WEBVTT - OpenAI vs. Sam Altman

0:00:01.520 --> 0:00:05.000
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to crash Course, a podcast about business, political, and

0:00:05.040 --> 0:00:08.560
<v Speaker 1>social disruption and what we can learn from it. I'm

0:00:08.600 --> 0:00:14.800
<v Speaker 1>Tim O'Brien. Today's crash course open Ai versus Sam Altman.

0:00:15.640 --> 0:00:18.600
<v Speaker 1>Open Ai, which you may have heard a lot about lately,

0:00:19.120 --> 0:00:23.080
<v Speaker 1>is the company that developed chat Gpt, a wildly popular

0:00:23.160 --> 0:00:26.960
<v Speaker 1>AI bot which you most certainly have heard of. Open

0:00:27.000 --> 0:00:30.000
<v Speaker 1>AI's board of directors recently purged to the company's CEO,

0:00:30.400 --> 0:00:36.280
<v Speaker 1>Sam Altman. High drama ensued, and various stakeholders, employees, investors.

0:00:36.400 --> 0:00:40.880
<v Speaker 1>Microsoft saw to it that Altman was reinstated. The board

0:00:40.920 --> 0:00:45.879
<v Speaker 1>itself then faced a purge. Oh my, this particular collision

0:00:45.880 --> 0:00:50.800
<v Speaker 1>has it all Silicon Valley innovation in Silicon Valley hubris, money,

0:00:51.240 --> 0:00:57.160
<v Speaker 1>managerial snafoos, ugly battles, promising outcomes, and of course, artificial

0:00:57.160 --> 0:01:01.000
<v Speaker 1>intelligence AI is set to transform the world. We're told

0:01:02.040 --> 0:01:06.000
<v Speaker 1>ingenuity and upheaval and open ai offer a way for

0:01:06.120 --> 0:01:09.199
<v Speaker 1>us to consider all of that. So I've invited parme

0:01:09.319 --> 0:01:12.000
<v Speaker 1>Olsen and Dave Lee onto crash Course to help us

0:01:12.040 --> 0:01:15.600
<v Speaker 1>outline the lessons of this particular tale. They are both

0:01:15.640 --> 0:01:19.679
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Opinion technology columnists. Parmey It's based in London and

0:01:19.760 --> 0:01:21.920
<v Speaker 1>Davi is in New York and they bring a wealth

0:01:21.920 --> 0:01:26.280
<v Speaker 1>of experience and insight to today's show. Welcome my friends,

0:01:26.959 --> 0:01:30.800
<v Speaker 1>Thanks him, thank you. Let's start with Sam Altman himself.

0:01:31.080 --> 0:01:35.160
<v Speaker 1>Eric Schmidt, Google's former CEO, recently compared Altman to Steve

0:01:35.240 --> 0:01:38.880
<v Speaker 1>Jobs and said Open Eyes Board was wrong to can

0:01:38.959 --> 0:01:42.880
<v Speaker 1>him and I quote Schmidt here, these founder CEO types

0:01:42.920 --> 0:01:46.800
<v Speaker 1>are unusual, they're incredibly valuable, and they change the world.

0:01:47.160 --> 0:01:50.880
<v Speaker 1>Schmidt said that at a recent Axios conference. Dave, what

0:01:50.920 --> 0:01:54.200
<v Speaker 1>do you think of that observation about founder CEOs and

0:01:54.240 --> 0:01:57.320
<v Speaker 1>the sort of idea that there's a unicorn executive out

0:01:57.320 --> 0:01:59.000
<v Speaker 1>there who is indispensable.

0:01:59.880 --> 0:02:02.480
<v Speaker 2>I think, look, that's always been Tilicon Valley view of

0:02:02.680 --> 0:02:04.880
<v Speaker 2>you know, great founders and what they can do, and

0:02:04.920 --> 0:02:07.800
<v Speaker 2>this idea that you should follow a founder's vision rather

0:02:07.840 --> 0:02:10.080
<v Speaker 2>than say put it to committee. And you know, Steve

0:02:10.120 --> 0:02:13.160
<v Speaker 2>Job's obviously the most famous example of that. Kicked out

0:02:13.160 --> 0:02:16.560
<v Speaker 2>of Apple, returned again around a decade later, and of course,

0:02:16.760 --> 0:02:19.000
<v Speaker 2>you know, the rest is history, and what happened with

0:02:19.040 --> 0:02:22.320
<v Speaker 2>Apple surely wouldn't have happened without Steve Jobs coming back.

0:02:22.680 --> 0:02:24.959
<v Speaker 2>And we've seen this since again and again, whether it's

0:02:25.000 --> 0:02:28.679
<v Speaker 2>you know, Mark Zuckerberg or elor Musk or any sort

0:02:28.680 --> 0:02:31.000
<v Speaker 2>of tech founder, even people like Travis Kalonick, you know,

0:02:31.040 --> 0:02:35.080
<v Speaker 2>who founded Uber. There's this sense that there's this founder skill,

0:02:35.280 --> 0:02:39.520
<v Speaker 2>this magic, this uniqueness that should really be sort of

0:02:39.560 --> 0:02:42.200
<v Speaker 2>listened to, and although it can be questioned, you know,

0:02:42.240 --> 0:02:44.919
<v Speaker 2>there's a sort of bias towards always backing the founder.

0:02:45.280 --> 0:02:47.720
<v Speaker 2>Speaking of Sam Altman, of the many comments made about

0:02:47.800 --> 0:02:50.360
<v Speaker 2>Altman over the past week or so, I think, you know,

0:02:50.400 --> 0:02:53.679
<v Speaker 2>Paul Graham, who founded why Combinator, where Sam Moultman sort

0:02:53.680 --> 0:02:55.640
<v Speaker 2>of made his name, said a quote that kind of

0:02:55.680 --> 0:02:58.359
<v Speaker 2>rang out around everyone, and he said, you could parachute

0:02:58.400 --> 0:03:01.160
<v Speaker 2>Sam into an island full of cannon, come back in

0:03:01.200 --> 0:03:03.280
<v Speaker 2>five years, and Sam o wont would come out as king.

0:03:03.360 --> 0:03:05.200
<v Speaker 2>And I think that's kind of the view of him

0:03:05.200 --> 0:03:07.440
<v Speaker 2>in particular, and it does sum up, as you say,

0:03:07.480 --> 0:03:09.960
<v Speaker 2>this culture of revering founders like life.

0:03:10.000 --> 0:03:12.120
<v Speaker 1>I don't know actually how to interpret the idea that

0:03:12.120 --> 0:03:13.880
<v Speaker 1>you're going to parachute him onto an island full of

0:03:13.919 --> 0:03:16.040
<v Speaker 1>cannibals and it'll come out the winter, because that kild

0:03:16.120 --> 0:03:20.920
<v Speaker 1>speak to actually just ambition and being extremely as they

0:03:20.960 --> 0:03:24.799
<v Speaker 1>say in Silicon Valley, goal oriented as opposed necessarily having

0:03:24.880 --> 0:03:27.200
<v Speaker 1>innovative genius, and I think, you know, ideally you want

0:03:27.240 --> 0:03:30.440
<v Speaker 1>a combination of both if things are going to get done.

0:03:30.080 --> 0:03:31.959
<v Speaker 3>But you know, if I can just jump in. It's

0:03:32.000 --> 0:03:36.560
<v Speaker 3>interesting you mentioned Paul Graham, Dave, because Paul Graham, I think,

0:03:36.640 --> 0:03:39.880
<v Speaker 3>is part of the reason why this mentality, this almost

0:03:39.960 --> 0:03:44.240
<v Speaker 3>doctrine exists in Silicon Valley. When he started White Combinator,

0:03:44.280 --> 0:03:48.280
<v Speaker 3>he was like a guru among startups, and his teaching,

0:03:48.360 --> 0:03:51.600
<v Speaker 3>as it were, was that the founder is all that matters.

0:03:51.680 --> 0:03:52.080
<v Speaker 2>In a way.

0:03:52.120 --> 0:03:55.320
<v Speaker 3>The technology doesn't matter what a startups technology would it

0:03:55.360 --> 0:03:58.320
<v Speaker 3>has under the hood. What matters is if the founder

0:03:58.560 --> 0:04:01.240
<v Speaker 3>is a visionary hacker to hype who wants to build

0:04:01.240 --> 0:04:04.080
<v Speaker 3>an empire, and if you, as an investor can find

0:04:04.160 --> 0:04:07.440
<v Speaker 3>that kind of person, then you should give them free rein.

0:04:07.760 --> 0:04:10.120
<v Speaker 3>The board should give them free rein, and they should

0:04:10.400 --> 0:04:12.880
<v Speaker 3>be able to do whatever they need to do in

0:04:12.960 --> 0:04:16.479
<v Speaker 3>order to build the empire. And that's why in most cases,

0:04:16.480 --> 0:04:20.279
<v Speaker 3>someone like Mark Zuckerberg has majority voting share the board

0:04:20.320 --> 0:04:22.800
<v Speaker 3>does whatever he wants pretty much, even through the most

0:04:22.800 --> 0:04:27.120
<v Speaker 3>controversial times. Google's founders also had a lot of control

0:04:27.120 --> 0:04:29.840
<v Speaker 3>of the company, outsized control, so I think a lot

0:04:29.839 --> 0:04:32.200
<v Speaker 3>of it comes down to this kind of ideology that

0:04:32.760 --> 0:04:35.800
<v Speaker 3>Paul kind of created and Sam perpetuated when he took

0:04:35.800 --> 0:04:37.559
<v Speaker 3>over as y combinator head.

0:04:38.040 --> 0:04:40.920
<v Speaker 1>Steve Jobs famously had Bill Campbell as a management coach,

0:04:40.960 --> 0:04:43.120
<v Speaker 1>and Bill Campbell was sort of another one of these

0:04:43.160 --> 0:04:46.240
<v Speaker 1>executives who in a different era was a guru to

0:04:46.480 --> 0:04:49.520
<v Speaker 1>various Silicon Valley titans. But I sort of wonder if

0:04:49.520 --> 0:04:53.560
<v Speaker 1>the Bill Campbell advice managerial advice in the Steve Jobs

0:04:53.560 --> 0:04:57.400
<v Speaker 1>era was qualitatively different than the advice that Paul is

0:04:57.440 --> 0:05:00.440
<v Speaker 1>giving a Sam Altman right now. Is that the case

0:05:00.520 --> 0:05:03.200
<v Speaker 1>Parmi has there been an evolution and the kind of

0:05:03.240 --> 0:05:09.040
<v Speaker 1>advice that nascent Silicon Valley titans are hearing from their advisors.

0:05:09.440 --> 0:05:11.280
<v Speaker 3>I have to admit I'm not familiar with the advice

0:05:11.360 --> 0:05:14.920
<v Speaker 3>that Steve Jobs got directly, but I think maybe there

0:05:15.000 --> 0:05:18.640
<v Speaker 3>is a questioning more and more of whether these founder

0:05:18.720 --> 0:05:21.919
<v Speaker 3>types should have all that control. That may still be

0:05:22.040 --> 0:05:24.840
<v Speaker 3>the case at Facebook, but I mean, this is what

0:05:24.880 --> 0:05:28.039
<v Speaker 3>made open ai so unique, right is that it had

0:05:28.080 --> 0:05:31.840
<v Speaker 3>a board that didn't just have teeth, it actually used them,

0:05:32.279 --> 0:05:35.000
<v Speaker 3>and it used them to fire him. So I don't

0:05:35.040 --> 0:05:37.880
<v Speaker 3>know if that's necessarily changing, but it certainly was very,

0:05:37.960 --> 0:05:39.039
<v Speaker 3>very different to open ai.

0:05:39.800 --> 0:05:45.520
<v Speaker 1>Talk a little bit Parmi about Sam Altman's foundational experiences.

0:05:45.680 --> 0:05:48.560
<v Speaker 1>Prior to coming to open ai. He had been an entrepreneur,

0:05:48.720 --> 0:05:52.080
<v Speaker 1>a young computer with and then lands essentially at y

0:05:52.160 --> 0:05:55.440
<v Speaker 1>Combinator and ends up running it. Yeah, or his bona

0:05:55.520 --> 0:05:58.280
<v Speaker 1>fides before he came to open ai.

0:05:58.760 --> 0:06:01.200
<v Speaker 3>Well, he paid his dues as a startup founder who

0:06:01.640 --> 0:06:04.600
<v Speaker 3>created a failed startup, as so many startup founders do.

0:06:04.720 --> 0:06:07.320
<v Speaker 3>He created a startup called looped, worked on it for

0:06:07.440 --> 0:06:09.520
<v Speaker 3>a number of years, devoted his life to it, and

0:06:09.560 --> 0:06:12.760
<v Speaker 3>then eventually sold it to another company, which you might

0:06:12.800 --> 0:06:15.000
<v Speaker 3>say as a success, but in some ways it wasn't

0:06:15.040 --> 0:06:17.440
<v Speaker 3>seen that way. And then he went on to become

0:06:17.440 --> 0:06:20.840
<v Speaker 3>an advisor to Why Combinator, which is like basically one

0:06:20.839 --> 0:06:25.000
<v Speaker 3>of the world's the world's most successful startup accelerator of

0:06:25.000 --> 0:06:27.680
<v Speaker 3>all time. You've had companies like Reddit and Stripe and

0:06:27.760 --> 0:06:31.520
<v Speaker 3>Airbnb all came through that, And you know, he became

0:06:31.760 --> 0:06:36.400
<v Speaker 3>known for having this real ambitious view and pushing startups

0:06:36.440 --> 0:06:38.320
<v Speaker 3>to be more ambitious. So he famously said to the

0:06:38.320 --> 0:06:41.800
<v Speaker 3>founders of Airbnb, you should change the numbers in your

0:06:41.839 --> 0:06:45.400
<v Speaker 3>pitch deck to investors from millions to billions, and then

0:06:45.440 --> 0:06:47.480
<v Speaker 3>he kind of went into this stage where he got

0:06:47.520 --> 0:06:51.480
<v Speaker 3>really into futuristic technology, and he was kind of gazing

0:06:51.520 --> 0:06:54.600
<v Speaker 3>into the future with things like mind uploading and kind

0:06:54.600 --> 0:06:58.359
<v Speaker 3>of uploading his consciousness into cloud computers and exploring the

0:06:58.440 --> 0:07:01.720
<v Speaker 3>universe he's talked about up publicly. And he then started

0:07:01.720 --> 0:07:06.800
<v Speaker 3>investing in very futuristic technology like nuclear fusion, life extension technology,

0:07:06.960 --> 0:07:09.520
<v Speaker 3>and he pushed y Combinator in that direction, But his

0:07:09.640 --> 0:07:13.320
<v Speaker 3>heart really was in AI when he had apparently he

0:07:13.480 --> 0:07:16.120
<v Speaker 3>had this kind of realization at some point in his

0:07:16.200 --> 0:07:20.360
<v Speaker 3>late twenties that humans aren't really all that unique and special,

0:07:20.440 --> 0:07:24.120
<v Speaker 3>and our brains can be simulated by machines. And if

0:07:24.120 --> 0:07:27.520
<v Speaker 3>that's the case, we can build a machine that is

0:07:27.720 --> 0:07:30.720
<v Speaker 3>as unique and powerful as the human brain. And that's

0:07:30.760 --> 0:07:33.560
<v Speaker 3>what he set out to do. But with this extra

0:07:34.200 --> 0:07:37.280
<v Speaker 3>kind of level of idealism around spreading all the benefits

0:07:37.320 --> 0:07:38.680
<v Speaker 3>of that to humanity.

0:07:38.720 --> 0:07:40.400
<v Speaker 1>Well, we could go down so many roads here. This

0:07:40.440 --> 0:07:43.200
<v Speaker 1>reminds me of the Silicon Valley chatter around the Singularity

0:07:43.640 --> 0:07:46.239
<v Speaker 1>that the Google guys were so fascinated with. It's interesting

0:07:46.280 --> 0:07:49.680
<v Speaker 1>to me that if you get enough technological success the

0:07:49.720 --> 0:07:52.160
<v Speaker 1>next step in your thinking is how do you perpetuate

0:07:52.240 --> 0:07:55.200
<v Speaker 1>yourself forever inside of a machine that Maybe that's a

0:07:55.240 --> 0:07:58.960
<v Speaker 1>conversation for another day, Dave. You know, the idea of

0:07:59.320 --> 0:08:02.880
<v Speaker 1>highly tailed motivated people being given free reign so they

0:08:02.920 --> 0:08:06.760
<v Speaker 1>can be creative isn't limited to Silicon Valley. Obviously. There's

0:08:06.800 --> 0:08:10.240
<v Speaker 1>a long history of it in the business world, you know,

0:08:10.280 --> 0:08:13.200
<v Speaker 1>going back to the Rockefellers and Henry Ford and in

0:08:13.360 --> 0:08:16.400
<v Speaker 1>completely different industries. And it's in the arts, right. We

0:08:16.520 --> 0:08:20.120
<v Speaker 1>know that film directors and painters and others are sort

0:08:20.120 --> 0:08:23.560
<v Speaker 1>of seen as masters or mistresses of their own destinies

0:08:23.600 --> 0:08:26.640
<v Speaker 1>and people shouldn't intrude on that. Does all of that

0:08:27.280 --> 0:08:30.200
<v Speaker 1>fairly accrue to Sam Altman in this case? Is he

0:08:30.760 --> 0:08:35.680
<v Speaker 1>someone presiding over a company who needs a board to

0:08:35.760 --> 0:08:37.400
<v Speaker 1>support him but not get in his way.

0:08:38.040 --> 0:08:42.400
<v Speaker 2>Well, I think it's interesting, you know, thinking about Altman's upbringing,

0:08:42.440 --> 0:08:45.320
<v Speaker 2>I guess through why combinates, because what that process did,

0:08:45.760 --> 0:08:48.320
<v Speaker 2>I think is gained him a lot of allies and

0:08:48.360 --> 0:08:50.560
<v Speaker 2>a reputation as being, you know, this real sort of

0:08:50.640 --> 0:08:53.480
<v Speaker 2>network guy in tech, and I think that has allowed

0:08:53.520 --> 0:08:56.040
<v Speaker 2>him to move into these future roles with a certain

0:08:56.120 --> 0:08:58.520
<v Speaker 2>level of trust. I thought it was really remarkable. When

0:08:58.520 --> 0:09:01.280
<v Speaker 2>we were hearing just about being fired, one of the

0:09:01.280 --> 0:09:03.480
<v Speaker 2>people to immediately sort of go on to Twitter was

0:09:03.520 --> 0:09:06.680
<v Speaker 2>Brian Chesky, the CEO of Airbnb, which was a Y

0:09:06.760 --> 0:09:11.280
<v Speaker 2>Combinator company, immediately jumping to sam Untiner's defense and almost

0:09:11.360 --> 0:09:13.960
<v Speaker 2>kind of reporting on the situation himself, which was bizarre.

0:09:14.000 --> 0:09:16.520
<v Speaker 2>So I think, you know, although these founders do get

0:09:16.520 --> 0:09:18.800
<v Speaker 2>this kind of reverence, it does have to be earned,

0:09:18.800 --> 0:09:20.559
<v Speaker 2>and I think the way that Sam Oltman has earned

0:09:20.559 --> 0:09:22.520
<v Speaker 2>that is not so much to be seen as this

0:09:22.640 --> 0:09:26.839
<v Speaker 2>kind of visionary genius necessarily, but this kind of smart networker,

0:09:27.000 --> 0:09:28.880
<v Speaker 2>this smart sort of bringing together of people. And the

0:09:28.880 --> 0:09:32.280
<v Speaker 2>thing that made Y combinators stand out was this really

0:09:32.480 --> 0:09:36.080
<v Speaker 2>fast acceleration. When companies would join y Combinator, they had

0:09:36.080 --> 0:09:39.360
<v Speaker 2>to say a particular metric that they were going to grow,

0:09:39.440 --> 0:09:41.600
<v Speaker 2>and every two weeks they'd checked that it was you know,

0:09:41.679 --> 0:09:44.240
<v Speaker 2>two x four x and so forth. And I think

0:09:44.240 --> 0:09:46.280
<v Speaker 2>that's the ethos that Sam Wontman has brought. Now the

0:09:46.320 --> 0:09:48.600
<v Speaker 2>question is, you know, was that something that needs a

0:09:48.600 --> 0:09:50.719
<v Speaker 2>board to rain in or is that something that a

0:09:50.760 --> 0:09:52.680
<v Speaker 2>board needs to sort of sit back and say, okay,

0:09:52.720 --> 0:09:55.400
<v Speaker 2>off you go and you know, I think sam Moultman

0:09:55.480 --> 0:09:58.959
<v Speaker 2>must have been mindful of the reputation of founders, particularly

0:09:58.960 --> 0:10:01.480
<v Speaker 2>people like Mark Zuckerberg, who you know, the board of

0:10:01.520 --> 0:10:03.760
<v Speaker 2>Facebook could never fire Mark zuckerbo they don't have the

0:10:03.800 --> 0:10:06.080
<v Speaker 2>power to do that. I think he was mindful of

0:10:06.200 --> 0:10:07.920
<v Speaker 2>how that is seen, and I think he was trying

0:10:07.960 --> 0:10:10.439
<v Speaker 2>to make a statement by saying that not only did

0:10:10.440 --> 0:10:13.520
<v Speaker 2>he not have any financial stake in open ai, but

0:10:13.679 --> 0:10:16.319
<v Speaker 2>he was serving as the behest of the boards. As

0:10:16.320 --> 0:10:21.520
<v Speaker 2>it turned out, his reputation ended up being more influential

0:10:21.600 --> 0:10:23.640
<v Speaker 2>than the votes of the board open AI. So even

0:10:23.720 --> 0:10:27.160
<v Speaker 2>once they made that decision, the rallying and support around

0:10:27.160 --> 0:10:30.560
<v Speaker 2>sam Oltman, thanks to his reputation within the tech industry

0:10:30.600 --> 0:10:33.839
<v Speaker 2>built over the past several years, meant that was a

0:10:33.880 --> 0:10:36.240
<v Speaker 2>bigger protection for him than having board votes would have

0:10:36.280 --> 0:10:36.760
<v Speaker 2>been anyway.

0:10:37.360 --> 0:10:39.320
<v Speaker 1>Did you want to jump in there, Permie, Yeah.

0:10:39.360 --> 0:10:41.440
<v Speaker 3>And I think that's a great point about the amount

0:10:41.440 --> 0:10:45.199
<v Speaker 3>of protection that he has. Silicon Valley is such a bubble,

0:10:45.360 --> 0:10:48.640
<v Speaker 3>and if you're a founder, if you're successful and you've

0:10:48.640 --> 0:10:51.040
<v Speaker 3>made a very valuable company, and you're very wealthy and

0:10:51.240 --> 0:10:54.360
<v Speaker 3>you're a billionaire, that you have to behave so badly

0:10:54.480 --> 0:10:57.480
<v Speaker 3>to fall from Silicon Valley's graces, and Elon Musk is

0:10:57.520 --> 0:11:01.040
<v Speaker 3>a prime example of that. So I Meantman's return as

0:11:01.080 --> 0:11:03.360
<v Speaker 3>CEO as a prime example of that. But I just

0:11:03.400 --> 0:11:05.280
<v Speaker 3>wanted to go back to one point you mentioned, Tim.

0:11:05.320 --> 0:11:08.199
<v Speaker 3>You were kind of casting our minds back to the

0:11:08.280 --> 0:11:11.280
<v Speaker 3>Rockefellers and people in the arts who have this kind

0:11:11.320 --> 0:11:14.120
<v Speaker 3>of power as founders and as leaders. But I really

0:11:14.160 --> 0:11:17.240
<v Speaker 3>think that in this situation, someone like Sam Altman and

0:11:17.240 --> 0:11:21.040
<v Speaker 3>the leaders of big tech companies are so different to

0:11:21.160 --> 0:11:24.560
<v Speaker 3>any of that, just because of the scale and wealth

0:11:24.600 --> 0:11:28.680
<v Speaker 3>and resources that these companies have, which are unprecedented in history.

0:11:28.920 --> 0:11:33.840
<v Speaker 3>I mean, Google today reaches something like four billion users worldwide.

0:11:33.840 --> 0:11:37.679
<v Speaker 3>That's half the global population. You know, although Chatgypt has

0:11:37.679 --> 0:11:41.079
<v Speaker 3>something like two hundred million regular users. I think Microsoft services,

0:11:41.120 --> 0:11:44.000
<v Speaker 3>which are going to use more and more open AI technology,

0:11:44.559 --> 0:11:46.680
<v Speaker 3>touch more than a billion people around the world. So

0:11:47.040 --> 0:11:50.040
<v Speaker 3>we're talking about a few people, these founders, with an

0:11:50.040 --> 0:11:53.160
<v Speaker 3>incredible amount of free reign, who have like an incredible

0:11:53.200 --> 0:11:56.400
<v Speaker 3>global influence at the same time, more so than any

0:11:56.559 --> 0:11:58.000
<v Speaker 3>empire even in history.

0:11:58.520 --> 0:12:01.640
<v Speaker 1>And now, of course, the product they have in hand

0:12:02.320 --> 0:12:05.920
<v Speaker 1>is a revolutionary and transformative product. With Google, you know,

0:12:06.000 --> 0:12:10.240
<v Speaker 1>in its pre AI phase, it was a ubiquitous search

0:12:10.240 --> 0:12:12.720
<v Speaker 1>engine that sort of opened the world up to its users.

0:12:13.160 --> 0:12:15.720
<v Speaker 1>No one really worried about it taking the world over.

0:12:15.880 --> 0:12:18.040
<v Speaker 1>You know, it was an information provider. It could be

0:12:18.160 --> 0:12:20.920
<v Speaker 1>a you know, assessed pool of disinformation too. And we'll

0:12:20.920 --> 0:12:22.880
<v Speaker 1>get into this morning. I think our conversations, so I

0:12:22.880 --> 0:12:27.920
<v Speaker 1>think this particular product AI and technology is shaping people's

0:12:28.000 --> 0:12:31.320
<v Speaker 1>views in different ways as well. But Dave, tell me

0:12:31.360 --> 0:12:31.840
<v Speaker 1>what you think.

0:12:32.280 --> 0:12:34.480
<v Speaker 2>Well, I think is also worth stressing in terms of

0:12:34.679 --> 0:12:37.240
<v Speaker 2>Oltman's value to open AI. You know, this is a

0:12:37.280 --> 0:12:39.640
<v Speaker 2>company that people are talking about being valued at around

0:12:39.640 --> 0:12:42.480
<v Speaker 2>eighty six billion dollars, and you know, a lot of

0:12:42.480 --> 0:12:45.920
<v Speaker 2>this is because of the personality of Sam Oltman. The

0:12:46.040 --> 0:12:47.800
<v Speaker 2>value of open II comes from the fact that for

0:12:47.840 --> 0:12:50.360
<v Speaker 2>the past year, every week or so, it seemed like

0:12:50.440 --> 0:12:53.040
<v Speaker 2>Sam Martman was shaking hands with a world leader. It

0:12:53.160 --> 0:12:55.480
<v Speaker 2>was sitting there in front of Congress talking about AI,

0:12:55.600 --> 0:12:59.600
<v Speaker 2>talking about regulation, and so there is value. There's clear

0:12:59.679 --> 0:13:01.920
<v Speaker 2>value of what Sam Mortman is to open AYE. And

0:13:01.960 --> 0:13:04.800
<v Speaker 2>I think it's reputation and the deal with Microsoft and

0:13:05.040 --> 0:13:07.600
<v Speaker 2>the fact that it was and should still be positioned

0:13:07.600 --> 0:13:09.800
<v Speaker 2>as the front runner here is down to the fact

0:13:09.800 --> 0:13:13.640
<v Speaker 2>that he has this ability to communicate what the company

0:13:13.640 --> 0:13:16.880
<v Speaker 2>wants to do clearly, and that doesn't necessarily come all

0:13:16.880 --> 0:13:18.920
<v Speaker 2>that naturally to other people in Silicon Valley. So there

0:13:18.960 --> 0:13:21.000
<v Speaker 2>is an intrinsic value in him himself well, and.

0:13:21.040 --> 0:13:23.880
<v Speaker 1>You know, all of the Steve Jobs comparison, Steve Jobs

0:13:23.960 --> 0:13:27.400
<v Speaker 1>was not an engineer. Steve Jobs wasn't an inventor of technology.

0:13:27.400 --> 0:13:31.120
<v Speaker 1>That was Steve Wozniak, his early partner, and Jobs was

0:13:31.200 --> 0:13:34.440
<v Speaker 1>the person who was capable of verticulating the kind of

0:13:34.520 --> 0:13:37.679
<v Speaker 1>Nirvana vision of a laptop and every desk and then

0:13:37.679 --> 0:13:40.120
<v Speaker 1>a mobile phone in every hand. And he was a

0:13:40.160 --> 0:13:42.439
<v Speaker 1>good manager, and he was good at ultimately at sort

0:13:42.440 --> 0:13:45.800
<v Speaker 1>of harnessing creative people, and that is a skill as well.

0:13:45.880 --> 0:13:48.679
<v Speaker 1>But what still feels very mysterious to me, you guys,

0:13:48.760 --> 0:13:51.480
<v Speaker 1>is why he got pushed out to begin with. Correct

0:13:51.480 --> 0:13:52.960
<v Speaker 1>me on this if I'm not up to date, But

0:13:53.040 --> 0:13:56.160
<v Speaker 1>at this point my understanding is the only kind of

0:13:56.200 --> 0:13:58.720
<v Speaker 1>public reason that's been given for why the board pushed

0:13:58.760 --> 0:14:01.760
<v Speaker 1>him out is that board, in their own words more

0:14:01.800 --> 0:14:04.760
<v Speaker 1>or less, and I'm synopsizing, felt that he wasn't being

0:14:04.880 --> 0:14:08.280
<v Speaker 1>candid with them in his communications with the board, and

0:14:08.320 --> 0:14:12.000
<v Speaker 1>there is now I think an Altman commissioned investigation into

0:14:12.440 --> 0:14:14.840
<v Speaker 1>what led up to that. It's being led by Larry

0:14:14.840 --> 0:14:18.400
<v Speaker 1>Summers and some other board members, which also kind of

0:14:18.480 --> 0:14:21.000
<v Speaker 1>speaks to whether or not that actually be an independent investigation.

0:14:21.480 --> 0:14:23.840
<v Speaker 1>But anyway, how did we get here? Why did the

0:14:23.880 --> 0:14:29.800
<v Speaker 1>board end up feeling concerned about this wonder kid in their.

0:14:29.680 --> 0:14:33.840
<v Speaker 3>Miss Well, I think, first of all, no one still knows,

0:14:33.960 --> 0:14:36.760
<v Speaker 3>apart from it seems the people on the board were,

0:14:36.800 --> 0:14:39.600
<v Speaker 3>and possibly Sam because given a couple of his first

0:14:39.600 --> 0:14:42.680
<v Speaker 3>public interviews, he will not answer questions about why he

0:14:42.800 --> 0:14:45.800
<v Speaker 3>was fired. But I think the reason because it's all

0:14:45.800 --> 0:14:48.240
<v Speaker 3>of speculation now, but it seems like the reason kind

0:14:48.240 --> 0:14:50.280
<v Speaker 3>of goes back to what we were just discussing about

0:14:50.280 --> 0:14:54.120
<v Speaker 3>the outsized influence and power of these tech founders. It

0:14:54.160 --> 0:14:58.280
<v Speaker 3>goes unchecked in most cases, and from what people have

0:14:58.360 --> 0:15:01.800
<v Speaker 3>been saying and reporting, the board uneasy essentially with Sam's

0:15:01.840 --> 0:15:05.080
<v Speaker 3>behavior outside of open Ai and some of these ventures

0:15:05.080 --> 0:15:08.040
<v Speaker 3>that he was pursuing. So for example, the iris scanning

0:15:08.080 --> 0:15:12.360
<v Speaker 3>company world Coin, which aimed to scan the eyes of

0:15:12.400 --> 0:15:15.640
<v Speaker 3>billions of people around the world in order to identify

0:15:15.680 --> 0:15:18.720
<v Speaker 3>them when the Internet becomes flooded with bots, and also

0:15:18.760 --> 0:15:22.520
<v Speaker 3>to help distribute the trillions of dollars of wealth that

0:15:22.560 --> 0:15:25.800
<v Speaker 3>Altman believed would come about through the attainment of AGI.

0:15:26.360 --> 0:15:30.560
<v Speaker 3>He was also pursuing, according to reports, creating a so

0:15:30.640 --> 0:15:34.120
<v Speaker 3>called quote iPhone for AI with Johnny Ive who was

0:15:34.160 --> 0:15:37.240
<v Speaker 3>the former lead designer at Apple. And he was also

0:15:37.400 --> 0:15:41.480
<v Speaker 3>on top of that, reportedly talking to Middle Eastern sovereign

0:15:41.520 --> 0:15:44.080
<v Speaker 3>wealth funds to raise something like ten billion dollars to

0:15:44.120 --> 0:15:46.880
<v Speaker 3>build a chip company. This is a lot of fingers

0:15:46.920 --> 0:15:49.760
<v Speaker 3>to have in different pies, and I think it sounds

0:15:49.760 --> 0:15:52.240
<v Speaker 3>to me like the board was just overall kind of

0:15:52.320 --> 0:15:55.840
<v Speaker 3>uneasy with where he was going with all these different

0:15:55.920 --> 0:15:57.880
<v Speaker 3>ventures and whether he was going to use open AI's

0:15:57.960 --> 0:16:00.800
<v Speaker 3>technology for any of that. So when they say he

0:16:00.920 --> 0:16:03.600
<v Speaker 3>wasn't candid, it seems like they were kind of caught

0:16:03.640 --> 0:16:05.200
<v Speaker 3>on the back foot with some of this stuff, and

0:16:05.240 --> 0:16:08.760
<v Speaker 3>they didn't feel like they were performing their fiduciary duty

0:16:08.760 --> 0:16:11.760
<v Speaker 3>to humanity, which was actually their mission as the board.

0:16:12.160 --> 0:16:14.040
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, I want to get into some of this in

0:16:14.080 --> 0:16:17.840
<v Speaker 1>more depth, you know, specifically this particular board's unusual mission.

0:16:18.280 --> 0:16:20.120
<v Speaker 1>But one of the other things that's been out there, Dave,

0:16:20.240 --> 0:16:23.120
<v Speaker 1>is it's been reported and then dismissed by others that

0:16:23.160 --> 0:16:27.720
<v Speaker 1>there was this mysterious Project Q being hatched inside open

0:16:27.800 --> 0:16:31.880
<v Speaker 1>AI that maybe ran a foul of this idea of

0:16:32.080 --> 0:16:35.040
<v Speaker 1>AI being harnessed ultimately for the good. It's unclear to

0:16:35.040 --> 0:16:37.800
<v Speaker 1>me but that the board had concerns about this product.

0:16:38.280 --> 0:16:40.840
<v Speaker 1>Others have said, actually, there were no letters written about it.

0:16:40.840 --> 0:16:43.320
<v Speaker 1>So the reporting has been very murky around this, and

0:16:43.400 --> 0:16:44.960
<v Speaker 1>I don't know that we should rely on it, but

0:16:45.040 --> 0:16:49.640
<v Speaker 1>it gets to this issue of the board being concerned about,

0:16:49.760 --> 0:16:51.920
<v Speaker 1>you know, the idea of bots controlling the world and

0:16:51.960 --> 0:16:55.520
<v Speaker 1>open an AI losing its mission along the way.

0:16:56.040 --> 0:16:58.720
<v Speaker 2>Right right, I mean the ultimate endgame concern here is

0:16:58.760 --> 0:17:01.920
<v Speaker 2>that an AIO created that poses a real risk to

0:17:02.000 --> 0:17:05.160
<v Speaker 2>the human race, and any step along that journey makes

0:17:05.160 --> 0:17:08.199
<v Speaker 2>people pretty pretty nervous. Now, the question around whether this

0:17:08.359 --> 0:17:11.639
<v Speaker 2>was a factor in Oltmand's firing, as you say, that

0:17:11.760 --> 0:17:14.000
<v Speaker 2>still mrk it at this point, and I think actually

0:17:14.000 --> 0:17:16.760
<v Speaker 2>it sort of stresses this issue, which is that had

0:17:16.800 --> 0:17:20.320
<v Speaker 2>the board that forced Oltman out, had it had reasoning

0:17:20.480 --> 0:17:23.080
<v Speaker 2>and public explanations for why it did, that we could

0:17:23.080 --> 0:17:25.840
<v Speaker 2>have avoided what's now going to be, you know, this

0:17:26.040 --> 0:17:29.840
<v Speaker 2>endless filling of the void with possibly conspiracies of other

0:17:29.920 --> 0:17:33.240
<v Speaker 2>you know, sort of hyperboles around what open ai is developing. Now.

0:17:33.320 --> 0:17:37.360
<v Speaker 2>Q Star, this sort of rumored project that supposedly can

0:17:37.600 --> 0:17:40.879
<v Speaker 2>solve basic math problems. I mean, for starters, calling it

0:17:40.960 --> 0:17:44.000
<v Speaker 2>Q anything seems like a mistake. It's very bonred like,

0:17:44.480 --> 0:17:47.120
<v Speaker 2>I mean, it's remarkable. And just days later we Amazon

0:17:47.200 --> 0:17:49.600
<v Speaker 2>named one of it's a's Q as well, which I

0:17:49.640 --> 0:17:52.360
<v Speaker 2>just find staggering that these companies would be so sort

0:17:52.359 --> 0:17:54.720
<v Speaker 2>of mindless in doing that. But that's another that's another

0:17:54.760 --> 0:17:55.440
<v Speaker 2>matter altogether.

0:17:55.600 --> 0:17:58.600
<v Speaker 1>It's like naming something X well, right.

0:17:58.600 --> 0:18:00.680
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, I mean you might as well call killer AI.

0:18:00.800 --> 0:18:02.520
<v Speaker 2>I mean, it's just going to make people sort of

0:18:02.560 --> 0:18:04.920
<v Speaker 2>nervous or just conspiratorial, which you know, we have enough

0:18:04.960 --> 0:18:07.360
<v Speaker 2>of that right now in the world, of course. But look,

0:18:07.400 --> 0:18:08.879
<v Speaker 2>so the issue is, you know, it's very hard to

0:18:08.920 --> 0:18:11.360
<v Speaker 2>sort of sometimes for people who aren't experts in AI

0:18:11.440 --> 0:18:13.920
<v Speaker 2>to draw this line between something that might be able

0:18:13.960 --> 0:18:16.760
<v Speaker 2>to do basic math and something that might destroy the universe.

0:18:17.160 --> 0:18:20.280
<v Speaker 2>But supposedly there was some concern within open ai that

0:18:20.680 --> 0:18:23.480
<v Speaker 2>this was you know, a significant break through, a significant step,

0:18:23.960 --> 0:18:26.560
<v Speaker 2>and you know, speaking of x Elon Musk was in

0:18:26.640 --> 0:18:29.960
<v Speaker 2>New York recently talking about the firing of Samultman, and

0:18:30.000 --> 0:18:32.840
<v Speaker 2>he made what I thought was unusually lately a pretty

0:18:32.880 --> 0:18:35.280
<v Speaker 2>reasonable point. He was saying, Look, either the board needs

0:18:35.320 --> 0:18:38.480
<v Speaker 2>to be clear about these concerns and allow the public

0:18:38.520 --> 0:18:40.359
<v Speaker 2>to know what they were, or if there wasn't a

0:18:40.400 --> 0:18:42.359
<v Speaker 2>good reason, they need to you know, well they have

0:18:42.440 --> 0:18:44.240
<v Speaker 2>stood down now because then you know they needed to

0:18:44.240 --> 0:18:46.760
<v Speaker 2>be accountable for that error. But I think either way

0:18:46.800 --> 0:18:49.119
<v Speaker 2>there needs to be a feeling of this vacuum around

0:18:49.560 --> 0:18:52.479
<v Speaker 2>what exactly the concerns may have been. Because still one

0:18:52.480 --> 0:18:54.480
<v Speaker 2>of the big unknowns in all this is, you know,

0:18:54.520 --> 0:18:58.080
<v Speaker 2>one of open AI's co founders, Ilias skav who was

0:18:58.119 --> 0:19:00.240
<v Speaker 2>the chief scientist open AI and was on the board,

0:19:00.280 --> 0:19:03.159
<v Speaker 2>and he was the sort of pivotal changed mind on

0:19:03.200 --> 0:19:05.320
<v Speaker 2>the board that meant the board had a majority to

0:19:05.400 --> 0:19:08.639
<v Speaker 2>fire Altman. We don't quite know what it was that

0:19:08.720 --> 0:19:10.760
<v Speaker 2>concerned him so much or why he changed his mind.

0:19:10.800 --> 0:19:14.480
<v Speaker 2>I mean, he's subsequently come along and said he regretted

0:19:14.960 --> 0:19:18.120
<v Speaker 2>the decision, and Sam Moultman, in part of his statement

0:19:18.160 --> 0:19:20.439
<v Speaker 2>about returning to the company, Sam Moltman said that he

0:19:20.520 --> 0:19:23.200
<v Speaker 2>harbors no ill will towards him, And you know, I've

0:19:23.200 --> 0:19:26.280
<v Speaker 2>never heard that phrase said with much sincerity. So I'm

0:19:26.320 --> 0:19:28.679
<v Speaker 2>kind of keen to see where he lives. Yeah, I

0:19:28.680 --> 0:19:31.359
<v Speaker 2>mean it's like a football owner saying they backed the manager.

0:19:31.400 --> 0:19:31.520
<v Speaker 3>You know.

0:19:31.560 --> 0:19:34.080
<v Speaker 2>It's sort of ominous sign that things might not be

0:19:34.119 --> 0:19:36.640
<v Speaker 2>so well. And so this is one of these details

0:19:37.119 --> 0:19:39.480
<v Speaker 2>that we need to sort of hear more about. And

0:19:39.560 --> 0:19:41.920
<v Speaker 2>I think open AYE, if it wants to be at

0:19:41.960 --> 0:19:44.520
<v Speaker 2>the front of talking to governments and being this hugely

0:19:44.560 --> 0:19:48.159
<v Speaker 2>an entry company, the trade off has to be that

0:19:48.240 --> 0:19:51.040
<v Speaker 2>it is more public, perhaps than tech companies would typically

0:19:51.119 --> 0:19:53.680
<v Speaker 2>be in the past. It doesn't get to hide behind

0:19:53.720 --> 0:19:56.639
<v Speaker 2>this super secrecy that Silicon Valley is more comfortable with.

0:19:56.880 --> 0:19:59.200
<v Speaker 2>It has to tell us what was going on here.

0:19:59.200 --> 0:20:01.119
<v Speaker 1>We should also know. And Elon Musk says he was

0:20:01.160 --> 0:20:05.520
<v Speaker 1>an early board member at opmen AI along with Sam Altman.

0:20:05.560 --> 0:20:09.200
<v Speaker 1>Before Sam became CEO, he was on the board and

0:20:09.240 --> 0:20:12.120
<v Speaker 1>as Parmi noted earlier, Elon has run rough shot over

0:20:12.119 --> 0:20:14.240
<v Speaker 1>his own board. We're going to take a break in

0:20:14.280 --> 0:20:16.760
<v Speaker 1>a sec But this idea that AI is going to

0:20:16.800 --> 0:20:19.840
<v Speaker 1>take over the world and that open AI is sitting

0:20:19.880 --> 0:20:22.879
<v Speaker 1>on top of a Pandora's box, is that warranted. Parmi.

0:20:23.560 --> 0:20:25.359
<v Speaker 3>First of all, I would say an answer to that

0:20:25.480 --> 0:20:30.119
<v Speaker 3>question that I think open ai secretly loves that people

0:20:30.200 --> 0:20:34.720
<v Speaker 3>think that because it makes their technology. However, but they

0:20:34.800 --> 0:20:37.240
<v Speaker 3>keep it under wraps, it makes their technology seem that

0:20:37.359 --> 0:20:40.120
<v Speaker 3>much more powerful. You know, for people to fear it

0:20:40.160 --> 0:20:42.840
<v Speaker 3>doesn't mean they don't want to pay for it necessarily.

0:20:42.960 --> 0:20:45.879
<v Speaker 3>Companies kind of see that almost as a kind of

0:20:46.040 --> 0:20:50.320
<v Speaker 3>nice attractive feature to software. But I think I would

0:20:50.400 --> 0:20:54.320
<v Speaker 3>say that with something like this new development with q starr,

0:20:54.400 --> 0:20:57.120
<v Speaker 3>for example, that open ai is working on this ability

0:20:57.160 --> 0:21:00.719
<v Speaker 3>to do great school math. You so this means that

0:21:00.760 --> 0:21:04.360
<v Speaker 3>AI can reason, because when you do math, you have

0:21:04.440 --> 0:21:06.919
<v Speaker 3>to figure out steps to solve a problem, and it's

0:21:06.960 --> 0:21:09.879
<v Speaker 3>a little bit like solving problems in real life. And

0:21:09.960 --> 0:21:15.360
<v Speaker 3>so right now, chatgybt is amazing because it can generate language,

0:21:15.359 --> 0:21:17.359
<v Speaker 3>it can generate text, and a lot of that is

0:21:17.480 --> 0:21:21.560
<v Speaker 3>just statistical based predictions. But if a model can do

0:21:21.600 --> 0:21:24.520
<v Speaker 3>things much more strategically, if it can plan, if it

0:21:24.560 --> 0:21:28.399
<v Speaker 3>can solve problems, many people say in the AI field

0:21:28.400 --> 0:21:32.080
<v Speaker 3>that this is a step towards more general intelligence. And

0:21:32.160 --> 0:21:34.679
<v Speaker 3>the reason why I'm saying that in response to your

0:21:34.760 --> 0:21:38.480
<v Speaker 3>question is because although I don't think AGI is necessarily

0:21:38.520 --> 0:21:41.080
<v Speaker 3>going to take over the world. I personally don't subscribe

0:21:41.119 --> 0:21:44.800
<v Speaker 3>to the rogue AI theory, certainly not anytime soon. But

0:21:44.920 --> 0:21:48.960
<v Speaker 3>this idea of humans outsourcing more than just tasks, but

0:21:49.080 --> 0:21:53.840
<v Speaker 3>actual responsibility to AI is certainly going to be happening

0:21:53.880 --> 0:21:56.840
<v Speaker 3>in the next couple of years with these kinds of

0:21:56.880 --> 0:22:01.480
<v Speaker 3>developments like q Star, and also Google's new model called Gemini,

0:22:01.560 --> 0:22:06.000
<v Speaker 3>which hasn't released yet, also has the sexpertise and strategic planning,

0:22:06.280 --> 0:22:08.320
<v Speaker 3>so it's kind of similar to what open ai is

0:22:08.359 --> 0:22:10.840
<v Speaker 3>working on, and I think that's going to be really

0:22:10.880 --> 0:22:14.040
<v Speaker 3>interesting to see how business leaders, how anyone uses these

0:22:14.119 --> 0:22:17.320
<v Speaker 3>kinds of systems not just to generate text or to

0:22:17.359 --> 0:22:20.080
<v Speaker 3>ask advice, but to actually carry out some of our

0:22:20.200 --> 0:22:22.800
<v Speaker 3>day to day work tasks and responsibilities.

0:22:24.000 --> 0:22:25.680
<v Speaker 1>On that note, we're going to take a quick break

0:22:25.680 --> 0:22:27.600
<v Speaker 1>to hear from a sponsor and then we'll come right back.

0:22:33.600 --> 0:22:35.800
<v Speaker 1>We're back with parme Olsen and Dave Lee, and we're

0:22:35.840 --> 0:22:40.160
<v Speaker 1>discussing all of the recent upheaval surrounding open ai and

0:22:40.200 --> 0:22:44.840
<v Speaker 1>its impact on its product chat GPT. Dave sam Altman

0:22:45.040 --> 0:22:49.120
<v Speaker 1>was the CEO and on the board at OpenAI. He's

0:22:49.160 --> 0:22:52.800
<v Speaker 1>now just the CEO. How do we interpret that? Did

0:22:52.800 --> 0:22:56.600
<v Speaker 1>he win the power struggle that ensued after he was

0:22:56.600 --> 0:22:59.399
<v Speaker 1>forced out and brought back. Does he have more influence now?

0:22:59.440 --> 0:23:02.320
<v Speaker 1>Does he as less influence? Can we even know?

0:23:03.320 --> 0:23:05.119
<v Speaker 2>Yeah? I mean, look, I think a lot depends on

0:23:05.160 --> 0:23:06.800
<v Speaker 2>a couple of things. I mean, one of them being

0:23:07.160 --> 0:23:10.000
<v Speaker 2>how does the rest of this board look like in

0:23:10.080 --> 0:23:12.440
<v Speaker 2>the coming weeks and months. You know, the interim board

0:23:12.480 --> 0:23:14.560
<v Speaker 2>of three is going to expand possibly through as many

0:23:14.560 --> 0:23:17.199
<v Speaker 2>as nine or they haven't quite confirmed the shape up

0:23:17.240 --> 0:23:19.800
<v Speaker 2>of that, and there's going to be lots of sort

0:23:19.800 --> 0:23:21.719
<v Speaker 2>of questions that's about what the makeup of that board's

0:23:21.760 --> 0:23:24.280
<v Speaker 2>going to be. I mean, already the board has lost

0:23:24.320 --> 0:23:27.160
<v Speaker 2>its only women. It's now an all male interim boards,

0:23:27.119 --> 0:23:29.320
<v Speaker 2>So there's going to be pressure to reflect a diversity there.

0:23:29.320 --> 0:23:31.280
<v Speaker 2>But then also there's going to have to be people

0:23:31.280 --> 0:23:36.120
<v Speaker 2>who are incredibly versed in safety round AI, around policy

0:23:36.160 --> 0:23:38.600
<v Speaker 2>and AI, people that are going to be at least

0:23:38.640 --> 0:23:41.520
<v Speaker 2>seen as potentially being able to hold someone like Sam

0:23:41.560 --> 0:23:43.760
<v Speaker 2>Altman to account or at least sort of reign in

0:23:43.760 --> 0:23:46.760
<v Speaker 2>perhaps some of those commercial interests that might sort of

0:23:46.880 --> 0:23:49.360
<v Speaker 2>provide conflicts or just kind of have him going full

0:23:49.400 --> 0:23:51.639
<v Speaker 2>steam ahead. So I think it we'll know more about

0:23:51.640 --> 0:23:54.360
<v Speaker 2>sam Altman's power. Once we know more about that board.

0:23:54.520 --> 0:23:57.240
<v Speaker 1>Party you were mentioning earlier, how sam Alton was allowed

0:23:57.280 --> 0:24:00.600
<v Speaker 1>to pursue all these other ventures outside of open Ai,

0:24:00.760 --> 0:24:04.160
<v Speaker 1>including companies that possibly would have ended up as competitors

0:24:04.640 --> 0:24:08.000
<v Speaker 1>getting funding for those rather than possibly getting funding for

0:24:08.280 --> 0:24:12.600
<v Speaker 1>open Ai, just all of the myriad financial and professional conflicts.

0:24:12.720 --> 0:24:15.640
<v Speaker 1>One of the other things that I find very strange

0:24:15.640 --> 0:24:19.200
<v Speaker 1>in the story is that open ai is a nonprofit

0:24:19.359 --> 0:24:24.960
<v Speaker 1>company housing a for profit subsidiary that offers a product

0:24:25.080 --> 0:24:29.760
<v Speaker 1>Chat GPT for free unless you want extra Chat GPT features,

0:24:30.000 --> 0:24:31.879
<v Speaker 1>and then as a consumer, you have to pay extra

0:24:31.920 --> 0:24:36.320
<v Speaker 1>to get those. This confuses me, even in that structure

0:24:36.320 --> 0:24:38.520
<v Speaker 1>at one point, the company at evaluation of about eighty

0:24:38.560 --> 0:24:42.280
<v Speaker 1>six billion dollars, isn't this structure in it of itself

0:24:42.480 --> 0:24:43.720
<v Speaker 1>bound to cause problems.

0:24:44.480 --> 0:24:47.600
<v Speaker 3>One thing I underestimated about this whole story when it

0:24:47.680 --> 0:24:51.280
<v Speaker 3>happened was how much power this board had, And I

0:24:51.359 --> 0:24:54.440
<v Speaker 3>underestimated and didn't fully appreciate the fact that they really

0:24:54.480 --> 0:24:58.520
<v Speaker 3>could fire sam Altman. But the idea of trying to

0:24:58.560 --> 0:25:02.800
<v Speaker 3>combine for profit the nonprofit is not completely unusual In

0:25:02.880 --> 0:25:06.760
<v Speaker 3>Silicon Valley. Mozilla is connected with the Mozilla Foundation that

0:25:06.880 --> 0:25:11.160
<v Speaker 3>is a nonprofit, Signal, which is the encrypted messaging app

0:25:11.200 --> 0:25:15.320
<v Speaker 3>that is also a nonprofit, and even just recently, two

0:25:15.440 --> 0:25:18.399
<v Speaker 3>of the leading AI firms in Silicon Valley. One is

0:25:18.440 --> 0:25:21.240
<v Speaker 3>called Inflection, the other one is Anthropic, the latter of

0:25:21.240 --> 0:25:24.280
<v Speaker 3>which split away from open Ai a couple of years ago.

0:25:24.560 --> 0:25:29.280
<v Speaker 3>Those are also trying to thread this needle between being

0:25:29.359 --> 0:25:32.879
<v Speaker 3>businesses that make money but also building AI that is

0:25:32.920 --> 0:25:35.960
<v Speaker 3>safe and beneficial to humanity, and so they are also

0:25:36.119 --> 0:25:39.720
<v Speaker 3>tinkering with these kind of unusual corporate structures, like being

0:25:39.760 --> 0:25:43.879
<v Speaker 3>a public benefit corporation. I think in the case of Inflection,

0:25:44.160 --> 0:25:48.280
<v Speaker 3>they're structured in such a way where they have to

0:25:48.640 --> 0:25:53.000
<v Speaker 3>prioritize the environment and consumers on the exact same level

0:25:53.080 --> 0:25:56.560
<v Speaker 3>as their investors. So profit is not the number one

0:25:56.720 --> 0:25:58.760
<v Speaker 3>priority for them. It has to be upheld with these

0:25:58.760 --> 0:26:02.399
<v Speaker 3>other things now, and this is clearly very difficult to

0:26:02.480 --> 0:26:05.160
<v Speaker 3>pull off open Ai. It doesn't seem to have worked

0:26:05.160 --> 0:26:08.560
<v Speaker 3>for them. Deep Mind, which is the big AI lab

0:26:08.600 --> 0:26:11.080
<v Speaker 3>that's part of Google, also tried to do this. They

0:26:11.160 --> 0:26:14.400
<v Speaker 3>tried to spin out of Google for several years. They

0:26:14.440 --> 0:26:18.040
<v Speaker 3>tried to create a governance structure called a Global Interest Company.

0:26:18.400 --> 0:26:20.919
<v Speaker 3>They wanted to be like a nonprofit style company. It

0:26:21.000 --> 0:26:25.399
<v Speaker 3>totally failed. Google next it. So there's this history of

0:26:25.600 --> 0:26:28.399
<v Speaker 3>AI builders trying to do this because they know this

0:26:28.440 --> 0:26:33.040
<v Speaker 3>technology is so transformative and they don't necessarily feel comfortable

0:26:33.080 --> 0:26:37.600
<v Speaker 3>even with it being controlled by monopolistic corporations essentially, but

0:26:37.640 --> 0:26:39.520
<v Speaker 3>it's been very difficult to figure out how to make

0:26:39.560 --> 0:26:40.000
<v Speaker 3>it work.

0:26:40.359 --> 0:26:41.960
<v Speaker 2>I think I was sop on. Isn't it the case

0:26:41.960 --> 0:26:45.520
<v Speaker 2>that this model of a nonprofit running a technology product,

0:26:45.800 --> 0:26:47.880
<v Speaker 2>it comes under a lot more strain given the sheer

0:26:47.880 --> 0:26:50.479
<v Speaker 2>amounts of money necessary to pull it off. With aim

0:26:50.880 --> 0:26:53.879
<v Speaker 2>absolutely eating power Microsoft place. I think it was up

0:26:53.880 --> 0:26:57.680
<v Speaker 2>to thirteen billion dollars to have open ai use its

0:26:57.720 --> 0:27:00.679
<v Speaker 2>servers to do the crunching that makes AI possible. So,

0:27:01.280 --> 0:27:04.119
<v Speaker 2>you know, Mozilla is a great example there of an

0:27:04.200 --> 0:27:07.199
<v Speaker 2>organization that runs a browser, but creating and running a

0:27:07.200 --> 0:27:09.840
<v Speaker 2>browser isn't in the same league as having to build

0:27:10.520 --> 0:27:12.959
<v Speaker 2>cutting edge AI. And even in the case of Mozilla,

0:27:13.000 --> 0:27:14.919
<v Speaker 2>you know, much of their funding comes from companies like

0:27:14.960 --> 0:27:18.080
<v Speaker 2>Google and others. So it's always been a bit uneasy

0:27:18.160 --> 0:27:22.760
<v Speaker 2>this tech model with nonprofits, and it's been particularly strained

0:27:23.040 --> 0:27:25.400
<v Speaker 2>when it comes to AI just because of the magnitude

0:27:25.440 --> 0:27:27.000
<v Speaker 2>of what needs to be done well.

0:27:27.000 --> 0:27:29.720
<v Speaker 1>And you also have, you know, a chief executive whose

0:27:29.720 --> 0:27:32.720
<v Speaker 1>mission is to grow the company and increase profitability and

0:27:32.800 --> 0:27:36.040
<v Speaker 1>expand the share of the product that's selling. And then

0:27:36.080 --> 0:27:40.000
<v Speaker 1>a board which is invested with responsibilities for helping to

0:27:40.000 --> 0:27:43.680
<v Speaker 1>achieve that, but also being kind of a self regulatory

0:27:43.760 --> 0:27:46.639
<v Speaker 1>device that is trying to stand in the way of abuses.

0:27:46.720 --> 0:27:49.000
<v Speaker 1>All of it, Parmi was saying, And you know, I

0:27:49.000 --> 0:27:52.560
<v Speaker 1>think this is the historical tension anyway between boards and executives.

0:27:52.680 --> 0:27:55.520
<v Speaker 1>It happens in lots of industries. Boards came into being

0:27:56.320 --> 0:28:00.159
<v Speaker 1>to sort of make sure, especially publicly traded companies, that

0:28:00.240 --> 0:28:02.560
<v Speaker 1>investors interests were being looked after and that you didn't

0:28:02.600 --> 0:28:06.120
<v Speaker 1>have rogue CEOs. And there's a lot of situations even

0:28:06.119 --> 0:28:07.960
<v Speaker 1>outside of tech, where you can have a rogue CEO.

0:28:08.040 --> 0:28:11.760
<v Speaker 1>But of course, and again, as Party mentioned earlier, we're

0:28:11.760 --> 0:28:15.000
<v Speaker 1>talking about a product and a technology at play here

0:28:15.040 --> 0:28:18.960
<v Speaker 1>that scares people. You know, the board, Parmi continues to

0:28:19.040 --> 0:28:21.840
<v Speaker 1>interest me because, as you've noted in one of your columns,

0:28:22.359 --> 0:28:24.840
<v Speaker 1>open Ai had a chance to get more women on

0:28:24.880 --> 0:28:27.680
<v Speaker 1>its board and it just drove right past that, which

0:28:27.720 --> 0:28:30.320
<v Speaker 1>now has an all male board. One of the people

0:28:30.840 --> 0:28:34.679
<v Speaker 1>on the board that was reconstituted, Helen Turner, interested me

0:28:34.800 --> 0:28:37.879
<v Speaker 1>because Helen Toner is an academic. She has done a

0:28:37.880 --> 0:28:41.440
<v Speaker 1>lot of work herself on AI and the uses of technology,

0:28:41.920 --> 0:28:44.680
<v Speaker 1>and it has been reported that she had worked on

0:28:44.720 --> 0:28:49.040
<v Speaker 1>a paper that raised some questions about even whether or

0:28:49.080 --> 0:28:52.600
<v Speaker 1>not open AI's own products could be problematic, and that

0:28:52.680 --> 0:28:55.959
<v Speaker 1>Sam Altman confronted her about that and they had a dispute.

0:28:56.360 --> 0:28:59.600
<v Speaker 1>She was a pivotal person in his departure based on

0:28:59.680 --> 0:29:03.000
<v Speaker 1>the report we've seen. Tell me about those two things,

0:29:03.080 --> 0:29:04.840
<v Speaker 1>about the fact that we have an all male board

0:29:04.840 --> 0:29:06.880
<v Speaker 1>there now and what happened to Helen Toner.

0:29:07.480 --> 0:29:10.520
<v Speaker 3>Well, I'll start with Toner, and absolutely right. She did

0:29:10.680 --> 0:29:12.880
<v Speaker 3>write that research paper. You can see it. It's public

0:29:12.920 --> 0:29:16.360
<v Speaker 3>and has written in association with Georgetown University, and she's

0:29:16.440 --> 0:29:21.000
<v Speaker 3>scathing about open Ai. She referred to frantic corner cutting

0:29:21.240 --> 0:29:24.680
<v Speaker 3>in the progress of building chat Ept, and then she

0:29:24.800 --> 0:29:29.960
<v Speaker 3>compared open Ai with its rival Anthropic and said that Anthropic,

0:29:30.080 --> 0:29:32.280
<v Speaker 3>which was the group of people at open Ai that

0:29:32.320 --> 0:29:35.400
<v Speaker 3>broke away to make Safer AI, had done a better

0:29:35.520 --> 0:29:38.840
<v Speaker 3>job of more slowly deploying a product, making sure that

0:29:38.880 --> 0:29:41.320
<v Speaker 3>it was safe before they put it out into the wild,

0:29:41.840 --> 0:29:45.960
<v Speaker 3>and sam Altmand apparently was livid about that. Didn't like

0:29:46.040 --> 0:29:48.280
<v Speaker 3>the fact that she was putting that into the public

0:29:48.320 --> 0:29:51.640
<v Speaker 3>domain when you know the open ai is being investigated

0:29:51.680 --> 0:29:55.920
<v Speaker 3>by the Federal Trade Commission for potentially infringing on people's privacy.

0:29:56.000 --> 0:29:59.200
<v Speaker 3>He told her, according to reports, that it was compromising

0:29:59.480 --> 0:30:02.120
<v Speaker 3>the company, and so, yes, there was a lot of

0:30:02.160 --> 0:30:04.680
<v Speaker 3>tension there, but I think tim, I mean, you could

0:30:04.720 --> 0:30:06.600
<v Speaker 3>look at it both ways. Yes, what she was doing

0:30:06.720 --> 0:30:10.440
<v Speaker 3>was compromising open AI's reputation, but she was an academic.

0:30:10.520 --> 0:30:12.719
<v Speaker 3>They knew that when they brought her on the board.

0:30:13.200 --> 0:30:15.400
<v Speaker 3>And as you also mentioned, this is kind of what

0:30:15.440 --> 0:30:17.680
<v Speaker 3>boards are supposed to do, push back a little bit,

0:30:18.040 --> 0:30:21.720
<v Speaker 3>and boards typically have a fiduciary duty to shareholders. This

0:30:21.880 --> 0:30:24.880
<v Speaker 3>was not the case with open Ai. The board had

0:30:24.880 --> 0:30:29.840
<v Speaker 3>a fiduciary duty to the open ai mission to benefit humanity.

0:30:29.880 --> 0:30:31.640
<v Speaker 3>It's kind of, if you think about it, quite a

0:30:31.680 --> 0:30:34.640
<v Speaker 3>bizarre phrase. Feels weird saying that, but that is literally

0:30:34.680 --> 0:30:37.680
<v Speaker 3>how it was written and signed and agreed by everyone.

0:30:38.160 --> 0:30:40.800
<v Speaker 3>But Toner was the one that lost her seat, and

0:30:40.840 --> 0:30:42.320
<v Speaker 3>so was Tasha McCauley.

0:30:42.800 --> 0:30:45.160
<v Speaker 1>It's smacks of Sir Gey Brand and Larry Page do

0:30:45.320 --> 0:30:47.960
<v Speaker 1>no harm in their early Google literation.

0:30:48.160 --> 0:30:51.760
<v Speaker 3>Absolutely yeah. And Google also famously said in the very beginning,

0:30:51.800 --> 0:30:54.880
<v Speaker 3>we don't want advertising, we hate advertising. And now they're

0:30:54.920 --> 0:30:56.160
<v Speaker 3>the world's biggest ad giant.

0:30:56.240 --> 0:30:59.040
<v Speaker 1>So there you go, Ah, the children, but we need

0:30:59.080 --> 0:31:01.920
<v Speaker 1>them among us. Whatever the merits are of how the

0:31:01.960 --> 0:31:04.440
<v Speaker 1>board intervened here, and I have sympathy for a lot

0:31:04.480 --> 0:31:07.560
<v Speaker 1>of them, it also had quite the clown show aspects

0:31:07.600 --> 0:31:09.880
<v Speaker 1>to the whole thing. You sort of wondered why this

0:31:09.920 --> 0:31:13.880
<v Speaker 1>could have been choreographed or sorted in a more private way,

0:31:14.080 --> 0:31:17.200
<v Speaker 1>but maybe that was impossible. Here is there another way

0:31:17.240 --> 0:31:18.680
<v Speaker 1>this could have played out at open AI?

0:31:19.440 --> 0:31:22.160
<v Speaker 2>I mean yes, And the way it could have played

0:31:22.160 --> 0:31:25.880
<v Speaker 2>out was the phrase that was bringing your receipts. If

0:31:25.880 --> 0:31:28.360
<v Speaker 2>the board had this feeling that there was issues with

0:31:28.440 --> 0:31:32.400
<v Speaker 2>how Sam Wontman had been communicating with them, it needed examples.

0:31:32.480 --> 0:31:35.160
<v Speaker 2>It needed a way to sort of explain its thinking

0:31:35.160 --> 0:31:36.760
<v Speaker 2>in a way it just hasn't done. It kind of

0:31:36.760 --> 0:31:39.000
<v Speaker 2>reminds me of when you have a sort of argument

0:31:39.080 --> 0:31:40.760
<v Speaker 2>with a spouse and you kind of well, give me

0:31:40.760 --> 0:31:42.240
<v Speaker 2>one example, and you go, well, I can't think of

0:31:42.240 --> 0:31:44.560
<v Speaker 2>one right now, but you never quite get anywhere, do you,

0:31:44.560 --> 0:31:47.320
<v Speaker 2>And nobody gives any concession on either side, and that's

0:31:47.360 --> 0:31:49.560
<v Speaker 2>kind of where we're at with Open AI. It was

0:31:49.960 --> 0:31:52.080
<v Speaker 2>being described as a coup, and I think that's kind

0:31:52.120 --> 0:31:54.120
<v Speaker 2>of accurate, and that there was a sort of swing

0:31:54.160 --> 0:31:56.240
<v Speaker 2>for the king and you've got to have everything in

0:31:56.280 --> 0:31:58.600
<v Speaker 2>a row and if you swing, you better not miss,

0:31:58.600 --> 0:32:00.200
<v Speaker 2>and that's what they did. They swung and they and

0:32:00.200 --> 0:32:02.200
<v Speaker 2>they missed because they didn't have the reason to back

0:32:02.200 --> 0:32:04.240
<v Speaker 2>it up. And you know, as we've now discovered as well,

0:32:04.280 --> 0:32:06.960
<v Speaker 2>they were fighting the forces of the commercial interest and

0:32:07.040 --> 0:32:10.200
<v Speaker 2>open AI, so you could argue they perhaps never stood

0:32:10.240 --> 0:32:12.680
<v Speaker 2>a chance. But I spoke to one the business professor

0:32:12.680 --> 0:32:15.440
<v Speaker 2>recently who made the point that talking about this sort

0:32:15.440 --> 0:32:20.440
<v Speaker 2>of nonprofit management and so forth, we shouldn't necessarily write

0:32:20.480 --> 0:32:22.640
<v Speaker 2>off this model because what this could have just been

0:32:22.840 --> 0:32:26.320
<v Speaker 2>was in competency in this board in particular when it

0:32:26.360 --> 0:32:28.920
<v Speaker 2>came to carrying out this coup or whatever we want

0:32:28.960 --> 0:32:29.480
<v Speaker 2>to describe it.

0:32:29.520 --> 0:32:31.560
<v Speaker 3>I completely agree with that, and I think that's what's

0:32:31.600 --> 0:32:34.080
<v Speaker 3>such a shame about the whole thing, because it does

0:32:34.120 --> 0:32:36.240
<v Speaker 3>sound like they did come across as quite incompetent, and

0:32:36.280 --> 0:32:37.719
<v Speaker 3>if you look at them they didn't have a lot

0:32:37.760 --> 0:32:41.040
<v Speaker 3>of experience on other boards. So if they had just

0:32:41.160 --> 0:32:44.000
<v Speaker 3>executed it a little bit more professionally, then I think

0:32:44.040 --> 0:32:47.360
<v Speaker 3>people could maybe consider this kind of model as potentially working.

0:32:47.480 --> 0:32:50.240
<v Speaker 3>It's not a terrible model. I mean the idea behind

0:32:50.280 --> 0:32:52.880
<v Speaker 3>it is quite noble when you think about it. It

0:32:53.000 --> 0:32:53.880
<v Speaker 3>just couldn't work.

0:32:54.200 --> 0:32:56.080
<v Speaker 2>There's the thing, you know, talking about the paper from

0:32:56.080 --> 0:32:58.040
<v Speaker 2>Helen Toner. I mean, I think it's worth remembering that

0:32:58.040 --> 0:32:59.720
<v Speaker 2>that paper, like you say, it was written, it was

0:32:59.680 --> 0:33:02.600
<v Speaker 2>public and Helen Tona was still on the border Open AI.

0:33:02.720 --> 0:33:05.560
<v Speaker 2>So that was an indication that that dynamic did work right.

0:33:05.680 --> 0:33:08.360
<v Speaker 2>I mean, it created tension, but ultimately the governance was

0:33:08.360 --> 0:33:10.640
<v Speaker 2>still in place. It was just this sort of follow

0:33:10.720 --> 0:33:12.360
<v Speaker 2>up move that caused all this chaos.

0:33:13.560 --> 0:33:16.120
<v Speaker 1>Let's take another quick break, my friends, and then we'll

0:33:16.160 --> 0:33:18.400
<v Speaker 1>come right back and get into our last act here. Today,

0:33:24.000 --> 0:33:27.520
<v Speaker 1>we're back and we're chatting about Sam Altman, Open Ai, chat,

0:33:27.560 --> 0:33:31.560
<v Speaker 1>GPT and the AI Revolution with Parmie Olsen and Dave

0:33:31.640 --> 0:33:35.240
<v Speaker 1>Lee David. It's not clear to me that open AI's

0:33:35.320 --> 0:33:39.160
<v Speaker 1>management problems are solved and they're not operating in a

0:33:39.320 --> 0:33:41.520
<v Speaker 1>protected market as it were. They have a head start

0:33:42.040 --> 0:33:44.240
<v Speaker 1>they have a product that is early out of the

0:33:44.280 --> 0:33:47.600
<v Speaker 1>gates and much beloved, but they have to deal with

0:33:47.640 --> 0:33:50.840
<v Speaker 1>a lot of competitors who are in this market too,

0:33:50.920 --> 0:33:54.080
<v Speaker 1>And do you think that their management problems are in

0:33:54.240 --> 0:33:57.680
<v Speaker 1>rain enough that this episode won't affect their longevity.

0:33:58.600 --> 0:34:00.880
<v Speaker 2>Well, it's interesting. I was the other night and they

0:34:00.920 --> 0:34:03.240
<v Speaker 2>just happened to be a fairly senior person open aiye there,

0:34:03.760 --> 0:34:05.520
<v Speaker 2>and they said to me, you know that prior week

0:34:05.560 --> 0:34:07.840
<v Speaker 2>when all this was up in the air, Yes, it

0:34:07.920 --> 0:34:10.480
<v Speaker 2>was disruptive. They didn't know whether they were going to

0:34:10.560 --> 0:34:12.960
<v Speaker 2>be working for Microsoft in a week or any of

0:34:12.960 --> 0:34:15.480
<v Speaker 2>these other sort of different outcomes that we could have seen.

0:34:15.920 --> 0:34:18.280
<v Speaker 2>But as of sort of Monday and Tuesday, the week after,

0:34:18.880 --> 0:34:21.680
<v Speaker 2>things were basically back to normal and people were coding again,

0:34:21.719 --> 0:34:24.280
<v Speaker 2>people were planning again, and it's almost as if nothing

0:34:24.360 --> 0:34:26.040
<v Speaker 2>is that had ever happened. Now, of course, a big

0:34:26.080 --> 0:34:27.839
<v Speaker 2>thing had happened, and we've yet to see how that

0:34:27.880 --> 0:34:32.160
<v Speaker 2>fully shakes out. But I think given where they were

0:34:32.200 --> 0:34:34.799
<v Speaker 2>at on that Friday evening when this announcement was made

0:34:34.840 --> 0:34:37.960
<v Speaker 2>and the weekend of complete madness, I actually think it's

0:34:38.000 --> 0:34:41.000
<v Speaker 2>been a pretty impressive sort of pulling back into just

0:34:41.080 --> 0:34:44.080
<v Speaker 2>sort of normality, So we'll see whether that has any

0:34:44.120 --> 0:34:46.840
<v Speaker 2>long standing impact. I think you know those other companies,

0:34:46.960 --> 0:34:50.400
<v Speaker 2>Google in particular, part Me mentioned Gemini earlier one of

0:34:50.440 --> 0:34:53.480
<v Speaker 2>their AI projects that's delayed for various reasons. So a

0:34:53.520 --> 0:34:55.440
<v Speaker 2>company like Google's probably thinking, oh, wouldn't it be good

0:34:55.440 --> 0:34:57.759
<v Speaker 2>if open Eye was slowed down a little bit because

0:34:57.760 --> 0:34:59.319
<v Speaker 2>we could do with catching up here. So I think

0:34:59.360 --> 0:35:03.440
<v Speaker 2>competitors were mildly delighted to see that, But I still

0:35:03.440 --> 0:35:06.040
<v Speaker 2>think open eye is going to be considered to be

0:35:06.120 --> 0:35:09.400
<v Speaker 2>the leader here still, and that perhaps wouldn't have been

0:35:09.400 --> 0:35:12.560
<v Speaker 2>the case had they successfully asked sam Oltman Harmy.

0:35:12.600 --> 0:35:17.400
<v Speaker 1>It's been almost exactly a year since chatchept was released publicly.

0:35:17.880 --> 0:35:21.560
<v Speaker 1>What has open ai done since then to protect and

0:35:21.640 --> 0:35:25.640
<v Speaker 1>expand its franchise. I think chatchipt can accept more queries.

0:35:25.800 --> 0:35:29.239
<v Speaker 1>It's not only techt base. Its database is more up

0:35:29.320 --> 0:35:33.280
<v Speaker 1>to date. But as you've noted, also, mistakes have bound

0:35:33.840 --> 0:35:37.560
<v Speaker 1>still when you use the product. So how do you

0:35:37.719 --> 0:35:40.319
<v Speaker 1>see the evolution of the company over the last year?

0:35:41.520 --> 0:35:44.520
<v Speaker 3>Oh, over the last year? I think really the success

0:35:44.560 --> 0:35:47.440
<v Speaker 3>of Chatchipt, first of all, took them by surprise. They

0:35:47.480 --> 0:35:50.440
<v Speaker 3>were taking bets internally about how many people would use

0:35:50.440 --> 0:35:52.400
<v Speaker 3>it within the first week, and the top bet was

0:35:52.440 --> 0:35:54.839
<v Speaker 3>one hundred thousand users and it ended up being more

0:35:54.920 --> 0:35:57.799
<v Speaker 3>like a million. So I think, really the past year

0:35:57.840 --> 0:36:00.880
<v Speaker 3>has just been open ai scrambling to keep up with

0:36:01.040 --> 0:36:05.480
<v Speaker 3>viral success that it absolutely did not anticipate. Having said that,

0:36:05.640 --> 0:36:10.040
<v Speaker 3>it has from a business perspective, done incredibly well to

0:36:10.160 --> 0:36:13.399
<v Speaker 3>keep up with and satisfy the demand for people who

0:36:13.400 --> 0:36:16.040
<v Speaker 3>want to use this, whether you're a consumer who wants

0:36:16.040 --> 0:36:19.000
<v Speaker 3>to spend twenty dollars a month on chat GPT plus,

0:36:19.440 --> 0:36:21.600
<v Speaker 3>or a company who wants to get access to open

0:36:21.600 --> 0:36:25.640
<v Speaker 3>AI's software and technology, or a company that wants to

0:36:25.640 --> 0:36:28.560
<v Speaker 3>access it through Microsoft. And I think that's really where

0:36:28.600 --> 0:36:33.960
<v Speaker 3>open ai has real stability is through that partnership with Microsoft.

0:36:34.320 --> 0:36:38.960
<v Speaker 3>Because the thing about Microsoft is that it's big product

0:36:39.160 --> 0:36:43.560
<v Speaker 3>through which it dispenses open AI's technology is cloud. It's

0:36:43.640 --> 0:36:46.239
<v Speaker 3>known as the Azure platform, and it has something like

0:36:46.280 --> 0:36:51.480
<v Speaker 3>eighteen thousand customers and their big names, you know, like Rolls, Royce, Adobe,

0:36:51.520 --> 0:36:54.600
<v Speaker 3>the Seattle Seahawks, just all sorts of random big companies,

0:36:55.000 --> 0:36:58.799
<v Speaker 3>And the great thing for Microsoft is that these customers

0:36:58.840 --> 0:37:02.760
<v Speaker 3>are locked in to this product because it's actually really

0:37:02.800 --> 0:37:07.080
<v Speaker 3>expensive to extricate all your systems from what one cloud

0:37:07.120 --> 0:37:10.360
<v Speaker 3>provider like Microsoft and move on to another cloud provider

0:37:10.440 --> 0:37:14.600
<v Speaker 3>like Amazon. The customers and IT professionals hate this. They

0:37:14.640 --> 0:37:17.480
<v Speaker 3>really don't like the fact that they can't shop around.

0:37:17.640 --> 0:37:20.560
<v Speaker 3>But this is really good for Microsoft and also very

0:37:20.640 --> 0:37:24.200
<v Speaker 3>very good for open Ai. So this past year kind

0:37:24.200 --> 0:37:29.120
<v Speaker 3>of integrating themselves more and more and serving their top investor, Microsoft,

0:37:29.120 --> 0:37:31.200
<v Speaker 3>who owns forty nine percent of open Ai, has really

0:37:31.239 --> 0:37:33.239
<v Speaker 3>stood them in good stead, and it certainly did over

0:37:33.280 --> 0:37:36.360
<v Speaker 3>this past weekend because part of me wonders would Altman

0:37:36.400 --> 0:37:38.960
<v Speaker 3>have been able to be reinstated if he didn't have

0:37:38.960 --> 0:37:40.600
<v Speaker 3>such an Adella pushing so hard for.

0:37:40.680 --> 0:37:43.439
<v Speaker 1>Him well, and that brings us, Dave to the question

0:37:43.480 --> 0:37:47.120
<v Speaker 1>I wanted to ask you about Microsoft. Given that Sacha Nadella,

0:37:47.440 --> 0:37:52.000
<v Speaker 1>Microsoft's CEO, was very enmeshed in the open Ai upheaval,

0:37:52.480 --> 0:37:56.239
<v Speaker 1>he almost got Sam Altman and many of his employees

0:37:56.320 --> 0:37:58.000
<v Speaker 1>for a song. It probably would have been one of

0:37:58.040 --> 0:38:01.680
<v Speaker 1>the most epic, sort of cheap takeovers in corporate history

0:38:01.680 --> 0:38:06.640
<v Speaker 1>if that had panned out. Nadella has referred to Microsoft

0:38:06.640 --> 0:38:10.640
<v Speaker 1>as being the co pilot company now, like the company

0:38:10.640 --> 0:38:13.840
<v Speaker 1>that makes products that sort of assist you in having

0:38:14.160 --> 0:38:18.160
<v Speaker 1>a better corporate liver a better personal life. And obviously

0:38:18.280 --> 0:38:22.680
<v Speaker 1>chat GPT fits right into that. Microsoft is a player here,

0:38:22.719 --> 0:38:26.200
<v Speaker 1>and it's a heavily influential player both in this drama

0:38:26.280 --> 0:38:29.040
<v Speaker 1>and where I think open ai is going to go correct.

0:38:29.880 --> 0:38:31.520
<v Speaker 2>Yes, I mean it's not just a players, you know,

0:38:31.520 --> 0:38:34.360
<v Speaker 2>as the player externally. I mean there are other investors

0:38:34.400 --> 0:38:37.879
<v Speaker 2>in open ai, but it's only Microsoft that really has

0:38:37.920 --> 0:38:40.080
<v Speaker 2>the power here. I think, you know, Palme was touching

0:38:40.080 --> 0:38:42.319
<v Speaker 2>on a really important point there, and one that I

0:38:42.320 --> 0:38:45.760
<v Speaker 2>think's worth remembering is that the winner in AI isn't

0:38:45.840 --> 0:38:49.880
<v Speaker 2>necessarily going to be the company that has the best

0:38:50.200 --> 0:38:52.520
<v Speaker 2>AI or at least the most sophisticated AI. It's going

0:38:52.520 --> 0:38:55.080
<v Speaker 2>to be the company that can put that AI into

0:38:55.120 --> 0:38:59.600
<v Speaker 2>applications that consumers are either already using or that they

0:38:59.640 --> 0:39:01.520
<v Speaker 2>want to use in future. And so when you have

0:39:01.600 --> 0:39:05.200
<v Speaker 2>Microsoft on board, that is incredibly powerful. Because people have

0:39:05.280 --> 0:39:08.239
<v Speaker 2>been using Word for years, people have been frustrated at

0:39:08.320 --> 0:39:11.239
<v Speaker 2>PowerPoint for years, Excel, you know all these things that

0:39:11.239 --> 0:39:13.520
<v Speaker 2>people do, you know, Search changes, and people laugh about

0:39:13.560 --> 0:39:16.759
<v Speaker 2>Microsoft and Clippy, the little the little mascot that used

0:39:16.760 --> 0:39:18.880
<v Speaker 2>to have and that sense you you know where we

0:39:18.960 --> 0:39:24.200
<v Speaker 2>sort of heading again forgotten all about Clipping. I love

0:39:24.239 --> 0:39:28.080
<v Speaker 2>Clip was he was underrated. But this is where we're

0:39:28.120 --> 0:39:30.200
<v Speaker 2>going again. And I think that's why this deal is

0:39:30.239 --> 0:39:33.319
<v Speaker 2>so valuable to both open I and to Microsoft, and

0:39:33.360 --> 0:39:37.920
<v Speaker 2>it's why Satching Thedella leapt to action to step in

0:39:38.080 --> 0:39:41.040
<v Speaker 2>to stop his investment in ape and ai going up

0:39:41.040 --> 0:39:44.520
<v Speaker 2>in flames. That when Microsoft said, you know, we will

0:39:44.560 --> 0:39:47.680
<v Speaker 2>take on and we will salary match as many open

0:39:47.719 --> 0:39:50.839
<v Speaker 2>ai employees are interesting in joining us. I mean, that's

0:39:50.880 --> 0:39:52.680
<v Speaker 2>a huge thing that was still I saw one estimate

0:39:52.680 --> 0:39:54.400
<v Speaker 2>that was going to cost around a billion dollars to

0:39:54.400 --> 0:39:58.919
<v Speaker 2>do that. Now that's arguably getting a eighty billion dollar

0:39:58.960 --> 0:40:01.920
<v Speaker 2>company a huge sort of black fried a deal. But

0:40:02.880 --> 0:40:04.560
<v Speaker 2>that's a huge amount to add to your Headcunt. They

0:40:04.560 --> 0:40:06.080
<v Speaker 2>weren't even sure where they were going to put them.

0:40:06.080 --> 0:40:08.239
<v Speaker 2>They were clearing out desks at an old office that

0:40:08.360 --> 0:40:10.080
<v Speaker 2>used to be used for LinkedIn, which one of the

0:40:10.360 --> 0:40:13.080
<v Speaker 2>companies that Microsoft owns, and so this would have all

0:40:13.120 --> 0:40:16.520
<v Speaker 2>been very very very very difficult for Microsoft. What they've

0:40:16.520 --> 0:40:19.360
<v Speaker 2>come to instead, I think is their sort of preferred option.

0:40:19.480 --> 0:40:22.759
<v Speaker 2>Sam Oltman back in the job, and also on this

0:40:22.880 --> 0:40:27.280
<v Speaker 2>new board that's being made up. They have an observer seat,

0:40:27.360 --> 0:40:29.759
<v Speaker 2>so they can't vote, can't have a say in the decisions,

0:40:29.920 --> 0:40:32.880
<v Speaker 2>but can observe the board now, I asked, at the

0:40:32.880 --> 0:40:35.400
<v Speaker 2>time we're recording this, we're still learning about what exactly

0:40:35.480 --> 0:40:37.759
<v Speaker 2>that means. I asked Microsoft. They weren't sharing any more

0:40:37.760 --> 0:40:40.520
<v Speaker 2>about what exactly they'd be able to observe and what

0:40:40.600 --> 0:40:43.120
<v Speaker 2>imput they could have or indeed who at Microsoft might

0:40:43.120 --> 0:40:46.320
<v Speaker 2>take that position. But Microsoft has gone from a situation

0:40:46.400 --> 0:40:49.200
<v Speaker 2>where it had a sort of very much outsider perspective

0:40:49.560 --> 0:40:52.879
<v Speaker 2>on open Ai, even though it invested more than ten

0:40:52.920 --> 0:40:55.839
<v Speaker 2>billion dollars, to having a situation now where it's got

0:40:55.840 --> 0:40:58.520
<v Speaker 2>a much closer relationship and we'll get a heads up

0:40:58.560 --> 0:41:01.000
<v Speaker 2>on any crazy decisions like this future. One of the

0:41:01.000 --> 0:41:04.400
<v Speaker 2>things that was gobsmacking about how the Sam Altman firing

0:41:04.480 --> 0:41:07.000
<v Speaker 2>went down was that Microsoft learned just about the same

0:41:07.040 --> 0:41:09.279
<v Speaker 2>time I did when the blog post went up. There

0:41:09.320 --> 0:41:13.200
<v Speaker 2>it is, and that given the reliance that Microsoft has

0:41:13.280 --> 0:41:16.680
<v Speaker 2>on open Ai and its importance to Microsoft's strategy.

0:41:16.719 --> 0:41:18.520
<v Speaker 1>I mean, it's a major investorable thing.

0:41:19.560 --> 0:41:23.520
<v Speaker 2>Yes, absolutely, and typically your huge investors, part of that

0:41:23.600 --> 0:41:26.239
<v Speaker 2>investment would mean getting a board seat, getting two board

0:41:26.280 --> 0:41:28.879
<v Speaker 2>seats maybe, but such as the popularity of open ai

0:41:29.080 --> 0:41:31.319
<v Speaker 2>and also were stressing. Is one of the reasons why

0:41:31.360 --> 0:41:34.440
<v Speaker 2>Microsoft was something of an outside is because it worried

0:41:34.880 --> 0:41:38.279
<v Speaker 2>that being too close to OpenAI would raise some level

0:41:38.320 --> 0:41:41.960
<v Speaker 2>of scrutiny from competition regulators, sort of wondering, you know,

0:41:42.000 --> 0:41:44.160
<v Speaker 2>it is Microsoft going to flex its power to stop

0:41:44.200 --> 0:41:46.759
<v Speaker 2>others getting access to good AI. So there's a lot

0:41:46.760 --> 0:41:49.840
<v Speaker 2>of factors at play, but in sure, I think Microsoft

0:41:49.840 --> 0:41:53.240
<v Speaker 2>has found a scenario that suits it very very nicely.

0:41:53.280 --> 0:41:54.800
<v Speaker 3>Indeed, Yeah, And I would just add that if it

0:41:54.880 --> 0:41:57.440
<v Speaker 3>had been a subsidiary of Microsoft, if Sam Altman had

0:41:57.440 --> 0:41:59.759
<v Speaker 3>been part of this advanced AI group, that's not what

0:42:00.280 --> 0:42:04.880
<v Speaker 3>Inodella wanted at all, because that would mean Microsoft takes

0:42:04.920 --> 0:42:07.920
<v Speaker 3>on all of the reputational risk, all of the legal

0:42:08.040 --> 0:42:11.880
<v Speaker 3>risk for all the crazy stuff that open ai regularly does,

0:42:12.320 --> 0:42:15.239
<v Speaker 3>like putting chatchypt out into the world. Microsoft would never

0:42:15.360 --> 0:42:18.960
<v Speaker 3>do that because copywriter issues for a start, and crazy

0:42:18.960 --> 0:42:21.319
<v Speaker 3>things that this bot could say. That's why big tech

0:42:21.360 --> 0:42:24.360
<v Speaker 3>companies don't do the kinds of things that open ai does.

0:42:24.760 --> 0:42:27.440
<v Speaker 3>So it's much better to be an investor take on

0:42:27.640 --> 0:42:31.120
<v Speaker 3>all the glow of open ai and none of the liability.

0:42:30.880 --> 0:42:32.440
<v Speaker 2>Which saw a sign off that didn't we part me

0:42:32.480 --> 0:42:34.319
<v Speaker 2>a few years ago, which I'm sure you remember, when

0:42:34.600 --> 0:42:37.280
<v Speaker 2>Microsoft had an AI bot that it kind of released

0:42:37.320 --> 0:42:40.560
<v Speaker 2>onto Twitter. I believe it was called Tay the Box. Yeah,

0:42:40.600 --> 0:42:44.040
<v Speaker 2>and almost immediately people realized that if they said certain

0:42:44.080 --> 0:42:45.719
<v Speaker 2>things to it, it would repeat them back to them,

0:42:45.719 --> 0:42:48.400
<v Speaker 2>and it became sweary, it became racist, and it was

0:42:48.440 --> 0:42:51.239
<v Speaker 2>just this is just a tiny, tiny experiment, but it

0:42:51.360 --> 0:42:54.560
<v Speaker 2>caused Microsoft no end of reputational issues and things to

0:42:54.560 --> 0:42:56.880
<v Speaker 2>be accountable for. So you can totally see why they

0:42:57.000 --> 0:43:00.000
<v Speaker 2>want to be outside to some degree.

0:43:00.080 --> 0:43:01.920
<v Speaker 3>Saw people still cringe at that memory.

0:43:02.480 --> 0:43:06.719
<v Speaker 1>And I think Microsoft still licking its federal antitrust investigation

0:43:06.840 --> 0:43:10.200
<v Speaker 1>wounds of the nineteen nineties. That makes it a little

0:43:10.440 --> 0:43:12.960
<v Speaker 1>as as I put it earlier, absolutely has it meant

0:43:13.000 --> 0:43:15.240
<v Speaker 1>to appear to be the titan in this nascent.

0:43:15.760 --> 0:43:17.800
<v Speaker 3>And then these who were dealing with that in the nineties,

0:43:17.800 --> 0:43:20.920
<v Speaker 3>like Brad Smith the Legal Council are still there, like

0:43:20.960 --> 0:43:25.440
<v Speaker 3>they all remember this stuff. So yeah, and satchin Adella two, I.

0:43:25.400 --> 0:43:28.440
<v Speaker 1>Want to ask you each about lessons that you've learned

0:43:28.440 --> 0:43:31.400
<v Speaker 1>from this dramatic little moment in Silicon Valley. I like

0:43:31.440 --> 0:43:32.920
<v Speaker 1>to ask people that at the end of the show.

0:43:33.320 --> 0:43:35.759
<v Speaker 1>So let's start with you, Parmie. What is something you've

0:43:35.840 --> 0:43:39.800
<v Speaker 1>learned watching this recent debacle that you didn't know before

0:43:39.840 --> 0:43:40.400
<v Speaker 1>it happened.

0:43:41.440 --> 0:43:45.000
<v Speaker 3>Hmmm, it's a good question. I guess I would just

0:43:45.040 --> 0:43:49.000
<v Speaker 3>go back to my answer previously about the fact that

0:43:49.320 --> 0:43:53.600
<v Speaker 3>a board like this could actually topple someone like Sam Altman.

0:43:53.880 --> 0:43:56.160
<v Speaker 3>But I suppose the other thing is that this isn't

0:43:56.160 --> 0:43:59.360
<v Speaker 3>so much something that I've learned, but just a suspicion.

0:43:59.400 --> 0:44:03.520
<v Speaker 3>The cynic me has been confirmed that Silicon Valley will

0:44:03.520 --> 0:44:06.480
<v Speaker 3>Silicon Valley, And even if you set up a board

0:44:07.040 --> 0:44:10.840
<v Speaker 3>and a governance structure that looks good to everyone, that

0:44:10.960 --> 0:44:15.000
<v Speaker 3>looks like it's there to help humanity, it will still

0:44:15.080 --> 0:44:18.360
<v Speaker 3>ultimately serve the purpose of its investors. And that is

0:44:18.400 --> 0:44:22.400
<v Speaker 3>precisely what happened after this dramatic weekend where Sam was

0:44:22.440 --> 0:44:25.960
<v Speaker 3>ousted and brought right back in. So a little bit

0:44:25.960 --> 0:44:29.840
<v Speaker 3>of hypocrisy there, and also just Silicon Valley being Silicon Valley.

0:44:30.680 --> 0:44:33.879
<v Speaker 1>Dave, I don't know, can you still learn things? Both

0:44:33.880 --> 0:44:36.000
<v Speaker 1>of you know so much that I sometimes wonder.

0:44:35.960 --> 0:44:37.920
<v Speaker 2>Learning every day I've learned Listeners to parme me on

0:44:37.920 --> 0:44:39.799
<v Speaker 2>this podcast and I'm glad you let her go first.

0:44:39.880 --> 0:44:41.680
<v Speaker 2>I can have a moment to think about this, because

0:44:41.760 --> 0:44:44.520
<v Speaker 2>it's interesting because on some levels it feels utterly predictable

0:44:44.680 --> 0:44:47.200
<v Speaker 2>this happened. And I think one thing I've learned or

0:44:47.320 --> 0:44:51.200
<v Speaker 2>was surprised by, was I think we always knew that

0:44:51.800 --> 0:44:55.680
<v Speaker 2>at some point there would be some friction around the

0:44:55.800 --> 0:44:59.160
<v Speaker 2>direction of one of these companies. I'm surprised it's come

0:44:59.239 --> 0:45:01.600
<v Speaker 2>so soon for open ai I thought we'd be more

0:45:01.640 --> 0:45:05.840
<v Speaker 2>sort of tangible threats or fall out or crisis that

0:45:05.880 --> 0:45:07.520
<v Speaker 2>we'd all sort of know about that would lead to

0:45:07.520 --> 0:45:09.640
<v Speaker 2>a moment like this. I'm surprised it's come sort of

0:45:09.920 --> 0:45:11.960
<v Speaker 2>from what seems to be more just sort of human

0:45:12.040 --> 0:45:15.239
<v Speaker 2>personality clashes than anything else. So that surprised me. The

0:45:15.280 --> 0:45:18.560
<v Speaker 2>frigidity is surprising. But I think that the lesson, if

0:45:18.600 --> 0:45:21.759
<v Speaker 2>we can take one so far, and I think it's yeah,

0:45:21.760 --> 0:45:24.120
<v Speaker 2>we're still learning the lessons. I think the lesson is

0:45:24.120 --> 0:45:26.279
<v Speaker 2>that open aiy is a tech company. It's a tech

0:45:26.280 --> 0:45:28.920
<v Speaker 2>company like Facebook, to tech company like Google's the tech company.

0:45:28.920 --> 0:45:31.799
<v Speaker 2>And I think I'm going to constantly remind myself of

0:45:31.840 --> 0:45:36.359
<v Speaker 2>this sort of this week and remember that ultimately it

0:45:36.520 --> 0:45:39.800
<v Speaker 2>was the needs of the tech industry and the money

0:45:39.800 --> 0:45:42.960
<v Speaker 2>of the tech industry that essentially had the final say.

0:45:43.480 --> 0:45:45.640
<v Speaker 2>And so I think open AI. Although we can talk

0:45:45.680 --> 0:45:49.640
<v Speaker 2>about governance and nonprofit status, I think ultimately it's still

0:45:49.680 --> 0:45:51.959
<v Speaker 2>a tech company and we should cover it as such

0:45:52.000 --> 0:45:53.719
<v Speaker 2>and think about it as such. So that's my lesson

0:45:53.760 --> 0:45:54.000
<v Speaker 2>from this.

0:45:54.080 --> 0:45:57.879
<v Speaker 1>I think we are out of time. Prime and Dave,

0:45:57.960 --> 0:45:59.600
<v Speaker 1>thank you so much for coming on today.

0:46:00.040 --> 0:46:00.480
<v Speaker 3>Thank you.

0:46:00.880 --> 0:46:01.120
<v Speaker 2>Thanks.

0:46:01.200 --> 0:46:03.880
<v Speaker 1>Tim parme Olsen and Dave Lee are both columnists with

0:46:03.880 --> 0:46:06.360
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Opinion. You can find their work on the Bloomberg

0:46:06.400 --> 0:46:11.320
<v Speaker 1>Opinion website and on the Bloomberg terminal. Here at crash Course,

0:46:11.440 --> 0:46:15.440
<v Speaker 1>we believe that collisions can be messy, impressive, challenging, surprising,

0:46:15.760 --> 0:46:20.040
<v Speaker 1>and always instructive. In today's crash Course, I learned that

0:46:20.160 --> 0:46:22.799
<v Speaker 1>no matter how talented or how smart you are, no

0:46:22.840 --> 0:46:25.400
<v Speaker 1>matter what industry you're working in, even if it's in

0:46:25.440 --> 0:46:29.400
<v Speaker 1>Silicon Valley, humans can be humans and they can do crazy,

0:46:29.840 --> 0:46:33.279
<v Speaker 1>crazy things. What did you learn? We'd love to hear

0:46:33.320 --> 0:46:36.000
<v Speaker 1>from you. You can tweet at the Bloomberg Opinion handle

0:46:36.160 --> 0:46:40.360
<v Speaker 1>at Opinion or me at Tim O'Brien using the hashtag

0:46:40.440 --> 0:46:43.880
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Crash Course. You can also subscribe to our show

0:46:44.000 --> 0:46:47.120
<v Speaker 1>wherever you're listening right now, and please leave us a review.

0:46:47.560 --> 0:46:50.880
<v Speaker 1>It helps more people find the show. This episode was

0:46:50.920 --> 0:46:54.960
<v Speaker 1>produced by the indispensable and decidedly non crazy Adam Azarakus

0:46:55.280 --> 0:46:58.960
<v Speaker 1>and me. Our supervising producer is Magnus Hendrickson, and we

0:46:59.000 --> 0:47:02.239
<v Speaker 1>had editing help from the Sage Bauman, Jeff Grocock, Mike

0:47:02.360 --> 0:47:06.680
<v Speaker 1>Nitze and Christine Vanden Bilart. Blake Maples does our sound

0:47:06.719 --> 0:47:10.880
<v Speaker 1>engineering and our original theme song was composed by Luis Gara.

0:47:11.400 --> 0:47:14.320
<v Speaker 1>I'm Tim O'Brien. We'll be back next week with another

0:47:14.360 --> 0:47:15.000
<v Speaker 1>crash course