It's very difficult talk about this is the most important
Speaker 4: aspect of podcasting podcast.
Speaker 5: Exactly, yes, podcast called Solutions with check it out? Yes please.
Speaker 5: So I left and it was just me. So I said, okay, great,
Speaker 5: let's see what it can do, because if you try
Speaker 5: that as a CEO of a company, people freak out, justifiably.
Speaker 5: Oh my goodness, they're going to discover something. My job's threatened.
Speaker 5: We are all worried about our jobs being threatened. Including
Speaker 5: by the way, do we need articles any more? Articles?
Speaker 5: I mean, boy, there are a lot of great articles
Speaker 5: written everybody. In fact, this is the problem in media.
Speaker 5: There's way too much of it. Let's just get that
Speaker 5: out there anyway. So yes, I experimented with everything, and
Speaker 5: the first thing that I did was, oh, if I
Speaker 5: were actually starting a publication and hiring a team, who
Speaker 5: would I hire. Well, I'd hire five people. I have
Speaker 5: a managing editor, and I'd have a few reporters and
Speaker 5: so forth. So I asked chat GPT, can you help me?
Speaker 5: CHATCHEPET said sure, let's make them. So in two hours
Speaker 5: we made them. They all had different personalities, they had
Speaker 5: head shots, et cetera. I wrote this, We had like
Speaker 5: slack going where we're all talking about stories, and it
Speaker 5: was pretty good, not spectacular but pretty good, and so
Speaker 5: that was cool, so I wrote about it. Yes, I
Speaker 5: also made the mistake of complimenting one of the headshots
Speaker 5: and was immediately lambasted for that, which actually helped me
Speaker 5: hone my own AI morality.
Speaker 4: Well, I have a question on this. If you had
Speaker 4: had a human editor for that piece, do you think
Speaker 4: you would have complimented your AI generated managing editor on
Speaker 4: her appearance.
Speaker 5: The piece needed to be editing edited. This is the problem.
Speaker 5: You were out on your own. You don't have great
Speaker 5: editors protecting you anymore. You let your enthusiasm bubble over
Speaker 5: a little bit too much. You know who I have
Speaker 5: edited my stuff now sometimes if I feel like I'm
Speaker 5: maybe a little bit too fasty as enthusiastic JATGBT or
Speaker 5: Claude and very good spots it.
Speaker 3: Anyway, you talk to us about that newsroom dynamic particularly,
Speaker 3: you know, every editor at a newsroom, every every newsroom right.
Speaker 1: Now is like trying to figure out something right. You
Speaker 1: can't like alienate.
Speaker 3: The entire newsroom and say like, oh you all have
Speaker 3: to be doing whats Yeah.
Speaker 1: Like that doesn't work.
Speaker 3: The newsroom obviously hates it, and I would say probably
Speaker 3: for good reason. But on the other hand, everyone has
Speaker 3: to be like figuring stuff out. What should newsroom executives,
Speaker 3: whether it's editors in chief or whatever, how should they
Speaker 3: be thinking about solving this problem?
Speaker 5: So, I mean, so going back the other thing, the
Speaker 5: other thing that I learned from publishing, that was just
Speaker 5: how much anxiety there is, especially in younger generation, about
Speaker 5: jobs that have been there for a long time that
Speaker 5: are just disappearing. And that was extremely clear to me,
Speaker 5: and I would have been even more Yeah, I understand it.
Speaker 5: I mean it is scary. And so what does a
Speaker 5: newsroom do. I think, let's look at what's going on media.
Speaker 5: The problem again is there's way too much media. There
Speaker 5: are so many amazing articles, for example, produced every day.
Speaker 5: When I open the New York Times or the Wall
Speaker 5: Street Journal or Bloomberg, I want to read dozens of articles.
Speaker 5: I might get to one or two. And distribution has
Speaker 5: changed radically five years ago. Facebook, Google, we're driving enormous
Speaker 5: distribution to lots of different publishers. That is all now changing.
Speaker 5: We are going back to something that looks like the
Speaker 5: nineteen nineties, where actually you have to have a direct
Speaker 5: relationship with your subscriber. The industry is under a ton
Speaker 5: of pressure, both from advertising but also we have maximized
Speaker 5: the amount of time as humans that we can spend
Speaker 5: consuming media. This is very different from twenty years ago
Speaker 5: when we start a business socider. You remember this, Like
Speaker 5: in the nineteen nineties, media was very mature.
Speaker 1: It was, says twenty years ago. By the way, that's
Speaker 1: like thirty years Oh, wit to figure.
Speaker 5: Okay, but let's go back to the ninety nineties. Even farther.
Speaker 5: Media was very mature. Magazines totally mature, very hard to
Speaker 5: start one. You needed fifty million dollars and you need
Speaker 5: to hire all these great people, and then maybe five
Speaker 5: years down the road you might, if you're lucky, become profitable.
Speaker 5: Very hard, very hard to get into newspapers, television, even worse.
Speaker 5: Your slave for a long long time getting coffee, so
Speaker 5: very very tough. Then desktops came along and got connected.
Speaker 5: So that was suddenly twelve hours a day that people
Speaker 5: are sitting in the office. They need to know what's
Speaker 5: going on. It's a new opportunity. Then phones came and
Speaker 5: that's the thing that really drove business Insider. In the
Speaker 5: earlier we're standing around, we want to know what's happening.
Speaker 5: Nobody else is serving that, so big, big opportunity. But
Speaker 5: over time all the folks in the industry caught up.
Speaker 5: New York Times is terrific, so is Wall Street Journal,
Speaker 5: so it's business insiders, so it's Bloomberg. These companies are
Speaker 5: really really good at this now. And if you just
Speaker 5: look at, for example, political coverage, we don't need one
Speaker 5: hundred White House reporters, we just don't. And yet that's
Speaker 5: the thing that everybody's interested in, so of course you're
Speaker 5: going to have a reporter focus on that. And yet
Speaker 5: there's just too much capacity. And then the other thing
Speaker 5: that happened, and I'll finished up very quickly, is the
Speaker 5: Internet blew up the protective mote around all of the
Speaker 5: nineteen nineties era media. Print and TV used to be
Speaker 5: completely separate. Now they're the same. You used to not
Speaker 5: have a television company be able to own a newspaper.
Speaker 5: Now we've done away with that. Everybody can own everything,
Speaker 5: everybody can do everything, and it's all a click away.
Speaker 5: So it has become even more intensely competitive. And so
Speaker 5: it's never been an easy industry, but we are back
Speaker 5: to it being an incredibly intensely competitive industry, and I
Speaker 5: do think there's just in general too much of it.
Speaker 4: So when we think about the impact of AI on media,
Speaker 4: it feels to me like people are talking about two
Speaker 4: paths here, and one is where you know, the big
Speaker 4: chat platforms are basically they become the front page of
Speaker 4: the internet, right and you type in whatever query you
Speaker 4: have today, how did the State of the Union address
Speaker 4: go last night or something like that, and it spits
Speaker 4: out a bunch of information that's based on a bunch
Speaker 4: of articles that you, yourself, are not paying for. And
Speaker 4: then the other thing that I hear is well, actually,
Speaker 4: in the age of Internet slop AI slop, that distribution
Speaker 4: and quality is going to become even more important. So
Speaker 4: people are going to want to go to the New
Speaker 4: York Times or hopefully to Bloomberg or wherever and get
Speaker 4: that take on last night's events. Where do you stand
Speaker 4: on that sort of You know, it's a very binary
Speaker 4: outcome to me, which way do you think we're going?
Speaker 5: I think this is great for the brands that make it,
Speaker 5: and again, nobody has a right to exist. It's going
Speaker 5: to be a fight, But for the brands that make it,
Speaker 5: it is terrific. I trust Bloomberg. I read it Bloomberg article.
Speaker 5: I know the reporter knows what they're doing and they
Speaker 5: know the subject. I know there is editing there. Occasionally
Speaker 5: there's a mistake, but it is an honest mistake that
Speaker 5: will be fixed quickly. Compare that to what I see
Speaker 5: on social media, especially now where AI can create photos
Speaker 5: and videos and everything else. I don't know. I know
Speaker 5: the New York Times will immediately dive in if something
Speaker 5: is bubbling up, some video that's apparently scandalous that we've
Speaker 5: all got to look at. I know they'll do work
Speaker 5: on it. Maybe we'll sometime get to the point where
Speaker 5: they can be fooled. Not yet, and so I trust them.
Speaker 5: And you actually need a brand and a great organization
Speaker 5: to do that. And people say, wow, yes, but everybody
Speaker 5: out there, you know, who knows what's true and it's over.
Speaker 5: That has always been the case. At its peak in
Speaker 5: the print era, a million people read The New York Times.
Speaker 5: That's it. Everybody else heard what was said from their friends,
Speaker 5: or they heard something else, they never thought about it.
Speaker 5: And so the idea that yeah, there's stuff out there
Speaker 5: that some people believe, There's always been stuff out there
Speaker 5: that some people believe. So I think it's great for brands,
Speaker 5: but I do think it's gonna be a fight. It's
Speaker 5: never going to be an easy industry talk.
Speaker 3: Just more about this question though, of like, Okay, everyone,
Speaker 3: you know New York Times, like anyone else, they have
Speaker 3: to figure this out, right, They have to figure out,
Speaker 3: like what can they leverage it.
Speaker 1: I'm doing scare quotes.
Speaker 3: I hate that word, you know, but it's like the
Speaker 3: word that everyone used. Could it be leveraged in some
Speaker 3: way in the context of the traditional newsroom AI?
Speaker 1: Yeah, And so.
Speaker 5: Going back to your question, which I realized I didn't
Speaker 5: get to before, So what what should news.
Speaker 1: How do they handle that?
Speaker 3: Like, because everyone here's you have to like run your
Speaker 3: runder text through this chatbot or train your train the
Speaker 3: AI that's going to replace whatever or they feel, you know,
Speaker 3: very reasonable fear, how do you how can anyone overcome that?
Speaker 5: So I think there there is the opportunity for there
Speaker 5: to be a lot of productivity enhancements in what we
Speaker 5: have today. We were talking earlier. You both use research
Speaker 5: chattyp for research. Me too. It's great. That is a
Speaker 5: very different That is one use of media is me
Speaker 5: looking for information going out It used to be that
Speaker 5: I would search for articles. Now I do it with
Speaker 5: Claude or chat GPT. That is a smaller piece than
Speaker 5: what most media has lived on forever, which is I
Speaker 5: don't know what I'm interested in. WHOA, that's an interesting story.
Speaker 5: And that's the serendipitous consumption of media. That's why newspaper
Speaker 5: headlines have been like this forever. It's why magazine covers matter.
Speaker 5: We don't know what we want until we see it,
Speaker 5: and then we get it. And it's why in our
Speaker 5: business there are many different talents you need to be
Speaker 5: extraordinarily talented in the business. One is sure reporting, accuracy, expertise,
Speaker 5: so forth. You also have to know what people care
Speaker 5: about and what a good story is and why it matters.
Speaker 5: And I don't think that changes. And so where do
Speaker 5: we look around the interestry research, drafting stories? Why not?
Speaker 5: And when people are aghast at that, let me just
Speaker 5: say back in the print era, for newspapers, especially a
Speaker 5: daily newspaper, what would happen is the reporters would be
Speaker 5: out in the field, they would get information, they would
Speaker 5: call it into the rewrite desk. Verbally, they didn't have
Speaker 5: anything to write it with. It's just say you're the facts.
Speaker 5: The rewriters would write it. And in the last twenty
Speaker 5: years or thirty years, we who have been trained in
Speaker 5: writing and we value it and we go to Columbia
Speaker 5: Journalism School, we have conflated reporting and writing as journalism.
Speaker 5: And I do think there are opportunities now where Okay,
Speaker 5: the writing lift may may be lightened by this. And
Speaker 5: I'm not saying say here's the article and just publish it.
Speaker 5: I'm just saying, you know what, perplexity is pretty good
Speaker 5: at writing a well informed, well sourced story in six seconds,
Speaker 5: and maybe that actually accelerates what you're doing and then
Speaker 5: maybe you can add your piece to the top or
Speaker 5: what have you. So I do think their uses.
Speaker 4: For it too, So I actually I agree with that argument.
Speaker 4: I think like social skills and investigative skills are going
Speaker 4: to become more important in the age of AI. However,
Speaker 4: what you always hear is, well, you're gonna need You're
Speaker 4: going to need to produce scoops. Right, You're gonna have
Speaker 4: to find the stuff that the models don't already know about,
Speaker 4: and that's going to be the valuable aspect of journalism.
Speaker 4: But the problem seems to be that those scoops get
Speaker 4: commodified so freaking quickly that I'm not sure that actually
Speaker 4: generates much value for the news organization.
Speaker 5: It is very hard to protect news. You can't. But
Speaker 5: the organizations that produce it all the time are gonna
Speaker 5: have a huge advantage because it's going to be worth
Speaker 5: subscribing to them. And that's where That's where the New
Speaker 5: York Times, the Welster Journal, and Bloomberg that's where it's
Speaker 5: coming from. And Bloomberg's an interesting one because you really
Speaker 5: serve a somewhat small but highly committed base where Bloomberg
Speaker 5: reporters are breaking stuff all the time that allow people
Speaker 5: to make or lose money. They're going to care and
Speaker 5: they're gonna have that terminal and chackb is not doing that.
Speaker 5: So part of what I hear you say is wait
Speaker 5: a minute, it has to be differentiated. Yeah, it does. Actually,
Speaker 5: there's a lot less value than there used to be
Speaker 5: in somebody said something interesting, let's write it in an
Speaker 5: intelligent way, do a little more work and get it
Speaker 5: to somebody else. That is not as useful anymore for
Speaker 5: the reason that you describe. But those companies, if they
Speaker 5: want to compete with each other and they do chet,
Speaker 5: GPT and Claude right now, they are going to have
Speaker 5: to pay for that information. And that's where a Bloomberg
Speaker 5: is in great position. And say another thing, it's not
Speaker 5: just the big generalists. It is the niche providers who
Speaker 5: are experts like you guys and do an amazing job
Speaker 5: in a particular area that people really care about. Those
Speaker 5: are gonna Those are going to survive. And I'll say
Speaker 5: one more thing, which is Jeff Bezos was an investor
Speaker 5: and business Cider is incredibly helpful to talk to him,
Speaker 5: very smart. I realize now he's become kind of not
Speaker 5: applauded in the journalims of industry. But one of the
Speaker 5: things that he liked to say is everybody wants to
Speaker 5: know what's changing and what it means. It's actually more
Speaker 5: useful to step back and say what is going to
Speaker 5: stay the same. What is going to stay the same
Speaker 5: in media is that we are always wanted. We're always
Speaker 5: going to want to know what's happening and what it means,
Speaker 5: and we're always going to want to be entertained, and
Speaker 5: that's what media does. It's tough, but until actually there
Speaker 5: are no more humans, we are going to want media
Speaker 5: to deliver that.
Speaker 1: I agree with that.
Speaker 3: You know, there's some really good stories by the way,
Speaker 3: about the like the New York Post and daily news
Speaker 3: like report like the crime reporters out in the fields,
Speaker 3: and then they would call the rewrite desk and then
Speaker 3: they would like translate it into like tabloid to speak
Speaker 3: is a that's a cool, that'd be cool cool.
Speaker 4: I remember sending notes on a BlackBerry in like the
Speaker 4: early two thousands, and then someone in the newsroom would
Speaker 4: translate it into readable words.
Speaker 3: With a few minutes left, I want to talk about
Speaker 3: you mentioned, Jeff Bezos. I want to talk about the
Speaker 3: business environment right now. When President Trump won, there was
Speaker 3: a lot of headlines about you know, these CEOs. They'd
Speaker 3: be like, well, now we free speech, and now we
Speaker 3: can speak our minds and you know, none of this
Speaker 3: woke stuff where we have to like be careful about
Speaker 3: what we speak. And like I get the impression that
Speaker 3: it is literally the exact opposite, and that CEOs have
Speaker 3: never been more scared, there never been more timid, and
Speaker 3: they like are obsequious to him, and they like do
Speaker 3: these big pilgrimages and stuff.
Speaker 1: And meanwhile, we know they hate the tariffs.
Speaker 3: We know they hate all the stuff going on. What
Speaker 3: do you like make of that? Because he's not even
Speaker 3: that popular anymore. He's actually, like, arguably like one of
Speaker 3: the least popular presidents ever. And yet I don't get
Speaker 3: the impression that there's been much of a change in
Speaker 3: the sort of like world of CEOs and rich guys
Speaker 3: and billionaires about speaking their minds.
Speaker 5: Yes, the whole free speech thing was always I want
Speaker 5: more speech than I believe in, so I can say
Speaker 5: whatever I want. You can't say what you want, so
Speaker 5: it was gonna ludicrous. I think that in general, the
Speaker 5: big companies and CEOs, especially because President Trump won the
Speaker 5: last election, clearly they said, Okay, I believe in democracy,
Speaker 5: I'm going to be pragmatic and take care of my
Speaker 5: team and my company. And also for most public company CEOs,
Speaker 5: they are easily removed and they know that. And your
Speaker 5: job is to actually take care of your company and shareholders.
Speaker 5: It is not to be a free speech crusader and
Speaker 5: stand up for your personal thing that you believe in.
Speaker 5: And so I think there was a lot of pragmatism.
Speaker 5: I think that may start to change here. So I
Speaker 5: feel like things have happened in the last few months.
Speaker 5: We may be starting to see a change, but I
Speaker 5: think it is mainly pragmatism. And you can look at
Speaker 5: that from the outside and so that's outrageous, but I
Speaker 5: think they were looking out for their companies and their
Speaker 5: teams and their shareholders.
Speaker 4: I want to go back to media and naval raising
Speaker 4: because I've got more questions, and I actually hesitate to
Speaker 4: ask this one because I fear that your response is
Speaker 4: going to get back to asking Joe and I to
Speaker 4: justify our own salaries.
Speaker 5: I ad, I'm telling you why you're not going to
Speaker 5: be replaced by notebook LM.
Speaker 4: Okay, I'm going to ask you to justify a particular
Speaker 4: paycheck kind of Okay, when you sold Business Insider to
Speaker 4: Axel Springer, what.
Speaker 5: Year was that, twenty fifteen? Twenty fifteen?
Speaker 4: Okay, if you were selling Business Insider to Axel Springer, now,
Speaker 4: how different would your which to them be in twenty
Speaker 4: twenty six versus twenty fifteen.
Speaker 5: I would say that I think one of Business Desiders advantages,
Speaker 5: and Joe was a big part of this was we
Speaker 5: were not trying to defend the old way that journalism
Speaker 5: was done in print and television. We were trying to
Speaker 5: bring rigorous journalism to a new medium where people wanted
Speaker 5: different things, where distribution was very different. So we were
Speaker 5: experimenters and innovators, and for every idea that worked, we
Speaker 5: had twenty five ideas that were dumb and didn't work.
Speaker 5: I take responsibility for all of them. That was the
Speaker 5: only way to figure out what worked. And one of
Speaker 5: the things we noticed relatively early is hey, we can
Speaker 5: figure out what people like and we want to serve them.
Speaker 5: And we did a good job at that, and I
Speaker 5: think that was the that was the thing that made
Speaker 5: businesses that are successful. I think now for all companies,
Speaker 5: stuffing your head in the sand and wishing AI would
Speaker 5: go away is not a great strategy. So what would
Speaker 5: be What can we do? And again, one of the
Speaker 5: things that's changed as Google and Facebook and social have
Speaker 5: totally dried up as sources of distribution is we are
Speaker 5: back in this direct subscriber world, just like magazines and
Speaker 5: newspapers way back in the world. So that is serving
Speaker 5: your subscribers. This is what you, guys do. You have
Speaker 5: this incredibly passionate audience. They know you, they want to
Speaker 5: hear from you every week, and so that's what media
Speaker 5: companies need. To do. So that's what I would say
Speaker 5: is we are as focused as we have ever been
Speaker 5: on serving our readers, viewers, people who love us.
Speaker 3: So you are now in subscribe very subscriber oriented media.
Speaker 1: You have a newsletter, you have a podcast, et cetera.
Speaker 3: Other than realizing like, actually you know editors are good
Speaker 3: and so forth, what else have you learned or what's
Speaker 3: been notable about your own personal journey into subscriber based media.
Speaker 1: What does surprise do well?
Speaker 5: So I give you a I'll think So A lot
Speaker 5: of what I've been doing the last year or two
Speaker 5: is writing novels. This is something I wanted to do forever.
Speaker 5: It's like, Okay, now's the time. And I talked to
Speaker 5: another friend of mine who used to be a screenwriter,
Speaker 5: and I confess that to him. He's like, dude, that
Speaker 5: is crazy. Just go to Claude. Tell Claude what you want,
Speaker 5: and Claude will spit out three hundred and twenty five
Speaker 5: pages and it'll be pretty good. And I don't I
Speaker 5: believe it and it'll take twenty minutes. And so I
Speaker 5: feel like the world's biggest idiot. From a business perspective.
Speaker 5: On the other hand, I did want to do it.
Speaker 5: I'm glad I did it. It's really funny. Tell us
Speaker 5: what's coming out next on It's called The Upgrade. It's
Speaker 5: about a tech billionaire who wants to use AI to
Speaker 5: take over the world.
Speaker 4: That doesn't sound like fiction.
Speaker 5: It's nonfiction, but it'll be out. It's going to be
Speaker 5: out in beta. It's a new form of books a
Speaker 5: screen test. Yes, it's been in alpha for a while.
Speaker 5: A lot of people have read it's different. No, it's
Speaker 5: a book book, but there's gonna be a period. But
Speaker 5: I invite you to read it. Thank you if you
Speaker 5: would send me what you think. And then when I
Speaker 5: publish it for real, it may will have benefited from
Speaker 5: your reading anyway. So I feel like a complete idiot
Speaker 5: for doing it. But what I will say is for
Speaker 5: me as an analyst and writer and speaker, part of
Speaker 5: the joy is the process. Yea, and I learned so
Speaker 5: much and this is what I don't understand about how
Speaker 5: research is going to be conducted. One of the things
Speaker 5: that I was, Hey, write me a research report about
Speaker 5: X six minutes later it comes back. Is better than
Speaker 5: a research report that I would have written as a
Speaker 5: young analyst when I didn't know anything, and it took
Speaker 5: six minutes. So I said, okay, I'm not going to
Speaker 5: write any research reports anymore. But when it took me
Speaker 5: a month to do that as a twenty five year old,
Speaker 5: I learned a lot through that process. And so now
Speaker 5: I don't know how you learn whether you be reading
Speaker 5: the report like I don't. That's the thing I'm really
Speaker 5: struggling with. But I will say so for me, the
Speaker 5: process has been interesting. I hope you like the book.
Speaker 5: If you like it, maybe I'll do another one. That
Speaker 5: would be great. But what I would say is on
Speaker 5: this whole thing, for what are humans going to do?
Speaker 5: You're a chess player. It has been forty years since
Speaker 5: our phones could clabor us in chess. Chess is bigger
Speaker 5: than it is ever true in person. So my hope
Speaker 5: is we have ai research and write stuff that we
Speaker 5: don't really want to do, and we save our writing
Speaker 5: and orating and everything else for the stuff that we
Speaker 5: are really passionate about.
Speaker 1: Henry blogIn.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much and thanks for joining us here
Speaker 3: at all on air Fast.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of fun.
Speaker 4: Thank you so much, Henny. This has been another episode
Speaker 4: of the au Thoughts podcast. I'm Tracy Alloway. You can
Speaker 4: follow me at Tracy Alloway.
Speaker 3: And I'm Joe Wisenthal. You can follow me at The Stalwart.
Speaker 3: Follow our producers Carmen Rodriguez at Carmen armag, dash Ol
Speaker 3: Bennett at Dashbot, and kill Brooks at Kalebrooks. And for
Speaker 3: more odd Laws content, go to Bloomberg dot com slash Oddlogs.
Speaker 3: We've a daily newsletter and all of our episodes, and
Speaker 3: you can chaut about all of these things twenty four
Speaker 3: to seven in our discord Discord dot gg slash od.
Speaker 4: Loots And if you enjoy odd Lots then please leave
Speaker 4: us a positive review on your favorite podcast platform. And remember,
Speaker 4: if you are a Bloomberg subscriber, you can listen to
Speaker 4: all of our episodes absolutely ad free. All you need
Speaker 4: to do is find the Bloomberg channel on Apple Podcasts
Speaker 4: and follow the instructions there. Thanks for listening