WEBVTT - Regulating AI and Twitter M&A 0:00:01.440 --> 0:00:02.279 From Mahart. 0:00:02.320 --> 0:00:06.720 We're Innovation, Money and Power Collie in Silicon Vallet NBN. 0:00:07.080 --> 0:00:11.120 This is Bloomberg Technology with Caroline Hyde and Ed Ludlow. 0:00:25.120 --> 0:00:27.920 I'm Carolin Hyde at Bloomberg's world headquarters in New York. 0:00:28.160 --> 0:00:31.040 And I met Lovelow in San Francisco. This is Bloomberg 0:00:31.080 --> 0:00:32.400 Technology coming up. 0:00:32.560 --> 0:00:36.720 The race to regulate artificial intelligence. It's underway in Washington 0:00:37.000 --> 0:00:39.680 as his Open AI CEO Sam Altman lays out the 0:00:39.760 --> 0:00:43.080 benefits and the risks to senators, and. 0:00:43.040 --> 0:00:46.720 The CEO of Andresen backed Hippocratic AI joins us in 0:00:46.840 --> 0:00:50.320 studio to discuss their generative AI healthcare tech. 0:00:50.760 --> 0:00:53.239 An X, the parent company of Twitter, has made as 0:00:53.280 --> 0:00:57.920 first acquisition a tech talent recruiting service called Laski. We 0:00:58.040 --> 0:01:01.480 discussed why verse four almostlet's get to these markets because 0:01:01.520 --> 0:01:05.000 once again we're actually seeing big tech on top lackluster 0:01:05.040 --> 0:01:07.360 trading day muted as we worry about the debt ceiling. 0:01:07.400 --> 0:01:10.720 The arguments still abound between left and right. We're seeing 0:01:10.760 --> 0:01:13.039 that's that one hundred and five tens percent big tech 0:01:13.080 --> 0:01:15.800 scene as some sort of haven at the moment. We'll 0:01:15.800 --> 0:01:18.000 talk about the individual names with Ed, but all country 0:01:18.000 --> 0:01:21.160 world indext as I show the world is more downpat 0:01:21.280 --> 0:01:23.600 on markets at the moment. Bank of America really showing 0:01:23.760 --> 0:01:26.000 how much risk a version there is coming from traders 0:01:26.000 --> 0:01:28.080 at the moment, and we're seeing down by three tenths 0:01:28.080 --> 0:01:29.960 of a percent, people not wanting to add to the 0:01:30.000 --> 0:01:30.520 stock market. 0:01:30.600 --> 0:01:30.880 Right now. 0:01:30.880 --> 0:01:33.360 Across the world, we're seeing tenure yield actually up six 0:01:33.440 --> 0:01:37.200 bass points, even as we see in the individual retail 0:01:37.360 --> 0:01:39.240 data coming out showing you and I are still willing 0:01:39.240 --> 0:01:40.520 to spend in this inflationary data. 0:01:40.560 --> 0:01:41.520 It seems as though. 0:01:41.440 --> 0:01:44.480 Some of that federal reserves speak coming from Loretta Mesta 0:01:44.920 --> 0:01:47.400 from Barkin seem to be hinting the look that they're 0:01:47.440 --> 0:01:48.000 still all. 0:01:47.840 --> 0:01:48.520 Eyes on inflation. 0:01:48.600 --> 0:01:50.640 Let's someone look at what's happening in terms of bitcoin 0:01:50.680 --> 0:01:52.720 as well. Because the dollar is out performing, that means 0:01:52.760 --> 0:01:54.880 bitcoin's on the downside. We're off by about a percentage 0:01:54.880 --> 0:01:57.160 point in the day, still languishing around twenty seven thousand. 0:01:57.520 --> 0:01:59.320 ED dig into some of the big movers because there 0:01:59.360 --> 0:02:01.080 are points in the up side from big tech today. 0:02:01.680 --> 0:02:03.840 It's like a market that's treading water when you think 0:02:03.840 --> 0:02:05.520 about the macro, but when you think about the micro, 0:02:05.600 --> 0:02:07.840 there are some stories out there Tesla up one point 0:02:07.880 --> 0:02:11.280 six percent the AGM after the bell today, but Bloomberg 0:02:11.280 --> 0:02:15.400 reporting overnight, according to sources, Shanghai is moving towards trial 0:02:15.400 --> 0:02:19.560 production of an updated Model three that's supporting the stock. Baidu, 0:02:19.760 --> 0:02:22.799 speaking of China, also up three point three percent. Strong earnings, 0:02:22.880 --> 0:02:24.520 a beat on the top and bottom line. It's like 0:02:24.520 --> 0:02:29.040 a post Chinese New Year rebound, a reopening of that economy, 0:02:29.040 --> 0:02:31.240 and it is boosting China tech. We get Ali Barber 0:02:31.280 --> 0:02:33.120 later in the week, so we're going to continue to 0:02:33.240 --> 0:02:36.600 watch China tech, especially the US listed shares of those names. 0:02:37.200 --> 0:02:39.680 Ai Ai is Everything. I just put a Twitter out 0:02:39.680 --> 0:02:41.920 there on video. All it said was Ai is everything. 0:02:41.919 --> 0:02:44.079 And then if you look at equity markets, we've discussed 0:02:44.120 --> 0:02:47.240 and we looked at all the column inches dedicated to 0:02:47.320 --> 0:02:49.280 how a lot of the momentum in the start of 0:02:49.320 --> 0:02:53.760 twenty twenty three originates for investor enthusiasm for Ai. Amazon 0:02:53.800 --> 0:02:55.840 and Alphabet pair and of Google, both big movers to 0:02:55.919 --> 0:02:59.160 the upside, both big points gainers on the Nasdaq one hundred. 0:02:59.200 --> 0:03:01.200 We'll give you the detail and why later in the show. 0:03:01.400 --> 0:03:03.960 But Bloomberg reporting that if you look at the signs 0:03:04.360 --> 0:03:07.360 Amazon might be bringing a trat GPT style bot to 0:03:07.440 --> 0:03:09.720 Amazon dot Com, which is something we've been waiting for. 0:03:09.760 --> 0:03:12.320 But that's what the talk is about this Tuesday morning. 0:03:12.480 --> 0:03:14.680 Artificial intelligence it is. 0:03:14.800 --> 0:03:16.000 And how to regulate it. 0:03:16.280 --> 0:03:18.639 And right now Sam Altman, the CEO of Open ai, 0:03:18.760 --> 0:03:22.079 really telling law makers on Capitol Hill about perhaps steps 0:03:22.120 --> 0:03:26.400 necessary to put in place rules around AI technology. He 0:03:26.440 --> 0:03:29.000 says is so powerful that he's worried it could have 0:03:29.040 --> 0:03:32.680 repercussions quote an a level far beyond anything we're prepared for. 0:03:32.960 --> 0:03:35.200 He also said, look, it's going to choose the labor market. 0:03:35.200 --> 0:03:40.400 Take a listen, GBT four A will I think entirely 0:03:40.440 --> 0:03:43.640 ontomate away some jobs and it will create new ones 0:03:43.760 --> 0:03:45.480 that we believe will be much better. 0:03:46.640 --> 0:03:48.760 Pleased to say, we've just pulled out of that hearing 0:03:49.200 --> 0:03:52.480 ed Anna Edgerton, who's been really listening into not just 0:03:52.520 --> 0:03:55.800 Sam Altman, but we've also heard from representatives from IBM who, 0:03:55.880 --> 0:03:57.800 well we know that IBM is already saying they're cutting 0:03:57.840 --> 0:04:01.520 their back office staff most likely calls of AI and 0:04:01.640 --> 0:04:03.080 scientists represent in too. 0:04:03.400 --> 0:04:04.800 What's the key takeaway thus far? 0:04:06.040 --> 0:04:08.400 It really has been all focused on regulation. You have 0:04:08.520 --> 0:04:11.280 Sam Altman of open AI and Christina Montgomery, the chief 0:04:11.360 --> 0:04:14.880 Privacy and Trust Officer for IBM, almost pleading with lawmakers 0:04:14.920 --> 0:04:17.839 to regulate this space. They want guardrails and they want 0:04:17.880 --> 0:04:21.680 certainty to protect against the most dangerous abuses of this 0:04:21.760 --> 0:04:24.919 powerful technology. And we hear it from the senators themselves. 0:04:24.920 --> 0:04:27.000 They say, we know this is a space that needs 0:04:27.040 --> 0:04:29.440 new rules, but they are the first to recognize that 0:04:29.560 --> 0:04:32.440 Congress has not been able to regulate the technology we 0:04:32.520 --> 0:04:35.240 already have. Social media has been a big failure for 0:04:35.279 --> 0:04:38.359 the US Congress, and they are looking to do a 0:04:38.400 --> 0:04:40.920 better job as they learn more about artificial intelligence. 0:04:41.839 --> 0:04:44.640 While you join us from the hill and some outman 0:04:44.720 --> 0:04:46.919 continues to speak, and he's saying that the US should 0:04:46.960 --> 0:04:50.720 form an agency to license some AI efforts. A lot 0:04:50.760 --> 0:04:53.800 of bench capitalists and founders I know do not agree 0:04:53.880 --> 0:04:56.200 with the idea of licensing. They think it's basically a 0:04:56.240 --> 0:05:00.240 block to innovation. When you have hearings like this, also 0:05:00.320 --> 0:05:03.440 depends on the questions that get asked. Sometimes these lawmakers 0:05:03.480 --> 0:05:06.159 go way off topic. How much have they asked about 0:05:06.279 --> 0:05:10.440 US leadership in the field of artificial intelligence Outside of 0:05:10.440 --> 0:05:11.680 the regulatory debate. 0:05:12.960 --> 0:05:15.000 There have been some thoughtful questions on this and He's 0:05:15.040 --> 0:05:17.440 had some thoughtful answers as well. He made a really 0:05:17.520 --> 0:05:19.680 interesting point when he said, you know, the US can 0:05:19.760 --> 0:05:23.599 leverage its leadership in the development of microelectronics and ships 0:05:23.640 --> 0:05:24.680 that are needed to run. 0:05:24.560 --> 0:05:25.920 These powerful AI systems. 0:05:26.120 --> 0:05:30.160 The US can leverage that leadership to encourage global governance 0:05:30.200 --> 0:05:32.160 so that not only are we setting rules here in 0:05:32.160 --> 0:05:34.440 the United States, but he made the point that we're 0:05:34.440 --> 0:05:37.200 not the only ones developing this technology. This is something 0:05:37.240 --> 0:05:40.279 that has a potential to impact the whole world, and 0:05:40.360 --> 0:05:43.000 for when it comes to governance of this new technology, 0:05:43.040 --> 0:05:45.000 it really needs to happen on a global level. 0:05:45.680 --> 0:05:49.080 To that end, many will be unsurprised to know that 0:05:49.120 --> 0:05:52.080 the EU has kind of been leading the regulatory charge. 0:05:52.120 --> 0:05:55.400 They're already proposing potential laws in the next month that'll 0:05:55.400 --> 0:05:56.279 be eyed by. 0:05:56.200 --> 0:05:58.359 The entire parity of the European Commission. 0:05:58.440 --> 0:06:00.919 I'm interested in how much you think we'll make is 0:06:01.000 --> 0:06:04.080 all seeing what Europe is looking at all thinking about 0:06:04.120 --> 0:06:06.680 the global ability to regulate. 0:06:07.720 --> 0:06:11.720 Well, certainly US lawmakers are casting and their counterparts over 0:06:11.760 --> 0:06:14.880 in Europe. And Christina Montgomery of IBM had an interesting 0:06:14.920 --> 0:06:18.040 little comment in her opening statement. She said, there's been 0:06:18.040 --> 0:06:20.799 a lot of hype around generative AI, but that doesn't 0:06:20.800 --> 0:06:23.160 mean we should move away from the risk based approach 0:06:23.360 --> 0:06:25.680 that they started taking in Europe. And that was kind 0:06:25.720 --> 0:06:28.680 of a reference to what we see happening around Europe's 0:06:28.720 --> 0:06:31.280 AI Act, where they had this really well thought out 0:06:31.839 --> 0:06:35.440 regulation based on the risk of the use of AI 0:06:35.600 --> 0:06:38.560 rather than the actual development of this technology. And now 0:06:38.720 --> 0:06:42.080 you have chat GP exploding onto the scene and regulators 0:06:42.080 --> 0:06:45.400 thinking well, maybe we need include this kind of general 0:06:45.560 --> 0:06:48.520 use tool in this regulation as well. And she's trying 0:06:48.560 --> 0:06:51.719 to argue, that's what we shouldn't do. We shouldn't look 0:06:51.720 --> 0:06:54.919 at the hype around chat GPT, these other generative AI 0:06:55.200 --> 0:07:00.120 products and kind of project that onto the rest of 0:07:00.160 --> 0:07:04.640 the artificial intelligence ecosystem, which includes the kind of enterprise 0:07:04.720 --> 0:07:07.600 AI that is offered by companies like IBM. 0:07:07.800 --> 0:07:11.120 Yeah, it really is about application for many at the moment, 0:07:11.680 --> 0:07:13.960 and Juton, we thank you so much to get her 0:07:14.240 --> 0:07:17.960 back onto that hearing at the moment and fantastic analysis 0:07:17.960 --> 0:07:20.520 coming from Capitol Hill. What about those that used to 0:07:20.560 --> 0:07:23.360 advise governments, what about those that are thinking about the 0:07:23.520 --> 0:07:26.520 application thus far of regulation. Lindsay Gorman's one of them, 0:07:26.560 --> 0:07:29.040 Senior fellow for emerging technologies of the German Marshall Funds, 0:07:29.040 --> 0:07:31.840 Alliance for Securing Democracy and Lizzie. 0:07:32.120 --> 0:07:33.920 Thus far are. 0:07:33.880 --> 0:07:37.920 The right guardrails being thought about here from a global perspective. 0:07:39.080 --> 0:07:41.880 So I do think that the right issues and problems 0:07:41.920 --> 0:07:44.400 are being fought about. But I will caveat that by 0:07:44.440 --> 0:07:47.760 saying that the problems that we can anticipate today might 0:07:47.800 --> 0:07:50.760 not be the problems that end up causing us the 0:07:50.760 --> 0:07:54.840 most consternation once these technologies become more widespread. But I 0:07:54.920 --> 0:07:58.080 do think the level of literacy when it comes to 0:07:58.080 --> 0:08:01.200 what the real concerns are and also what the possibilities 0:08:01.520 --> 0:08:05.400 are being thought about, concerns around elections and disinformation and 0:08:05.400 --> 0:08:10.840 disruption of the democratic process, concerns about workforce and job displacement, 0:08:11.280 --> 0:08:15.280 and concerns about how we interact with systems and what 0:08:15.400 --> 0:08:19.080 morals and values get put into these systems on the forefront. 0:08:19.160 --> 0:08:21.400 So I do think the right questions are being asked. 0:08:21.720 --> 0:08:23.880 Of course, we can only know what we know now, 0:08:24.080 --> 0:08:27.480 and ten years from now we might say that we 0:08:27.480 --> 0:08:32.000 were completely looking at the problems from a different era Linzee. 0:08:32.040 --> 0:08:34.360 When we look at what the EU, for example, is 0:08:34.400 --> 0:08:37.280 thinking of putting in place, they want to produce risk assessments. 0:08:37.320 --> 0:08:40.720 They want to see a summarize of copyrighted material that 0:08:40.800 --> 0:08:42.680 models have been trained on. They also want it to 0:08:42.679 --> 0:08:45.200 be flagged when you're looking at AI in general, but 0:08:45.280 --> 0:08:47.120 most notably if you're looking at deep fakes. 0:08:47.679 --> 0:08:50.720 Does that, to your point of view, go far enough? 0:08:50.960 --> 0:08:53.360 And ultimately, are we just in a game of whack 0:08:53.400 --> 0:08:54.400 a mole all over again? 0:08:55.679 --> 0:08:58.199 I certainly hope not. I think the EU has obviously 0:08:58.280 --> 0:09:02.600 taken one of the most aggressive approaches to thoughtful regulation 0:09:02.920 --> 0:09:05.600 of AI with the EUAI Act and the risk based 0:09:05.640 --> 0:09:08.760 approach now and the USNST has also put out a 0:09:08.880 --> 0:09:11.760 risk based framework on AI that's the National Institute of 0:09:11.760 --> 0:09:15.280 Standards and Technology, but it's completely voluntary. One thing that 0:09:15.320 --> 0:09:17.800 I think the EU has kind of in its pocket 0:09:17.920 --> 0:09:20.920 as perhaps an advantage in coming up with thoughtful regulation 0:09:21.200 --> 0:09:24.800 is that it already has existing frameworks around data privacy. 0:09:24.840 --> 0:09:27.960 Today at the hearing, you've heard multiple senators talk about 0:09:27.960 --> 0:09:31.360 the need for protecting data that's training these AI models, 0:09:31.400 --> 0:09:35.080 because ultimately, if you're training the data on certain models, 0:09:34.800 --> 0:09:38.120 that those biases and the biases and the data are 0:09:38.160 --> 0:09:40.000 going to be propagate and the values in the data 0:09:40.040 --> 0:09:41.880 are going to be propagated through. 0:09:41.679 --> 0:09:42.440 For the models. 0:09:42.800 --> 0:09:45.920 Now, the EU has the General Data Privacy Framework, the 0:09:46.000 --> 0:09:49.600 US doesn't have that, and it's a little bit concerning that. 0:09:49.720 --> 0:09:54.320 Despite the enthusiasm with which lawmakers are tackling the AI issue, 0:09:54.360 --> 0:09:56.760 which is a positive, that we're still not able to 0:09:56.800 --> 0:09:59.880 pass federal data privacy legislation. So I do think the 0:10:00.280 --> 0:10:03.040 has a leg up in applying their existing frameworks, and 0:10:03.040 --> 0:10:06.120 that's why we've seen countries such as Italy apply the 0:10:06.160 --> 0:10:11.400 General Data Protection Regulation to chat GPT and have that basis, 0:10:11.440 --> 0:10:13.600 what are the things that need to be demanded, the 0:10:13.640 --> 0:10:20.000 common uses, the justifiability of that which Maltman alluded to today. 0:10:20.920 --> 0:10:21.920 It is notable, isn't it. 0:10:21.960 --> 0:10:26.680 Every conversation we have tends to involve regulation. Everyone seems 0:10:26.679 --> 0:10:29.760 to agree it's needed and not just self regulation, but 0:10:30.800 --> 0:10:34.560 the applications of so doing is still sort of a 0:10:34.559 --> 0:10:35.400 black box here. 0:10:36.160 --> 0:10:36.360 Yeah. 0:10:36.559 --> 0:10:41.160 The difference our guests notifires off on this show f Lindsey, 0:10:41.480 --> 0:10:45.160 is that if you regulate the deep learning part, the 0:10:45.240 --> 0:10:48.440 training of the models, you might kill innovation. There is 0:10:48.480 --> 0:10:52.800 a difference between regulating inference or in other words, the 0:10:52.920 --> 0:10:56.240 use of artificial and technology the tool and the development 0:10:56.320 --> 0:10:58.959 of it. Where do you think we should focus our 0:10:59.000 --> 0:10:59.920 regulatory efforts. 0:11:00.920 --> 0:11:02.640 Yeah, this is really the debate that you think you 0:11:02.760 --> 0:11:05.400 heard in the hearing, which is do we take an 0:11:05.440 --> 0:11:10.079 approach of only regulating at the point where technology meets society, 0:11:10.160 --> 0:11:13.120 ie the applications, or do we need to regulate in 0:11:13.160 --> 0:11:17.040 the model development? And I think both have some merits. Clearly, 0:11:17.400 --> 0:11:21.080 we need to regulate in the former case and focus 0:11:21.120 --> 0:11:24.400 on the actual harms that are being caused in society 0:11:24.480 --> 0:11:25.440 or that could be caused. 0:11:25.800 --> 0:11:28.119 But that said, those. 0:11:27.960 --> 0:11:33.199 Harms are not technology neutral. They are not applicable regardless 0:11:33.240 --> 0:11:34.880 of how you train the model. So I think that's 0:11:34.880 --> 0:11:37.719 where it gets a little bit complicated, where actually the 0:11:37.760 --> 0:11:41.200 inputs to the training do make a difference on how 0:11:41.240 --> 0:11:45.719 the harms could get propagated once technology meets society. And 0:11:45.760 --> 0:11:50.360 this idea, though that lawmakers have said today that we 0:11:50.480 --> 0:11:53.360 had the Section two thirty where we said companies just 0:11:53.400 --> 0:11:56.000 go develop and we'll give you the space and not regulate. 0:11:56.200 --> 0:11:57.959 I don't think that's going to fly now in the 0:11:58.000 --> 0:11:58.520 AI era. 0:12:00.080 --> 0:12:03.520 Do you agree with Sam Autman that the US should 0:12:03.600 --> 0:12:08.200 establish an agency to license AI development. 0:12:09.679 --> 0:12:11.840 I would like to hear more arguments on both sides. 0:12:11.880 --> 0:12:14.559 To be honest, I think we've just gotten to the 0:12:15.360 --> 0:12:18.480 scratching the surface on whether we need a whole new agency. 0:12:18.520 --> 0:12:20.720 But the point that I really do agree with that 0:12:20.800 --> 0:12:24.040 Sam and others made is that we definitely need much 0:12:24.080 --> 0:12:28.920 more resources, whether that's with existing agencies or in fact 0:12:28.960 --> 0:12:33.320 a new agency. The idea that we could keep up 0:12:33.360 --> 0:12:36.440 with these developments and that regulators and policymakers could keep 0:12:36.559 --> 0:12:40.720 up with these developments without growing significantly more resources into 0:12:40.800 --> 0:12:46.040 just hiring technical experts to understand and to craft policy 0:12:46.080 --> 0:12:50.520 solutions on them, I think is completely completely crazy. So 0:12:50.559 --> 0:12:54.280 whether that's a new agency or significantly beefing up of 0:12:54.400 --> 0:12:59.319 existing agencies, we definitely need a significant resource investment. 0:13:00.000 --> 0:13:02.199 Should point out as well that it's not just Sam Outman, 0:13:02.240 --> 0:13:04.200 We've been talking a lot about him, but IBM's Chief 0:13:04.240 --> 0:13:08.160 Privacy and Trust Officer Christina Montgomery is also testifying in 0:13:08.200 --> 0:13:11.400 that Caroline and Lindsay Linda Gorman, Senior Fellow for Emerging 0:13:11.440 --> 0:13:23.760 Technologies at the German Marshal Fund, that thank You Grinder 0:13:23.880 --> 0:13:26.720 reporting first quarter earnings with revenue of fifty five point 0:13:26.800 --> 0:13:29.640 eight million dollars, up from forty three point five million 0:13:29.640 --> 0:13:32.839 dollars a year earlier around twenty eight percent gain year 0:13:32.920 --> 0:13:36.199 on year, still shares down after reporting a net loss 0:13:36.200 --> 0:13:38.760 of thirty two point nine million dollars. Let's bring in 0:13:38.800 --> 0:13:42.200 Grinder CEO George Arrison for more so kind of growth 0:13:42.240 --> 0:13:45.920 on the top line and I think actually a decline 0:13:46.000 --> 0:13:47.160 year on year on the bottom. 0:13:46.920 --> 0:13:48.120 Line or an EPs. 0:13:48.360 --> 0:13:50.679 But what is the difference in the environment at the 0:13:50.760 --> 0:13:54.120 beginning of this year versus last year for people interacting 0:13:54.120 --> 0:13:54.760 with one another? 0:13:54.960 --> 0:13:57.080 Yeah, so ook, I've only been on here for six months, 0:13:57.080 --> 0:13:58.800 so I can only speak about a beginning of last 0:13:58.880 --> 0:13:59.480 year per se. 0:13:59.559 --> 0:14:03.240 But this was and no one looks backward looking. 0:14:02.760 --> 0:14:04.760 And this year was really good and we grew really well. 0:14:04.760 --> 0:14:07.120 Our EBIDA was really strong as well, at thirty nine percent. 0:14:07.280 --> 0:14:11.560 Both growth and EBITA numbers exceeded our Follier guidance. The 0:14:12.200 --> 0:14:14.079 I think on the EPs side, there's just some stuff 0:14:14.080 --> 0:14:17.000 with warrants that makes that number look very different because 0:14:17.000 --> 0:14:18.719 of how you do work accounting. But that doesn't really 0:14:18.720 --> 0:14:20.920 impact how our business is doing, which is extremely well. 0:14:21.560 --> 0:14:25.920 Users are obviously very engaged and our overall average quarterly 0:14:25.960 --> 0:14:27.280 users also up quarter over quarter. 0:14:27.360 --> 0:14:29.800 So for what's driving the engagement, what is it that 0:14:29.880 --> 0:14:33.400 people are turning to Grinder for what is the behavior 0:14:33.480 --> 0:14:34.120 you see. 0:14:34.360 --> 0:14:37.600 Grinder has always had a lot of success in getting 0:14:37.760 --> 0:14:40.600 each new generation of people to come on the platform 0:14:40.680 --> 0:14:42.640 so on. Like a lot of other social media platforms 0:14:42.680 --> 0:14:45.480 that lose users in the new generation, we've actually not 0:14:45.560 --> 0:14:48.160 had that. We've kept users coming in and I think 0:14:48.160 --> 0:14:51.080 it frankly, the fact that all the users are there 0:14:51.240 --> 0:14:53.160 is another reason why people come back right like that, 0:14:53.160 --> 0:14:56.400 That engagement is really strong. And also Grinder's very authentic. 0:14:56.480 --> 0:14:59.080 Grinder was a company built by gay people for gay people, 0:14:59.080 --> 0:15:01.160 so it's very authentic to user base and I think 0:15:01.160 --> 0:15:04.680 that helps us as well. Obviously, we know users want 0:15:04.880 --> 0:15:07.080 more innovation the product, and that's something that we're very 0:15:07.080 --> 0:15:07.920 actively working on. 0:15:08.320 --> 0:15:10.920 Let's talk about the innovation. And in some ways it 0:15:10.920 --> 0:15:13.960 feels a bit old school. George, you've got Grinder Web. 0:15:14.560 --> 0:15:17.800 Talk to me about why you listened and heard from 0:15:17.800 --> 0:15:20.320 your user basis that's what they wanted totally. 0:15:20.400 --> 0:15:22.520 So yeah, we just launched Grinder Web. Kind of launch 0:15:22.560 --> 0:15:25.640 it this month in anticipation of Pride next month. And 0:15:25.840 --> 0:15:27.720 the thinking is that there are a bunch of features 0:15:27.720 --> 0:15:30.200 you can launch on the web that you can't really 0:15:30.240 --> 0:15:34.240 launch anywhere else because of limitations that the app store 0:15:34.240 --> 0:15:36.400 has put on you, and that's something that our uses 0:15:36.480 --> 0:15:38.680 very much want. So Grinder Web that we launch now, 0:15:38.680 --> 0:15:40.520 which is still in data and we help users try 0:15:40.560 --> 0:15:43.280 that out, is a way to set ourselves up for 0:15:43.360 --> 0:15:47.560 the future to launch additional features that are more specific 0:15:47.600 --> 0:15:50.120 to the use cases that our users want that we 0:15:50.160 --> 0:15:51.560 can't really do on the app. 0:15:52.000 --> 0:15:55.680 Monetization one are ways in which you're thinking about people 0:15:55.840 --> 0:15:58.920 using it paying for it in a different, more seamless 0:15:59.680 --> 0:16:03.440 way on the app itself and indeed on web totally. 0:16:03.480 --> 0:16:06.600 So what we've heard from users on kind of our 0:16:06.600 --> 0:16:10.080 subscription basis is they want two things. Number one, they 0:16:10.160 --> 0:16:13.880 want a slightly higher so a slightly lower cost model 0:16:14.200 --> 0:16:16.560 where we have an entry point that's not nineteen nine nine, 0:16:16.560 --> 0:16:19.440 but something lower than that with less features obviously because 0:16:19.760 --> 0:16:21.840 we do offer a very broad base of features in 0:16:21.880 --> 0:16:24.240 our nineteen nine nine tier, so we're working on that 0:16:24.320 --> 0:16:26.280 lower priced tier. And then they also want us to 0:16:26.280 --> 0:16:29.080 build more features on the higher end and are willing 0:16:29.120 --> 0:16:31.360 to pay for those. And obviously a lot of the 0:16:31.800 --> 0:16:34.880 add ons that overdating apps offer that Blender doesn't yet 0:16:34.960 --> 0:16:37.720 have aurur card we are building, and then we think 0:16:37.720 --> 0:16:42.240 there's a lot of opportunity to build functionality that supports 0:16:42.520 --> 0:16:45.160 activity that's already happening in the app, such as dating 0:16:45.280 --> 0:16:48.000 that we don't have functionally. For as far as building 0:16:48.040 --> 0:16:50.120 on grinder Web, we do have a big portion of 0:16:50.240 --> 0:16:52.760 users that are discrete, meaning they can't really be out 0:16:52.840 --> 0:16:54.840 for a variety of reasons, whether it's where they live 0:16:55.040 --> 0:16:58.760 or family situations, et cetera. And for them, grinder Web 0:16:58.800 --> 0:17:01.880 is a really great, just stinct building option that's not 0:17:01.920 --> 0:17:04.200 available yet, but it's coming because we do want to 0:17:04.240 --> 0:17:06.400 facilidate that. Based on what the users have asces used. 0:17:06.280 --> 0:17:11.720 For this past week, one Elon Musk said that Twitter 0:17:12.200 --> 0:17:16.000 or x the everything out adding some dating functionality was 0:17:16.000 --> 0:17:17.120 an interesting idea. 0:17:17.760 --> 0:17:19.399 How seriously do you take that threat? 0:17:19.840 --> 0:17:21.840 I mean, let's see what he does. I think it'll 0:17:21.880 --> 0:17:25.040 be interesting how he approaches things. And look, you never 0:17:25.080 --> 0:17:28.280 better against even musk rat. Nobody else has done what 0:17:28.280 --> 0:17:30.200 he's done in terms of how many companies is built. 0:17:30.320 --> 0:17:32.359 But we feel really good about our user base and 0:17:33.160 --> 0:17:35.240 the fact that our users very engaged with us. I 0:17:35.240 --> 0:17:39.080 think our engagement numbers are are frankly, very unusual. Nearly 0:17:39.119 --> 0:17:41.600 an hour of spending the app last year one hundred 0:17:41.600 --> 0:17:44.560 and eleven billion messages sent. So I'm not really worried 0:17:44.600 --> 0:17:47.040 about that from our user base perspective, but more broadly, 0:17:47.080 --> 0:17:48.960 certainly interesting grind. 0:17:49.000 --> 0:17:51.960 The CEO, George Harrison here in San Francisco, Thanks for 0:17:52.000 --> 0:17:52.680 your time, Carol. 0:17:52.840 --> 0:17:54.439 Yeah, let's just stick on the awning scene for a 0:17:54.480 --> 0:17:57.520 moment and look at the Chinese giant by Do shares 0:17:57.560 --> 0:17:58.600 traded here in the US. 0:17:58.800 --> 0:18:00.399 Actually, you have been performing really well. 0:18:00.440 --> 0:18:02.600 You see up three and a half percent there or thereabouts, 0:18:02.760 --> 0:18:05.400 and looks as though the company really managed to beat expectations. 0:18:05.400 --> 0:18:08.439 Stronger than expected revenue ten percent, it grew after its 0:18:08.480 --> 0:18:11.480 advertising in cloud businesses. This seemed to be benefiting from 0:18:11.560 --> 0:18:15.639 China's post pandemic reopening overall, so some strength there ed. 0:18:15.760 --> 0:18:17.679 Meanwhile, coming up that we've got to talk. 0:18:17.560 --> 0:18:21.520 About some warries post Silicon Valley bank collapse. The former 0:18:21.560 --> 0:18:25.400 CEO Greg Becker currently testifying before the US Senate committee. 0:18:25.400 --> 0:18:26.600 They're busy up on the hill today. 0:18:26.800 --> 0:18:30.240 He has to say, of course, about the focus the 0:18:30.280 --> 0:18:33.400 failure and what is next for regional banks more generally. 0:18:33.640 --> 0:18:36.159 We can dig into that in a minute. This is Bloomberg. 0:18:44.600 --> 0:18:47.720 We of course are dissecting everything that has been happening 0:18:47.800 --> 0:18:50.720 across in Washington, not only the AI focus of some outman, 0:18:50.800 --> 0:18:54.480 but Silicon Valley Bank focus Greg Becker. He's been testifying 0:18:54.480 --> 0:18:57.480 in front of the Senate Banking Committee today blaming social 0:18:57.560 --> 0:19:00.840 media in fact, for the bank's collapse. A slipe deeper 0:19:01.000 --> 0:19:05.160 into it all without one to no nationalibascond Sanni, he's 0:19:05.160 --> 0:19:07.840 gonna have a tough crowd. What ultimately do you think 0:19:07.880 --> 0:19:10.320 he's saying? Is it landing the way he hopes it too? 0:19:10.440 --> 0:19:11.600 Do you think what is. 0:19:11.720 --> 0:19:14.080 Interesting among the lawmakers here is you're hearing kind of 0:19:14.119 --> 0:19:16.320 two sides of a story. One is a set of 0:19:16.400 --> 0:19:19.840 lawmakers that are extraordinarily frustrated by the way SVB was 0:19:19.960 --> 0:19:23.480 managed and how much Greg Becker was paid. He declined 0:19:23.480 --> 0:19:25.240 to say whether he would give back some of his 0:19:25.359 --> 0:19:28.200 bonuses as a result of the bank's failure. And the 0:19:28.320 --> 0:19:32.560 ultimate you know, blamed mismanagement. There's a sense here also 0:19:32.680 --> 0:19:35.639 among the separate set of lawmakers that believe that a 0:19:35.720 --> 0:19:38.360 lot of this was brought on by the Fed's mismanagement 0:19:38.720 --> 0:19:42.200 as well as the fast rise in interest rates. You 0:19:42.359 --> 0:19:45.760 heard some lawmakers really attack the Biden administration here and 0:19:46.359 --> 0:19:48.639 the inflationary environment that had led to. 0:19:48.640 --> 0:19:51.440 These horror It is becoming bipartisan. 0:19:50.960 --> 0:19:54.760 It is becoming certainly very very very political on on 0:19:55.000 --> 0:19:58.280 tip of and we know also for its own worth here, 0:19:58.440 --> 0:20:01.639 we know that FED officials are also being grilled in 0:20:01.840 --> 0:20:05.320 Washington this week, and they have also outlined some series 0:20:05.440 --> 0:20:08.040 of their own failure of oversight for some of these 0:20:08.119 --> 0:20:09.399