Speaker 1: Zone Media. Hello and welcome to Better Offline. I'm your
Speaker 1: host ed Zeitron. Please buy our merchandise. I need money now.
Speaker 1: In the last episode, we talked about an unfortunate affliction
Speaker 1: affecting people in tech, where they're primed to spouting these inane,
Speaker 1: meaningless platitudes, and then the other affliction affecting people in
Speaker 1: the tech media, where they NodD along and say, huh,
Speaker 1: that makes sense to me. The thing is, if we
Speaker 1: actually care about tech, it's upon us to actually challenge
Speaker 1: these charlatans. We don't have to be mean or rude
Speaker 1: or harsh. We just have to say, what does that mean?
Speaker 1: Or what exactly do you mean? This is the pro
Speaker 1: tech position. It's not about being a hater or a
Speaker 1: cynic or whatever. It's an essential quality control mechanism that's
Speaker 1: been sorely lacking, especially in the AI bubble. The problem
Speaker 1: is that bullshit is a scarily effective mechanism by the
Speaker 1: shameless and the cynical, and it's managed to bamboos for
Speaker 1: so many, especially in the media, where the job is,
Speaker 1: at least in theory, to do the exact opposite of
Speaker 1: not reasonably and saying, oh this sounds good to me mate.
Speaker 1: Let's say the media, not the actually good people who
Speaker 1: I mentioned by naming the last episode, but slavish lickspills
Speaker 1: like Kevin Ruce and Casey new and actually want these
Speaker 1: companies to build powerful AI and believe they're smart enough
Speaker 1: to do so. Say that somehow, looking at their decaying finances,
Speaker 1: the lack of revenue, the lack of growth, and the
Speaker 1: remarkable lack of use cases, they still come out of
Speaker 1: it and say, sure, I think they're going to do this.
Speaker 1: The problem with bullshit like the Della's Words Seller Buffet
Speaker 1: and Altman's whatever the fuck he does is that it
Speaker 1: allows people, ostensibly smart, reasonable people to reach these conclusions
Speaker 1: without having to answer the silly little question of how, how,
Speaker 1: how how they're going to do it. Why haven't they
Speaker 1: done it yet? Why three years in are we still
Speaker 1: aren'table to describe what it is that chat GPT actually
Speaker 1: does and why we need it so badly? Take away
Speaker 1: how much money open ai makes for us, second, and
Speaker 1: indeed how much it loses. Does this product actually inspire
Speaker 1: anything in you? What is it that's actually magical about
Speaker 1: this other than the fact case so you get to
Speaker 1: hang around lots of parties and you too, Kevin Kevy boy,
Speaker 1: you get to hang around a lot of parties with
Speaker 1: a bunch of people sniff in their own farts, like
Speaker 1: that one episode of South Park with the priuses. And
Speaker 1: on a business level, what is it that I'm meant
Speaker 1: to be impressed by? Exactly? Open ai has allegedly hit
Speaker 1: ten billion dollars in annualized revenue, essentially the biggest month
Speaker 1: that can find multiplied by twelve, which is it's not
Speaker 1: actually that much really, considering that open ai is the
Speaker 1: most prominent software company in the world, with the biggest brand,
Speaker 1: and with the attention of the entirety of the world's media.
Speaker 1: Open ai allegedly has five hundred million weekly active users
Speaker 1: on chat gpt and by the last count, only fifteen
Speaker 1: point five million paying subscribers, an absolutely putrid conversion rate,
Speaker 1: even before you realize that the actual conversion rate would
Speaker 1: be monthly active subscribers. That's how any real software come
Speaker 1: He actually defines its metrics by the fucking way. Why
Speaker 1: am I meant to be impressed? Why? Because chat gpt
Speaker 1: grew fast. It literally had more pr and more marketing
Speaker 1: and more attention and more opportunities to sell to more people.
Speaker 1: Than any company has ever had in the history of anything.
Speaker 1: Every single industry has been told to think about AI
Speaker 1: for three fucking years, and they've been told to do
Speaker 1: so because of a company called open Ai. There isn't
Speaker 1: a single goddamn product since Google or Facebook that has
Speaker 1: had this level of media pressure, and both of those
Speaker 1: companies launched without the massive amount of media and social
Speaker 1: media that we have today. Having literally everybody talking about
Speaker 1: your product all the time for years is pretty useful.
Speaker 1: Why isn't this company making more money? And why are
Speaker 1: we taking any of these people? Seriously? Mark Zuckerberg paid
Speaker 1: fourteen point three billion dollars to invest forty nine percent
Speaker 1: in but really to acquire Scale Ai, an AI data company,
Speaker 1: as a means of hiring its CEO, Alexander Wang to
Speaker 1: run his superintelligence team, and has been offering random Open
Speaker 1: air Eye employees one hundred million dollars to join Meta.
Speaker 1: And they also, by the way, thought about buying both
Speaker 1: AI search company Perplexity and general iv AI video company Runway,
Speaker 1: And they even tried to buy open ai co foundery
Speaker 1: Suits Caves pre product thirty two billion dollar valuation company
Speaker 1: Save Superintelligence, settling instead to hire its CEO and his
Speaker 1: venture fund. I just want to be clear superintelligence refers
Speaker 1: to a fictional concept. These people they may as well
Speaker 1: be saying they're gonna hunt and kill the fucking tooth Fairy.
Speaker 1: I feel like I'm going insane hundreds of millions, billions
Speaker 1: of dollars put into an idea that's fictional. It's like
Speaker 1: they're trying to make the Ninja turtles happen. Are they
Speaker 1: going to capture Santa Claus. Are they finally going to
Speaker 1: kill Slender Man? Are they going to find the Marrio brothers?
Speaker 1: Are we going to stop the Cooper Sam Altman? Is
Speaker 1: Mark Zuckerberg going to kill who is the bad guy
Speaker 1: from Sacrifice? Anyway, we'll get back to that later when
Speaker 1: you put aside the big number. These are the actions
Speaker 1: of a desperate dim wit with a failing product trying
Speaker 1: to buy his way to make generative AI into super intelligence.
Speaker 1: And by the way, just want to make it clear,
Speaker 1: the chief AI scientist, Yan Lakun they callin Yan Lacum,
Speaker 1: says it isn't going to work. Generative AI isn't going
Speaker 1: to make super intelligence market. Mark, You're going to listen
Speaker 1: to the people you fucking hired and just jack off
Speaker 1: and give people too much money. I'll take a hundred
Speaker 1: million dollars mate, while you're out there. But by assuming
Speaker 1: that there's some sort of grand strategy behind these moves beyond,
Speaker 1: if we get enough smart people together, something will happening.
Speaker 1: The media helps boost the powerfuls messaging and buoy their
Speaker 1: stock valuations. You are not educating anybody by humoring these goofballs.
Speaker 1: In fact, the right way to approach this would be
Speaker 1: to ask meta a very simple question. Why why does
Speaker 1: a multi trillion dollar market cap company with a near
Speaker 1: monopoly overall social media spend billions of dollars in what
Speaker 1: appears to be a totally irresponsible way? No, no, no,
Speaker 1: no need to do that, No need to think these
Speaker 1: these big thoughts that might make people uncomfortable. No no, no,
Speaker 1: we just need like ten or fifteen different articles suggesting
Speaker 1: that Mark Zuckerberger is a genius and we're watching him
Speaker 1: be a genius. Anyway, putting that aside, what exactly is
Speaker 1: the impressive part of generative AI again, I'm coming back
Speaker 1: to this the fucking code. Enough about the code. I'm
Speaker 1: tired of hearing about the code as where to god,
Speaker 1: you people think that being a software engineer is only
Speaker 1: fucking coding, and it's fine if you ship mediocre code.
Speaker 1: Is it bad? Code? Can't bring down entire organizations? What
Speaker 1: is it you think a software engineer does? Is all
Speaker 1: they do code? If you think the answer is yes,
Speaker 1: you are wrong. Human beings may make mistakes in writing code,
Speaker 1: but at least they know what a mistake looks like,
Speaker 1: which a generative AI does not. Because a generative AI
Speaker 1: doesn't know what anything is or anything at all, because
Speaker 1: it is a probabilistic model. Congratulations, you've made another way
Speaker 1: way in which software engineers can automate parts of their jobs.
Speaker 1: Stop being so fucking excited about the idea that people
Speaker 1: are going to lose their livelihoods. It's not and founded
Speaker 1: on absolutely nothing other than your adulation for the powerful.
Speaker 1: These models are dangerous and chaotic, built with little intention
Speaker 1: of regard for the future, just like the rest of
Speaker 1: big text products. Chat GPT would have been a much
Speaker 1: smaller deal if Google had any interest in tending Google
Speaker 1: Search into a product that truly answered the query, as
Speaker 1: opposed to generating more of them to show more impressions
Speaker 1: to advertisers. A nuance search engine that could look at
Speaker 1: a user's query and spit out a series of websites
Speaker 1: that might help answer a question, rather than just summarizing
Speaker 1: a few of them for an answer, or just giving
Speaker 1: you a series of SEO articles. And if you ever
Speaker 1: need proof that Google just doesn't know how to fucking
Speaker 1: innovate anymore, really look at those AI summaries. It's a
Speaker 1: product that both misunderstands search and why people use chat
Speaker 1: GPT as a search replacement in the first place. While
Speaker 1: open AI may summarize stuff to give an answer, it
Speaker 1: at least gives something approximating an answer answer, rather than
Speaker 1: a summary that feels like an absent tee parent trying
Speaker 1: to get rid of you and then throwing twenty bucks
Speaker 1: at you and the hopes you'll leave them alone. And
Speaker 1: even when it does answer shit, it does so in
Speaker 1: this very peculiar way and gets very obvious things wrong.
Speaker 1: I looked at the pricing for Claude the Anthropic. I
Speaker 1: looked up for what the price of claud code was,
Speaker 1: and it was like, yeah, sixty dollars. There's no sixty
Speaker 1: dollars plan that I could find on Anthropic, maybe one
Speaker 1: of the team's plans. Anyway, Google Search makes them like
Speaker 1: one hundred billion dollars a year. It's fucking insane. If
Speaker 1: Google Search truly evolved, chat GPT wouldn't really matter, because
Speaker 1: the idea of a machine that can theoretically answer a
Speaker 1: question is kind of why people use Google in the
Speaker 1: fucking first place. Why doesn't the state of Google dominate
Speaker 1: tech news just like how random ketamine fuel tweets from
Speaker 1: me long Musk do. Why aren't we collectively repulsed by
Speaker 1: Google as a company, and why aren't we collectively repulsed
Speaker 1: by open Ai? No matter how big chat GPT is,
Speaker 1: the fact that there's a product out there with hundreds
Speaker 1: of millions of users that constantly gets answers wrong is
Speaker 1: genuinely worrying for society. And that's before you get to
Speaker 1: the environmental damage. The fact it's trained its models on
Speaker 1: hundreds of millions of people's art and writing, and now
Speaker 1: I don't know the fact that it loses over it
Speaker 1: loses like billions of it's probably more like twelve billion
Speaker 1: dollars a year. It's planning to lose over one hundred
Speaker 1: billion dollars a year before becoming profitable, and it can't
Speaker 1: even they can't even explain how it become profitable. I'm
Speaker 1: trying to calm down, all right, I'm trying. I don't
Speaker 1: even I don't write in here to get pissed off.
Speaker 1: It's just when I think about it too much. Starting
Speaker 1: the music from Kill Bill anyway, But why are we
Speaker 1: not more horrified? Why are we not more forlorn that
Speaker 1: this is where hundreds of billions of dollars are being
Speaker 1: forced The most prominent company in the tech industry is
Speaker 1: an unstable monolith with a vague product that can only
Speaker 1: make ten billion dollars a year in revenue, not profit,
Speaker 1: as the very fabric of its existence is shoved down
Speaker 1: the throat of every executive the world at once. Also,
Speaker 1: if it's not fed by the way twenty to forty
Speaker 1: billion dollars a year, it will die. Give me a
Speaker 1: fucking break. I don't know. I sound pretty ornery. I
Speaker 1: get accused of being a hater or missing the grand
Speaker 1: mystery of this bullshit every few minutes by somebody with
Speaker 1: an AI avatar of a guy who looks like he's
Speaker 1: been banned from multiple branches are best Buy. I understand
Speaker 1: there are things that people do with large language models.
Speaker 1: I am aware, but none of it matters because the
Speaker 1: way they're being discussed is like we're two steps away
Speaker 1: from digitally replacing hundreds of millions of people's jobs. The
Speaker 1: reality is far simpler. We have an industry that has
Speaker 1: spent nearly half a trillion dollars between its capital expenditures
Speaker 1: and venture capital funding to create an industry with the
Speaker 1: combined revenue of the fucking smart watch industry. What I'm
Speaker 1: talking about isn't inflammatory. In fact, it's far more deeply
Speaker 1: rooted in reality than those claiming the open ayes building
Speaker 1: the future or Kevin Ruce walking up on stage dressed
Speaker 1: like a fucking ring master. Anyone, if you're a listener
Speaker 1: who is at the hard Fork Live show, email me.
Speaker 1: Please email me and tell me what that was about.
Speaker 1: And if you don't know what I'm talking about, Kevin
Speaker 1: Rouse dress like a fucking circus ring master, this podcast shameful, man, shameful,
Speaker 1: Take a shower, take a walk, go outside, mate. But
Speaker 1: look like I said, what I'm saying sounds inflammatory, but
Speaker 1: it's not. If we add up the combined capital expenditures
Speaker 1: and projected AI revenues of the big four hyperscalers, we
Speaker 1: end up with roughly three hundred and twenty seven billion
Speaker 1: dollars in capital expenditures and only eighteen billion dollars in revenue.
Speaker 1: And that's not profit, by the way, I really do
Speaker 1: mean it. That's less than the projective revenue of the
Speaker 1: global smartwatch industry. But then someone smashes through my door
Speaker 1: and they go, ooh, what about open Ai. I've talked
Speaker 1: about this so much. So what open ai makes twelve
Speaker 1: point seven billion dollars this year but they lose like
Speaker 1: ten fourteen billion dollars. What does that mean to you? Exactly?
Speaker 1: What do you what are you gonna say the cost
Speaker 1: of inference is coming down? No? No, if you are
Speaker 1: someone who's saying the cost of inference is coming down,
Speaker 1: I need you to stop. You are wrong. You are wrong.
Speaker 1: You are wrong. I hate hearing this because you are
Speaker 1: so wrong. No, the cost that people are being charged
Speaker 1: is going down. We have no firm data on the
Speaker 1: actual costs of inference because the companies don't want to
Speaker 1: talk about it. And yes, they will absolutely lower prices
Speaker 1: to compete with other companies. The Information just reported the
Speaker 1: open Ai was doing this to compete with Microsoft a
Speaker 1: couple weeks back, and fucking open Ai reduced the price
Speaker 1: of their O through Reasoning Model one focused on code
Speaker 1: by eighty percent to compete with Claude four Opusmax, just
Speaker 1: that any of you could fucking look at. I know
Speaker 1: I'm getting mad at people who probably don't listen to
Speaker 1: the podcast, but one day they will. I'll make them anyway.
Speaker 1: Even if we add open AI's revenue to the part,
Speaker 1: we're at about thirty point seven billion dollars. If we
Speaker 1: had the supposed one billion in revenue from training data
Speaker 1: startup search three hundred billion dollars in annualized revenue from churing.
Speaker 1: We optimistically assume that Perplexity will have one hundred million
Speaker 1: arr up than thirty four million in twenty twenty four,
Speaker 1: but they lost sixty four million, and say they make
Speaker 1: one hundred million in twenty twenty five, and assume that
Speaker 1: any sphere which makes cursor that their five hundred million
Speaker 1: dollar run rate stays consistent through twenty twenty five, even
Speaker 1: though they just had to completely change their pricing, because
Speaker 1: because open ai and Anthropic joked on the prices, we
Speaker 1: are at carry the two about thirty two point seven billion. Hmm.
Speaker 1: That's not good. But I'm not being fair, am I.
Speaker 1: I include many of the names from the Information's Generator
Speaker 1: AI database. I'm stubborn, so I made a point of
Speaker 1: adding them all up and ended up with a total
Speaker 1: of less than thirty nine billion dollars of total revenue
Speaker 1: in the entire generator of AI industry. Jesus fucking Christ,
Speaker 1: Fuck God, damn it. This this is what we've been
Speaker 1: doing for three years. If you're missed, blanket fan, this
Speaker 1: is my Kodak printer moment. Why why did you do it?
Speaker 1: According to the Information Generative, AI companies have raised more
Speaker 1: than eighteen point eight billion dollars in the first quarter
Speaker 1: of twenty twenty five, after Vis's invested twenty one billion
Speaker 1: dollars in Q four twenty twenty four and four billion
Speaker 1: dollars in Q three twenty twenty four, for grand total
Speaker 1: of forty three point eight billion, or a total of
Speaker 1: three hundred and seventy point eight billion dollars of investment
Speaker 1: and capital expenditures for an industry that, despite being the
Speaker 1: single most talked about thing on the planet, cannot even
Speaker 1: create a tenth of the dollars it requires to make
Speaker 1: it function. These companies are predominantly unprofitable, perpetually searching for
Speaker 1: product market fit and even when they find it seeming
Speaker 1: capable of generating revenue numbers that remotely justify their valuations.
Speaker 1: And if I'm honest, I think the truly radical position
Speaker 1: here is the one taken by most tech reporters that
Speaker 1: would rather take the lazy position of well, Uber lost
Speaker 1: a lot of money than think for two seconds about
Speaker 1: whether we're all being sold a line of shit. What
Speaker 1: we're watching is a mountain of waste perpetuated by the
Speaker 1: least charming failed sons of our generation. Nobody should be
Speaker 1: giving sach In the Della or Sam Ortman a glossy profile.
Speaker 1: They should be asking direct, brutal questions, much like Joanna's
Speaker 1: Stern just did of Craig Federighi, who had absolutely fucking
Speaker 1: nothing to share about why Apple Intelligence sucked because he's
Speaker 1: never been pushed like this. Put aside the money for
Speaker 1: a second, to be honest, These men are pathetic, unimpressive, uninventive,
Speaker 1: and dreadfully, dreadfully boring anthropics Warrio Ama Day and Open
Speaker 1: Ai is Clammy. Sam Mortman a farmer in common with
Speaker 1: televangelist Joe Olstein than the level out with Steve Jobs
Speaker 1: or any number of people that have actually invented things,
Speaker 1: and I know about Steve Jobs. And they got that
Speaker 1: way because we took them seriously instead of saying, wait,
Speaker 1: what do you mean? What do you mean? What does
Speaker 1: that mean? To a single one of their wrongheaded o
Speaker 1: fish and dim witted hype ERPs, it's boring. I'm terribly
Speaker 1: horribly bored. And if you're interested in this ship, I'm
Speaker 1: genuinely curious why, especially if you're a reporter, because right now,
Speaker 1: the innovation happening in AI is at best further mutations
Speaker 1: of the software as a service business model, providing far
Speaker 1: less value than previous innovations that are calamitous cost reasoning
Speaker 1: models don't even reason. It's proven by an Apple paper
Speaker 1: released a few weeks ago, and agents as a sceptu
Speaker 1: fucked because large language models are inherently unreliable. And yes,
Speaker 1: a study out of fucking Salesforce found that agents began
Speaker 1: to break down when given multi step tasks, such as
Speaker 1: any task that you'd want to have an agent automating.
Speaker 1: But but, but but but I have one radical suggestion,
Speaker 1: let's start making fun of them. Let's start making fun
Speaker 1: of these people. They're not charming, they're not building anything
Speaker 1: they've scootered long a massing billions of dollars, promising the
Speaker 1: world and delivering you a hell is shit. They deserve
Speaker 1: our derision or at the very least, our deep unerring suspicion,
Speaker 1: if not for what they've done, for what they've not done.
Speaker 1: Sam Ltman is nowhere near delivering a functioning agent, let
Speaker 1: alone anything approaching intelligence, and really only has one skill
Speaker 1: making other companies risk a bunch of money on this
Speaker 1: you bid fucking ideas. No, really, he convinced Oracle to
Speaker 1: buy forty billion dollars of then video chips to put
Speaker 1: in the Abilene takes a Stargate data center, despite the
Speaker 1: fact that the Stargate organization is yet to be formed,
Speaker 1: as reported by The Information, SoftBank and Microsoft pay for
Speaker 1: all of open AI's bills, and the media does his
Speaker 1: marketing for him. Open Ai is, as I have said before,
Speaker 1: a banana republic. It requires the media and the markets
Speaker 1: to make up why it should exist. It requires other
Speaker 1: companies to pump it full of money and build its infrastructure,
Speaker 1: and it doesn't even make products that matter. While Sam
Speaker 1: Altman constantly talks about all the other exciting shit that
Speaker 1: people will build that never seems to get built. You
Speaker 1: can keep honking off about how it will build the
Speaker 1: API that will power the future. But if that's the case,
Speaker 1: where's the fucking future? Exactly where is it? What am
Speaker 1: I looking at here? Where's the economic activity? Where's the productivity?
Speaker 1: The return sucked? The costs are too high? Why am
Speaker 1: I the radical person saying this? This entire situation is
Speaker 1: goddamn ridiculous and incomparable waste, even if it's somehow went
Speaker 1: to the green. For the horrendous amount of capital and
Speaker 1: generative AI to make sense, the industry would have to
Speaker 1: have more revenue than the smartphone and enterprise SaaS market combined,
Speaker 1: rather than less than half of the mobile gaming industry.
Speaker 1: Sacha Nadella, sam Orman, Wario Ammada, Tim Cook, Andy Jesse.
Speaker 1: They deserve to be laughed at, mocked, or at least
Speaker 1: very heavily interrogated because their combined might has produced no
Speaker 1: exciting or interesting products outside of, at best, what will
Speaker 1: amount to a productivity upgrade for integrated development environments and
Speaker 1: faster ways to throw out code that may or may
Speaker 1: not be reliable. These things aren't nothing, but they're nowhere
Speaker 1: near the something that we've been promised, So I put
Speaker 1: it to you, dear listener, why are we taking them seriously?
Speaker 1: What is there to take seriously other than their ability
Speaker 1: to force stuff on people and make money doing so.
Speaker 1: And I want to ask you a question, how do
Speaker 1: they manage to keep doing this? They always seem to
Speaker 1: find new growth every single quarter, every single quarter, without fail.
Speaker 1: Is it because they keep coming up with ideas? Or
Speaker 1: is it because they keep coming up with new ideas
Speaker 1: to get more money a vastly different choice that involves
Speaker 1: increasing the products or making them worse so that they
Speaker 1: can show you more ads. My positions aren't radical, and
Speaker 1: if you believe they are, your deverence to power disgusts me.
Speaker 1: In any case, I want to end this episode with
Speaker 1: something a little more inspirational, because I believe things can
Speaker 1: change when regular people feel stronger and more capable. I
Speaker 1: want you to know that you are fully capable of
Speaker 1: understanding all of this. I don't care if you think
Speaker 1: you're not a numbers person or you don't really get business.
Speaker 1: I don't have a single iota of economics training, and
Speaker 1: everything you've ever heard me say or read me right
Speaker 1: has been something I've had to learn, and I really
Speaker 1: mean that I was a lay person right up until
Speaker 1: the time I learned the stuff, and I be kind
Speaker 1: of stuff, knowah, just like you can be. The tech industry,
Speaker 1: the finance industry, the entire mechanisms of capital want you
Speaker 1: to believe that everything they do is magical and complex,
Speaker 1: when it's all far more obvious than you believe. You
Speaker 1: don't have to understand the entire fundamentals of finance to
Speaker 1: know how venture capital works. They buy percentages of come
Speaker 1: copanies at evaluation that they hope is much lower than
Speaker 1: the company would be worth in the future when they
Speaker 1: sell or go public. You don't need to be technical
Speaker 1: to know that large language models generate a response based
Speaker 1: on billions of pieces of training data and by guessing
Speaker 1: at what the next bit of text or thing might
Speaker 1: be in a line should be based on based on
Speaker 1: what they've seen in the model previously. These people love
Speaker 1: to say things like ah, but didn't see and present
Speaker 1: some anecdote, when no anecdote will ever defeat the basics
Speaker 1: of your business does not make enough money, the software
Speaker 1: does not do the things you claim it's meant to,
Speaker 1: and you have no path to profitability. They can yamor
Speaker 1: at you. All they want about lots of people using CHATGPT,
Speaker 1: but that doesn't change the fact that chat GPT just
Speaker 1: isn't that revolutionary, and their only play here is to
Speaker 1: make you feel stupid, rather than actually showing you why
Speaker 1: it's so fucking revolutionary. This is the argument of a
Speaker 1: manipulator and a coward, and you're above such things. You
Speaker 1: don't really have to be a specialist in anything to
Speaker 1: pry this shit apart, which is why so much of
Speaker 1: my work is either engaging to those who learn something
Speaker 1: from it or frustrating to those that intentionally deceive others.
Speaker 1: By god boy goog heipespiel bullshit. I will sit here
Speaker 1: and explain every fucking part of this horrid chain of freaks,
Speaker 1: and I'll break it down into whatever pieces it takes
Speaker 1: to educate as many people as I have to to
Speaker 1: make things change. I need to be clear about something
Speaker 1: I'm nobody. I started writing my news later with three
Speaker 1: hundred subscribers and no other reason than the fact that
Speaker 1: I wanted to and I was depressed. And guess what,
Speaker 1: four years later, I've nearly sixty five thousand subscribers, an
Speaker 1: award winning podcast, and people actually pay me for shit.
Speaker 1: I have no economics training, no special access, no deep sources,
Speaker 1: just the ability to look at things that are happening,
Speaker 1: and then I say stuff. I taught myself everything I
Speaker 1: know about this industry, and there is nothing stopping you
Speaker 1: from doing the same. I was convinced I was stupid
Speaker 1: until about two years ago. Now, if my honesty might
Speaker 1: have been last year, I felt other the majority of
Speaker 1: my life, convinced by people that I'm incapable or unwelcome,
Speaker 1: And as such, I've become more articulate and confident in
Speaker 1: who I am and what I believe in. And I've
Speaker 1: noticed that the only people that seek to degrade or
Speaker 1: suppress are those of weak minds and wills, business idiots
Speaker 1: in different forms and flavors. I've learned to accept who
Speaker 1: I am, that I'm not like most people, and people
Speaker 1: conflate my passion and vigor with anger or hate, but
Speaker 1: what they're experiencing is somebody different who deeply resents what
Speaker 1: the powerful have done to the computer. And while I
Speaker 1: complain about the state of the media, what I've seen
Speaker 1: in the last year is that there are many many
Speaker 1: people like me, readers, listeners, and peers that resent things
Speaker 1: in the same way I conflated different with being alone,
Speaker 1: and I couldn't have been more wrong. For those of
Speaker 1: you that don't wish to lick the boots of the
Speaker 1: people fucking up every tech product, the tent is large,
Speaker 1: it's a big club, and you're absolutely in it. A
Speaker 1: better tech industry is one where the people writing about
Speaker 1: it hold it accountable, pushing it towards creating the experiences
Speaker 1: and connectivity that truly change the world, rather than repeating
Speaker 1: and reinforcing the status quo. Don't watch the mouth, watch
Speaker 1: the hands. These companies will tell you that they're amazing
Speaker 1: as many times as they want, but you don't need
Speaker 1: to prove that they do. I don't care if you
Speaker 1: tell a single human soul about my work, but if
Speaker 1: it helps you understand these people, better to teach other people. Now,
Speaker 1: these tech executives, they may seem more powerful, but they've
Speaker 1: built the rot economy and a combination of anonymity in
Speaker 1: a play cant press. But pressure against them starts with
Speaker 1: you and those you know, understanding how those businesses work,
Speaker 1: and trusting that you can understand because you absolutely fucking
Speaker 1: can millions of people understanding how these people run their
Speaker 1: companies now poorly they've built their stuff software will stop
Speaker 1: people like sunned up as Shy from being able to
Speaker 1: quietly burn Google Search to the ground. People like Sam
Speaker 1: Wultman are gambling that you're easily confused, easily defeated, and
Speaker 1: incurious when you could be writing thousands of words on
Speaker 1: a newsletter or speaking for hours on a podcast that
Speaker 1: you never ever really edit for like Brevity, or perhaps
Speaker 1: you go on a site no you ever hear Killer
Speaker 1: be Killed, Great metal badge, you'd give them a lesson anyway.
Speaker 1: I know it sounds smaller and like your role is
Speaker 1: even smaller than that, But the reason they've grown so
Speaker 1: rapaciously is driven by the sense that the work they
Speaker 1: do is some sort of black magic. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: actually really fucking stupid, boring finance stabled into a tech
Speaker 1: industry that's run out of ideas. You are more than
Speaker 1: capable of understanding this entire world, including the technology along
Speaker 1: with the finances that ultimately decide what technology gets made next.
Speaker 1: These people have got rich and famous and escaped all
Speaker 1: blame by casting themselves as somehow above us. But if
Speaker 1: I'm honest, I've never looked down on somebody quite as
Speaker 1: much as I do the current gaggle of management consultant
Speaker 1: fucks that have driven Silicon Valley into the ground. You're
Speaker 1: actually smarter than them. You can learn all of this,
Speaker 1: and I'm here to help you every fucking week. Thank
Speaker 1: you for your time, Thank you for listening to Better Offline.
Speaker 1: The editor and composer of the Better Offline theme song
Speaker 1: is Matasowski. You can check out more of his music
Speaker 1: and audio projects at Matasowski dot com, M A T
Speaker 1: T O. S O w Ski dot com. You can
Speaker 1: email me at easy at Better Offline dot com or
Speaker 1: visit Better Offline dot com to find more podcast link
Speaker 1: and of course my newsletter. I also really recommend you
Speaker 1: go to chat dot Where's youoead dot at to visit
Speaker 1: the discord, and go to our slash Better Offline to
Speaker 1: check out our reddit. Thank you so much for listening.
Speaker 1: Better Offline is a production of cool Zone Media. For
Speaker 1: more from cool Zone Media, visit our website cool Zonemedia
Speaker 1: dot com, or check us out on the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.