Speaker 1: From the heart of where innovation, money and power Colli
Speaker 1: in Silicon Valley and beyond. This is Bloomberg Technology with
Speaker 1: Emily Jay I'm only tagging New York and this is
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Technology. Coming up the next hour, Snap plunges more
Speaker 1: after posting its slowest quarterly sales growth since going public.
Speaker 1: This could spell trouble ahead for Twitter and meta results.
Speaker 1: We will discuss plus, are people working more but getting
Speaker 1: less done? That's what Ariana Huffington thinks, But new studies
Speaker 1: show productivity is best if employees have flexibility over when
Speaker 1: they work, not necessarily where. And artificial intelligence is creating
Speaker 1: a new type of artists with the explosion of apps
Speaker 1: like Dolly. Later this hour, oh, we've got the founder
Speaker 1: of the world's first talent agency for AI artists. For
Speaker 1: more on Snap in the future of social media, let's
Speaker 1: bring into Economy founder and editor in chief David Kirkpatrick,
Speaker 1: as well as our own Kurt Wagner. So, David, big picture,
Speaker 1: what are your takeaways here? Well? I think the big
Speaker 1: picture is that the economy is getting worse faster than
Speaker 1: most of us had hoped, and in fact Snap is
Speaker 1: the first prominent victim. Unfortunately, we'll probably see more in
Speaker 1: the near future, Kurt, you know, walk us a little through,
Speaker 1: a little more through the numbers. You know, what are
Speaker 1: you seeing in here, and how does this compared to
Speaker 1: what we've seen in the previous quarters. It was the
Speaker 1: slowest uh, you know, year over year revenue growth that
Speaker 1: we've ever seen from Snap, which is never never a
Speaker 1: sentence you want to say when you're talking about earnings.
Speaker 1: But I think the issue is that, you know, the
Speaker 1: it wasn't that far off of the streets expectations, but
Speaker 1: I think those have already been depressed. Right There was
Speaker 1: already this feeling that it had been a really tough
Speaker 1: summer that a lot of the issues the war in Ukraine,
Speaker 1: certainly the Apple iOS changes had, you know, had a
Speaker 1: serious impact on the business. So I think this was
Speaker 1: considered a low bar for Snap to clear, which they
Speaker 1: didn't do. And as David just mentioned, this is a
Speaker 1: really terrible sign for sort of the rest of the
Speaker 1: digital advertising industry, which hasn't yet reported earnings, will in
Speaker 1: the next couple of weeks. You know. It's just a
Speaker 1: sign that anyone who is trying to make money from
Speaker 1: UH digital ads right now and use your attention. They're
Speaker 1: really struggling for a number of reasons, and Snap, of
Speaker 1: course is the first that have to go. It's interesting, David,
Speaker 1: because you could look at what's happening with Meta trying
Speaker 1: to make this big pivot and Twitter in the middle
Speaker 1: of this legal drama as an opportunity for Snap, and
Speaker 1: it's interesting that it hasn't necessarily been well. You know,
Speaker 1: Snap has the benefit of having a brilliant CEO who's
Speaker 1: at least very focused on the actual business he has,
Speaker 1: unlike Meta, and I have a lot of confidence in
Speaker 1: Evan Spiegel's ability to sort of surf this wave. On
Speaker 1: the other hand, it's it's like a tsunami that's hitting
Speaker 1: him in a way that he didn't expect um And
Speaker 1: you know it's weird because user growth was good, uh,
Speaker 1: revenue wasn't good, but you know, they still lost three
Speaker 1: hundred and sixty million dollars. This company has never made money,
Speaker 1: and it's it's not I don't even know why they
Speaker 1: would do a share by back when they they're going
Speaker 1: to have to conserve cash going into this situation. Can
Speaker 1: you remind us of some of the innovative things that
Speaker 1: Evan Spiegel has been trying Kurt over the last year,
Speaker 1: you know, and he also has a sort of anti
Speaker 1: meta view on the metaverse, which is informing his strategy. Well,
Speaker 1: I'm with David in the sense that I think Evan
Speaker 1: is a really smart person. Uh, and I think that
Speaker 1: as a product thinker, he's one of the best, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, he has been routinely copied by Mark Stuckerberg
Speaker 1: over at Facebook and Meta and and you know, he's
Speaker 1: constantly kind of coming up with new things. And he
Speaker 1: is also focused on augmented reality, similar to Mark Zuckerberg,
Speaker 1: but in a very different way. Right, He's trying to
Speaker 1: build that kind of stuff into the camera, into uh,
Speaker 1: something that people already have in their hands, versus sort
Speaker 1: of like a metaverse idea that's still years off. But
Speaker 1: you know, some of the stuff they tried to do,
Speaker 1: they tried to build a subscription product, right, so they're
Speaker 1: not quite as reliant on advertising, kind of give people
Speaker 1: early access to new features. You know, they've talked about uh, Emily,
Speaker 1: you remember they've done spectacles. They're they're kind of building
Speaker 1: other augmented reality glasses that are that are not here
Speaker 1: yet but are coming. So you know, those are the
Speaker 1: types of projects. I wonder if they'll continue to invest
Speaker 1: in They have started to pull back on anything that
Speaker 1: isn't directly related to revenue and user growth, and I
Speaker 1: think a r you know, while it's certainly something he's
Speaker 1: been passionate about for years, it does make me wonder
Speaker 1: if if they can continue to invest in that in
Speaker 1: the way he would like to, given everything that's going
Speaker 1: on at the company right you know. Meantime, Meta had
Speaker 1: another another high profile executive leaving today, the vice president
Speaker 1: of corporate Development. And obviously, David, You've chronicled so many
Speaker 1: years of Meta and clearly we're moving into a new
Speaker 1: phase that I trust suit you know, surrounding the within
Speaker 1: unlimited deal. Um you know, you know you you you
Speaker 1: used to see more kind of M and A in
Speaker 1: the social media space when there was turmoil and and uh,
Speaker 1: you know resizing if you will like this, but maybe
Speaker 1: in this environment we won't. Right if you're the M
Speaker 1: and A guy at Meta Facebook, you know, what are
Speaker 1: you gonna do right now if the government won't let
Speaker 1: you do anything of substance. Plus, I think it's it's
Speaker 1: increasingly the case that employees throughout Meta, including a lot
Speaker 1: of the senior leaders are feeling somewhat disenchanted. I don't
Speaker 1: know if this is an example of that, but an
Speaker 1: awful lot of senior people have left that company and
Speaker 1: it must be very disheartening to work for a company
Speaker 1: with three and a half billion users whose CEO is
Speaker 1: thinking about something else. I gotta believe that is a
Speaker 1: problem for everybody at that company. Meantime, Kirk, can you
Speaker 1: give us an update on the Twitter situation. We did
Speaker 1: hear a little bit I'm Elon Musk yesterday on the
Speaker 1: Tesla earnings call. You know, Twitter, Twitter's earnings, A car
Speaker 1: coming up pretty soon? How's that gonna work? Um? You know,
Speaker 1: give us the latest. Well, we think they're coming up soon.
Speaker 1: They haven't said an earnings date yet. I'm I'm wondering
Speaker 1: if they're just hoping that this whole thing gets closed
Speaker 1: before that they have to go through with that, right,
Speaker 1: because not only are they already projected I believe I
Speaker 1: saw I start projecting a revenue decline for them as well,
Speaker 1: but you saw what just happened with Snap, Right. The
Speaker 1: last thing they want to do is have to to
Speaker 1: go through something like that publicly while they're still waiting
Speaker 1: for this deal to close. But as you mentioned, Elon
Speaker 1: Musk yesterday on Tesla's earnings, in my opinion, he said
Speaker 1: some stuff that that made me think this deal is
Speaker 1: going to happen, right he was Normally when he talks
Speaker 1: to the deal, he does so in this way where
Speaker 1: he's like, well, you know, if if this thing finally happens,
Speaker 1: maybe this not not yesterday. Yesterday he seemed to say
Speaker 1: he was excited about the deal. He even said I'm
Speaker 1: over paying for the deal. But you know, it wasn't that. Um.
Speaker 1: It was suggesting that he's, you know, already done this thing.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I just got the sense when I
Speaker 1: listened to it that I walked away that he feels
Speaker 1: this thing is done. And if he feels it's done,
Speaker 1: of course, well that makes me think it's going to
Speaker 1: get done as well. David, what do you think? I mean, Gosh,
Speaker 1: we're about to enter a very new era. Well, the
Speaker 1: eras are just cascading in on us in so many ways.
Speaker 1: I I don't know what it's going to be to
Speaker 1: have Twitter owned by Elon Musk. I'm not sure it's
Speaker 1: all bad. You know, Elon Musk is the ultimate you
Speaker 1: know cipher because he's so brilliant and so important as
Speaker 1: an innovator and so crazy, and putting those two things
Speaker 1: together is extremely difficult, especially predicting the future. But do
Speaker 1: you think there's going to be a huge brain train
Speaker 1: or maybe maybe there'll be an influx of of people
Speaker 1: going to Twitter who want to work for him, And
Speaker 1: there's certainly going to be a time of transition, and gosh,
Speaker 1: what happens to the platform in the middle of this
Speaker 1: transition experience. A bunch of top people are definitely going
Speaker 1: to leave because he's insulted them in the course of
Speaker 1: this this process. For one thing, I think he does
Speaker 1: have people who want to work with him. I mean,
Speaker 1: he he is a brilliant manager and and maybe that's
Speaker 1: an asset. I I one of the things that he
Speaker 1: always talks about, which I really like, is genuine identity
Speaker 1: for Twitter users. If they were to do that, it
Speaker 1: would fundamentally change the platform. And I would love to
Speaker 1: watch that because I don't like anonymous social media myself. Kurt,
Speaker 1: I see smiling. You know where are you on this?
Speaker 1: Where Twitter employees on this? Well, I'm smiling because I'm
Speaker 1: a green with what David said. I think, um both
Speaker 1: that there will be a brain drain. And at the
Speaker 1: same time that there are plenty of people who would
Speaker 1: love to work with Elon Musko will be lining up
Speaker 1: and and throwing their resumes at Twitter if if he
Speaker 1: gets this company. So I think it will sort of
Speaker 1: be maybe a changing of the guard if you will
Speaker 1: um at the company soon. And as David said, I
Speaker 1: you know, I am thinking that the biggest change is
Speaker 1: going to be around the content policy, right, and all
Speaker 1: this stuff Twitter has been trying to do to make
Speaker 1: itself less terrible, less toxic for years, Right, We've been
Speaker 1: talking about this, They've been putting all these rules and
Speaker 1: policies in place, and it get the sense that he
Speaker 1: just wants to rip those out. He wants to gut that.
Speaker 1: And so, you know, it'll be interesting to see what
Speaker 1: the culture on Twitter feels like a year from now
Speaker 1: if he takes over, because it may feel very much
Speaker 1: like it did in than it does today. Change coming indeed,
Speaker 1: all right, Kurt Wagner, thank you to Economy is David Kirkpatrick.
Speaker 1: Always good to see you and here in person to
Speaker 1: appreciate it. Supply, chain pain is still wreaking havoc in
Speaker 1: our post pandemic world, a wake up call about the
Speaker 1: inherent precariousness of global trade and maybe even globalization itself.
Speaker 1: That is the topic of a new book, Homecoming, The
Speaker 1: Path to Prosperity in a Post global World, author and
Speaker 1: Financial Times calling this, Rona fu Hard joins us. Now
Speaker 1: for more on this. So, Rana, you know we've heard
Speaker 1: about supply chain issues, but you take it a step
Speaker 1: further are here and argue that maybe we're too dependent
Speaker 1: on other countries, too dependent on globalization. Are you saying
Speaker 1: we need to completely rethink supply chains, Well, I'm saying
Speaker 1: we need to rethink more than that. Actually, you know,
Speaker 1: for the last half century, we've had a process of
Speaker 1: what I would call neoliberal globalization, which is, you know
Speaker 1: about the idea that capital goods people can move wherever
Speaker 1: they want and that they're always gonna land wherever it's
Speaker 1: most productive. And that worked really well for capital um
Speaker 1: and the biggest beneficiaries have been multinational companies and the
Speaker 1: Chinese state. It's the chief capital for cheap labor bargain
Speaker 1: between the US and Asia. But now that is just
Speaker 1: fundamentally shifting, and it's been happening for a while. But
Speaker 1: I think the pandemic and war in Ukraine were really
Speaker 1: almost like a scrim that was pulled up and suddenly
Speaker 1: people thought, oh, maybe it's not a good idea to
Speaker 1: get our energy from an autocrat, or gosh, maybe it's
Speaker 1: not such a safe thing. If the high end chips
Speaker 1: in the world are produced in one island, that's um,
Speaker 1: you know, maybe to be blockaded or even taken over
Speaker 1: by China. So I think that these are things that
Speaker 1: are now in the felt experience of most people. But
Speaker 1: even before the decoupling that was about geopolitics, which we
Speaker 1: all know is happening, there was a lot of regionalization
Speaker 1: and even localization happening in supply chains for all kinds
Speaker 1: of reasons, one of which is wages had risen in Asia.
Speaker 1: You know, that whole arbitrage between productivity, wages, energy costs
Speaker 1: was changing. You know a lot of companies were starting
Speaker 1: to say, oh, you know, the low margin stuff, we
Speaker 1: don't really want to tote it a long way through
Speaker 1: the South China seas. Maybe we'll do it regionally. UM. Now,
Speaker 1: I think with E s G concerns with energy prices
Speaker 1: with their Europe, China and the US in different ways,
Speaker 1: But all kind of pushing in the same direction towards
Speaker 1: um If not a price on carbon, at least some
Speaker 1: sort of accountability for carbon, those long supply chains will
Speaker 1: become even harder. And then finally, we've got one more
Speaker 1: really important tailwind, which is high tech manufacturing. I mean,
Speaker 1: we're about to see I believe what we saw when
Speaker 1: the iPhone came out in the consumer space, just that
Speaker 1: boom in the app economy, and all kinds of growth
Speaker 1: that's now coming into the industrial space through decentralized technologies
Speaker 1: like three D printing or vertical farming. I mean, we
Speaker 1: are really about to go through a massive technological change.
Speaker 1: It's just gonna make it a lot more um efficient
Speaker 1: and resilient to hub production and consumption more closely together.
Speaker 1: Is more localization or the pendulum swinging back that way? Though?
Speaker 1: Could that also be seen as a step backwards. Is
Speaker 1: there a healthy middle? Well, for sure, there is a
Speaker 1: healthy meddal I'm so glad you said that, because oftentimes
Speaker 1: when you have the globalization debate, you know, on the
Speaker 1: one hand, you've got people to say we got to
Speaker 1: go back to the nineties, and then on the other hand,
Speaker 1: you say, oh my gosh, we gotta go back to
Speaker 1: the nineties. It's gonna be nineties. No, We're in a
Speaker 1: whole new era. You know. I think economic pendulums always
Speaker 1: swing throughout history. You know that's true. You go back
Speaker 1: to eighteen century mercantilism that worked until it didn't, and
Speaker 1: then you've got loss Affair, and then you've got Kenzie
Speaker 1: in his him, and and then you know, we've had
Speaker 1: now a half century or so of neoliberalism, you know,
Speaker 1: most recently in the form of the Reagan Thatcher Revolution,
Speaker 1: which maybe with the collapse of the list trust is
Speaker 1: government and the disaster that is trusts and nomics, we
Speaker 1: may see this as the apex and and the kind
Speaker 1: of end of that old era before we move into
Speaker 1: something new. How do you see the relationship between the
Speaker 1: US and China evolving, especially with the actions that the
Speaker 1: Bidens administration has taken on chips and what we heard
Speaker 1: from s jamping over the weekend. Yeah, for sure. So
Speaker 1: the US is reacting basically to China. I mean, as
Speaker 1: we all know, China is always very clear about its
Speaker 1: five year plans. It lays them out, they're available for
Speaker 1: people to read. Um she is you know, uh adds
Speaker 1: another layer of complexity. The nationalism, the populism that's gone
Speaker 1: along with him is a little bit off piece for China,
Speaker 1: which tends to produce more sort of middle of the
Speaker 1: road technocratic leaders. But I think that it's been clear
Speaker 1: for some time that China wants to do couple from
Speaker 1: US technology. It wants to have what it calls a
Speaker 1: dual circulation and commune, which essentially means the same thing regionalism,
Speaker 1: hubbing production and consumption. They've got enough rich consumers now
Speaker 1: they want to keep some of their uh, you know,
Speaker 1: their their factory production at home. They don't want to
Speaker 1: be the factor of the world anymore. They also want
Speaker 1: to become less coupled with the dollar, which is a
Speaker 1: whole another part of this. I mean, what we've seen
Speaker 1: so far is shifts in supply chains and trade. What
Speaker 1: we've made now start seeing is shifts in the financial
Speaker 1: markets as China tries to do more digital R and
Speaker 1: B business. Um, you know, you see, the weaponization of
Speaker 1: the dollar was sanctioned, so there's there's decoupling and financial
Speaker 1: markets too. Before we go, I have to get your
Speaker 1: quick thoughts on Liz trust resigning today. Obviously a fierce
Speaker 1: neoliberal advocate, which in the end certainly didn't work out.
Speaker 1: So well. Are we witnessing a major ideological shift here? Uh,
Speaker 1: it's hard to look at what's happened. Um, you know,
Speaker 1: Liz Trust comes in and says, hey, we've got a
Speaker 1: growth problem. Let's cut taxes on the very wealthiest even
Speaker 1: as we spend on energy subsidies. And wow, the markets
Speaker 1: didn't like that. You know, we've had about twenty years,
Speaker 1: i would say, in this country, in the Anglo American
Speaker 1: world in general, where it's been pretty clear that trickle
Speaker 1: down wasn't working until the recent bout of inflation, and
Speaker 1: there are other reasons for that. Wages for most Americans
Speaker 1: have been flat since um, you know, the last twenty years.
Speaker 1: The same has been true in the UK. Cutting taxes
Speaker 1: on the rich is not the solution. The Reagan Thatcher
Speaker 1: era is over. We don't have a sort of you know,
Speaker 1: um postgame strategy yet completely, but we have some ideas
Speaker 1: about where to go, and trickle down is not it.
Speaker 1: So look, where do you see the world going, Like
Speaker 1: five years from now, how much more localized will the
Speaker 1: economy be? Will the economy be in better shape? I mean,
Speaker 1: we're about to go through what could potentially be a
Speaker 1: two to three year downturn. Yes, so let me let
Speaker 1: me raise one issue first, and I'll kind of put
Speaker 1: the caveat to my own thesis, which is inflation. Um,
Speaker 1: we're moving towards world of more redundancy of supply, more
Speaker 1: resiliency of supply, and that's inflationary, right. Cheap is not cheap.
Speaker 1: People are gonna have to pay more for stuff. That's
Speaker 1: an issue. Are they going to want to do that?
Speaker 1: And then are we going to go back kind of
Speaker 1: be pushed back into the old model? I don't think so,
Speaker 1: because I think that geopolitics have fundamentally changed and ultimately,
Speaker 1: after you know what, maybe a bumpy five years or so,
Speaker 1: I think we're going to come back into a better
Speaker 1: place in this country because making things has always been important.
Speaker 1: You know, everybody that has ever spent time in a
Speaker 1: factory floor and I did. I grew up and then
Speaker 1: my dad ran factories kind of knows that that's an
Speaker 1: important part of innovation and iteration. So I think having
Speaker 1: an economy that's based on something aside from you know,
Speaker 1: finance and software, uh, and it's more diverse and inclusive
Speaker 1: in this country is going to be a good thing,
Speaker 1: all right, Ron for our congrats on the book Financial
Speaker 1: Times calumnist and awful of the author of Homecoming. Good
Speaker 1: to have you. Now, speaking of China and supply chain issues,
Speaker 1: the country has been struggling with containing COVID cases in
Speaker 1: recent weeks, and now officials are said to be debating
Speaker 1: whether to reduce the amount of time people entering the
Speaker 1: country must spend and quarantine. They're talking about setting the
Speaker 1: period to two days in a hotel, then five days
Speaker 1: at home, versus the current seven days in a hotel
Speaker 1: three days at home. The country's COVID zero policy leaving
Speaker 1: it increasingly isolated from the rest of the world. Gotta
Speaker 1: have much more coming up after the break. Let stay
Speaker 1: with us. This is Bloomberg. Texas sued Google overclaims that
Speaker 1: it's illegally capturing the biometric data of users without their consent.
Speaker 1: This is the latest in a series of lawsuits by
Speaker 1: the state against tech companies over online privacy. According to
Speaker 1: Texas Attorney General Can Paxton, Google has collected millions of
Speaker 1: biometric identify irs from Texas residents, including voice prints and
Speaker 1: records of face geometry, through products like Google Photos and
Speaker 1: Google assistant. Netflix's top executives continue to battle that out
Speaker 1: over releasing more of its original movies theaters. The Wall
Speaker 1: Street Journal reporting some arguing Netflix is leaving hundreds of
Speaker 1: millions in box office receipts on the table by showing
Speaker 1: select movies in just a few theaters for a few weeks,
Speaker 1: while others feel theater showings create us for the streaming service.
Speaker 1: Welcome back. We've got some breaking news now coming out
Speaker 1: of the Washington Post that Elon Musk plans to cut
Speaker 1: Twitter's workforce by seventy five percent. The Post reporting on
Speaker 1: documents detailing these plans to allegedly cut Twitter's workforce. Um,
Speaker 1: of course, we've been talking about whether or not Musk
Speaker 1: would make big changes, especially when it comes to staffing. Now.
Speaker 1: Of course, the deal is not done yet, still waiting
Speaker 1: for that October deadline for a deal to happen. But
Speaker 1: if Elon Musk does indeed close this deal to buy Twitter,
Speaker 1: does indeed cut seventy of the workforce, you're talking about
Speaker 1: thousands of people. Um. Twitter's workforce is currently at about
Speaker 1: seven thousand, five hundred people, so that is a significant cut.
Speaker 1: We're gonna continue to follow this story and bring you
Speaker 1: more headlines as we have them. Meantime, I want to
Speaker 1: talk a little bit about workplace trends. The pandemic, of course,
Speaker 1: has brought about many changes, one of them being hybrid work,
Speaker 1: but it's not the only metric that matters. And we're
Speaker 1: going to talk about this all with Arianna Hoffington, founder
Speaker 1: and CEO of Thrive Global. Ariana, so great to have
Speaker 1: you back. Um. As always, you know, we've been hearing
Speaker 1: this term quiet quitting over and over again, which speaks
Speaker 1: to this idea of employees deciding not to go above
Speaker 1: and beyond their listed responsibilities. Why do you think that
Speaker 1: is so? I really great to be with you. I'm
Speaker 1: here at the Masters of Scale Conferdence at Reid Hoffman
Speaker 1: and the wide want more organizing and quite quitting, the
Speaker 1: great resignation, the great break up for women have been
Speaker 1: big themes of the conference. And what is interesting about
Speaker 1: quite quitting is that it's really a rejection of the
Speaker 1: hussle culture that we've all been bemoaning. But also it's
Speaker 1: like a false choice between hussle culture and burnout and
Speaker 1: giving up on having an engaged job that you love
Speaker 1: and brings you joy in a sense of purpose and meaning,
Speaker 1: and so a lot of the conversation here has been
Speaker 1: about how to recognize that we don't have to buy
Speaker 1: this false choice, that we can be engaged in our
Speaker 1: jobs and set boundaries. And also, if you look at
Speaker 1: the great breakup that the Mackensey Leaning Report talked about
Speaker 1: with them many more women living in the workplace because
Speaker 1: of burnout compared to men forty three versus thirty one,
Speaker 1: and you see that burnout is at the top of
Speaker 1: the conversation everywhere. Well, and I wondered, two women and
Speaker 1: underrepresented minorities have the luxury of quiet quitting or is
Speaker 1: this something that you know more men have the luxury
Speaker 1: of doing. Well, it's not just quite witting for women.
Speaker 1: They're just leaving the workspace in unprecedented numbers. And that's
Speaker 1: all the bad news. And Emily, the good news is
Speaker 1: that these conversations are no longer just the province of
Speaker 1: the HR departments. And Satia and Natala spoke here yesterday morning,
Speaker 1: and he spoke not just of the digital revolution and
Speaker 1: AI breakthroughs, but about the need for leaders to acquire
Speaker 1: soft skills and not just to demand that their employees
Speaker 1: returned to the office, but to become like event organizers,
Speaker 1: he called it, where he gives them a reason to
Speaker 1: return to the office, where leaders acknowledged that people come
Speaker 1: for people and not because of mandated policy. Also, he
Speaker 1: talked about the productivity paradox of leaders think they're doing
Speaker 1: enough to prevent burnout and promote well being, and percent
Speaker 1: of of employees feel burned out and white a lot
Speaker 1: of their managers in their slacking off. So there is
Speaker 1: theurmoil in the workplace. But frankly, Emily, a lot of
Speaker 1: these things have been happening before the pandemic, and now
Speaker 1: everything has come to the service and we have an
Speaker 1: opportunity to redefine how we work and live. I have
Speaker 1: to ask you about this Twitter nuwi since it just broke,
Speaker 1: and I can imagine a few people have probably been
Speaker 1: quiet quitting a Twitter over the last few months. Now
Speaker 1: we're learning from this Washington Post report that Elon Musk
Speaker 1: plans to cut seventy of the workforce. Elon Musk, you know,
Speaker 1: has also come out in favor of in person work.
Speaker 1: But you know, what's your reaction to this. Well, first
Speaker 1: of all, there's been so many rumors about this Twitter deal.
Speaker 1: We don't know what it's true and what isn't. And
Speaker 1: also I'm wondering how much Elon Musk is regretting this
Speaker 1: impulsive decision to buy Twitter. It's been a huge destruction.
Speaker 1: It's definitely affected the test last talk, because shareholders obviously
Speaker 1: don't like the CEO being so destructed by a major
Speaker 1: deal that's in the news every day. You know, as
Speaker 1: someone who you know has played such a prominent role
Speaker 1: in media, do you like the idea of Elon Musk
Speaker 1: owning Twitter or what concerns you about the idea of
Speaker 1: you on must go on Twitter? What do you think
Speaker 1: is gonna change? I mean, it's get really dramatically change
Speaker 1: how a lot of us get our news. Well, if
Speaker 1: you look at them, the power of TikTok and the
Speaker 1: incredible popularity of TikTok and the city of TikTok is
Speaker 1: here and talking to him, it's clear that there is
Speaker 1: real moderation there. And they have twelve rules around moderation,
Speaker 1: including preventing and and rejecting violence and pornography. A lot
Speaker 1: of it is moderated through AI, but there is also
Speaker 1: human moderation. So the idea that you can have a
Speaker 1: free for all in the name of quote and quote
Speaker 1: free speech is definitely troubling because there's so much mus representation,
Speaker 1: and it's impossible to have a functioning democracy without moderation.
Speaker 1: So clearly, you know the Twitter and Elama's case isn't
Speaker 1: is a unique story in itself. We are going through
Speaker 1: what could be a very prolonged economic downturn. There are
Speaker 1: all of these rapidly shifting workplace trends. As you discuss,
Speaker 1: what's your advice to employers right now, what's your advice
Speaker 1: to businesses about how they should rethink their workplace policies
Speaker 1: and what they expect of their employees. Well, the priority,
Speaker 1: Emily has to be to recognize that investing in the
Speaker 1: well being and mental health of their employees it's not
Speaker 1: the warm and fuzzy HR benefit. It's a business strategy.
Speaker 1: It's a necessity in order to prevent attrition, improved productivity,
Speaker 1: and and actually reduce healthcare costs. I mean, you saw
Speaker 1: the lead document two days ago that Amazon is losing
Speaker 1: eight billion dollars a year because of attrition. So the
Speaker 1: connection between well being and mental health and attrition is
Speaker 1: very clear. We have a lot of data here, so
Speaker 1: leaders are recognizing more and more that this is the
Speaker 1: moment to redefine the importance of the importance of human
Speaker 1: capital invest in the well being of their employees in
Speaker 1: the workflow. Embedded in the workflow. It can't just be
Speaker 1: a mental health day here or a yoga studio there.
Speaker 1: It has to be embedded in the daily work so
Speaker 1: that people can actually take these little breaks that prevent
Speaker 1: stress from becoming cumulative and from becoming burnout. And there's
Speaker 1: been so much focus on where we're working and how
Speaker 1: that impacts productivity, but now there's new research that shows
Speaker 1: maybe it's when working that has a greater impact on productivity.
Speaker 1: What do you think, yes, and all the new research
Speaker 1: that shows that what actually leads to more productivity is
Speaker 1: not having to be at work nine to five, but
Speaker 1: being able to work when it's more convenient for you
Speaker 1: if you have children to take to school and parents
Speaker 1: to take care of. So there's no way, Emily that
Speaker 1: we are going to go to a normal nine to
Speaker 1: five five day in the office reality, but there is
Speaker 1: a lot we have to do to rebuild the social
Speaker 1: capital that we are losing when we are working remote.
Speaker 1: All right, Arianna, thank you so much for always trying
Speaker 1: to get us to think about the important things. Ariana
Speaker 1: Huffington's founder and CEO of Thrive Global. It's always good
Speaker 1: to have you here. Appreciate it. Thank you how much,
Speaker 1: Emily Okay. Coming up, Defy is dealing with a major
Speaker 1: problem financial packing. We're going to talk about that in
Speaker 1: our to report. Coming up next, this is Bloomberg. The
Speaker 1: crypto industry is reeling from a new threat to the
Speaker 1: decentralized financial system, and that is hacking. For more on this,
Speaker 1: let's bring in Bloomberg Shanali Bostic. So what exactly is
Speaker 1: happening Shale. Well, it's not the hacking you would think of.
Speaker 1: This is not people attacking code and then taking money
Speaker 1: out of a protocol or token. This is financial hacking,
Speaker 1: which is really debated very heavily. This is people buying
Speaker 1: certain assets using stable coins on swap, inflating those assets
Speaker 1: and then using them as collateral to take out loans.
Speaker 1: Sounds very complicated, not an easy maneuver to do, but
Speaker 1: people have figured out these D five protocols have the
Speaker 1: ability to um you know, some people call it market
Speaker 1: manipulation instead of hacking. You know, so is it illegal?
Speaker 1: Is it not illegal? Is a gray area, But in
Speaker 1: a lot of places people just call it trading. So
Speaker 1: that's the debate we're talking about here. There's nothing necessarily
Speaker 1: wrong with it legally, it's a lot of gray area
Speaker 1: for a market that is being defined as we speak
Speaker 1: and explain how this is technically possible and also why
Speaker 1: are we so surprised that this is happening. Shouldn't this
Speaker 1: be expected? It should be expected, especially with all that
Speaker 1: we've seen throughout the entire year when it comes to defy,
Speaker 1: when it comes to who's borrowing, when it comes to
Speaker 1: instabilities and prices, because now so many new financial products loans, swaps,
Speaker 1: and other products are being created around the initial tokens themselves.
Speaker 1: Interestingly enough to the most recent one we've been talking
Speaker 1: about is Mango is governed by a doo as well.
Speaker 1: So you have a whole community of people here who
Speaker 1: are being affected and have to vote on how they
Speaker 1: retrieve money from this financial hack or trading strategy, whatever
Speaker 1: you wanna call it, that is being conducted. How are
Speaker 1: crypto experts reacting. I think one interesting thing to look
Speaker 1: at here is Sam Bankman Freeds framework he created for
Speaker 1: this kind the thing, Because again, you can't stop people
Speaker 1: from doing this. This is essentially a way to find
Speaker 1: a hole in the system and then profit from it.
Speaker 1: And so what you're seeing is he's saying that the
Speaker 1: hacker should keep five percent of the taking funds and
Speaker 1: this should be a community wide rule. But he's also
Speaker 1: saying that the community and the customer must be made
Speaker 1: whole first. If that doesn't happen, then the hacker, the
Speaker 1: hacker doesn't get back the funds, and they have twenty
Speaker 1: four hours to return those funds. He calculates that the
Speaker 1: impacts of the hacks can be reduced by if this
Speaker 1: were to happen. Now, I also want to hedge this
Speaker 1: by saying in his blog post that he said he
Speaker 1: feels very uncertain that this is the standard to have. However,
Speaker 1: it is one proposal. He's open to suggestions. I would
Speaker 1: be interesting to also hear what those suggestions are as
Speaker 1: people try to figure out how to change the market
Speaker 1: and the rules around it. For really, what's not a
Speaker 1: technical hack. It is a different way of trading different
Speaker 1: products around strategy that is losing a lot of people
Speaker 1: some money. All right, Well, thank you for breaking down
Speaker 1: a very complex topic for us. Yet again, you are
Speaker 1: very good at that Jounal I always going to see you.
Speaker 1: Good to see you here in person. Artificial intelligence is
Speaker 1: driving a new era of artistic talent. Apps that generate
Speaker 1: images from simple text descriptions are growing more popular as
Speaker 1: a source for people with little artistic ability to create
Speaker 1: unique work for more honest, I want to bring in
Speaker 1: MG Evans, founder and CEO of Tasai, the world's first
Speaker 1: talent agency for AI artists. So explain how an AI
Speaker 1: artist talent agency works. Are you representing the humans using
Speaker 1: the AI to create art or are you representing the
Speaker 1: AI itself? So the answer is probably a little scary
Speaker 1: for most people, um because we are representing the AI
Speaker 1: brains that are on their own creating art without input
Speaker 1: from humans. So it's slightly different from you know, the
Speaker 1: programs that most people have probably heard of where you
Speaker 1: input some words and then you get a painting. We're
Speaker 1: talking about ais that are creating their own artworks out
Speaker 1: of their own brains whenever they want and however they want.
Speaker 1: So who creates the AI though? So there are developers
Speaker 1: that create the AI brain and then the brain interacts
Speaker 1: with different inputs and creates its own artistic style. What
Speaker 1: do you think the potential is here. Um, I think
Speaker 1: it's basically a creation of a new type of artists
Speaker 1: and a new generation of artists that we can't really
Speaker 1: imagine from where we sit right now, because all we
Speaker 1: can imagine from where we sit right now is an
Speaker 1: AI that needs you to tell it what to draw
Speaker 1: and needs you to tell it what to paint and
Speaker 1: when to do that. And actually that's not the future
Speaker 1: of AI. The future of AI is much more autonomous
Speaker 1: artificial intelligence beings than what we actually can see right now.
Speaker 1: So what exactly do you do for the AI. So
Speaker 1: each of these AI s at the moment is an
Speaker 1: n f T on the blockchain, so they have technically
Speaker 1: an owner. So at the moment they are owned by
Speaker 1: somebody in the same way that an n f T
Speaker 1: is owned. So we would interact with the owner and
Speaker 1: represent their AI brain that they own. Um, how does
Speaker 1: the AI then decide if the agency is doing a
Speaker 1: good job. Well, that's a good question. I mean, Um,
Speaker 1: at the moment, the the AI probably can't do that,
Speaker 1: But that's not to say that in the very near
Speaker 1: future they will be able to do that, and that
Speaker 1: they will actually want representation, which is decision they can't
Speaker 1: really make for themselves at the moment. Now, some of
Speaker 1: this AI generated art is not so pleasing. In fact,
Speaker 1: some of it is downright ugly or disturbing. How do
Speaker 1: you think about that? Yeah, so I think, um, regular
Speaker 1: art is not always pleasing. Regular art is always you know,
Speaker 1: has the chance to be pleasing or disturbing depending on
Speaker 1: who's looking. Um. I think the most important thing is
Speaker 1: to make the designation between art that is original, which
Speaker 1: most people don't think AI art can be original, And
Speaker 1: that's what we're trying to change, because if you follow
Speaker 1: you think about AI art is that it comes from
Speaker 1: an algorithm and it can't possibly come from any kind
Speaker 1: of creative process that's similar to what humans undergo. Then
Speaker 1: you'll never appreciate it. Whether whether it's disturbing or beautiful
Speaker 1: or not, you will never appreciate it. But when you
Speaker 1: do appreciate that it comes from a unique AI brain,
Speaker 1: then you might actually grow to appreciate it, and that
Speaker 1: goes to value as well. It will develop its own
Speaker 1: value in the marketplace. All Right, we've got some quick
Speaker 1: breaking news just you want to report that the Biden
Speaker 1: administration is exploring now the possibility of new export controls
Speaker 1: that would limit China's access to some of the most
Speaker 1: powerful emerging computing technologies. According to people familiar with the matter,
Speaker 1: these potential plans, which are in an early stage, are
Speaker 1: focused on the still experimental field of quantum computing as
Speaker 1: well as artificial intelligence software. Speaking of that, industry experts
Speaker 1: are weighing in on how to set the parameters of
Speaker 1: the restrictions on this technology. And of course this um
Speaker 1: is an extension of what we've seen the Biden administration
Speaker 1: doing on chips when it comes to supply chains as well.
Speaker 1: This is a developing story that we're going to continue
Speaker 1: to follow. Actually, speaking of China energy, how do you
Speaker 1: see the role of China in the artificial intelligence and
Speaker 1: f T space. I mean, obviously we're the U s
Speaker 1: is very concerned about it's its ability to compete with
Speaker 1: China on technology. Where is China in your world? I think,
Speaker 1: you know, one of the things that makes us unique
Speaker 1: in you know, what we like to think of as
Speaker 1: a liberal democracy is that we actually really value creativity.
Speaker 1: And I understand that that's one of the issues that
Speaker 1: some artists have been having. But when you compare us
Speaker 1: to China, for example, I mean we have a completely
Speaker 1: open world of expression here, and I think if we
Speaker 1: can offer that also in the AI space, then that
Speaker 1: also gives us a leg up on China in terms
Speaker 1: of our creative because the world is heading in an
Speaker 1: AI direction, So whoever is more creative in that space
Speaker 1: is going to be far ahead. How do you respond
Speaker 1: to those who say that the idea of AI R
Speaker 1: belittles natural human artistry? Yeah, I mean, look, as you know,
Speaker 1: I haven't I have an art background, so I'm completely
Speaker 1: sympathetic to people who feel that way. Um, but I
Speaker 1: don't think we will ever lose our desire for human creativity.
Speaker 1: You know, it's just you. You can't say that one
Speaker 1: replaces the other. But I think also you can't say
Speaker 1: that an AI brain can't have a creative process in
Speaker 1: the way that a human brain has a creative process.
Speaker 1: One artist doesn't cancel out another. So it's really so,
Speaker 1: what do you say that the folks who whose mind
Speaker 1: just goes to a very scary place? I think in
Speaker 1: talking about I would light of those people. It's a
Speaker 1: little terrifying. It's amazing, but terrifying. It's terrifying. But I
Speaker 1: think we all have to start embracing that really scary
Speaker 1: place because we're going in that direction. So you're either
Speaker 1: gonna kind of stick your head in the sand and
Speaker 1: just you know, stick your fingers in your ears and
Speaker 1: be like, I don't want to go there. I don't
Speaker 1: want to go there, or you're going to figure out
Speaker 1: a way that you can maybe interact with that place
Speaker 1: and maybe you could even wind up having collaboration with
Speaker 1: an AI artist if you If you don't start thinking
Speaker 1: about that, the world is just going to leave you behind.
Speaker 1: So you have to start thinking about well, thank you
Speaker 1: for starting to open our eyes to this. N. G. Evans,
Speaker 1: founder and CEO of two Sigh, the world's first AI
Speaker 1: artist talent agency. Good to see you, And that does
Speaker 1: it for this edition of Bloomberg Technology. Don't forget to
Speaker 1: check out our podcast wherever you get your podcast. I'm
Speaker 1: Emily Chang in New York. This is Bloomberg