WEBVTT - Tesla's EVs and US Lawmakers Meet with Big Tech

0:00:01.480 --> 0:00:04.840
<v Speaker 1>From the heart of We're Innovation, Money and Power Collie

0:00:05.040 --> 0:00:09.760
<v Speaker 1>in Silicon Valley, NBR. This is Bloomberg Technology with Caroline

0:00:09.840 --> 0:00:26.720
<v Speaker 1>Hide and Ed Ludlow. I'm Caroline Hide and Bloomberg's world

0:00:26.760 --> 0:00:29.520
<v Speaker 1>headquarters in New York, and I'med Lovelow in San Francisco.

0:00:29.600 --> 0:00:32.840
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Technology, back together and coming up. Full

0:00:32.880 --> 0:00:35.440
<v Speaker 1>market coverage ahead. We're going to kick off the second

0:00:35.520 --> 0:00:38.200
<v Speaker 1>quarter then USA one hundred. Is it a bill market?

0:00:38.280 --> 0:00:41.400
<v Speaker 1>But will it stay Morgan Stanley, well, it thinks maybe

0:00:41.800 --> 0:00:45.080
<v Speaker 1>you should be warning about this tech valley last Tesla.

0:00:45.159 --> 0:00:47.800
<v Speaker 1>One name weighing on the market is Deliveries full short

0:00:47.840 --> 0:00:50.760
<v Speaker 1>of Elon Musk's own expectations. Will bring you the details.

0:00:50.760 --> 0:00:52.959
<v Speaker 1>And speaking of Mask, we'll get their latest on its

0:00:52.960 --> 0:00:55.080
<v Speaker 1>spat with The New York Times as the newspaper loses

0:00:55.120 --> 0:00:58.760
<v Speaker 1>it's verified badge on Twitter. That so much more coming up,

0:00:58.800 --> 0:01:01.240
<v Speaker 1>But first, I mean we got to delve into the

0:01:01.280 --> 0:01:03.760
<v Speaker 1>market moves. When it comes to the NASTAC one hundred.

0:01:03.800 --> 0:01:05.880
<v Speaker 1>Of course, we're just saying soaring into a bullmark in

0:01:05.880 --> 0:01:09.880
<v Speaker 1>the first quarter. But Morgan Stanley's Mike Wilson, he's been

0:01:09.920 --> 0:01:12.840
<v Speaker 1>warning that the rally maybe is overdone. Let's bring in

0:01:13.560 --> 0:01:16.280
<v Speaker 1>Isabel Lee just to talk about the technicals at play.

0:01:16.360 --> 0:01:20.319
<v Speaker 1>Some of the reasoning behind Isabel the movement into big tech.

0:01:20.480 --> 0:01:22.760
<v Speaker 1>It was almost like a search of safety right now,

0:01:23.240 --> 0:01:26.640
<v Speaker 1>people particularly Morgan Stanley and also JP Morgan saying that

0:01:26.800 --> 0:01:29.560
<v Speaker 1>might be time to pull back from that trade exactly.

0:01:29.560 --> 0:01:31.840
<v Speaker 1>So Morgan Stanley said it's overdone. So last week the

0:01:31.880 --> 0:01:34.280
<v Speaker 1>tech sector hit the bull market, which means it was

0:01:34.360 --> 0:01:36.640
<v Speaker 1>up twenty percent from US in December lows. But for

0:01:36.880 --> 0:01:38.959
<v Speaker 1>Mike Wilson that was just a bit too much, and

0:01:39.000 --> 0:01:41.160
<v Speaker 1>he said it's just because people were treating it as

0:01:41.160 --> 0:01:44.399
<v Speaker 1>a traditional defensive place amidst all the banking turmoil. But

0:01:44.440 --> 0:01:47.639
<v Speaker 1>he still recommends safer areas like utilities like a zoomer

0:01:47.680 --> 0:01:50.880
<v Speaker 1>sector because he also said that when something hits its trufugh,

0:01:51.240 --> 0:01:53.440
<v Speaker 1>the likelihood is it'll just rally back up. So he

0:01:53.440 --> 0:01:56.440
<v Speaker 1>said he would prefer to see more durable lows before

0:01:56.680 --> 0:01:59.720
<v Speaker 1>investors piling aggressively, but for now it's kind of an

0:01:59.760 --> 0:02:02.559
<v Speaker 1>over for him. Hey is about There's one thing, Karen,

0:02:02.600 --> 0:02:04.840
<v Speaker 1>I've learned in recent weeks around the tech sector. It's

0:02:04.880 --> 0:02:07.760
<v Speaker 1>one session a market does not make. But we're kind

0:02:07.760 --> 0:02:10.520
<v Speaker 1>of looking at economic data again. Right, we're still going

0:02:10.560 --> 0:02:13.240
<v Speaker 1>back to the same discussion around inflation and the FED.

0:02:14.040 --> 0:02:17.360
<v Speaker 1>That's exactly right, which is why people are probably thinking that, Okay,

0:02:17.440 --> 0:02:20.000
<v Speaker 1>you know, that's that's a risk. Assets are rallying because

0:02:20.040 --> 0:02:22.600
<v Speaker 1>they're like, inflation is over. We'd probably not over, but

0:02:22.680 --> 0:02:25.760
<v Speaker 1>we've hit the peak FED. We'll start cutting sometimes this year.

0:02:25.840 --> 0:02:28.760
<v Speaker 1>People have various estimates, but it's kind of bullish overall,

0:02:28.800 --> 0:02:31.520
<v Speaker 1>which is a risk. Assets are rallying now. Bitcoin is up,

0:02:31.560 --> 0:02:35.440
<v Speaker 1>It's enjoyed its best quarter seventy two percent or seventy

0:02:35.480 --> 0:02:39.040
<v Speaker 1>four percent in the past two years. All risk assets

0:02:39.080 --> 0:02:41.280
<v Speaker 1>are really up and they're just really enjoying the bounce.

0:02:41.360 --> 0:02:43.760
<v Speaker 1>And here's some good news for the bitcoin lovers. April

0:02:43.840 --> 0:02:47.320
<v Speaker 1>is usually a good month for bitcoin, actually even for stocks,

0:02:47.320 --> 0:02:50.639
<v Speaker 1>and by some measures, bitcoin was up in six out

0:02:50.639 --> 0:02:54.120
<v Speaker 1>of the last ten years. Isabelle dig in here because

0:02:54.160 --> 0:02:58.160
<v Speaker 1>you've been writing great stories together with Aldanna about well,

0:02:58.160 --> 0:02:59.959
<v Speaker 1>the lack of liquidity and bitcoin, even though we see

0:03:00.000 --> 0:03:02.680
<v Speaker 1>it's run up in price, Yes, and because there's lack

0:03:02.720 --> 0:03:05.840
<v Speaker 1>of liquidity, then the prices are more pronto volatility because

0:03:05.919 --> 0:03:09.119
<v Speaker 1>one big whale or one big move can just pull

0:03:09.200 --> 0:03:11.560
<v Speaker 1>the price lower or higher, and that's kind of been

0:03:11.600 --> 0:03:14.680
<v Speaker 1>the danger in this sector. But for now, especially with

0:03:14.720 --> 0:03:17.640
<v Speaker 1>the banking termoil, people are celebrating it because this is

0:03:17.680 --> 0:03:22.600
<v Speaker 1>why bitcoin was made. It's to circumvent all the intermediaries

0:03:22.639 --> 0:03:24.400
<v Speaker 1>to just put their trust into the thing that they

0:03:24.440 --> 0:03:26.920
<v Speaker 1>trust and not trust Wall Street. Bitcoin was born right

0:03:26.960 --> 0:03:29.560
<v Speaker 1>after the GFC, when people were mad at banks, when

0:03:29.560 --> 0:03:32.320
<v Speaker 1>people didn't trust anyone. So now it's kind of their

0:03:32.400 --> 0:03:35.320
<v Speaker 1>victory lab but it still remains to be seen whether

0:03:35.360 --> 0:03:39.640
<v Speaker 1>the banking turmoil actually push bitcoin higher. It's that's why

0:03:39.680 --> 0:03:42.000
<v Speaker 1>I love carving the space. You'll never just know why.

0:03:42.400 --> 0:03:44.720
<v Speaker 1>In particular, I'm gonna be delving into who else is

0:03:44.720 --> 0:03:47.120
<v Speaker 1>winning amid the bank tim all and wow, we've got

0:03:47.120 --> 0:03:49.560
<v Speaker 1>a VC name on talking that it's fintech in fact

0:03:49.560 --> 0:03:51.560
<v Speaker 1>as well as welly, great to have you on all

0:03:51.640 --> 0:03:54.240
<v Speaker 1>things risk assets. Let's stick with the markets though, because

0:03:54.280 --> 0:03:57.080
<v Speaker 1>actually one risk asset monkey player in the technology space, Tesla,

0:03:57.400 --> 0:04:00.800
<v Speaker 1>well it actually didn't perform particularly well in March. Today

0:04:00.840 --> 0:04:04.680
<v Speaker 1>it's weighing on the broader indices once again, Led you

0:04:04.760 --> 0:04:06.960
<v Speaker 1>are the first and foremost person I think of when

0:04:06.960 --> 0:04:09.160
<v Speaker 1>I think of Tesla. Just dig in a little bit

0:04:09.240 --> 0:04:13.040
<v Speaker 1>about why we're seeing Musk full shorten his delivery issues

0:04:13.080 --> 0:04:15.560
<v Speaker 1>even though we see the price cuts coming. Yeah. Yeah,

0:04:15.640 --> 0:04:18.279
<v Speaker 1>record deliveries in the first quarter of twenty twenty three,

0:04:18.400 --> 0:04:22.120
<v Speaker 1>four hundred and twenty three thousand evs in the first

0:04:22.120 --> 0:04:24.200
<v Speaker 1>three months of the year. It's a modest growth, right.

0:04:24.279 --> 0:04:26.120
<v Speaker 1>You look at the end of twenty twenty two, four

0:04:26.200 --> 0:04:29.279
<v Speaker 1>hundred and five thousand, it's about four percent sequentially quarter

0:04:29.400 --> 0:04:33.640
<v Speaker 1>on quarter, above street expectations. But the bigger picture is

0:04:33.680 --> 0:04:35.920
<v Speaker 1>that it does not put Tester on track for that

0:04:36.040 --> 0:04:38.800
<v Speaker 1>fifty percent annual average growth rate that Elon Musk has

0:04:38.839 --> 0:04:41.520
<v Speaker 1>talked about. It's not enough to show that demand is

0:04:41.560 --> 0:04:44.680
<v Speaker 1>still there. There are still demand concerns for the street, right,

0:04:44.680 --> 0:04:47.760
<v Speaker 1>And one point here is that Elon must talked in

0:04:47.800 --> 0:04:50.200
<v Speaker 1>the first two weeks of January about demands running at

0:04:50.200 --> 0:04:52.799
<v Speaker 1>twice the rate of production. You dig into the data

0:04:52.960 --> 0:04:55.159
<v Speaker 1>kind of seems like demand might have tapered off towards

0:04:55.200 --> 0:04:57.600
<v Speaker 1>the end of the quarter, even though the prices have

0:04:57.680 --> 0:05:00.799
<v Speaker 1>been pulled back, even though we've got well then firing

0:05:00.800 --> 0:05:04.040
<v Speaker 1>on all cylinders, which actually making the autos. What does

0:05:04.080 --> 0:05:08.159
<v Speaker 1>a backlog of potential of cars sitting around me. Yeah,

0:05:08.279 --> 0:05:11.520
<v Speaker 1>it's a profitability that's certainly the right days point. Look

0:05:11.520 --> 0:05:13.640
<v Speaker 1>at the three orange bars four inche bars here, four

0:05:13.720 --> 0:05:17.279
<v Speaker 1>straight quarter where production is greater than the number of

0:05:17.360 --> 0:05:20.840
<v Speaker 1>vehicles that Tessa's delivered. One explanation from Tesla is they're

0:05:20.880 --> 0:05:23.760
<v Speaker 1>still trying to get the mix of where these vehicles

0:05:23.760 --> 0:05:27.039
<v Speaker 1>are produced more even which results in particularly the model

0:05:27.120 --> 0:05:29.440
<v Speaker 1>Essent Model X being in transit at the end of

0:05:29.440 --> 0:05:32.400
<v Speaker 1>the quarter. You can't consider those delivered vehicles because they're

0:05:32.400 --> 0:05:34.359
<v Speaker 1>on the back of a truck. Essentially, it was the

0:05:34.400 --> 0:05:36.520
<v Speaker 1>lowest delivery level for S and X in that quarter

0:05:36.680 --> 0:05:38.760
<v Speaker 1>just gone going back to the third quarter of twenty

0:05:38.839 --> 0:05:42.160
<v Speaker 1>twenty one, So something's not quite working there. What analysts

0:05:42.200 --> 0:05:45.120
<v Speaker 1>are saying is we're worried that actually there is still

0:05:45.200 --> 0:05:48.320
<v Speaker 1>demand issue here. Remember Elon Musk has pledged that if

0:05:48.320 --> 0:05:51.159
<v Speaker 1>there is a deep recession this year, Tessa's happy to

0:05:51.240 --> 0:05:55.200
<v Speaker 1>sacrifice profit margin because they've got that strong balance sheet

0:05:55.320 --> 0:05:57.359
<v Speaker 1>and they want to keep up that steady rate of growth.

0:05:57.400 --> 0:05:59.960
<v Speaker 1>It's just that we're not seeing that steady rate of growth,

0:06:00.320 --> 0:06:04.279
<v Speaker 1>and many still worry maybe in some part that he's distracted, right,

0:06:04.400 --> 0:06:07.240
<v Speaker 1>he's distracted with the other key company that's under his

0:06:07.680 --> 0:06:11.000
<v Speaker 1>overview is Twitter, and we know that at the moment

0:06:11.200 --> 0:06:14.400
<v Speaker 1>he's in particular spot with New York Times resulted in

0:06:14.440 --> 0:06:17.479
<v Speaker 1>the paper losing its verified badge over its refusal to

0:06:17.560 --> 0:06:21.240
<v Speaker 1>pay for that one important checkmark, joining us now Bloomberg's

0:06:21.279 --> 0:06:24.799
<v Speaker 1>Asia accounts. Just how important is that checkmark for something

0:06:25.040 --> 0:06:29.000
<v Speaker 1>like New York Times the yellow badge. It's critical for

0:06:29.080 --> 0:06:31.240
<v Speaker 1>an organization like The New York Times to have that

0:06:31.320 --> 0:06:34.240
<v Speaker 1>badge because it verifies that they are, in fact a

0:06:34.279 --> 0:06:37.400
<v Speaker 1>news institution. You can imagine the challenges that could arise

0:06:37.600 --> 0:06:40.200
<v Speaker 1>if another account were to impersonate the New York Times

0:06:40.400 --> 0:06:43.480
<v Speaker 1>and start spreading false news or misinformation. So it's really

0:06:43.520 --> 0:06:45.680
<v Speaker 1>critical that they have that checkmark. I think we point

0:06:45.680 --> 0:06:48.359
<v Speaker 1>out Caroline right that Bloomberg News has said that it

0:06:48.400 --> 0:06:54.000
<v Speaker 1>won't reimburse staff to get their own Twitter Blue method

0:06:54.000 --> 0:06:57.240
<v Speaker 1>of verification. Bloomberg News and its various newsroom accounts does

0:06:57.279 --> 0:07:00.880
<v Speaker 1>have verification. What's really difficult understand is if you go

0:07:00.920 --> 0:07:03.000
<v Speaker 1>on someone's profile and hover over the blue check mark,

0:07:03.640 --> 0:07:07.560
<v Speaker 1>it's either a Twitter Blue account or it's a legacy

0:07:07.640 --> 0:07:09.920
<v Speaker 1>verified account that may or may not be notable. They

0:07:09.960 --> 0:07:12.080
<v Speaker 1>haven't taken the action that they said they would no,

0:07:12.240 --> 0:07:14.160
<v Speaker 1>and that's actually a change. Right if you were to

0:07:14.240 --> 0:07:16.160
<v Speaker 1>look a week ago, when you would hover over the badge,

0:07:16.160 --> 0:07:18.880
<v Speaker 1>you could see very clearly this person paid for Twitter

0:07:18.880 --> 0:07:23.200
<v Speaker 1>Blue or this person was a legacy verified institution or individual.

0:07:23.440 --> 0:07:26.720
<v Speaker 1>So it's actually created more confusion and we really don't know.

0:07:26.840 --> 0:07:29.440
<v Speaker 1>And they haven't taken away some of those like checkmarks

0:07:29.440 --> 0:07:31.920
<v Speaker 1>that they said they were Unapril first. They've taken away some,

0:07:32.040 --> 0:07:34.040
<v Speaker 1>but some are still out there, Kara. One thing we

0:07:34.080 --> 0:07:36.720
<v Speaker 1>discussed with Elisha on Friday was the idea that also

0:07:36.760 --> 0:07:39.800
<v Speaker 1>advertisers are kind of not very convinced by Musk. They've

0:07:39.880 --> 0:07:44.040
<v Speaker 1>kind of fled the platform. Where does this platform stand

0:07:44.040 --> 0:07:45.920
<v Speaker 1>in terms of its health because you have Elon Musk

0:07:46.000 --> 0:07:48.320
<v Speaker 1>on the other hand saying we're at record levels of

0:07:48.440 --> 0:07:51.240
<v Speaker 1>use right in terms of using numbers, Yeah, that's what's

0:07:51.240 --> 0:07:54.360
<v Speaker 1>been really interesting. They do have more daily users since

0:07:54.480 --> 0:07:57.160
<v Speaker 1>according to Musk's numbers, since the last time he released them,

0:07:57.400 --> 0:07:59.960
<v Speaker 1>but you're losing advertisers and that was about eighty nine

0:08:00.000 --> 0:08:02.760
<v Speaker 1>percent of revenue, and so Twitter Blue is seen as

0:08:02.760 --> 0:08:04.720
<v Speaker 1>a way to make back some of that revenue. But

0:08:05.040 --> 0:08:07.440
<v Speaker 1>their subscriber numbers are also really low. It's less than

0:08:07.480 --> 0:08:09.920
<v Speaker 1>one percent I think according to the last numbers. So

0:08:10.160 --> 0:08:12.760
<v Speaker 1>it's Twitter is in a really challenging position right now

0:08:12.760 --> 0:08:15.120
<v Speaker 1>and they have to either convince people to subscribe or

0:08:15.200 --> 0:08:17.120
<v Speaker 1>they're going to have to woo back those advertisers, and

0:08:17.160 --> 0:08:19.440
<v Speaker 1>neither one of those has really been going well. Do

0:08:19.480 --> 0:08:22.840
<v Speaker 1>we know any updated numbers on subscribers. I mean, this

0:08:22.920 --> 0:08:25.000
<v Speaker 1>is the joy of it being a privately held business,

0:08:25.080 --> 0:08:27.640
<v Speaker 1>But do we know if eventually people will be pushed

0:08:27.640 --> 0:08:30.760
<v Speaker 1>to make that payment. You know, analysts I've talked to

0:08:30.760 --> 0:08:32.719
<v Speaker 1>you and people in industry don't think that it will

0:08:32.760 --> 0:08:35.960
<v Speaker 1>really push the needle. We don't really know the latest numbers. Again,

0:08:35.960 --> 0:08:37.960
<v Speaker 1>it is a private company, so it's hard to tell.

0:08:38.120 --> 0:08:41.480
<v Speaker 1>There's some independent researchers that are tracking it, but from

0:08:41.520 --> 0:08:43.600
<v Speaker 1>what we know, it's less than three hundred thousand people.

0:08:44.160 --> 0:08:46.000
<v Speaker 1>We want to thank you staying on top of all

0:08:46.040 --> 0:08:47.839
<v Speaker 1>things social and I accounts. Great to have you one

0:08:47.920 --> 0:08:51.160
<v Speaker 1>once again. Meanwhile, let's talk about another form of social communication.

0:08:51.200 --> 0:08:54.720
<v Speaker 1>Former President Donald Trump said on truth Social a post

0:08:54.800 --> 0:08:57.160
<v Speaker 1>that he plans to leave mar Alago at noon today

0:08:57.240 --> 0:09:00.720
<v Speaker 1>to fly to New York ahead of his historic arraignment Inhattan. Courtroom.

0:09:00.760 --> 0:09:03.920
<v Speaker 1>That's tomorrow. Make Simone, Foxman is outside of the court house,

0:09:03.960 --> 0:09:05.800
<v Speaker 1>and Simone, do we know if in that fact he

0:09:05.920 --> 0:09:10.400
<v Speaker 1>is on route. As of yet, we haven't seen any

0:09:10.480 --> 0:09:13.079
<v Speaker 1>reports from the pool that he has actually moved out

0:09:13.160 --> 0:09:16.080
<v Speaker 1>of Marrow Lago, but we do expect him to fly

0:09:16.200 --> 0:09:19.560
<v Speaker 1>to New York later today and then come here to

0:09:19.679 --> 0:09:22.640
<v Speaker 1>Trump Tower behind me, and this is really where some

0:09:22.679 --> 0:09:26.240
<v Speaker 1>of the political theatrics could kick off. You may be

0:09:26.320 --> 0:09:30.120
<v Speaker 1>able to see there are some banners behind me. We've

0:09:30.120 --> 0:09:32.760
<v Speaker 1>seen in the last couple of minutes some Trump supporters

0:09:32.800 --> 0:09:35.600
<v Speaker 1>walking with banners and kind of lining up over there,

0:09:35.640 --> 0:09:38.920
<v Speaker 1>but there are barricades all around us. Then, of course,

0:09:39.280 --> 0:09:42.360
<v Speaker 1>the big event is when he goes south to the

0:09:42.559 --> 0:09:48.400
<v Speaker 1>DA's office to the courthouse to be arraigned, expected tomorrow afternoon. Simone,

0:09:48.480 --> 0:09:51.120
<v Speaker 1>as you say, now, moved across to Trump Tower and

0:09:51.160 --> 0:09:55.040
<v Speaker 1>looks busy. It looks like people embracing themselves. And this

0:09:55.120 --> 0:09:57.480
<v Speaker 1>is something that you've continued to report on throughout the show.

0:09:57.559 --> 0:09:59.679
<v Speaker 1>It does become a technology story in many ways, just

0:09:59.760 --> 0:10:02.760
<v Speaker 1>the in which news is consume nowadays, well very much

0:10:03.000 --> 0:10:05.040
<v Speaker 1>because you look at the stock reaction in those sort

0:10:05.080 --> 0:10:08.280
<v Speaker 1>of conservative social media platforms. They will rose Friday. I

0:10:08.320 --> 0:10:10.320
<v Speaker 1>think some of the games being given up. Now, what

0:10:10.360 --> 0:10:13.360
<v Speaker 1>we were discussing is that Trump is using true socials

0:10:13.440 --> 0:10:15.960
<v Speaker 1>communicate in real time. The rest of the world is

0:10:15.960 --> 0:10:19.600
<v Speaker 1>discussing this Simon on Twitter. Go back to the basis

0:10:19.640 --> 0:10:22.080
<v Speaker 1>for what's to come. His lawyer was pretty clear he

0:10:22.160 --> 0:10:28.120
<v Speaker 1>will hand himself in essentially, and what process happens after that. Yeah,

0:10:28.160 --> 0:10:32.440
<v Speaker 1>so essentially we're expecting him to go to the Supreme

0:10:32.480 --> 0:10:36.599
<v Speaker 1>Court House downtown. There. We don't know actually whether or

0:10:36.640 --> 0:10:38.679
<v Speaker 1>not he will walk in the front door, whether he's

0:10:38.679 --> 0:10:41.400
<v Speaker 1>going to try and stage some sort of perp walk

0:10:41.440 --> 0:10:45.080
<v Speaker 1>that he could use again for those fundraising efforts to

0:10:45.080 --> 0:10:46.959
<v Speaker 1>try and paint himself as a victim. But he will

0:10:47.040 --> 0:10:51.160
<v Speaker 1>go in there, we'll get fingerprinted, He'll likely have to

0:10:51.160 --> 0:10:53.480
<v Speaker 1>take some sort of mugshot photo, and then he'll go

0:10:53.559 --> 0:10:57.320
<v Speaker 1>upstairs where this arrangement will take place. After that, he

0:10:57.360 --> 0:11:01.000
<v Speaker 1>intends to leave New York City pretty quickly though, fly

0:11:01.120 --> 0:11:04.400
<v Speaker 1>back tomorrow lago, and then there will be a press

0:11:04.440 --> 0:11:07.720
<v Speaker 1>conference tomorrow evening, and of course at that time we'll

0:11:07.760 --> 0:11:10.760
<v Speaker 1>actually know what these charges are. They remain under seal,

0:11:11.080 --> 0:11:15.680
<v Speaker 1>and surely thereafter we will get Donald Trump's response, we

0:11:15.760 --> 0:11:19.560
<v Speaker 1>will cover every development here on Bloomberg Television, Bloomberg's own Foxman,

0:11:19.640 --> 0:11:29.839
<v Speaker 1>thank you. Out in the field reporting M and A

0:11:29.960 --> 0:11:33.560
<v Speaker 1>Monday shares a WWE sliding after Endeavor agreed to buy

0:11:33.600 --> 0:11:35.440
<v Speaker 1>the company from nine point three billion dollars if that's

0:11:35.480 --> 0:11:39.880
<v Speaker 1>including debt. WWE will combine with Endeava's Ultimate Fighting Championship

0:11:40.120 --> 0:11:41.880
<v Speaker 1>to form a new company that's going to be listed

0:11:41.880 --> 0:11:44.240
<v Speaker 1>on the New York Stock Exchange, joining US. Now for

0:11:44.360 --> 0:11:46.959
<v Speaker 1>more Spoomberg's Lucas Shaw, who, unfortunately for him, had a

0:11:47.000 --> 0:11:50.760
<v Speaker 1>busy weekend. I'm sure Lucas for the scoopman Ari Emmanuel

0:11:50.880 --> 0:11:53.480
<v Speaker 1>of Endeavor saying they will create a global life sports

0:11:53.480 --> 0:11:56.559
<v Speaker 1>and entertainment peel Play built where the industry is headed.

0:11:56.600 --> 0:12:01.120
<v Speaker 1>Where's it's headed? Well, look, they have the biggest mixed

0:12:01.120 --> 0:12:04.120
<v Speaker 1>martial arts league in the world in the Ultimate Fighting Championship,

0:12:04.160 --> 0:12:07.320
<v Speaker 1>and they now have WWE, which, while not technically a sport,

0:12:07.360 --> 0:12:10.360
<v Speaker 1>you know, it's scripted entertainment. It performs much in the

0:12:10.400 --> 0:12:13.600
<v Speaker 1>same way from a media perspective because people do show

0:12:13.679 --> 0:12:15.720
<v Speaker 1>up to watch it live, and then the ways it

0:12:15.720 --> 0:12:18.120
<v Speaker 1>makes money are very similar to UFC. You know, you

0:12:18.120 --> 0:12:20.319
<v Speaker 1>think about it. In UFC makes money from media deals,

0:12:20.320 --> 0:12:22.079
<v Speaker 1>it makes money from ticket sales, and it makes money

0:12:22.120 --> 0:12:25.040
<v Speaker 1>from sponsorships. WWE is the exact same way, and I

0:12:25.040 --> 0:12:27.560
<v Speaker 1>think they see an opportunity to sort of leverage that

0:12:27.760 --> 0:12:32.320
<v Speaker 1>combine scale in negotiations with sponsorships, certainly, and then to

0:12:32.360 --> 0:12:35.760
<v Speaker 1>find efficiencies and things like staging the events. I think

0:12:35.800 --> 0:12:38.240
<v Speaker 1>when you think about the media landscape, Lucas, you know,

0:12:38.280 --> 0:12:42.040
<v Speaker 1>many of the broadcast networks fight over being able to

0:12:42.040 --> 0:12:44.839
<v Speaker 1>show WWE. Do we have any sense of how things

0:12:44.920 --> 0:12:47.880
<v Speaker 1>now change, how they expand the offering, how they make

0:12:47.920 --> 0:12:52.040
<v Speaker 1>it more digital. You know, it's too soon to know that,

0:12:52.240 --> 0:12:54.800
<v Speaker 1>But if you look back in time, there was a

0:12:54.840 --> 0:12:58.520
<v Speaker 1>point where the WWE created its own streaming service and

0:12:58.600 --> 0:13:01.240
<v Speaker 1>then after a couple of years, decided that that wasn't

0:13:01.240 --> 0:13:03.600
<v Speaker 1>the best idea and was better to just distribute it

0:13:03.800 --> 0:13:06.640
<v Speaker 1>via the major players. So it has deals on linear

0:13:06.679 --> 0:13:09.440
<v Speaker 1>TV with the USA Network and Fox, and then it

0:13:09.480 --> 0:13:12.679
<v Speaker 1>has a streaming deal with Peacock. The TV deals are

0:13:12.760 --> 0:13:16.000
<v Speaker 1>coming up, the negotiations or we're actually supposed to start

0:13:16.080 --> 0:13:20.000
<v Speaker 1>kind of this past weekend with WrestleMania. I imagine that

0:13:20.040 --> 0:13:22.800
<v Speaker 1>now the endeavor folks will have a lot of thoughts

0:13:22.800 --> 0:13:24.760
<v Speaker 1>on what that should do. But if you look in

0:13:25.280 --> 0:13:27.760
<v Speaker 1>kind of Ri Emmanuel's track record and Mark Shapiro, who's

0:13:27.760 --> 0:13:29.840
<v Speaker 1>the president of Endeavor, you know, one of the ways

0:13:29.840 --> 0:13:32.280
<v Speaker 1>they built USC into a huge business because there were

0:13:32.320 --> 0:13:35.000
<v Speaker 1>doubts people thought that maybe they had overpaid for UFC.

0:13:35.440 --> 0:13:39.120
<v Speaker 1>Was they struct these huge deals with ESPN, And I

0:13:39.120 --> 0:13:41.840
<v Speaker 1>think they'll be able to do something similar with WWE,

0:13:41.840 --> 0:13:43.880
<v Speaker 1>depending on who the partner is. When I talk about

0:13:43.880 --> 0:13:46.720
<v Speaker 1>the owner of ESPN, because it's an all important annual

0:13:46.720 --> 0:13:51.760
<v Speaker 1>general meeting about to be upon us Lucas. Yeah. You know, look,

0:13:52.080 --> 0:13:55.400
<v Speaker 1>Disney is going through a very strange moment right now,

0:13:55.600 --> 0:13:59.359
<v Speaker 1>or perhaps an unsettling moment for investors and for employees.

0:14:00.000 --> 0:14:01.880
<v Speaker 1>You know, they're in the midst of laying off about

0:14:01.920 --> 0:14:04.280
<v Speaker 1>seven thousand employees. They did sort of one round of

0:14:04.320 --> 0:14:06.400
<v Speaker 1>that in the past couple of weeks, with much bigger

0:14:06.440 --> 0:14:09.640
<v Speaker 1>rounds to come. And then you know, current CEO Bob

0:14:09.760 --> 0:14:13.280
<v Speaker 1>Iger is both trying to restructure the company and restore

0:14:13.400 --> 0:14:16.160
<v Speaker 1>faith in it after some of the damage done by

0:14:16.200 --> 0:14:19.320
<v Speaker 1>his predecessor, Bob Chapeck, while simultaneously thinking about who his

0:14:19.400 --> 0:14:23.800
<v Speaker 1>successor should be. All Right, Bloomberg's Lucas Shure, who leads

0:14:24.040 --> 0:14:27.240
<v Speaker 1>our streaming screen time coverage. Thank you. Now, coming up

0:14:27.280 --> 0:14:30.120
<v Speaker 1>from byte Dance to Micron, Apple and beyond, we'll bring

0:14:30.120 --> 0:14:32.920
<v Speaker 1>you the headlines that you need to know in talking tech.

0:14:33.080 --> 0:14:36.080
<v Speaker 1>Speaking of take a look at shares of Micron. What

0:14:36.080 --> 0:14:39.000
<v Speaker 1>we've seen Caro in the last four sessions or so

0:14:39.200 --> 0:14:43.280
<v Speaker 1>is retaliation from China in terms of pushing back on

0:14:43.360 --> 0:14:46.520
<v Speaker 1>technology restrictions, a sort of tip attack. What the United

0:14:46.560 --> 0:14:50.360
<v Speaker 1>States is doing. Micron lower by one and a half percent.

0:14:50.400 --> 0:15:10.360
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg time for talking tech, Starting with Apple

0:15:10.600 --> 0:15:14.080
<v Speaker 1>basing a billion dollar trial over its Apple Watch secrets

0:15:14.120 --> 0:15:17.280
<v Speaker 1>medical devices make a Massimo is taking the case before

0:15:17.320 --> 0:15:20.480
<v Speaker 1>a federal jury in California this week after claiming Apple

0:15:20.560 --> 0:15:24.880
<v Speaker 1>used confidential information from two former executives it hired in

0:15:24.960 --> 0:15:27.920
<v Speaker 1>certain functions and designs of its flagship Apple Watch. We

0:15:27.960 --> 0:15:31.480
<v Speaker 1>will track that trial. Revenue of TikTok's parent company, Bite

0:15:31.560 --> 0:15:35.120
<v Speaker 1>Dance surge more than thirty percent to surpass eighty billion

0:15:35.240 --> 0:15:37.880
<v Speaker 1>US dollars in twenty twenty two. That matches the tally

0:15:38.120 --> 0:15:41.800
<v Speaker 1>at arch rival ten Cent and surpasses many internet firms.

0:15:41.840 --> 0:15:45.360
<v Speaker 1>That pace of expansion underscores the resilience of Bite Dance

0:15:45.520 --> 0:15:48.080
<v Speaker 1>this business, even at a time when Washington's threatened to

0:15:48.200 --> 0:15:52.320
<v Speaker 1>join India in banning TikTok and Beijing launching a probe

0:15:52.320 --> 0:15:55.720
<v Speaker 1>into Micron, opening a new front in Beijing's chip war

0:15:56.000 --> 0:15:58.800
<v Speaker 1>with the US and Chinese chip related stocks really advancing

0:15:58.960 --> 0:16:02.080
<v Speaker 1>amid optimism that they will benefit from the nation's growing

0:16:02.360 --> 0:16:05.600
<v Speaker 1>self reliance and it's push after Beijing launched that probe

0:16:05.800 --> 0:16:10.040
<v Speaker 1>into Micron technology, Caroline well from China to the Bay

0:16:10.080 --> 0:16:11.840
<v Speaker 1>Area because we want to dig in a little bit

0:16:11.880 --> 0:16:15.320
<v Speaker 1>more and where you are currently well residing in because

0:16:15.360 --> 0:16:18.000
<v Speaker 1>it's been hit hard. We know San Francisco by the pandemic.

0:16:18.080 --> 0:16:20.200
<v Speaker 1>It's had a half time coming back as tech workers

0:16:20.320 --> 0:16:22.800
<v Speaker 1>just kept working from home. They left many of the

0:16:22.840 --> 0:16:25.520
<v Speaker 1>downtown perhaps emptier than many would have liked. And now

0:16:26.000 --> 0:16:28.440
<v Speaker 1>that old school bang run that turned the tech hub

0:16:28.520 --> 0:16:31.640
<v Speaker 1>into the center of the financial termil has just of

0:16:31.680 --> 0:16:35.280
<v Speaker 1>course still hit a city when it's down. Bloomberg San

0:16:35.320 --> 0:16:38.800
<v Speaker 1>Francisco Bureau chief Karen Breslau is with us for more

0:16:38.920 --> 0:16:41.480
<v Speaker 1>on what does this mean for San Francisco's future. You've

0:16:41.480 --> 0:16:44.240
<v Speaker 1>got a beautifully written, really thought provoking peace on the

0:16:44.320 --> 0:16:48.280
<v Speaker 1>terminal today. Thank you, Caroline. I think the storms that

0:16:48.320 --> 0:16:51.880
<v Speaker 1>have pounded the city NonStop since January really are a

0:16:51.920 --> 0:16:55.480
<v Speaker 1>metaphor for the storm of bad news that just has

0:16:55.560 --> 0:16:58.000
<v Speaker 1>hit this city over and over. I mean talked about

0:16:58.840 --> 0:17:01.760
<v Speaker 1>the you know, the bus hitting the city. Obviously, the

0:17:01.760 --> 0:17:05.600
<v Speaker 1>tech downturn was one thing, but then we had SVB

0:17:06.119 --> 0:17:10.000
<v Speaker 1>and the shakiness and the banking sector. We have the

0:17:10.040 --> 0:17:16.399
<v Speaker 1>affordability crisis, a public safety crisis and it is and

0:17:16.480 --> 0:17:19.119
<v Speaker 1>the fact that this is a city where, you know,

0:17:19.160 --> 0:17:22.000
<v Speaker 1>return to office rates are the lowest in the United States.

0:17:22.040 --> 0:17:24.520
<v Speaker 1>So it's just all hit the city at once. It's

0:17:24.560 --> 0:17:27.200
<v Speaker 1>a triple whammy. We're looking at live pictures facing down

0:17:27.200 --> 0:17:31.800
<v Speaker 1>the embarked arrow towards downtown. Two key data points, occupancy

0:17:32.160 --> 0:17:34.840
<v Speaker 1>and unemployment. What have you learned in our report take, Well,

0:17:34.840 --> 0:17:37.760
<v Speaker 1>there's a paradox there. Occupancy is a is a really

0:17:37.920 --> 0:17:41.640
<v Speaker 1>shocking twenty nine point seven percent, the highest anywhere, right,

0:17:41.680 --> 0:17:44.040
<v Speaker 1>twenty nine point seven percent of those buildings, nearly a

0:17:44.119 --> 0:17:47.919
<v Speaker 1>third are empty, and yet the unemployment rate in the

0:17:47.960 --> 0:17:51.959
<v Speaker 1>city is two point eight percent. So that is the

0:17:51.960 --> 0:17:55.119
<v Speaker 1>paradox of San Francisco. That you have so much innovation

0:17:55.280 --> 0:18:00.280
<v Speaker 1>self employment startups, and those typically are not company in

0:18:00.280 --> 0:18:03.160
<v Speaker 1>those early stages that need these giant officers. I've called

0:18:03.200 --> 0:18:06.160
<v Speaker 1>this city home for five years now, Caroline has lived

0:18:06.160 --> 0:18:09.760
<v Speaker 1>in this city. We ask ourselves the same questions, one

0:18:09.840 --> 0:18:12.000
<v Speaker 1>crisis at a different time. You spoke to the mayor,

0:18:12.680 --> 0:18:14.840
<v Speaker 1>what's her proposal to fix all of this in the

0:18:14.880 --> 0:18:17.400
<v Speaker 1>long term health? Well, her proposal, I mean she heard

0:18:17.480 --> 0:18:20.040
<v Speaker 1>her job is to be the cheerleader, and I thought

0:18:20.080 --> 0:18:22.680
<v Speaker 1>she she she gave a you know, a noble effort.

0:18:23.600 --> 0:18:28.080
<v Speaker 1>What she has talked about relentlessly is diversification. She has

0:18:28.200 --> 0:18:33.040
<v Speaker 1>always argued that this overreliance on the tech sector is

0:18:33.119 --> 0:18:35.680
<v Speaker 1>dangerous for San Francisco's economy. Of course she's right, She's

0:18:35.680 --> 0:18:39.120
<v Speaker 1>not the first person to have that observation, But she

0:18:39.760 --> 0:18:46.280
<v Speaker 1>wants to attract bioscience, life science. Tourism converts some of

0:18:46.280 --> 0:18:51.240
<v Speaker 1>these empty towers into housing, which would you know, basically

0:18:51.560 --> 0:18:54.679
<v Speaker 1>deal with two crises at once, yet is incredibly expensive

0:18:55.280 --> 0:18:59.520
<v Speaker 1>and doesn't always pencil out, so um, you know in

0:18:59.640 --> 0:19:01.600
<v Speaker 1>lord tourists. So all of that is going to take

0:19:01.640 --> 0:19:03.560
<v Speaker 1>a clean up and a perception that this is a

0:19:03.600 --> 0:19:07.280
<v Speaker 1>safe and beautiful city, and it certainly is beautiful can't

0:19:07.320 --> 0:19:09.760
<v Speaker 1>argue with that. It is it's going to take a

0:19:09.760 --> 0:19:13.119
<v Speaker 1>big marketing campaign to remind everyone of that. And the

0:19:13.160 --> 0:19:16.840
<v Speaker 1>tourists are back, ye coming, and it feels like and

0:19:16.920 --> 0:19:19.159
<v Speaker 1>that's what's sort of Also the juxtaposition here is that

0:19:19.200 --> 0:19:21.440
<v Speaker 1>when you're in some of the areas that tourists are busy,

0:19:21.480 --> 0:19:24.159
<v Speaker 1>it feels thriving, the restaurants are busy and humming. But

0:19:24.200 --> 0:19:27.160
<v Speaker 1>then you go to downtown and does feel emptier? Will

0:19:27.480 --> 0:19:30.480
<v Speaker 1>somehow the neighborhoods are hopping, well, will they feel even

0:19:30.480 --> 0:19:33.320
<v Speaker 1>emptier if you're getting meta againting some of the key

0:19:33.440 --> 0:19:37.560
<v Speaker 1>tech companies doing layoffs as well. I think it is

0:19:37.600 --> 0:19:40.040
<v Speaker 1>so empty right now, it's hard to imagine, you know,

0:19:40.119 --> 0:19:45.479
<v Speaker 1>another few thousand missing from downtown. And those employees are

0:19:45.480 --> 0:19:47.679
<v Speaker 1>also distributed, some of them in San Francisco, some of

0:19:47.720 --> 0:19:50.639
<v Speaker 1>them are at the company's headquarters south of here in

0:19:50.680 --> 0:19:54.960
<v Speaker 1>San Mateo County. But I think what has to happen is,

0:19:55.600 --> 0:19:58.679
<v Speaker 1>you know, pretty soon as the prices plummet right for

0:19:58.720 --> 0:20:01.719
<v Speaker 1>this commercial will estate, there will be a value proposition

0:20:01.880 --> 0:20:05.199
<v Speaker 1>and somebody, you know, some companies will move in the

0:20:05.280 --> 0:20:08.119
<v Speaker 1>neighborhoods are hopping. We talk about that in the story,

0:20:08.880 --> 0:20:12.119
<v Speaker 1>particularly around Hayes Valley, which is now AI Valley or

0:20:12.320 --> 0:20:16.159
<v Speaker 1>Cerebral Valley pick the brain part. Yeah, but there is action,

0:20:16.280 --> 0:20:19.680
<v Speaker 1>as Karen Bresler, who leads our coverage to California, thank

0:20:19.720 --> 0:20:22.240
<v Speaker 1>you know, coming up all things AI experts calling for

0:20:22.240 --> 0:20:25.439
<v Speaker 1>a whole to next gen development. Europe growing more cautious.

0:20:25.480 --> 0:20:27.360
<v Speaker 1>We're gonna have all the details. Were quite a big

0:20:27.440 --> 0:20:41.720
<v Speaker 1>name in the sector, Caroline, this is Bloomberg. I really

0:20:41.720 --> 0:20:45.000
<v Speaker 1>care about access and also a reinforcement of bias. But

0:20:45.320 --> 0:20:48.040
<v Speaker 1>the thing to do is to address these concerns in

0:20:48.200 --> 0:20:51.399
<v Speaker 1>like a open and transparent way, not to call for

0:20:51.440 --> 0:20:56.359
<v Speaker 1>a hall to development. Welcome back to Boomberg Technology. I'm Caroline,

0:20:56.400 --> 0:20:59.399
<v Speaker 1>had a Niel and I made Ludlow in San Francisco.

0:20:59.480 --> 0:21:02.440
<v Speaker 1>That was Fiction founder Sarah Gaw. They're saying it's important

0:21:02.440 --> 0:21:06.239
<v Speaker 1>to keep experimentation open and going in generative AI. Her

0:21:06.240 --> 0:21:10.120
<v Speaker 1>comment comes after more than a thousand AI experts industry

0:21:10.160 --> 0:21:13.639
<v Speaker 1>participants signed a petition calling for a temporary halt to

0:21:13.720 --> 0:21:17.920
<v Speaker 1>developing the next generation of AI tools. One of them

0:21:18.080 --> 0:21:21.439
<v Speaker 1>Kevin Barragoner, founder of the artificial intelligence text to image

0:21:21.440 --> 0:21:24.600
<v Speaker 1>generator deep AI, who joins me on set in San Francisco.

0:21:25.400 --> 0:21:30.000
<v Speaker 1>Why did you sign the petition? So the petition calls

0:21:30.200 --> 0:21:34.480
<v Speaker 1>for a halt to the development of extremely large generative

0:21:34.520 --> 0:21:37.960
<v Speaker 1>models like the GPD five that's in development, and this

0:21:40.160 --> 0:21:44.480
<v Speaker 1>is an incredibly disruptive technology. We don't even really know

0:21:44.600 --> 0:21:46.800
<v Speaker 1>what it will be capable of, but what we do

0:21:46.920 --> 0:21:52.879
<v Speaker 1>know is most likely advanced reasoning capabilities similar to the

0:21:52.960 --> 0:21:56.480
<v Speaker 1>human brain. So in a sense, this is just too disruptive.

0:21:56.800 --> 0:21:59.560
<v Speaker 1>I think for the current moment, there's no reason we

0:21:59.600 --> 0:22:03.160
<v Speaker 1>should really be building it right now. What's being proposed

0:22:03.280 --> 0:22:06.480
<v Speaker 1>is a six month halt in order to established a

0:22:06.560 --> 0:22:09.720
<v Speaker 1>shared set of safety protocols. There are names from all

0:22:09.720 --> 0:22:12.040
<v Speaker 1>at around the world. How do you make a six

0:22:12.080 --> 0:22:16.840
<v Speaker 1>month holt happen where all the stakeholders comply. It's an

0:22:16.920 --> 0:22:21.760
<v Speaker 1>uphill battle, certainly. I don't think even the creators of

0:22:21.800 --> 0:22:26.439
<v Speaker 1>the letter are overly optimistic. It's a big coordination problem.

0:22:26.560 --> 0:22:32.320
<v Speaker 1>But we're hopeful that all the parties around the world

0:22:32.359 --> 0:22:34.960
<v Speaker 1>will see the benefit of this type of pause, which

0:22:34.960 --> 0:22:37.760
<v Speaker 1>I don't think holds back technology more broadly. You know,

0:22:37.960 --> 0:22:41.400
<v Speaker 1>Caroline Kevin is a participant in this industry. Last week

0:22:41.400 --> 0:22:44.160
<v Speaker 1>we had VCS academics who all basically said the same,

0:22:44.640 --> 0:22:47.800
<v Speaker 1>This is really hard to pull off six months get

0:22:47.800 --> 0:22:52.119
<v Speaker 1>everyone to participate. Can I be Kevin? Therefore, just digging

0:22:52.119 --> 0:22:55.320
<v Speaker 1>a little bit as to why you, a founder of DPAI,

0:22:55.440 --> 0:22:58.840
<v Speaker 1>are saying this because could I be led to believe

0:22:58.880 --> 0:23:01.440
<v Speaker 1>that in some way open ar is a competitive threat

0:23:01.480 --> 0:23:05.639
<v Speaker 1>to you? Well, certainly they are a competitor, We have

0:23:05.720 --> 0:23:11.840
<v Speaker 1>many competitors. I don't think it's because they're a competitive threat.

0:23:13.000 --> 0:23:15.680
<v Speaker 1>And I think that this technology is so powerful it's

0:23:15.720 --> 0:23:19.960
<v Speaker 1>not going to matter who owns it or even which

0:23:20.040 --> 0:23:22.840
<v Speaker 1>country it's built in. What matters most is that it's

0:23:23.000 --> 0:23:26.680
<v Speaker 1>built at all. This is such an incredibly powerful technology

0:23:26.840 --> 0:23:31.280
<v Speaker 1>that I've started calling it the nuclear weapons of software. Okay, Kevin,

0:23:31.600 --> 0:23:33.280
<v Speaker 1>I'm going to dive back from that a little bit

0:23:33.359 --> 0:23:37.320
<v Speaker 1>because we've had academics like Emily Bender of University of

0:23:37.400 --> 0:23:40.280
<v Speaker 1>Washington on saying, look, when you are using even the

0:23:40.359 --> 0:23:45.040
<v Speaker 1>turn of phrase artificial intelligence, it just keeps doubling down

0:23:45.119 --> 0:23:47.720
<v Speaker 1>on the hype. It keeps reinforcing of you that this

0:23:47.880 --> 0:23:51.600
<v Speaker 1>is in some way a competitive to human thought. And

0:23:51.680 --> 0:23:55.680
<v Speaker 1>then actually, look, this is a worry about disinformation, yes,

0:23:56.160 --> 0:23:59.520
<v Speaker 1>but the overall power of large language models, it's Basically,

0:24:00.119 --> 0:24:03.560
<v Speaker 1>it makes sense to usk because we make it intelligent.

0:24:04.200 --> 0:24:07.080
<v Speaker 1>What do you say to that, to the stochastic power argument,

0:24:07.160 --> 0:24:12.080
<v Speaker 1>for example, I think they're rather hollow. I think these

0:24:12.200 --> 0:24:16.320
<v Speaker 1>models are absolutely intelligent. They're very general, they have advanced

0:24:16.440 --> 0:24:21.800
<v Speaker 1>reasoning capabilities in many ways that are already superhuman, and

0:24:22.160 --> 0:24:25.879
<v Speaker 1>it won't be long before they're superhuman and almost everything,

0:24:26.000 --> 0:24:31.000
<v Speaker 1>just predicting the next word, we might use, hm, that's correct,

0:24:32.200 --> 0:24:39.440
<v Speaker 1>How is that superhuman? Well, these models they know more

0:24:39.520 --> 0:24:43.440
<v Speaker 1>than any single human, and they can recall the information

0:24:43.560 --> 0:24:48.000
<v Speaker 1>much quicker, and then they have very similar reasoning capabilities

0:24:49.359 --> 0:24:52.879
<v Speaker 1>to a human. Kevin, you're a signature to Petitian. We

0:24:53.000 --> 0:24:55.680
<v Speaker 1>thank you for coming on answering our questions. Many of

0:24:55.760 --> 0:24:59.719
<v Speaker 1>those signatories did not. There is an argument I'm going

0:24:59.760 --> 0:25:02.840
<v Speaker 1>back to this Is this, sour great? Is this you

0:25:02.960 --> 0:25:06.879
<v Speaker 1>collectively recognizing open ai is so far ahead that you

0:25:07.000 --> 0:25:10.119
<v Speaker 1>need a six month period to catch up? Oh? Absolutely not.

0:25:12.240 --> 0:25:15.520
<v Speaker 1>We're super impressed with what they've built. We're actually huge

0:25:15.600 --> 0:25:19.320
<v Speaker 1>fans of them. We don't like view them as a threat. Particularly,

0:25:21.080 --> 0:25:24.639
<v Speaker 1>we just think that this technology is way too disruptive

0:25:24.680 --> 0:25:28.119
<v Speaker 1>for its own good in the present moment. Well, quickly,

0:25:28.160 --> 0:25:29.960
<v Speaker 1>I want to ask you what good has come out

0:25:30.000 --> 0:25:33.320
<v Speaker 1>of this in the last five days. I think it's

0:25:33.600 --> 0:25:37.760
<v Speaker 1>a great conversation starter. It's getting the world thinking in

0:25:37.880 --> 0:25:41.399
<v Speaker 1>the right terms because this is this is not just

0:25:41.600 --> 0:25:45.280
<v Speaker 1>like creating a new social network. This is a incredibly

0:25:45.480 --> 0:25:49.399
<v Speaker 1>disruptive new technology. I would almost like in the global issue,

0:25:50.200 --> 0:25:52.440
<v Speaker 1>almost like climate change, and that we have like a

0:25:52.880 --> 0:25:57.400
<v Speaker 1>tragedy of the comments where all of the leading AI

0:25:57.520 --> 0:26:00.719
<v Speaker 1>labs know they're creating something dangerous, but none of them

0:26:00.800 --> 0:26:04.760
<v Speaker 1>really want to stop it. Really thoughtful and thought provoking.

0:26:05.119 --> 0:26:09.000
<v Speaker 1>Thank you Kevin Barragona, his Deep ai founder core signatory

0:26:09.480 --> 0:26:21.439
<v Speaker 1>to that key piece to worry about. So the collapse

0:26:21.440 --> 0:26:23.680
<v Speaker 1>of Silicon Valley Bank has sent shock ways throughout the

0:26:23.760 --> 0:26:27.120
<v Speaker 1>banking ecosystem, and it also prompted many startups to seek

0:26:27.200 --> 0:26:30.800
<v Speaker 1>refuge in fintech solutions for support. Let's bringing Andrea Lamari

0:26:30.920 --> 0:26:34.639
<v Speaker 1>from Manhattan Ventures Partners for more on this. Now, and Andrew,

0:26:35.520 --> 0:26:38.920
<v Speaker 1>how much has fintech benefited or have we had to

0:26:39.000 --> 0:26:44.280
<v Speaker 1>raise questions about its foundations and well overall ability to

0:26:44.400 --> 0:26:49.840
<v Speaker 1>handle some of the inbound Yeah. So overall the world

0:26:49.880 --> 0:26:53.440
<v Speaker 1>of fintech and startups has really evolved quite frankly a

0:26:53.520 --> 0:26:56.440
<v Speaker 1>lot in the last few weeks. I would say generally,

0:26:56.520 --> 0:26:59.040
<v Speaker 1>which is so interesting is that we're facing what many

0:26:59.119 --> 0:27:02.880
<v Speaker 1>of us VC call the opposite of the sellery effect.

0:27:03.359 --> 0:27:08.159
<v Speaker 1>So prior to the SVB collapse, liquidity was running rampant, right,

0:27:08.280 --> 0:27:12.400
<v Speaker 1>startups were getting funding all over the place. Nowadays, startups

0:27:12.440 --> 0:27:16.399
<v Speaker 1>are being a lot more cautious around what credit and

0:27:16.600 --> 0:27:20.479
<v Speaker 1>debit looks like for them going forward, and that readily

0:27:20.560 --> 0:27:24.520
<v Speaker 1>available capital just doesn't look as liquid right going forward.

0:27:24.640 --> 0:27:27.879
<v Speaker 1>So jet generally it's a very hard time to be

0:27:28.000 --> 0:27:29.960
<v Speaker 1>a fintech, but there's a lot of solutions coming to

0:27:30.040 --> 0:27:32.520
<v Speaker 1>market that are really exciting. You of course have Clowner

0:27:32.560 --> 0:27:34.840
<v Speaker 1>on your portfolio, you'll have some other as a fintech,

0:27:35.160 --> 0:27:37.720
<v Speaker 1>which will you'll win out Because we've seen the inflows

0:27:37.760 --> 0:27:40.040
<v Speaker 1>to the likes of Brecks and to some of the

0:27:40.119 --> 0:27:42.280
<v Speaker 1>other Mercury banks, are they the ones that are going

0:27:42.320 --> 0:27:46.320
<v Speaker 1>to be winning Yeah, So I would say startups generally

0:27:46.400 --> 0:27:49.399
<v Speaker 1>have an amazing trend of trusting other startups, right. They

0:27:49.480 --> 0:27:52.320
<v Speaker 1>all know that they're in the trenches together. The solutions

0:27:52.400 --> 0:27:57.760
<v Speaker 1>like Klarna Mercury Brecks are offering really good low interest

0:27:57.960 --> 0:28:02.480
<v Speaker 1>rate products for artups to consider to support their banking

0:28:02.840 --> 0:28:05.600
<v Speaker 1>and charter that they need. So I think cash deposits

0:28:05.640 --> 0:28:08.520
<v Speaker 1>are key as well as offering just a really simple

0:28:08.560 --> 0:28:11.680
<v Speaker 1>solution to those end consumers. A lot of this, though,

0:28:11.760 --> 0:28:14.600
<v Speaker 1>of course, said it's about confidence, not only confidence in

0:28:14.680 --> 0:28:16.919
<v Speaker 1>the founders, confidence from the people putting money into these

0:28:16.960 --> 0:28:21.440
<v Speaker 1>fintech's founders, confidence from the VC's writing the checks. Yeah,

0:28:21.560 --> 0:28:23.600
<v Speaker 1>and there is a spectrum of confidence we've had on

0:28:23.680 --> 0:28:27.560
<v Speaker 1>this program, Andrea, across the bench capital community, many actually

0:28:27.600 --> 0:28:31.040
<v Speaker 1>saying no, I'm plowing on, I'm writing checks. Areas like

0:28:31.200 --> 0:28:35.000
<v Speaker 1>artificial intelligence fintech activity. It won't be at twenty twenty

0:28:35.040 --> 0:28:39.040
<v Speaker 1>one levels, but it's still there, is that what you're saying? Yeah, So,

0:28:39.400 --> 0:28:41.720
<v Speaker 1>as the job of a venture capitalist, right, if we

0:28:41.800 --> 0:28:43.960
<v Speaker 1>want to distill it down to its simplest form, our

0:28:44.000 --> 0:28:47.040
<v Speaker 1>job is to write money checks and deploy that capital

0:28:47.440 --> 0:28:49.840
<v Speaker 1>into startups. We can't just sit on it for too long.

0:28:50.080 --> 0:28:53.240
<v Speaker 1>Though the dry powder is still there, the cautious nature

0:28:53.280 --> 0:28:56.960
<v Speaker 1>of running a due diligence process has grown ever more present.

0:28:57.120 --> 0:29:00.160
<v Speaker 1>And I would say just generally the startup. If the

0:29:00.200 --> 0:29:03.080
<v Speaker 1>startups are getting the funding, I would say generally too,

0:29:03.160 --> 0:29:06.200
<v Speaker 1>though it's that they can't just rely on those depth

0:29:06.280 --> 0:29:10.280
<v Speaker 1>facilities anymore as a backstop relative to what they were

0:29:10.360 --> 0:29:14.200
<v Speaker 1>getting in venture equity dollars. So, yeah, the vcs are deploying,

0:29:14.480 --> 0:29:16.560
<v Speaker 1>they just aren't deploying as quickly as you said. Ed

0:29:17.960 --> 0:29:19.640
<v Speaker 1>later in the program, we're going to be talking about

0:29:19.680 --> 0:29:22.480
<v Speaker 1>man's return to the Moon around the moon, at least

0:29:22.480 --> 0:29:26.800
<v Speaker 1>with artemists too. You were quite early, relatively speaking into SpaceX.

0:29:27.280 --> 0:29:30.160
<v Speaker 1>Lots of reports at the moment about the saudis looking

0:29:30.160 --> 0:29:34.040
<v Speaker 1>at investing in SpaceX. What's your read on the valuation

0:29:34.120 --> 0:29:36.680
<v Speaker 1>of that company and why it's still attractive to you.

0:29:38.320 --> 0:29:41.480
<v Speaker 1>So SpaceX overall is one of the strongest companies we

0:29:41.680 --> 0:29:44.400
<v Speaker 1>see in deploying what is going to be some really

0:29:44.520 --> 0:29:48.120
<v Speaker 1>Michigan critical launches, and I think generally where the big

0:29:48.200 --> 0:29:52.360
<v Speaker 1>belief we have in seeing a massive upside potential, though

0:29:52.400 --> 0:29:54.400
<v Speaker 1>obviously it's still a private company and we have to

0:29:54.400 --> 0:29:57.640
<v Speaker 1>see where it goes, is their ability to deploy launches

0:29:57.760 --> 0:30:01.040
<v Speaker 1>successfully at a very high velocity in the coming years.

0:30:01.400 --> 0:30:04.959
<v Speaker 1>I think there's a lot of preeminent positivity around Elon's

0:30:04.960 --> 0:30:07.560
<v Speaker 1>ability to do so, and so far their success rate

0:30:07.880 --> 0:30:11.640
<v Speaker 1>relative to other companies building mission launches has been much

0:30:11.760 --> 0:30:15.560
<v Speaker 1>higher and much more repeatable than others. So overall that

0:30:15.720 --> 0:30:18.040
<v Speaker 1>overhead is still high. They're going to need to keep

0:30:18.120 --> 0:30:21.959
<v Speaker 1>raising money. We definitely imagine several more rounds of venture

0:30:22.040 --> 0:30:25.040
<v Speaker 1>funding to go there. But in terms of success and

0:30:25.120 --> 0:30:28.280
<v Speaker 1>conversion rate to successful launches, it's been elon and we

0:30:28.360 --> 0:30:31.040
<v Speaker 1>continue to believe. So when you are at the moment

0:30:31.600 --> 0:30:33.720
<v Speaker 1>seeing companies having to raise money, a lot of them

0:30:33.840 --> 0:30:36.239
<v Speaker 1>are doing it either at flat valuations, some of them

0:30:36.280 --> 0:30:39.200
<v Speaker 1>doing down rounds. We are hearing those of some companies

0:30:39.240 --> 0:30:41.280
<v Speaker 1>that have cut their valuations from a fourign nine a

0:30:41.400 --> 0:30:43.400
<v Speaker 1>perspective and then maybe trying to raise them again. I

0:30:43.480 --> 0:30:46.400
<v Speaker 1>know instacots in your portfolio. What do you make of well,

0:30:46.480 --> 0:30:49.640
<v Speaker 1>companies that are having to realign the benchmark of how

0:30:49.680 --> 0:30:53.040
<v Speaker 1>you value them. Yeah, so I would say generally, right,

0:30:53.320 --> 0:30:56.880
<v Speaker 1>that concept of the foreign nina or that internal valuation

0:30:57.080 --> 0:31:00.360
<v Speaker 1>that start upset is something that they utilize to create

0:31:00.440 --> 0:31:05.360
<v Speaker 1>a price to issue stock options to new incoming employees. Now, initially,

0:31:05.440 --> 0:31:09.600
<v Speaker 1>when startups start doing that value they do it typically

0:31:09.640 --> 0:31:12.240
<v Speaker 1>about once a year. Then, as a company grows and

0:31:12.280 --> 0:31:16.120
<v Speaker 1>it gets closer to a formal exit event, that valuation

0:31:16.360 --> 0:31:19.959
<v Speaker 1>and that four ownA is typically done typically more often

0:31:20.040 --> 0:31:21.959
<v Speaker 1>than once a year, two or three times a year.

0:31:22.320 --> 0:31:25.240
<v Speaker 1>So what that means is a company like instacart might

0:31:25.400 --> 0:31:28.680
<v Speaker 1>be doing their valuation reporting based on obviously the reports,

0:31:28.680 --> 0:31:31.360
<v Speaker 1>we're seeing a lot more than once a year in

0:31:31.520 --> 0:31:34.320
<v Speaker 1>that level of frequency. So with that said, we definitely

0:31:34.440 --> 0:31:39.400
<v Speaker 1>expect companies who experience high growth in quarterly increments or

0:31:39.440 --> 0:31:42.920
<v Speaker 1>even in half year increments to see that fluctuation in

0:31:43.040 --> 0:31:46.720
<v Speaker 1>their internal four and A valuations as material things and

0:31:47.320 --> 0:31:50.400
<v Speaker 1>milestones happen within a company, So I would definitely expect

0:31:50.440 --> 0:31:53.200
<v Speaker 1>that we see that kind of gyration happen across many

0:31:53.280 --> 0:31:55.920
<v Speaker 1>of the later stage startups that are doing more frequent

0:31:56.040 --> 0:32:01.160
<v Speaker 1>four ownin as how close for instacot is an exit? Therefore,

0:32:01.200 --> 0:32:04.520
<v Speaker 1>do you think? Well, generally, you know, as I said,

0:32:04.560 --> 0:32:06.440
<v Speaker 1>the closer you do get to an exit, the more

0:32:06.600 --> 0:32:10.760
<v Speaker 1>frequent these foreigner evaluations do occur internally. So I would

0:32:10.800 --> 0:32:13.240
<v Speaker 1>say typically companies that are on the cusp of a

0:32:13.480 --> 0:32:16.600
<v Speaker 1>one year out to give or take duration do make

0:32:16.720 --> 0:32:20.080
<v Speaker 1>sense to be doing those valuations at this level of frequency,

0:32:20.240 --> 0:32:23.480
<v Speaker 1>So that seems likely. I think a company like Instacart,

0:32:23.560 --> 0:32:25.880
<v Speaker 1>like many others in the late stage, have really stacked

0:32:25.920 --> 0:32:29.000
<v Speaker 1>their executive team and their product suite to be ready

0:32:29.080 --> 0:32:32.000
<v Speaker 1>to face the public market and provide a really compelling

0:32:32.320 --> 0:32:35.800
<v Speaker 1>narrative going into their IPO. So I think generally everyone's

0:32:35.800 --> 0:32:38.440
<v Speaker 1>just rooting for them, and if it's not them, then

0:32:38.560 --> 0:32:40.760
<v Speaker 1>one of the other large late stage companies to come

0:32:40.800 --> 0:32:43.680
<v Speaker 1>in and be a strong catalyst for the IPO growth

0:32:43.760 --> 0:32:47.440
<v Speaker 1>this year Manhattan, ben Ja Parton as Andrew Lamar, grateful

0:32:47.440 --> 0:32:50.880
<v Speaker 1>for your time coming rust from Frederico. Thank you now.

0:32:50.920 --> 0:32:54.320
<v Speaker 1>A bipartisan group of US lawmakers is taking their concerns

0:32:54.360 --> 0:32:57.120
<v Speaker 1>about China to California this week, where they plan to

0:32:57.160 --> 0:33:00.440
<v Speaker 1>meet with top tech and entertainment executives as well as

0:33:00.480 --> 0:33:03.880
<v Speaker 1>with Taiwan President sighing when. The group is being led

0:33:03.960 --> 0:33:07.040
<v Speaker 1>by Representative Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin, who chairs a new

0:33:07.120 --> 0:33:09.640
<v Speaker 1>House panel focused on China, and it will meet on

0:33:09.760 --> 0:33:13.880
<v Speaker 1>Thursday with some prominent vcs including Mark Andreeson and theod COOSLA,

0:33:14.120 --> 0:33:17.560
<v Speaker 1>as well as executives from Google, Microsoft and Palenter and

0:33:18.480 --> 0:33:21.600
<v Speaker 1>Apple Zone CEO Tim Kirk joining us with more. Bloomberg's

0:33:21.640 --> 0:33:24.680
<v Speaker 1>Dan Flatley out of Washington, folks, out of your neck

0:33:24.720 --> 0:33:26.200
<v Speaker 1>of the words, gone on the road to my neck

0:33:26.240 --> 0:33:29.520
<v Speaker 1>of the Woods. What will they talk about. Yeah, that's right.

0:33:29.560 --> 0:33:31.040
<v Speaker 1>I mean I think one of the ways to sort

0:33:31.080 --> 0:33:32.720
<v Speaker 1>of think about this is kind of like a soft

0:33:32.800 --> 0:33:36.120
<v Speaker 1>power tour. So Congress is in recess over the next

0:33:36.160 --> 0:33:38.880
<v Speaker 1>couple of weeks here in DC. Lawmakers are looking for

0:33:39.000 --> 0:33:41.200
<v Speaker 1>something to do, and they have kind of a natural

0:33:41.400 --> 0:33:44.440
<v Speaker 1>reason to be in California this week because the President

0:33:44.480 --> 0:33:48.240
<v Speaker 1>of Thailand excuse me, President of Taiwan and her visit

0:33:48.360 --> 0:33:52.720
<v Speaker 1>to California this week. So they are there in part

0:33:52.800 --> 0:33:55.640
<v Speaker 1>to meet with her, but also to sort of do

0:33:55.760 --> 0:33:57.480
<v Speaker 1>it a bit of, as I said, a soft power

0:33:57.560 --> 0:34:00.240
<v Speaker 1>tour and meet with some folks in Hollywood, eat with

0:34:00.320 --> 0:34:02.600
<v Speaker 1>some folks in Silicon Valley, and sort of make the

0:34:02.720 --> 0:34:06.840
<v Speaker 1>case to them that China represents a real threat in

0:34:06.880 --> 0:34:09.400
<v Speaker 1>their view, but also to listen to what they have

0:34:09.520 --> 0:34:11.520
<v Speaker 1>to say and sort of understand a bit more about

0:34:11.880 --> 0:34:14.680
<v Speaker 1>their market concerns and why they want to be certainly

0:34:14.719 --> 0:34:18.000
<v Speaker 1>in business in China, and how they're thinking about and

0:34:18.040 --> 0:34:21.120
<v Speaker 1>approaching their you know, their upcoming projects and things of

0:34:21.160 --> 0:34:23.080
<v Speaker 1>that nature. And don do we expect them to mainbe

0:34:23.080 --> 0:34:25.400
<v Speaker 1>be preaching to the converted. We know that Venokosla has

0:34:25.440 --> 0:34:28.880
<v Speaker 1>been in Washington for example, with Peter Teal flagging the

0:34:28.960 --> 0:34:32.959
<v Speaker 1>concerns that they share around China. Yeah, I think there's

0:34:33.080 --> 0:34:36.120
<v Speaker 1>definitely going to be an element of that. On Thursday,

0:34:36.200 --> 0:34:39.040
<v Speaker 1>they're going to be having lunch at Stanford University with

0:34:39.160 --> 0:34:41.960
<v Speaker 1>some folks that you know may have a more hawkish

0:34:42.040 --> 0:34:44.160
<v Speaker 1>view on China, but you know, when they're going to

0:34:44.200 --> 0:34:46.960
<v Speaker 1>be meeting with folks like Tim Cook or Bob Iger

0:34:47.320 --> 0:34:50.440
<v Speaker 1>at Disney and Tim Cook at Apple, they're going to

0:34:50.520 --> 0:34:53.640
<v Speaker 1>be talking to people who have really serious vested interests

0:34:53.800 --> 0:34:56.960
<v Speaker 1>in the Chinese marketplace, who may have a bit of

0:34:57.000 --> 0:35:00.560
<v Speaker 1>a different view and have the influence to talk to

0:35:00.760 --> 0:35:03.480
<v Speaker 1>lawmakers in a way that they may not be used

0:35:03.520 --> 0:35:05.760
<v Speaker 1>to being talked to, quite frankly, in a lot of respects,

0:35:05.800 --> 0:35:08.319
<v Speaker 1>because they're going to be hearing from folks who want

0:35:08.360 --> 0:35:11.279
<v Speaker 1>to continue those business lines into China and are going

0:35:11.360 --> 0:35:14.120
<v Speaker 1>to be talking to them in a way that you

0:35:14.200 --> 0:35:16.000
<v Speaker 1>know is going to be sort of informal. So it's

0:35:16.000 --> 0:35:18.160
<v Speaker 1>not going to be a congressional hearing, but it's going

0:35:18.200 --> 0:35:20.920
<v Speaker 1>to be i would say, probably a pretty strong exchange

0:35:20.960 --> 0:35:27.160
<v Speaker 1>of views down how bipartisan does this run? At this point,

0:35:27.239 --> 0:35:31.920
<v Speaker 1>I think concerns about China are about as bipartisan an

0:35:32.000 --> 0:35:35.000
<v Speaker 1>issue as you can find on Capitol Hill. Republicans and

0:35:35.080 --> 0:35:37.640
<v Speaker 1>Democrats don't agree on a lot these days, but they

0:35:37.760 --> 0:35:40.520
<v Speaker 1>certainly agree on that. I think that there are some

0:35:40.760 --> 0:35:46.040
<v Speaker 1>variations though, when you get down to how aggressive some

0:35:46.239 --> 0:35:50.279
<v Speaker 1>folks want to be. There are certainly no shortage of

0:35:50.360 --> 0:35:52.399
<v Speaker 1>hawks on the issue on either side of the aisle.

0:35:52.480 --> 0:35:54.919
<v Speaker 1>But the Republicans tend to be a little bit more

0:35:55.640 --> 0:35:57.520
<v Speaker 1>aggressive in terms of what they want to do, the

0:35:57.600 --> 0:36:00.680
<v Speaker 1>Democrats a little bit more circumspect. But as we saw

0:36:00.800 --> 0:36:03.000
<v Speaker 1>with TikTok recently, there was a hearing on that on

0:36:03.040 --> 0:36:05.640
<v Speaker 1>the Hills. I'm sure you remember a couple of weeks ago.

0:36:06.280 --> 0:36:09.280
<v Speaker 1>It goes pretty deep, and it goes across both parties,

0:36:10.200 --> 0:36:12.960
<v Speaker 1>Blue based down flatly. Thank you, Caroline. Speaking of Tim

0:36:13.080 --> 0:36:15.960
<v Speaker 1>kirk sly had caught my eye this Monday morning. The

0:36:16.120 --> 0:36:20.879
<v Speaker 1>front cover of GQ magazine Silicon Valley's quiet visionary Tim

0:36:21.000 --> 0:36:25.239
<v Speaker 1>Cook GQ Magazine, not known for his style, perhaps as

0:36:25.280 --> 0:36:28.600
<v Speaker 1>Steve Jobs, was really interesting. Read a guy starting his

0:36:28.680 --> 0:36:32.600
<v Speaker 1>day at five am, going through emails from customers the gym,

0:36:33.000 --> 0:36:35.040
<v Speaker 1>and then running the biggest tech company in the world.

0:36:35.160 --> 0:36:37.759
<v Speaker 1>What do you make of that? Do tell me, you're

0:36:37.800 --> 0:36:39.960
<v Speaker 1>only halfway through the article because it's quite a long,

0:36:40.960 --> 0:36:43.399
<v Speaker 1>it's endlessly long. But the point of it is he's

0:36:43.400 --> 0:36:46.320
<v Speaker 1>so understated. Yeah, you know, we know very little about

0:36:46.360 --> 0:36:49.480
<v Speaker 1>the man. He's not a big social media user ala

0:36:49.640 --> 0:36:52.600
<v Speaker 1>Elon Musk or something like that, and someone who was

0:36:52.680 --> 0:36:56.400
<v Speaker 1>always very upfront the saying doesn't feel normal. He's often

0:36:56.520 --> 0:36:58.600
<v Speaker 1>been feeling like an outsider. But I think what was

0:36:58.680 --> 0:37:01.719
<v Speaker 1>interesting was the way in which he was totally surprised

0:37:01.760 --> 0:37:04.000
<v Speaker 1>by the journalist perspective that people might scatter when he

0:37:04.080 --> 0:37:07.760
<v Speaker 1>walks into a room. He clearly still has that approachable nature,

0:37:08.000 --> 0:37:10.560
<v Speaker 1>people wanting to sit near him, not being intimidated in

0:37:10.640 --> 0:37:12.640
<v Speaker 1>some way. Well, there was an anecdote from Eddie Q,

0:37:13.000 --> 0:37:15.560
<v Speaker 1>who leads the services, saying that he has four faces.

0:37:15.640 --> 0:37:18.160
<v Speaker 1>He'd be brilliant at poker if he played, And I

0:37:18.239 --> 0:37:20.759
<v Speaker 1>think that says everything. You never quite know, even to

0:37:20.880 --> 0:37:23.640
<v Speaker 1>his closest allies in that company, what he's thinking. Maybe

0:37:23.640 --> 0:37:25.399
<v Speaker 1>we should ask for a game. I'm quite into poker

0:37:25.400 --> 0:37:28.320
<v Speaker 1>at the moment. Meanwhile, coming up, we'll bring you the

0:37:28.440 --> 0:37:31.040
<v Speaker 1>details on the first of NASA's new mission to the Moon,

0:37:31.280 --> 0:37:33.840
<v Speaker 1>with the astronauts just being named this morning. We're on

0:37:33.960 --> 0:37:36.719
<v Speaker 1>that next and now earlier we are discussing AI. So

0:37:36.920 --> 0:37:39.600
<v Speaker 1>let's just take a quick look at Baidu China. The

0:37:39.680 --> 0:37:42.719
<v Speaker 1>skepticism we're just talking about, of course going to Capitol Hill,

0:37:42.800 --> 0:37:45.800
<v Speaker 1>Capitol Hill lawmakers coming to California to talk China. But

0:37:45.880 --> 0:37:48.319
<v Speaker 1>there's also skepticism around the power Baidu and it's chat

0:37:48.360 --> 0:37:52.239
<v Speaker 1>GPT competition of course, the only bot will it really

0:37:52.320 --> 0:37:54.040
<v Speaker 1>be able to substantiate some of the run up in

0:37:54.040 --> 0:37:56.120
<v Speaker 1>the shares that we've seen of late down percent of

0:37:56.120 --> 0:38:11.120
<v Speaker 1>the day. The Agremberg NASA's name, the group of astronauts

0:38:11.160 --> 0:38:14.160
<v Speaker 1>it's sending to venture around the Moon on Artemus too.

0:38:14.239 --> 0:38:17.080
<v Speaker 1>It's the first crewed mission on NASA's path to establishing

0:38:17.120 --> 0:38:20.000
<v Speaker 1>a long term presence on the Moon, and we'll launch

0:38:20.080 --> 0:38:22.480
<v Speaker 1>in November of twenty twenty four at the earliest spoon bags.

0:38:22.520 --> 0:38:25.800
<v Speaker 1>Lauren grush is out in Houston. Was the announcement. Who's

0:38:25.840 --> 0:38:28.840
<v Speaker 1>heading to the Moon? Lauren right, So it's actually a

0:38:28.960 --> 0:38:32.239
<v Speaker 1>really star stutted crew that announced a name. Today. We

0:38:32.360 --> 0:38:37.400
<v Speaker 1>have two mission specialists, Christina Cook and Jeremy Hanson of Canada,

0:38:37.600 --> 0:38:40.640
<v Speaker 1>and Christina's with a NASA astra and then we have

0:38:40.760 --> 0:38:45.320
<v Speaker 1>pilot Victor Glover and Commander Red Wiseman, and just some

0:38:45.760 --> 0:38:48.520
<v Speaker 1>notable things to point out about this crew. Christina Cook

0:38:48.600 --> 0:38:51.240
<v Speaker 1>will be the first woman to go to deep space,

0:38:51.600 --> 0:38:53.680
<v Speaker 1>Victor Glover the first person of color to go to

0:38:53.760 --> 0:38:57.759
<v Speaker 1>deep space, and Jeremy will be the first non American

0:38:57.800 --> 0:38:59.840
<v Speaker 1>astronaut to go to beeB space. So it's going to

0:38:59.880 --> 0:39:04.680
<v Speaker 1>be a very historical mission for sure, historical performing on

0:39:04.800 --> 0:39:07.640
<v Speaker 1>a Luna fly by. We understand schedule for next year.

0:39:07.760 --> 0:39:09.560
<v Speaker 1>Just tell us where we are in the process of

0:39:10.000 --> 0:39:14.480
<v Speaker 1>well getting back there, right. So last year I was

0:39:14.600 --> 0:39:16.920
<v Speaker 1>at the Artemis one launch, So that was the very

0:39:17.000 --> 0:39:20.360
<v Speaker 1>first mission, the main big mission in the Artemis program,

0:39:20.400 --> 0:39:22.600
<v Speaker 1>which is to get back to the Moon, and that

0:39:22.719 --> 0:39:26.560
<v Speaker 1>one tested out the main flight hardware that will be

0:39:26.719 --> 0:39:29.200
<v Speaker 1>sending humans into these days. And now it's time to

0:39:29.320 --> 0:39:32.920
<v Speaker 1>put people on that hardware. So now that that mission

0:39:32.960 --> 0:39:35.520
<v Speaker 1>went well, we're going on to Artemis two and these

0:39:35.560 --> 0:39:40.600
<v Speaker 1>four astronauts will ride inside NASA's O'Ryan capsule on top

0:39:40.640 --> 0:39:44.000
<v Speaker 1>of the massive SLS rocket and that will take them

0:39:44.320 --> 0:39:47.440
<v Speaker 1>around the Moon and back to test it out ahead

0:39:47.600 --> 0:39:51.640
<v Speaker 1>of the historical landing that will hopefully happen sometime this decade.

0:39:51.719 --> 0:39:54.200
<v Speaker 1>Right now, it's scheduled for twenty twenty five. We'll see

0:39:54.200 --> 0:39:57.360
<v Speaker 1>if that happens. But eventually that will be the landing

0:39:57.480 --> 0:40:00.680
<v Speaker 1>on the Moon. So unfortunately these astronauts won't be howd

0:40:00.760 --> 0:40:02.640
<v Speaker 1>you now in the service book, they'll still be paving

0:40:02.680 --> 0:40:06.000
<v Speaker 1>a really important road with the ash shot ahead. Lauren

0:40:06.200 --> 0:40:10.040
<v Speaker 1>great speaking with you. Try and call down tern of course, Texas,

0:40:10.160 --> 0:40:12.239
<v Speaker 1>Lauren Grush. We thank her, and I mean not the

0:40:12.320 --> 0:40:15.160
<v Speaker 1>only bit of aerospace news upon us. It feels as

0:40:15.200 --> 0:40:18.520
<v Speaker 1>though we're talking SpaceX earlier with Manhattan Ventures. And also

0:40:18.640 --> 0:40:20.400
<v Speaker 1>that looks like there's a competitor on the scene right

0:40:20.520 --> 0:40:23.520
<v Speaker 1>end when it comes to SpaceX. Hanwa am I saying

0:40:23.520 --> 0:40:27.600
<v Speaker 1>it right? Hanwa Aerospace bringing the South Korean's first commercial

0:40:27.760 --> 0:40:30.840
<v Speaker 1>rocket and it's a pretty ambitious target. Yeah, so they

0:40:30.920 --> 0:40:34.719
<v Speaker 1>want to match SpaceX in price, getting payload to orbit

0:40:34.760 --> 0:40:37.360
<v Speaker 1>at the same price. But this is really fascinating because

0:40:37.440 --> 0:40:39.759
<v Speaker 1>they are borne out of arms sales. This is an

0:40:39.800 --> 0:40:45.080
<v Speaker 1>aerospace conglomerate essentially that's making money selling arms to Ukraine

0:40:45.120 --> 0:40:50.840
<v Speaker 1>in that conflict and putting the proceeds back into space exploration. Ambitious,

0:40:50.920 --> 0:40:53.080
<v Speaker 1>but this is a sector Carr that we're going to

0:40:53.120 --> 0:40:55.680
<v Speaker 1>cover increasingly because it's not just the money that's going

0:40:55.680 --> 0:41:00.560
<v Speaker 1>into it, global interest taking off. Knew you'd get a

0:41:00.560 --> 0:41:03.080
<v Speaker 1>pun in there somehow, And what a joy to be

0:41:03.160 --> 0:41:06.000
<v Speaker 1>reconnected once again back on the show that this edition

0:41:06.040 --> 0:41:08.920
<v Speaker 1>of Bloomberg Technology. Yeah, and there is a lot to recap.

0:41:09.000 --> 0:41:12.240
<v Speaker 1>Don't forget the podcast wherever you get your podcast, Apple, Spotify.

0:41:12.320 --> 0:41:15.080
<v Speaker 1>I heart Bloomberg so much to discuss this week in

0:41:15.120 --> 0:41:16.560
<v Speaker 1>the world of tech. This is Bloomberg