Speaker 1: Also media, Hello and welcome to Better Offline. I'm your
Speaker 1: host ed zich Tron. As ever, remember you can buy
Speaker 1: Better Offline merchandise linkers in the episode notes. Today, I
Speaker 1: am joined by Karen Howe, the author of the upcoming
Speaker 1: book Empire of Ai, which tells the story of Open
Speaker 1: Ai and the arms rais surrounding large language models. Karen,
Speaker 1: thank you for joining me.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much for having me ed.
Speaker 1: So you describe the progress of these models in these
Speaker 1: companies as a kind of colonialism, Can you get into
Speaker 1: that for me?
Speaker 2: Yeah, So, if you think about the way that empires
Speaker 2: of old operated during the very long history of European colonialism,
Speaker 2: they were essentially taking resources that were not their own,
Speaker 2: exploiting massive amounts of labor as in not paying them
Speaker 2: or paying them extremely small amounts of money, and they
Speaker 2: were doing this all under a civilizing mission, this idea
Speaker 2: that they were bringing modernity and progress to all of humanity,
Speaker 2: when in fact what was actually happening was they were
Speaker 2: just fortifying themselves and the empire, and the people at
Speaker 2: the top of the empire, and everyone else that kind
Speaker 2: of lived in the world had to live in the
Speaker 2: thrash of what the people at the top decided based
Speaker 2: on their whims for what was part of their self
Speaker 2: serving agenda. And that's essentially what we're seeing with Empires
Speaker 2: of AI today, where they are taking data that is
Speaker 2: not their own, their laying claim to it. They're taking land,
Speaker 2: they're taking energy, they're taking water. They are exploiting massive
Speaker 2: amounts of labor, both labor that goes into the inputs
Speaker 2: for developing these am models, but also exploiting labor in
Speaker 2: the sense that they are ultimately creating labor automating technologies
Speaker 2: that is eroding away people's labor rights as we speak,
Speaker 2: and they're doing it under this civilizing mission of they
Speaker 2: are doing it for the benefit of all of humanity.
Speaker 2: And what I say in the book is Empires of
Speaker 2: AI they're not as overtly violent as empires of old.
Speaker 2: And so maybe that can become confusing and people think, oh, well,
Speaker 2: it can't be that bad. But the thing is, we've
Speaker 2: had one hundred and fifty years of social and moral progress,
Speaker 2: and so empires of modern day are going to look
Speaker 2: different in the way that empires of old operated. And
Speaker 2: when you look just at like the actual parallels, there
Speaker 2: are just so many extraordinary parallels between the kind of
Speaker 2: basis of empire building back then and now that I
Speaker 2: think it is fundamentally the only frame that I have
Speaker 2: found to really help understand and grapple with the sheer
Speaker 2: scope and scale and the actual like what is actually
Speaker 2: happening here within the AI industry.
Speaker 1: One theme from the book I also noticed was that
Speaker 1: despite all of the backs and forths between all the people,
Speaker 1: very rarely product came out. Though, Like it was interesting,
Speaker 1: there seemed to be all that these sations about research
Speaker 1: and all of these things they were saying, but it
Speaker 1: usually just ended with like some sort of release and
Speaker 1: then kind of just moved on. Yeah, it almost it
Speaker 1: almost makes me wonder what they're always what they're working
Speaker 1: on half the time.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you know, it's I think it's a product of
Speaker 2: two different things that that you noticed that in the book.
Speaker 2: One is that I finished writing the book before a
Speaker 2: lot of the most recent product releases came out, Right,
Speaker 2: That's just the nature of writing things on the timescale of.
Speaker 1: Books, is it's not fun.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I froze the manuscript in like the early days
Speaker 2: of January, right before Deep Seek, right before Stargate, right
Speaker 2: before you know, a string of other releases. So that's
Speaker 2: one is that through most of open AI's history, it
Speaker 2: is really it was really more focused on research conversations,
Speaker 2: and it's only been in the last year or so
Speaker 2: that it's really dramatically shifted much more to talking about product.
Speaker 2: But the second reason is that I personally like that
Speaker 2: is my expertise. I came up in AI reporting covering
Speaker 2: the research, and so I wanted to focus on that
Speaker 2: in the book and really unpack it, especially because there's
Speaker 2: not as much reporting on the research these days, and
Speaker 2: I wanted to kind of track that history and the
Speaker 2: internal conversations that happened when people say that they're developing
Speaker 2: so called AGI and.
Speaker 1: You talk about in twenty nineteen in the book the
Speaker 1: your rose colored Glasses got knocked off by a story?
Speaker 1: What was it that really made you start being suspicious
Speaker 1: of these companies?
Speaker 2: Yeah, So in twenty nineteen was when I started covering
Speaker 2: Opening Eye, and I embedded within the company for three
Speaker 2: days in August of twenty nineteen to profile what had
Speaker 2: then become a newly minted capped profit nested in a nonprofit.
Speaker 2: And I think the thing that but that really started
Speaker 2: tipping me off was it was actually really small things. Initially,
Speaker 2: the first thing was they publicly professed to be this
Speaker 2: bastion of transparency and they were going to share all
Speaker 2: their research to the world, and they had accumulated a
Speaker 2: significant amount of good will on the basis of this idea,
Speaker 2: and they were raising not literally fundraising, but they had
Speaker 2: amassed a lot of capital on the basis of this idea.
Speaker 2: And when I started embedding within the company, I realized
Speaker 2: that they were incredibly secretive, like they were not. They
Speaker 2: wouldn't allow me to see anything or time to anyone
Speaker 2: beyond very strictly sanctioned conversations. And even in those conversations,
Speaker 2: I would notice that researchers were giving side eye to
Speaker 2: the communications officer every other sentence because they were worried
Speaker 2: about stepping into a lane that was considered proprietary. And
Speaker 2: I was like, wait a minute, why are there things
Speaker 2: that are proprietary, and why are the people being secretive
Speaker 2: if all this is supposed to ultimately be shared with
Speaker 2: the public. But the other thing was when I was
Speaker 2: talking with executives, Like the very first interview that I
Speaker 2: had was with Greg Brockman and Ilia Setskav, the CTO
Speaker 2: and she's scientist, And I just asked them very basic questions,
Speaker 2: like why do you think we should spend this much
Speaker 2: money on Agi and not on something else? And can
Speaker 2: you articulate for me what does AGI look like? What
Speaker 2: would you even want Agi to do? And can you
Speaker 2: articulate for me? You know, part of their origin story
Speaker 2: as a company was they want to build agi good
Speaker 2: agi first before the bad people built bad Agi. So
Speaker 2: I was like, well, what would bad agi look like
Speaker 2: as well? Or like what are the harms that are
Speaker 2: coming out of some of this rapid AI progress? And
Speaker 2: they weren't able to answer any of those questions. And
Speaker 2: that was when I thought, hold on a second, Like
Speaker 2: I thought that this was a nonprofit meant to care
Speaker 2: counter some of the ills of Silicon Valley, one of
Speaker 2: the ills being that the most companies end up being
Speaker 2: thrown boatloads of cash without like clear articulated ideas about
Speaker 2: what they're going to do with that cash. And here
Speaker 2: I am in this meeting room trying to just ask
Speaker 2: the most basic question, like the most boiler plate stuff
Speaker 2: that there should be some kind of answer too, uh,
Speaker 2: And they can't even answer that. So it seems like
Speaker 2: it is actually very much just an animal of Silicon Valley.
Speaker 2: This is not actually something different from what we're seeing
Speaker 2: with the rest of the tech industry.
Speaker 1: It felt as well, that was a comment and forgive
Speaker 1: me for forgetting it exactly where where it was like
Speaker 1: the all secrets could be written on a grain of
Speaker 1: rice or something like that. Yeah, and I have to admit,
Speaker 1: as I read it, I got this weird feeling like
Speaker 1: does anyone actually have any ip because when you actually
Speaker 1: look at the conversations they're having, and you likely privy
Speaker 1: to more hair, it felt like they wouldn't talk about
Speaker 1: what they were doing at all, and not I say,
Speaker 1: this is run apof written a lot about the valley.
Speaker 1: It feels like they'd say more, but no one wanted
Speaker 1: to say anything, not even secret. It's like nobody really knew.
Speaker 1: And you even described some of the managerial stuff in there,
Speaker 1: like no one really knew what was going on anyway.
Speaker 1: It just feels like a remarkably disorganized company considering the scale.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so I think early on at Opening Eye was
Speaker 2: completely disorganized in the sense that they had no idea.
Speaker 2: You know, they decide, Okay, we're going to build this
Speaker 2: ag I think, but then they were like, what does
Speaker 2: that even mean? We have no idea, And there was
Speaker 2: a lot of there weren't real managers at the company either,
Speaker 2: because they had just gathered up a bunch of researchers
Speaker 2: from academia, and they didn't really have much of a
Speaker 2: sense of how to organize themselves other than a traditional
Speaker 2: academic lab where there's a professor and grad students, and
Speaker 2: I mean academia, you know, as it's has its function,
Speaker 2: But that ultimately wasn't the right structure for trying to
Speaker 2: move a group of people towards a similar goal. And
Speaker 2: over time, Opening Eye did start cleaning itself up a
Speaker 2: little bit, It did start restructuring itself. It started focusing
Speaker 2: more on GPT models because they hit on that in
Speaker 2: around twenty eighteen twenty nineteen. But similarly, there's still just
Speaker 2: because there's no clarity about its mission and ultimately what
Speaker 2: it is trying to build, you end up with just
Speaker 2: a lot of riffs within the organization over this very
Speaker 2: fundamental question. People fundamentally disagree about what Opening I is.
Speaker 2: They disagree about what AGI is, They disagree about what
Speaker 2: it means to ensure that something should benefit all of humanity.
Speaker 2: And I think because there was all this confusion or
Speaker 2: there were all these different interpretations ultimately of these like
Speaker 2: basic tenants of the organization. I think people also just
Speaker 2: there was they wouldn't quite clearly articulate to one another
Speaker 2: what they were doing. It wasn't necessarily that they were
Speaker 2: trying to be secretive to one another. It was more
Speaker 2: just that they weren't really on the same page. And
Speaker 2: this eventually became sort of less and less true in
Speaker 2: the sense that as sam Oltman's installed himself as CEO
Speaker 2: and started really exerting a particular type of path for
Speaker 2: AI progress, then they started having, you know, research documents
Speaker 2: that explicitly articulated we are a scaling lab, like we
Speaker 2: are going after scale way.
Speaker 1: How long did it take them to put those documents
Speaker 1: together though? What year about?
Speaker 2: I think their first research roadmap was in twenty seventeen,
Speaker 2: so it was one and a half years to them
Speaker 2: so bad into the non profit Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1: So I will admit there is another colonial thing that
Speaker 1: stood out well. Two specifically, One, it definitely feels that
Speaker 1: there are a lot of unintelligent cousin types who were
Speaker 1: put in there because their mate was there throughout the company.
Speaker 1: But two it's this kind of religious view around agi,
Speaker 1: this kind of nebulous justification for just about every I
Speaker 1: was disappointed, and I understand what you mentioned it like
Speaker 1: did Yadowski was in there? I think the less wrong people.
Speaker 1: This is a personal belief. Just no need to mention
Speaker 1: them again for anyone. I think that Yadowski, anyone who
Speaker 1: writes a six hundred thousand word Harry Potter book should
Speaker 1: be put in prison, including JK. Rowling. But it feels
Speaker 1: like there really is this belief system that's pushed throughout
Speaker 1: this industry which mirrors colonialism. Mirror is the very judao
Speaker 1: Christian push of the British and many other colonial entities.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Absolutely so. One of the things that I was
Speaker 2: most surprised by when reporting the book is I had
Speaker 2: seen all the divisions around boomers and boomers people saying hey,
Speaker 2: I can bring us to Utopiera, people saying I can
Speaker 2: kill us all. I really did think initially that it
Speaker 2: was just rhetoric and that it was just a tool
Speaker 2: for accruing more power. And the thing that surprised me
Speaker 2: most was how many people I met that genuinely deeply
Speaker 2: believed in both, especially the Dumer ideology like I was
Speaker 2: interviewing people whose voices were quivering because they were talking
Speaker 2: about their anxiety around the potential end of the world,
Speaker 2: and that was a very sincere reaction. And I think
Speaker 2: that is part You're exactly right that it is a
Speaker 2: huge parallel with empire building in the past, is that
Speaker 2: empires need to have an ideology that convinces themselves why
Speaker 2: they are ultimately doing something that is for the benefit
Speaker 2: of the world. So in the past, when they had
Speaker 2: the civilizing mission, we're bringing this to the world. It
Speaker 2: also wasn't rhetoric. It was also a deeply seated religious
Speaker 2: and spiritual and scientific belief that they were doing something
Speaker 2: that was better off for everyone.
Speaker 1: I mean, the origins of the BBC in England were
Speaker 1: religious indoctrination on some level. It kind of it's I
Speaker 1: admit I'm surprised to hear the quivering voices stuff I
Speaker 1: think because I think that again, this personal opinion, Ydowski,
Speaker 1: I think is full. I think a lot of those
Speaker 1: less wrong guys are full of shit. I think they're
Speaker 1: doing it for not for the bit. But it's the
Speaker 1: same kind of horse trading shit that people do around anything.
Speaker 1: It's like, we don't have anything to believe in, so
Speaker 1: let's all agree on this. But it's interesting to hear
Speaker 1: that people are I don't know how to put this,
Speaker 1: actually believing this crap even though it doesn't feel like
Speaker 1: there's any real evidence. You know.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, I think the analogy that I've started using
Speaker 2: is I really feel like opening Eyes done, where you know,
Speaker 2: in Dune, there is a mythology that is created by
Speaker 2: a certain group of people with four understanding that they're
Speaker 2: creating a mythology, right right, But then as they start
Speaker 2: to embody and act out this mythology, not only do
Speaker 2: many many people who didn't know that it was originally
Speaker 2: created come to believe it, also the people who created
Speaker 2: it come to believe it themselves. And I think this
Speaker 2: is essentially exactly what is happening within AI with the ideologies,
Speaker 2: is that maybe there was at some point someone who
Speaker 2: was more aware that there was some kind of rhetorical
Speaker 2: trick that they were playing around, really propagating this kind
Speaker 2: of belief, but it is not We're not at that
Speaker 2: point anymore. Like, there are lots and lots of people
Speaker 2: who genuinely believe these things, and I think it's self
Speaker 2: perpetuating because when you believe it, you look for signs
Speaker 2: of it, and you research things that would suggest more
Speaker 2: evidence for your belief and so they're kind of continuing
Speaker 2: to reinforce their beliefs. And the more these A models
Speaker 2: have progressed, the stronger these beliefs have become. Because whether
Speaker 2: you believe AI will bring utopia or dystopia, there is
Speaker 2: an abundance of evidence that you can point to now
Speaker 2: to reinforce your own yeah, exactly, to reinforce your own
Speaker 2: starting point. And so it's sort of like a microcosm
Speaker 2: of society today where you know, most the average person
Speaker 2: no longer encounters information that can change their minds. It
Speaker 2: just continues to entrench whatever they already believed before.
Speaker 1: Do you believe Sam Moultman believes this shite? Do you
Speaker 1: think he believes in the AGI? Is he part of it?
Speaker 2: It's really It's really interesting because I think the no
Speaker 2: matter who I interviewed, and no matter how long they
Speaker 2: worked with Sam Aultman or how closely they worked with
Speaker 2: Sam Altman, and not a single person was able to
Speaker 2: fully articulate what his beliefs are. And I think that
Speaker 2: is very much by design.
Speaker 1: Is that it's beautiful that's.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and and and and and it wasn't. And they
Speaker 2: would explicitly say this too. They would they would call out,
Speaker 2: I'm not actually sure what he believes. And this was
Speaker 2: the most consistent thing that people said about him.
Speaker 1: I really noticed as well. If you read your book
Speaker 1: and you really look, you actually can't get much of
Speaker 1: an idea of who Sam Mortman is at all, And
Speaker 1: in fact, you can't work out why he's brilliant at all.
Speaker 1: And I've read a lot of stuff about Sam Moultman.
Speaker 1: The long and short of it I can understand is
Speaker 1: that he's got good psychology and he's really charming. Everyone
Speaker 1: talks about the psychology and the charming, and it's just
Speaker 1: really it. It is so busy. He's so a bizarre
Speaker 1: man like everything about him is so like. The way
Speaker 1: that people talk about him is so strange.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So this is what I sort of concluded about
Speaker 2: why he's able to pull off what he does. He
Speaker 2: is a once in a generation talent when it comes
Speaker 2: to storytelling, and he has a loose relationship with the truth, yes,
Speaker 2: which is a really powerful combination. And so when he's
Speaker 2: talking to someone, he shines most when he's talking to
Speaker 2: small groups of people in one on one meetings, and
Speaker 2: what he says is more tightly correlated with what that
Speaker 2: person needs to hear rather than what he believes, which
Speaker 2: is part of the reason why people say, ultimately like
Speaker 2: they don't really know what he believes because he doesn't
Speaker 2: really indicate it. And so I think that is what
Speaker 2: makes him incredibly persuasive. And he is really good at
Speaker 2: understanding people and what they and what they want, and
Speaker 2: you know, he's well resourced, so he's able to then
Speaker 2: deliver to them what they need and want. And what
Speaker 2: I realized is with that kind of talent, you would
Speaker 2: inherently be incredibly polarizing as a figure, because if the
Speaker 2: person agrees with you, you're the best asset in the
Speaker 2: world for what they want to achieve. You're incredibly persuasive,
Speaker 2: You're able to get the resources you can do exactly
Speaker 2: what that person can do for you, exactly what you
Speaker 2: want them to do. But if you disagree with this person,
Speaker 2: that person becomes the greatest threat ever because they are
Speaker 2: so persuasive. You have fear that they're going to be
Speaker 2: able to carry out exactly what you don't want them
Speaker 2: to carry out. And so that kind of boils down
Speaker 2: to why he's just such an enigmatic and extremely polarizing person.
Speaker 2: Is it really depends on whether or not someone agrees
Speaker 2: or disagree with him.
Speaker 1: He also doesn't seem that smart. I don't know, he
Speaker 1: seems quite good at talking to people, but when I
Speaker 1: hear him talk, he doesn't seem that eloquent. And it
Speaker 1: makes me wonder if perhaps Sam Mortman is a symptom
Speaker 1: of a greater problem that so much of our power,
Speaker 1: structure and money is based on someone making decisions based
Speaker 1: on the last intelligent person or intelligent seeming person they
Speaker 1: talk to.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I think our society is also just
Speaker 2: we still have such a have we worship people that
Speaker 2: are wealthy. Yeah, like, And so even if he's not
Speaker 2: saying something that is convincing you in real time, he
Speaker 2: has all of the kind of indicators that this person
Speaker 2: has been remarkably successful and you should listen to what
Speaker 2: he says because then that will make you successful too, right,
Speaker 2: And so I think that is part of the part
Speaker 2: of the kind of mythos around him, is that if
Speaker 2: you can join up with him, it will greatly enrich you.
Speaker 2: And you know, like, there's a lot of evidence to
Speaker 2: suggest that too, that like, there have been plenty of
Speaker 2: people that I've allied themselves with Sam Aulman and that
Speaker 2: have become much richer for it. And so whether or
Speaker 2: not people are joining up with him because they necessarily
Speaker 2: one hundred percent agree with like his ideology or his
Speaker 2: actions or anything like that, or if it's if it's
Speaker 2: more because ultimately they get to benefit from that alliance,
Speaker 2: I think is Yeah, what.
Speaker 1: Most feels like, it's people connecting with other people to
Speaker 1: see how far they can get, far more than AI.
Speaker 1: Because one of the other things I really noticed when
Speaker 1: you were telling the story of the firing Sam Wulman
Speaker 1: getting fired in No. Twenty twenty three, As much as
Speaker 1: people wanted to pretend, they kept bringing up the tender
Speaker 1: and to explain for the listeners the tender was the
Speaker 1: open AI hadn't had a plans to let have plans
Speaker 1: to let people sell their stock. It really felt like
Speaker 1: that was more the primary concern than any loyalty to Altman.
Speaker 2: It was. I wouldn't say it was the primary concern,
Speaker 2: but I mean, yeah, it really depended on.
Speaker 1: Who I was.
Speaker 2: It's taught, Yeah, exactly like every employee sort of had
Speaker 2: a different calculus that ultimately led them to revolt against
Speaker 2: the board and want Altman back, And there were different
Speaker 2: calculuses among Microsoft and investors. But one of the key
Speaker 2: things that I think is uh necessary to understand just
Speaker 2: why there is so much seeming loyalty around Altman in general,
Speaker 2: is he is very very good at at establishing relationships
Speaker 2: with money involved, where he is the lynchpin to the
Speaker 2: other person accessing that much yes, and so the tender
Speaker 2: offer is a perfect example of this, and that employees
Speaker 2: ultimately they realized that Altman is just really he's really
Speaker 2: good at fundraising, and whether or not an employee believes
Speaker 2: in the AGI thing, they all agreed that open AA
Speaker 2: ultimately needs an enormous amount of capital, and also many
Speaker 2: of them are doing it in part because they can
Speaker 2: then like guarantee their own financial future. And so with
Speaker 2: Altman gone, it became increasingly clear that open a I
Speaker 2: wouldn't survive, and so that's not something that a lot
Speaker 2: of employees wanted. It became clear that even if Opening
Speaker 2: I did survive, they would be a lot more short
Speaker 2: changed in terms of the amount of capital that they
Speaker 2: would be able to get because he would no longer
Speaker 2: be their champion for that, and also the tender offer
Speaker 2: could potentially go away and they would not be personally
Speaker 2: enriched as well, and you know, many of them. The
Speaker 2: thing to also understand is like it's very expensive to
Speaker 2: live in the Bay Area, and so for the worker,
Speaker 2: for the employees, in the moment, losing the tender offer
Speaker 2: wasn't like oh no, I'm going to lose like my retirement.
Speaker 2: It was also this sense of like, I'm literally going
Speaker 2: to lose my financial security right now, like I already
Speaker 2: tried to, I already bought, you know, a house based
Speaker 2: on the fact. I feel like you mentioned that yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1: That was someone who put money.
Speaker 2: Yeah, who put plenty of money down, and that the
Speaker 2: tender offer dissolving was a real financial stress. It was
Speaker 2: a threat to their financial existence in the life.
Speaker 1: I imagine so, But I'm just the way it was
Speaker 1: framed in public was that this was some big loyalty
Speaker 1: thing where everyone was like, I love open Ai and
Speaker 1: Sam Altman, and that just didn't feel like it was
Speaker 1: what was happening. That people seemed angry at Ilia, but
Speaker 1: they just seemed angry because something changed, rather than.
Speaker 2: Like, yeah, yeah, I mean I think I think there
Speaker 2: were certainly people within the company that did feel loyalty
Speaker 2: to Altman and and and that was one of their
Speaker 2: primary motivating things. But by and Leche, when I was
Speaker 2: interviewing lots of employees for understanding like what ultimately led
Speaker 2: them to rally around Sam, there was actually more more
Speaker 2: practical concerns than just personal loyalty that was driving the thing,
Speaker 2: whether it was financial or whether it was just I
Speaker 2: really believe in Agi and I don't want open Aiye
Speaker 2: to go away because it'll scrap all of the work
Speaker 2: that we've done. And of course, you know, of course
Speaker 2: the narrative would I mean, the open ai themselves have
Speaker 2: been pushing again and again and again this idea that
Speaker 2: all of the employee or whatever, more than ninety percent
Speaker 2: of the employees ended up signing the petition, and they
Speaker 2: show they cite this number as just a show of
Speaker 2: solidarity and loyalty to Altman. But then, of course, if
Speaker 2: you look at the track record after the Boyd crisis
Speaker 2: of how many people have subsequently left the company once
Speaker 2: once things have sort of stabilized and there isn't a
Speaker 2: crisis situation, that is I think much more revealing of
Speaker 2: how much loyalty people have to him.
Speaker 1: So tell me about Jack Clock. So Jack Clock is
Speaker 1: the what is he? And he's one of the co
Speaker 1: founders of Anthropic. Now, yeah, I, without putting you on
Speaker 1: the spot, kind of feels like Jack Clark has got
Speaker 1: off a little easy with everyone not even saying you.
Speaker 1: You're one of the few people. Jack Clark worked at
Speaker 1: The Register, which is an extremely critical IT publication, and
Speaker 1: now he's out in conferences saying that AI agents will
Speaker 1: control everything. He just feels like one of the weirdest
Speaker 1: characters in this whole story.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Yeah, it's interesting. Like when I went to profile
Speaker 2: Opening Eye in twenty nineteen, I actually the first person
Speaker 2: I reached out to was Jack because I had spoken
Speaker 2: to him before and he had until then, until recently
Speaker 2: been playing communications for head for Open Eye, and then
Speaker 2: he had shifted into a policy role. And I remember
Speaker 2: when I when I was at the company, I was like, hey, Jack, like,
Speaker 2: do you think you can actually give me more access
Speaker 2: to seeing the things that I like, stuff that I
Speaker 2: like to say? Yeah, Like I was literally I was
Speaker 2: literally asking so they wouldn't let me go beyond the
Speaker 2: first floor. There were there's there were three floors second.
Speaker 1: And I'm so sorry there's computers there. There's not It's
Speaker 1: not like they have an AI machine. Come on.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And I was like, hey, like, can I just
Speaker 2: literally just go up to the second? Can you like
Speaker 2: take me up and just like let me walk around?
Speaker 2: And he looked at me with this like like deep
Speaker 2: deep side eye of like no, Karen, like you absolutely cannot.
Speaker 2: And I was like, so, Fawny, you're a former journalist.
Speaker 2: You know how this works. Like the.
Speaker 1: Jack Frow in twenty fourteen for The Register was shock
Speaker 1: an a w West the fall of Amazon's deflationary cloud,
Speaker 1: just as Jeff Bezos did the books and see these
Speaker 1: Amazon's rivals are now doing it. He used to write
Speaker 1: these like very grouchy l reg style pig It's just
Speaker 1: so weird.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean I think this is like I've.
Speaker 1: But it gets back to the thing you were saying
Speaker 1: about the kind of the doctrine.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So, like, because I started covering this company intoing nineteen,
Speaker 2: I talked with people then that I then talked to
Speaker 2: for the book, and I was able to sort of
Speaker 2: have this unique opportunity to track how people's individual beliefs
Speaker 2: evolve when they are seeped in this world, and there
Speaker 2: were people that I was talking to back then that
Speaker 2: were like, I don't really believe in this AGI thing,
Speaker 2: that by the time I was talking to them for
Speaker 2: the book were like AGI all the way, like that
Speaker 2: this is a genuine, true belief. And I think there's
Speaker 2: a lot of reasons for this transformation, Like one is
Speaker 2: that you are only talking to people who believe this,
Speaker 2: so you're just constantly in this environment where you're not
Speaker 2: talking to people who are challenging or testing that belief
Speaker 2: and instead just like continuously being reinforced in this echo chamber.
Speaker 2: But I think there's another thing that I kind of
Speaker 2: came to realize while reporting on the book is like
Speaker 2: people who really really believe that AGI is possible, that
Speaker 2: we will actually be able to replicate human intelligence. It's
Speaker 2: not a belief about what AI is capable of. It
Speaker 2: is a belief about what human intelligence is. And a
Speaker 2: lot of people in the AI world today have this
Speaker 2: belief that human intelligence or everything in the world is
Speaker 2: inherently computable and all you have to do is just
Speaker 2: a mass more data and more compute and eventually you
Speaker 2: will get to that thing. You will be able to
Speaker 2: replicate that thing. And when you are in this kind
Speaker 2: of environment where you have people constantly arguing to you
Speaker 2: that this is why AGA is possible, because everything is computable,
Speaker 2: and then you see the rapid clip of your models
Speaker 2: being able to do more and more functions that you
Speaker 2: know other people outside in society previously would have suggested
Speaker 2: were not possible. It's sort of the self reinforcing belief machine,
Speaker 2: like it just manufacturers gives you yeah, exactly, And so
Speaker 2: I think. And one of the things that I also
Speaker 2: have just has a general realization not just with opening
Speaker 2: eye but in general. When I'm covering tech companies, I
Speaker 2: kind of have a policy for myself to do a
Speaker 2: little bit of a detox after I spend a lot
Speaker 2: of time talking with them, because it is really like,
Speaker 2: when you're talking with all of these people that exist
Speaker 2: in this world, you do adopt their worldview, and you
Speaker 2: do adopt their talking points, and you do see things
Speaker 2: through their eyes. And usually I then have to like
Speaker 2: let myself just be in the actual world for a
Speaker 2: little bit and remind myself of what the average person
Speaker 2: thinks and what the average person values, and remind myself
Speaker 2: that there are you know, there are problems beyond the
Speaker 2: Silicon Valley's borders that just look fundamentally different from what
Speaker 2: they conceive the world to be. And so I did
Speaker 2: that with the Opening Eye profile. I did that with
Speaker 2: I profiled Facebook years ago, and I that with Facebook.
Speaker 2: I did that with the book, where I would interview
Speaker 2: lots of people in like these big batches and kind
Speaker 2: of really do my best to try and occupy their
Speaker 2: shoes for a couple of weeks a month, and then
Speaker 2: I would spend my time explicitly not interviewing open ani people,
Speaker 2: just interviewing other people that were out in the world
Speaker 2: to just like reset my brain chemistry a little bit,
Speaker 2: because it really does feel that way. It really does
Speaker 2: feel like you kind of get absorbed into this singular
Speaker 2: world view and then you have to kind of remind
Speaker 2: yourself of the greater reality.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna ask this question without getting you in too
Speaker 1: much trouble. You think that's what happened with Kevin Russe,
Speaker 1: because it's really I know, I don't want to put
Speaker 1: you in a situation we have to talk kill of someone,
Speaker 1: but that interview was bizarre and hard fork I So.
Speaker 2: I've been I think really lucky in that I've covered
Speaker 2: the tech industry almost always not living in SF.
Speaker 1: I agree, that's a great thing.
Speaker 2: And and you know, like I've been able to figure
Speaker 2: that out in my career, and that was an explicit
Speaker 2: dis like I did not want to live in SF
Speaker 2: anymore like I had lived in SF. I wanted to
Speaker 2: get out. And I think this is a really it's
Speaker 2: it's a really hard balance for any journalist. Is you
Speaker 2: need to decide whether you're close to your subject and
Speaker 2: immerse in their world and therefore might be co opted
Speaker 2: by their world, or whether you exist outside of that
Speaker 2: world and therefore you don't have as much access. You
Speaker 2: don't get to go to the parties where you hear
Speaker 2: tips all the time. And and that's one just like
Speaker 2: it's been attention in my career as well as like
Speaker 2: I constantly feel like I'm missing things because I'm not
Speaker 2: an SF. But the thing that I think I have
Speaker 2: gained from not being an SF is just a continued
Speaker 2: connection to non SF world, you know, Like I I
Speaker 2: notice when I spend too much time with s F
Speaker 2: people that I start in my vocabulary changes, like how
Speaker 2: I talk about things changes, because because people in SF
Speaker 2: talk about things in a very particular way, you know,
Speaker 2: like they are talking about like optimization hacking, and like
Speaker 2: they have a particular utilitarian maximization mindset around how they
Speaker 2: do things and why, and I have to then kind
Speaker 2: of step away from that and reseet my language, even
Speaker 2: when when then I sit down to write a story
Speaker 2: that's for the greater public. And so yeah, so I
Speaker 2: think this is something that's just challenging in general. Is
Speaker 2: like it's really hard to not get too close to
Speaker 2: your sources and to not start adopting everything that they
Speaker 2: say as as your own, especially if you are literally
Speaker 2: living with them.
Speaker 1: And yes, in some cases right could be anyone. But
Speaker 1: it does feel like there is a kind of almost
Speaker 1: word containent or thought contagion with this stuff with AGI
Speaker 1: that it pickles certain people. They hear about the idea
Speaker 1: of the autonomous computer and it drives them mad and everything.
Speaker 1: To your point, they start chasing it even though there's
Speaker 1: not really any evidence that we can do it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I mean, like when I first started
Speaker 2: covering AI, I also was so enthralled by the premise,
Speaker 2: Like when I when I so before I feel AI,
Speaker 2: I didn't really like that when I first started covering
Speaker 2: it at my two technology review. I did not realize
Speaker 2: before then that AI was actually trying to recreate human intelligence.
Speaker 2: I thought it was just you know, I mean, it
Speaker 2: is a marketing it is a marketing term.
Speaker 1: But even then, this sounds like it might be a
Speaker 1: definition that people argue.
Speaker 2: Over right, right right, But I mean, like in the original,
Speaker 2: like when AI was coined as a term in nineteen
Speaker 2: fifty six, like John McCarthy, he did explicitly coin the
Speaker 2: term both to be to attract funders, so as a
Speaker 2: marketing term, and because he was trying to describe what
Speaker 2: he wanted the field to do, which was to recreate
Speaker 2: human intelligence. And that is just it's it's it's such
Speaker 2: an evocative thing, like to think, wait a minute, could
Speaker 2: we actually do that? And what would that mean? And
Speaker 2: there's so much philosophical Uh, it's just a philosophical mindfield.
Speaker 2: Like and if you are someone that loves philosophizing, you
Speaker 2: can just sit there for like days in days and
Speaker 2: days and think, holy crap, like what would that be?
Speaker 1: What would that look like? How can we do times columns?
Speaker 2: And and so I really got I got pulled into
Speaker 2: just the kind of sheer enigma of that and yeah,
Speaker 2: also the power of that of oh wow, if we
Speaker 2: could do this, like if if you know, if I
Speaker 2: imagine being in the shoes of someone who's actually doing
Speaker 2: the AI research and thinking to yourself, I might be
Speaker 2: contributing to the recreation of my own intelligence sort of
Speaker 2: of our collective intelligence. Like that's intoxicating, you.
Speaker 1: Know, feels like philosophy marketing though, because I I just
Speaker 1: look at this stuff and I hear about this stuff,
Speaker 1: and I always think, Okay, but what you're doing today,
Speaker 1: And I look at what they're doing today, and I say,
Speaker 1: that doesn't seem anything like that, And I understand. I
Speaker 1: actually don't think that there's anything harmful in discussing AGI.
Speaker 1: What pisses me off is how many people don't seem
Speaker 1: to be discussing AGI. They discuss the ramifications on the edges.
Speaker 1: Because something that and Casey Kawa, friend of the show,
Speaker 1: has brought up a number of times with me, is like,
Speaker 1: no one seems to be discussing personage, Like if we
Speaker 1: make a conscious computer, do we give it a Social
Speaker 1: Security number?
Speaker 2: That's actually really funny because I think there are too
Speaker 2: many people discussing personage.
Speaker 1: I don't see them in the black. Well, perhaps they're
Speaker 1: not doing it in the media because AGI gets brought
Speaker 1: up as this vague term and then they go, ah,
Speaker 1: what do you think, Yes, could be good, could be bad,
Speaker 1: millions brillion sound fucking And it's just it's so bizarre
Speaker 1: because I look at I've been covering I personally with
Speaker 1: AI really only started looking at it hard in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty three, which is my own fault. And I've looked
Speaker 1: and perhaps that has also colored my belief system because
Speaker 1: I ken looking for the thing, like the stuff, the
Speaker 1: thing that everyone was freaking out about. And you look
Speaker 1: and it's like we've extrapolated from large language models that
Speaker 1: AGI will come out. But actually that kind of leads
Speaker 1: me to another question. You Sam Morton's a confusing person.
Speaker 1: What about Dario Amma Day, Darry Ama Day. What do
Speaker 1: you think does he believe in AGI? You think you
Speaker 1: think he's a true believer.
Speaker 2: I do think Dario is a true believer, yeah, And
Speaker 2: I do think that he's a true duomer as well,
Speaker 2: like he genuinely has a lot of anxiety around the
Speaker 2: AGI creating the end of the world, whether or not,
Speaker 2: and also like what does it mean to be a
Speaker 2: true believer?
Speaker 1: You know, like, does he believe the bollocks he's saying
Speaker 1: because he claims that AGI will be here but twenty
Speaker 1: twenty seven or quicker.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So that then is when he's just wearing his
Speaker 2: CEO hat and he needs to say something.
Speaker 1: When you say wearing the CEO, can you be a
Speaker 1: bit more specific?
Speaker 2: I think Dario is an interesting case in that he
Speaker 2: originally he has a different background than Sam. You know,
Speaker 2: Sam is a VC that or an investor that then
Speaker 2: became the CEO of an AI company, and his skill
Speaker 2: is storytelling, right, That's what all investors do. Dario was,
Speaker 2: he was a scientist. He studied I think computational neuroscience,
Speaker 2: and he had a kind of deep fascination with this
Speaker 2: idea of how do you how do you figure out
Speaker 2: how the brain works and how do you replicate it
Speaker 2: like it was? It was. He didn't initially call himself
Speaker 2: an AI researcher, and I think the early days of
Speaker 2: his academic career, but like he was essentially studying a
Speaker 2: lot of the things that hardcore AI researchers study, the brain,
Speaker 2: computer science, like all all of these things. And so
Speaker 2: I think he has this fascination and I don't know
Speaker 2: this for sure, but I would guess that he is
Speaker 2: of the category of people that I described that believes
Speaker 2: that everything is fundamentally computable in the world, and human
Speaker 2: intelligence is computable, and so he does really believe that
Speaker 2: if he can figure it out like AGI will happen.
Speaker 2: But then he has to run a company, and a
Speaker 2: company can't just do science. And actually, one of the
Speaker 2: things that people mentioned to me about their criticisms of
Speaker 2: Daria when he initially ran Anthropic was that he didn't
Speaker 2: care about the business at all, Like he seemed to
Speaker 2: have no interest in anything other than the science. And
Speaker 2: there were people within the company that were like, this
Speaker 2: is not going to work as a company if you
Speaker 2: cannot literally do business, if you cannot raise money, And
Speaker 2: so I think what happened I didn't actually report this out,
Speaker 2: but my guess is what happened is Dario then had
Speaker 2: to shift to not just being a scientist but also
Speaker 2: being a businessman, and he had to learn how to storytell,
Speaker 2: and is he and I think honestly he tries to.
Speaker 2: You know, Sam Altman is a really successful storyteller and
Speaker 2: able to accreu a out of capital. I think Dario
Speaker 2: tries to match the stories that Altman tells in order
Speaker 2: to try and accrue the same amount of capital and
Speaker 2: try to take capital away. Maybe because ultimately they are
Speaker 2: personal archite nemesis and anthropic and open AI are competiti.
Speaker 1: Hate each other so much? Is it just because Sam
Speaker 1: Wlman doesn't like the Warrio walked off?
Speaker 2: I don't know that Sam. I. I can't figure out
Speaker 2: whether Sam genuinely ever hates anyone, but people certainly hate him,
Speaker 2: and Dario hates him for sure. I think it goes
Speaker 2: back to this idea of do you agree or do
Speaker 2: you disagree with Sam about something fundamental and therefore do
Speaker 2: you perceive him as the greatest asset ever or the
Speaker 2: greatest threat ever? And from in Dario's case, he fundamentally
Speaker 2: disagreed with Sam about certain key decisions around safety AAI safety,
Speaker 2: the Dumer, the Dumer brand of AI safety, where they
Speaker 2: Daria was the one that decided to blow up the
Speaker 2: amount of computer chips that were being used to train
Speaker 2: a single model. So he did that. From GPT two
Speaker 2: to GPT three, they went from a couple dozen chips
Speaker 2: to ten thousand chips all at once to train GPT
Speaker 2: three and Daria wanted to do this because he wanted
Speaker 2: to create an internal lead in order to then have
Speaker 2: some time to do research on this model that would
Speaker 2: emerge from ten thousand chips. And Allmann does this thing
Speaker 2: where he will convince, he will ally with people, so
Speaker 2: he was like, oh, ten thousand chips, that just a
Speaker 2: brilliant idea. We should totally do that. But then once
Speaker 2: it was done, he sort of shifted to, Okay, now
Speaker 2: we should release it, or now we should give it
Speaker 2: to Microsoft because we have this deal with Microsoft. We
Speaker 2: need to make them happy. We need to give them
Speaker 2: some kind of really exciting thing deliverable to justify the
Speaker 2: first one billion dollars they gave us so that they
Speaker 2: can then give us more money. And so it was
Speaker 2: actually it was like the two It was both Altman
Speaker 2: and Amoday together that I would credit as being responsible
Speaker 2: for dramatically accelerating the AI race, because Amoday was the
Speaker 2: one that decided we need to blow it up to
Speaker 2: ten thousand chips, and then Altman was the one that
Speaker 2: persuaded him, yes, you should do it because I agree
Speaker 2: with you, and then kind of flipped to, Okay, now
Speaker 2: we need to get this out in the world as
Speaker 2: quickly as possible, and amoday I think feels like his
Speaker 2: intelligent Like Altman, as a politically savvy person, was able
Speaker 2: to use his intelligence against him to achieve exactly the
Speaker 2: opposite of what he ultimately wanted, which was to slow Yeah,
Speaker 2: to slow things down rather than accelerate it.
Speaker 1: This sounds like colonial This sounds like colonial Britain. It's
Speaker 1: just white guys getting angry at each other over tiny
Speaker 1: grievance is from years ago. Here's a weird question. Well,
Speaker 1: first of all, do any of them seem happy in
Speaker 1: any way? Do any of them seem to enjoy anything?
Speaker 1: I asked this seriously, I genuinely do they seem miserable?
Speaker 1: That is the consistent theme from all of Jack Clark included.
Speaker 1: They all seem pissed off, scared, paranoid. Weird. It's that
Speaker 1: they're being driven mad by this.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, yeah, I think that is an entirely accurate description.
Speaker 2: I think you cannot be not driven mad in this
Speaker 2: world where you have convinced yourself that the stakes are
Speaker 2: the future of humanity. You know, like, how do you
Speaker 2: not buckle under that pressure?
Speaker 1: I mean, skill issue? I think I'd be fine give
Speaker 1: me one billion dollars. But it does make me think
Speaker 1: that right now as and Bloomberg came out with the
Speaker 1: headline just as we're recording this, that Stargate soft Banks,
Speaker 1: Stargate is hitting snags over pariff is they can't seem
Speaker 1: to raise the money. I wonder if we're going to
Speaker 1: see new levels of paranoia anxiety with all of these
Speaker 1: people as the AI trade starts to collapse a bit.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this has been an interesting theme that I've picked
Speaker 2: up on with the way that Alman operates is when
Speaker 2: he starts sounding incredibly optimistic in public about the future
Speaker 2: of open AI, the future of AGI, the future of
Speaker 2: all these things, it means that something is going wrong.
Speaker 2: Like it's become the opposite signal, because he will roll
Speaker 2: out the most grandiose language when he needs to cover
Speaker 2: up something that is really stressing him out. And so
Speaker 2: we're seeing, you know, like this happening again more recently
Speaker 2: where I mean, in the beginning of the year, he
Speaker 2: had this post where he was like, we we are
Speaker 2: no longer just building AGI, we are now on our
Speaker 2: path to building superintelligence. Like he was sort of like
Speaker 2: upping the ante saying okay, could continue to hold on
Speaker 2: could continue to stay with the program because we're about
Speaker 2: to uh supercharge turbocharged this like ten times more. And
Speaker 2: it was like at the time when Opening Eye was
Speaker 2: starting to really feel weak because it had just lost
Speaker 2: a string of executives, including some of its most important
Speaker 2: ones Elias ask Govern and Miramurati, and it was under
Speaker 2: just a massive amount of scrutiny and it wasn't making
Speaker 2: the clip of research progress that it needed to kind
Speaker 2: of solve what it itself defined as the key challenges
Speaker 2: to reaching AGI and so yeah, so I think the
Speaker 2: more that that that it sort of becomes clear that
Speaker 2: people are no longer really buying into this AI future
Speaker 2: that they've painted. The stronger they're going to painted, the
Speaker 2: more they're going to roll out this rhetoric.
Speaker 1: You mentioned this because there was a tweet from April
Speaker 1: fifteenth where he said, the Open Ai team is executing
Speaker 1: just ridiculously well at so many things right now. The
Speaker 1: coming months and years should be amazing. So I'm going
Speaker 1: to guess things were bad. Yeah, Yeah, I mean, like
Speaker 1: cool read Sam's tweets.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this was like a thing that I just consistently,
Speaker 2: consistently every time I was reporting on things that were
Speaker 2: going really bad, sure enough Altman would roll out some
Speaker 2: kind of like really crazy, some really crazy yeah statement
Speaker 2: out in public. So that was actually that tweet's actually
Speaker 2: a perfect example because he says things will be awesome
Speaker 2: in the coming months and years. It's always like hold on,
Speaker 2: stick with me, Yeah, stick with me. Things might look
Speaker 2: a little bit weird now, but oh boy, like just
Speaker 2: you wait for what I'm seeing inside that like you
Speaker 2: need to just have patience for you know. It's it's always.
Speaker 1: That kind of May seventh picture, It's great to see
Speaker 1: progress on the first Star Gay in Abilene with our
Speaker 1: partners at Oracle. Today will be the biggest day I
Speaker 1: training facility in the world. The scale, speed and skill
Speaker 1: of the people building this is awesome. And then this
Speaker 1: story comes out a week later, bloody hell. This does
Speaker 1: so final question, how do you feel? What do you
Speaker 1: think this fijisimo? Forgive me if I messed up the
Speaker 1: name there. What do you think about her becoming CEO
Speaker 1: of Applications and Sam Altman doing something else? Yeah?
Speaker 2: So I haven't actually I haven't actually done reporting on
Speaker 2: this myself, but my sense of what happening, what's happening
Speaker 2: is Altmand's not a good manager. He's not actually like
Speaker 2: he's a he's a fundraising CEO. He's not someone that
Speaker 2: can run the company. And I think probably what happened
Speaker 2: is that after Miramrati left, she was the one that
Speaker 2: was actually doing the actually the day to day operations
Speaker 2: and the running of the show. After she left, he
Speaker 2: then made a big show of I'm going to be
Speaker 2: much more close to the the work. Wow, I'm going
Speaker 2: to do the day to day running. And probably his
Speaker 2: time is up in doing that because what in my book,
Speaker 2: I like talk a lot about how like he's not
Speaker 2: good at that, like he is he will he's not
Speaker 2: good at making decisions. He's very conflict averse. So what
Speaker 2: he does is he'll just say he'll agree with every
Speaker 2: single team even when they're disagreeing with one another. And
Speaker 2: it causes chaos, and it causes riffs where you don't
Speaker 2: the person at the top is not able to make
Speaker 2: a decision and say we are all going to go
Speaker 2: this way now and some of you are going to
Speaker 2: be unhappy. Like he does not do that, and so
Speaker 2: it just leads to a lot of tumult chaos. Part
Speaker 2: of the reason why Opening Eye has had so many
Speaker 2: product releases and features and things like that. I think
Speaker 2: is actually also a product of this in that he
Speaker 2: doesn't want to tell any team, like all of these
Speaker 2: product releases and features are different teams working on these things,
Speaker 2: and he doesn't want to tell any team like we're
Speaker 2: going to have this person release first and have their
Speaker 2: moment in the sun, and then we're gonna like work
Speaker 2: a little bit more and then you get your moment
Speaker 2: in the sun, you know, a year later. He's like
Speaker 2: everyone gets their moment in the sun. Like we're gonna
Speaker 2: do releases. We're gonna do like twelve days of ship Miss.
Speaker 2: We're gonna just release. That was insane case in twelve
Speaker 2: days twelve.
Speaker 1: Days of ship Miss for the listeners that don't remember,
Speaker 1: that was when they claimed they were going to release
Speaker 1: twelve new twelve new products.
Speaker 2: Twelve new products over the twelve.
Speaker 1: And it wasn't twelve new. It was like four new products,
Speaker 1: and like some of them were like an API for
Speaker 1: an API. It's just so strange. It feels like, while
Speaker 1: you're also describing an empire, you're also describing this kind
Speaker 1: of very petty underpa. It really does mirror British colonialisten right,
Speaker 1: You've got a guy who doesn't want to rule, who
Speaker 1: wants the power of a ruler and all the assets,
Speaker 1: but someone else, ideally in another country, should take responsibility. Yeah,
Speaker 1: truly awful.
Speaker 2: I mean this is a paradox of empire. Is like
Speaker 2: it feels inevitable, well because it feels so strong and
Speaker 2: it also feels so weak when you start to look
Speaker 2: at an end of the surface.
Speaker 1: It's it was a really great book, and I really
Speaker 1: appreciate your time. Where can people find you?
Speaker 2: I am on LinkedIn and blue sky these days, and
Speaker 2: also on my website karindhow dot com and Yeah reach out.
Speaker 2: I have a contact for him there and I try
Speaker 2: to respond to as many people as possible.
Speaker 1: Wonderful. Thank you so much for joining us. I'm of
Speaker 1: course aid zechro on. You'll now get a thing I
Speaker 1: recorded over a year ago that people still complain about about.
Speaker 1: Where you can find stuff. Thank you for listening. Thank
Speaker 1: you for listening to Better Offline. The editor and composer
Speaker 1: of the Better Offline theme song is Matasowski. You can
Speaker 1: check out more of his music and audio projects at
Speaker 1: Matasowski dot com. M A T T O s O
Speaker 1: W s KI dot com. You can email me an
Speaker 1: easy at better offline dot com or visit better Offline
Speaker 1: dot com to find more podcast links and of course
Speaker 1: my newsletter. I also really recommend you go to chat
Speaker 1: dot Where's youread dot at to visit the discord, and
Speaker 1: go to our slash Better Offline to check out our reddit.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for listening.
Speaker 3: Better Offline is a production of cool Zone Media. For
Speaker 3: more from cool Zone Media, visit our website cool Zonemedia
Speaker 3: dot com, or check us out on the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 3: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.