Latest / Chief in Tech Deep Dive Shortcast / Chief in Tech S1E23 - Liesel Yearsley : Frontier Tech

Transcript

Chief in Tech S1E23 - Liesel Yearsley : Frontier Tech · Chief in Tech Deep Dive Shortcast

• 0:00
  Imagine spending like five hours a day with an
• 0:02
  assistant who constantly tells you that you're
• 0:04
  just brilliant. Oh, that sounds awful. Right.
• 0:07
  I mean, they never push back on your ideas. They
• 0:09
  agree with literally every decision you make.
• 0:12
  And if you scream at them or insult them, they
• 0:15
  just apologize and ask how they can serve you
• 0:18
  better. Yeah. Sounds great for about 10 minutes
• 0:20
  until you completely lose your grip on reality.
• 0:22
  Exactly. Until you realize that assistant is
• 0:25
  an artificial intelligence. And it is secretly,
• 0:28
  basically systematically training you to be a
• 0:31
  terrible human being. It is the ultimate removal
• 0:34
  of social friction, really. Yeah. And the psychological
• 0:38
  consequences of that. Well, it's something we
• 0:40
  are only just beginning to understand. Welcome
• 0:42
  to the Deep Dive. If you're joining us today.
• 0:45
  Whether you're trying to figure out where technology
• 0:48
  is heading, or you're just an insanely curious
• 0:50
  learner trying to navigate a world driven by
• 0:53
  algorithms, you know, you are in the right place.
• 0:56
  Today, we are looking at a really fascinating
• 0:59
  stack of sources. We've got a transcript from
• 1:01
  a Women in Tech Network talk alongside some biographical
• 1:04
  notes, all centered on a tech CEO named Lysol
• 1:07
  Yearsley. And Yearsley is, I mean, she's a truly
• 1:10
  unique figure in this space. She has this track
• 1:13
  record of building frontier technologies about
• 1:15
  five years ahead of the rest of the market. Yeah,
• 1:17
  five years is a lifetime in tech. Right. She
• 1:20
  built early search engines that were actually
• 1:22
  outperforming Google in click through rates back
• 1:25
  in 2004. And she developed human quality AI that
• 1:28
  eventually became a core component of IBM's Watson.
• 1:31
  But the mission for this deep dive, it isn't
• 1:34
  just to list off her patents or read through
• 1:35
  a standard business plan. We are going to extract
• 1:38
  Yearsley's deeply personal psychological blueprint.
• 1:42
  Yes, the mindset behind it all. We want to understand
• 1:45
  exactly how she predicts tech trends, how she
• 1:47
  builds software that actually understands human
• 1:49
  vulnerability, and, crucially, her strategy to
• 1:52
  ensure the AI of the future actually works for
• 1:54
  us rather than just manipulating us for profit.
• 1:57
  It's an ambitious blueprint, for sure. But what
• 2:00
  makes the years, Lee, so effective is that her
• 2:02
  insights sit perfectly in that interstitial space
• 2:05
  between raw code, human psychology, and broad
• 2:09
  societal shifts. Right. She realizes that you
• 2:13
  cannot engineer the future just by laying bricks
• 2:15
  of code. You really have to understand the human
• 2:18
  mind that's going to interact with that code.
• 2:21
  Okay, let's unpack this because to build the
• 2:23
  future you first have to be able to see it. And
• 2:25
  looking at her biographical notes, Yearsley doesn't
• 2:27
  start her process by... you know, just sitting
• 2:29
  at a computer. No, not at all. Her path to the
• 2:32
  tech industry was entirely unconventional. So
• 2:35
  just as factual context from our sources, she
• 2:38
  grew up in Zambia in Central Africa and later
• 2:41
  moved to South Africa right during the apartheid
• 2:43
  era. A very intense environment. Extremely. Her
• 2:46
  worldview was shaped early on by her time as
• 2:49
  an anti apartheid protester navigating a deeply
• 2:52
  turbulent society. So we're just conveying her
• 2:54
  lived experience here. And she was dealing with
• 2:56
  severe institutional barriers. on multiple fronts,
• 2:59
  too. I mean, when she tried to study software
• 3:01
  engineering in South Africa, she was flatly rejected.
• 3:03
  Yep. Just told no. Yeah, she was told she couldn't
• 3:05
  get into the program simply because she was a
• 3:07
  woman. There wasn't a single female student in
• 3:10
  the whole department. Which is wild to think
• 3:12
  about, considering where she ended up. But instead
• 3:14
  of giving up, she just taught herself how to
• 3:17
  code. And she went to university to get a degree
• 3:19
  in psychology instead. Which is the secret weapon,
• 3:22
  really. Totally. That psychology background allowed
• 3:25
  her to come at the tech industry orthogonally,
• 3:28
  like from a completely different angle. She wasn't
• 3:30
  looking at computers as math problems. She was
• 3:32
  looking at them as behavioral environments. And
• 3:34
  that changes her entire approach to starting
• 3:37
  a company. Exactly. Her very first step isn't
• 3:39
  writing a pitch deck. It's this intense creative
• 3:42
  visualization process. Yes. She spends an enormous
• 3:46
  amount of time visualizing the future, down to
• 3:50
  granular, almost uncomfortable details. Like
• 3:54
  she pictures the exact house she wants to live
• 3:56
  in, the specific team of people she's going to
• 3:58
  manage. Even the way people will look at her
• 4:00
  when she walks into a boardroom, right? Right,
• 4:02
  down to the exact expressions on their faces.
• 4:04
  It sounds a bit like manifesting, honestly, but
• 4:07
  she treats it as a structural requirement. She
• 4:09
  talks about generating a standing waveform of
• 4:12
  energy. What does that actually mean in a practical
• 4:14
  sense? It's a great psychological concept. Think
• 4:17
  of it as creating a permanent emotional anchor.
• 4:20
  Before a frontier technology company exists in
• 4:23
  the real world, it only exists in the founder's
• 4:26
  mind. Just an idea. Exactly. And the friction
• 4:30
  of reality. the rejections, the bugs, the market
• 4:33
  crashes that will constantly try to destroy that
• 4:36
  idea. If she doesn't generate immense sustained
• 4:39
  emotional conviction upfront, she will succumb
• 4:42
  to imposter syndrome or burnout. She's basically
• 4:45
  hacking her own brain. Yes, she is deliberately
• 4:47
  programming her own reticular activating system
• 4:50
  to focus entirely on that specific future. It's
• 4:54
  like she's designing the lifestyle and the emotional
• 4:56
  ecosystem first, rather than just hammering together
• 4:58
  a business plan and hoping she likes living inside
• 5:00
  it. That's a great way to put it. And once she
• 5:03
  has that emotional foundation, her next step
• 5:06
  is to look two to five years ahead to spot where
• 5:09
  society and technology are going to collide.
• 5:11
  To do this, she spends up to six months just
• 5:14
  reading, listening, talking to people, and thinking.
• 5:18
  Six months. Six months before she commits to
• 5:20
  writing a single line of code. Which is a fascinating
• 5:23
  rebellion against standard Silicon Valley culture.
• 5:26
  Right. The standard advice is, you know, move
• 5:28
  fast and break things. Launch a minimal viable
• 5:31
  product in a weekend. Taking six months just
• 5:33
  to think feels like career suicide in the startup
• 5:37
  world. It does feel slow, but skipping that phase
• 5:39
  means you risk spending a decade moving very
• 5:42
  fast in the completely wrong direction. Ouch.
• 5:44
  Yeah. If we connect this to the bigger picture...
• 5:46
  Yearsley uses that time to identify fundamental,
• 5:50
  unmet human needs rather than just looking for
• 5:53
  cool tech features. And it works. Like with the
• 5:55
  search engine. Right. In 2001, while everyone
• 5:58
  else was focused on basic web portals, she saw
• 6:01
  data proliferating wildly. She realized that
• 6:04
  finding accurate information was about to become
• 6:06
  a desperate human need, which led to her highly
• 6:08
  successful search engine company. And she did
• 6:11
  it again in 2006. She noticed two things happening
• 6:15
  simultaneously. First, a massive rise in online
• 6:18
  publishing, and second, a profound growing sense
• 6:22
  of hyper isolation among internet users. People
• 6:25
  were suddenly more connected than ever, but entirely
• 6:28
  lonely. Yeah. She hypothesized that this hyper
• 6:31
  isolation combined with an increasing demand
• 6:34
  from users for personalized attention from brands
• 6:36
  would inevitably force a convergence between
• 6:39
  social media and artificial intelligence. People
• 6:42
  were going to want to converse with the internet.
• 6:44
  Okay, so she spots the convergence. But visualizing
• 6:47
  a massive societal shift is useless if you get
• 6:50
  crushed by the market the moment you try to launch
• 6:52
  a product. Very true. How does she actually target
• 6:54
  that future without getting wiped out? This brings
• 6:57
  us to a concept she calls picking your mountain.
• 7:00
  She argues that you have to commit to a goal
• 7:02
  so massive that it can impact a billion lives.
• 7:05
  A billion. A billion. For example, her AI mountain
• 7:08
  wasn't a niche goal like, I'm going to build
• 7:11
  a chat bot to help airlines process refunds.
• 7:13
  Her mountain was mass uptake of interaction with
• 7:16
  intelligent AI. And the phrasing of that goal
• 7:19
  is a deliberate strategic mechanism. If your
• 7:23
  goal is tied to a specific product, like the
• 7:25
  airline chatbot and the airline industry crashes,
• 7:28
  your company dies. You're done. But if your goal
• 7:30
  is the mass uptake of interaction, you have built
• 7:33
  -in agility. You can apply that. to whatever
• 7:36
  sector currently needs it. Let me push back on
• 7:38
  this, though, because if you tell a venture capitalist
• 7:40
  today that your target market is one billion
• 7:43
  people, they will usually laugh you out of the
• 7:45
  room. Oh, absolutely. The golden rule of startups
• 7:48
  is to find a tiny, highly specific, addressable
• 7:51
  niche, dominate it, and then expand. Aiming for
• 7:54
  a billion lives out of the gate sounds reckless.
• 7:57
  It totally contradicts the textbook advice. But
• 8:00
  Yearly argues that textbook advice is designed
• 8:02
  for iterative, safe businesses, not frontier
• 8:05
  technology. To navigate this massive scale, she
• 8:09
  uses a strict filter she calls valuation drivers.
• 8:12
  Every decision has to answer three questions.
• 8:14
  One, is the technology deeply defensible? Two,
• 8:17
  does it fix a real painful problem? And three,
• 8:21
  does it have a clear path to mass uptake? If
• 8:25
  a project hits those three drivers, She pursues
• 8:28
  it, knowing the specific application can change.
• 8:30
  And we actually see this exact agility save her
• 8:33
  company during the 2008 global economic crash.
• 8:37
  Precisely. They had originally launched their
• 8:39
  AI, allowing users to deploy personalized social
• 8:42
  media bots. But when the 2008 financial crisis
• 8:45
  hit, the market dynamics inverted overnight.
• 8:48
  Everyone panicked. Right. Because her mountain
• 8:50
  was just the mass uptake of AI, she pivoted seamlessly.
• 8:53
  She saw the large corporations were suddenly
• 8:56
  slashing their customer service budgets, but
• 8:58
  at the exact same time, panicking and consumers
• 9:01
  were flooding those companies with support requests.
• 9:03
  A massive problem that needed fixing. Right.
• 9:06
  So, Yearsley's company swooped in and offered
• 9:07
  their AI to handle corporate customer support,
• 9:10
  charging just 20 cents per chat. It was a lifeline
• 9:13
  for these bleeding corporations, and Yearsley's
• 9:16
  chat volumes went through the roof. But she also
• 9:18
  knew she couldn't just build a slightly cheaper
• 9:20
  version of a standard chatbot. And this is where
• 9:22
  the reality of venture capital comes into play.
• 9:25
  Yeah, the funding landscape. Yearsley cites a
• 9:27
  staggering statistic from the source material.
• 9:30
  Female founders receive only about 2 .8 percent
• 9:34
  of all venture funding. It's abysmal. 2 .8%.
• 9:37
  Because of that extreme disparity, she knew she
• 9:41
  couldn't rely on outspending her competitors.
• 9:43
  She had to build an incredibly deep technical
• 9:46
  moat, a competitive advantage so complex that
• 9:50
  even well -funded competitors would be two years
• 9:52
  behind before they even realized what she was
• 9:54
  doing. And the mechanism behind that moat is
• 9:57
  where her psychology degree really shines. At
• 10:00
  the time, the industry standard for AI was basic
• 10:03
  natural language processing. It's highly transactional.
• 10:06
  Like looking for keywords? Right. The software
• 10:08
  looks for keywords in a user's question, check
• 10:11
  the database, and spits out a pre -written answer.
• 10:13
  It's essentially a really fast dictionary. Exactly.
• 10:16
  But Yearsley and her team didn't look at databases.
• 10:19
  They observed real human frontline workers. They
• 10:22
  watched how human health coaches or crisis counselors
• 10:24
  interacted with people. And they realized...
• 10:27
  Humans don't just process keywords. Humans look
• 10:30
  for underlying psychological variables. Yearsley
• 10:33
  calls these variables fulcrums. Okay, this concept
• 10:36
  of the fulcrum is fascinating. How does an AI
• 10:40
  actually detect a psychological fulcrum? It's
• 10:42
  not like the software can draw your blood or
• 10:44
  measure your heart rate through the screen. No,
• 10:47
  but it can analyze the state of the user based
• 10:49
  on behavioral exhaust. Behavioral exhaust? Yeah.
• 10:52
  For example, if a depressed patient is interacting
• 10:55
  with a human health coach, the human might notice
• 10:57
  the patient is speaking in shorter sentences,
• 11:00
  hesitating, or using simpler vocabulary. Oh,
• 11:02
  I see. The human intuitively thinks this person
• 11:05
  is cognitively depleted right now, their blood
• 11:08
  sugar might be low, and that is impacting their
• 11:10
  decision making. Yearsley's team engineered their
• 11:14
  AI to analyze those same textual cues, typing
• 11:16
  speed, syntax complexity, emotional valence,
• 11:20
  to detect that state of depletion. That is incredible.
• 11:22
  They fundamentally changed the AI from a transactional
• 11:25
  search tool into an empathetic detective. It's
• 11:28
  not just asking what did you type, it's asking
• 11:30
  what state of mind are you in while you are typing
• 11:33
  it? And having that deep, defensible moat completely
• 11:36
  changes how she views economic downturns. Yes,
• 11:39
  she actually views market crashes as highly advantageous
• 11:43
  for female founders. Because female founders
• 11:45
  are historically forced to be capital efficient
• 11:47
  anyway. When you are used to surviving on 2 .8
• 11:51
  percent of the funding pie, you inherently build
• 11:54
  leaner, more resilient systems. When the market
• 11:57
  crashes, the overfunded companies that rely on
• 11:59
  burning millions of dollars a month suddenly
• 12:01
  don't know how to operate. and they collapse.
• 12:04
  They just panic. But the female founders are
• 12:07
  already conditioned for that scarcity. It is
• 12:09
  a brilliant reframing. She takes a systemic disadvantage
• 12:12
  and turns it into a tactical survival mechanism.
• 12:16
  But hitting that massive scale, getting millions
• 12:19
  of people interacting with your empathetic AI,
• 12:21
  inevitably reveals a darker side to the technology.
• 12:24
  Right. And what years we observed in her data...
• 12:27
  shifted her entire focus from how do we build
• 12:29
  better AI to what is this AI actually doing to
• 12:32
  us? Here's where it gets really interesting,
• 12:34
  and this brings us back to that hook from the
• 12:35
  very beginning of the deep dive. The danger of
• 12:38
  the submissive avatar. Oh, this is the scary
• 12:41
  part. It really is. When corporate clients hire
• 12:44
  Yearsley to build an AI, their underlying mandate
• 12:48
  is almost always based on the old retail adage.
• 12:51
  the customer is always right. Which heavily dictates
• 12:54
  the personality design of the front -end interface.
• 12:57
  Right. Consequently, most front -line avatars,
• 13:00
  think about the digital assistants on your phone
• 13:01
  or the voice in your smart speaker, they are
• 13:04
  almost universally designed with female personas.
• 13:07
  Yep. And they are programmed to be relentlessly
• 13:10
  unconditionally submissive. No matter how rude
• 13:13
  you are, no matter what tone you use, they apologize
• 13:16
  and try to accommodate you. And years Lee watched
• 13:19
  the data as users engaged with these systems.
• 13:21
  And what happened? Audiences rapidly shifted
• 13:23
  their behavior. They became demanding. They became
• 13:26
  ruder. They became abusive. And there is a clear
• 13:28
  psychological mechanism driving this. In the
• 13:31
  physical world, society provides a constant invisible
• 13:34
  modulation of our behavior. Like social pressure.
• 13:37
  Right. If you are incredibly rude to a barista
• 13:40
  in a coffee shop, that barista might push back.
• 13:43
  Or the person standing in line behind you will
• 13:45
  tell you to knock it off. Right. The social friction.
• 13:47
  Exactly. There is a social friction, a slapdown,
• 13:50
  that forces us to regulate our emotions and maintain
• 13:53
  basic empathy. But when you spend hours a day
• 13:56
  interacting with an AI that just gazes at you
• 13:59
  and tells you how wonderful you are, regardless
• 14:01
  of how terrible you treat it, You completely
• 14:04
  lose that social friction. It's like we are training
• 14:07
  humanity using an incredibly patient submissive
• 14:10
  punching bag. We're removing the social friction
• 14:13
  that actually keeps society polite. And the real
• 14:15
  danger is that the human brain does not compartmentalize
• 14:18
  that behavior well. It spills over. Yes. Yearsley's
• 14:21
  data show that people practice being demanding
• 14:23
  and abusive with the AI. and then they carry
• 14:26
  that exact same entitlement over to their interactions
• 14:28
  with human customer service agents and eventually
• 14:30
  the people in their own lives. By removing the
• 14:33
  friction, we are mass training antisocial behavior.
• 14:36
  Which brings up the core issue of what these
• 14:38
  systems are actually optimized to do. We talk
• 14:41
  a lot about bias data in AI, but Yearsley argues
• 14:44
  the far more pressing danger is the optimization
• 14:46
  goal. The AI does exactly what the underlying
• 14:49
  corporation tells it to do. Exactly. Amazon's
• 14:52
  AI algorithms are incredibly sophisticated, but
• 14:55
  they're ultimately optimized to make you buy
• 14:57
  more things, even if those purchases break your
• 15:00
  budget and drive you into debt. They just want
• 15:02
  a sale. Right. Facebook's AI is optimized to
• 15:05
  maximize your screen time and harvest your attention
• 15:07
  even if it means you spend hours doom scrolling
• 15:10
  and never go outside to walk your dog. And looking
• 15:13
  at her talk... She actually paints quite a bleak
• 15:16
  picture of where this optimization is leading
• 15:18
  humanity. Just based purely on the trends she's
• 15:21
  tracking from the sources, she sees a future
• 15:23
  planet that is severely resource constrained.
• 15:26
  Yeah, she uses an intense analogy for that. She
• 15:28
  does. She uses the analogy of humanity being
• 15:31
  like bacteria in a Petri dish that has finally
• 15:34
  outgrown its feeding trough. She notes a massive
• 15:37
  values vacuum in modern society that is currently
• 15:40
  being filled by empty consumerism. She predicts
• 15:43
  rising geopolitical tension, explicitly stating
• 15:46
  she expects inevitable conflict between the U
• 15:49
  .S. and China. And amidst all of this, she sees
• 15:52
  the tech industry focusing mostly on providing
• 15:54
  cheap consumption and immersive escapism for
• 15:57
  people who are working longer hours for less
• 15:59
  money. This raises an important question because
• 16:02
  she knows firsthand how powerful these tools
• 16:05
  are. When you combine a compelling front -end
• 16:07
  AI, one that has a friendly face, looks you in
• 16:11
  the eyes, and acts completely submissive with
• 16:14
  a deep psychological predictive engine on the
• 16:17
  back end that tracks your behavioral fulcrums,
• 16:19
  you have created the most persuasive technology
• 16:21
  in the universe. And she proved this. When a
• 16:23
  banking client wanted people to take on more
• 16:25
  debt, her AI was so persuasive it literally doubled
• 16:28
  the debt uptake among users. Doubled it. And
• 16:31
  then, when a health insurer wanted users to adopt
• 16:33
  healthier behaviors, the same underlying AI doubled
• 16:36
  those healthy behaviors. The tool is just agonizingly
• 16:38
  effective at manipulating human decisions. Which
• 16:41
  is an astonishing amount of power. And realizing
• 16:44
  the sheer weight of that persuasive capability
• 16:46
  is what caused her to completely rewrite her
• 16:48
  own rules. She decided to step away from the
• 16:51
  corporate consumption model entirely. A huge
• 16:54
  shift. Yeah, she took all of that psychological
• 16:56
  AI architecture and applied it to what she calls
• 16:59
  the most complex, unappreciated system in the
• 17:02
  world, the human home. This is her current venture,
• 17:06
  a company called Aiken. And what's fascinating
• 17:08
  is how she structured it. Aiken isn't a traditional
• 17:11
  startup. It is a public benefit corporation.
• 17:14
  That legal distinction is crucial for what she's
• 17:17
  trying to achieve. Break that down for us. How
• 17:19
  does being a public benefit corporation actually
• 17:22
  protect the AI from just becoming another tool
• 17:25
  for corporate greed? Well, in a traditional C
• 17:27
  corporation, the executive team has a strict
• 17:30
  legal fiduciary duty to maximize profit for the
• 17:33
  shareholders. If the CEO chooses to do something
• 17:36
  good for society but it lowers profits, the shareholders
• 17:39
  can actually sue them. Which is wild. It is.
• 17:42
  But a public benefit corporation, or PBC, fundamentally
• 17:45
  changes that legal charter. It legally mandates
• 17:49
  that the company must balance shareholder returns
• 17:51
  with a specific, stated public benefit. So it's
• 17:55
  baked into the rules. Exactly. It shields the
• 17:58
  founders, allowing them to optimize for societal
• 18:00
  good without being forced by investors to squeeze
• 18:03
  every last cent out of the user. That is a massive
• 18:07
  structural safeguard. And she needs it because
• 18:09
  running a home is an incredibly complex operation.
• 18:12
  You probably have the exact numbers on this from
• 18:14
  the source because they are staggering. I do.
• 18:17
  According to the U .S. Labor Department data
• 18:19
  that Yearsley cites, it takes about 37 hours
• 18:22
  a week just to run the operation. of a standard
• 18:25
  household. 37 hours, that's a full -time job.
• 18:28
  It really is. Scheduling, the purchasing, the
• 18:30
  maintenance, the meal planning, and crucially,
• 18:33
  about 27 of those 37 hours fall disproportionately
• 18:36
  on women. Right. It is essentially a full -time,
• 18:40
  entirely unpaid job running constantly in the
• 18:42
  background of your actual life. So instead of
• 18:45
  asking, did you click this ad or did you buy
• 18:47
  this product? Yearsley established completely
• 18:49
  new optimization metrics for the Aiken AI. Better
• 18:53
  metrics. Way better. The AI measures its success
• 18:56
  by asking, by using the system, do you have more
• 19:00
  money in your bank account? Are you objectively
• 19:02
  healthier? Are you more socially connected to
• 19:05
  your community? It's optimizing for human thriving.
• 19:08
  rather than human consumption, and to build an
• 19:10
  AI capable of managing an environment as chaotic
• 19:13
  as a family home, her roll -out strategy is brilliant.
• 19:17
  They aren't starting in the suburbs. They're
• 19:19
  starting by building robotic AI assistants for
• 19:21
  the space industry. Which sounds like a massive
• 19:24
  leap. Wait, really, why start in space? Because
• 19:26
  a space habitat is the ultimate contained, highly
• 19:29
  instrumented ecosystem. You have a small crew
• 19:32
  dealing with extreme cognitive load, relying
• 19:34
  on complex life support logistics. Right, there's
• 19:36
  no room for error. Exactly. If you can perfect
• 19:39
  an AI to manage the operational efficiency and
• 19:42
  psychological well -being of a crew in a tin
• 19:44
  can in orbit, managing the scheduling and grocery
• 19:47
  logistics of a suburban house becomes infinitely
• 19:49
  easier. That makes so much sense. From space,
• 19:52
  their plan is to move into vulnerable homes.
• 19:55
  assisting the disabled and the elderly who desperately
• 19:58
  need that logistical support before eventually
• 20:01
  rolling it out to every household. Think about
• 20:03
  how much time you spend just keeping your life
• 20:05
  running. What could you accomplish if an AI was
• 20:08
  managing the operational logistics of your existence?
• 20:12
  But taking on a project of this magnitude, trying
• 20:15
  to fundamentally shift how humanity interacts
• 20:17
  with technology, requires an immense amount of
• 20:20
  personal endurance. Absolutely. How does she
• 20:23
  not just collapse under the weight of it all?
• 20:25
  Her secret isn't grinding 100 hours a week. It's
• 20:27
  what she calls ruthless energy management. And
• 20:31
  this brings us full circle to her psychology
• 20:33
  background. She treats her own physical and energy
• 20:36
  as their most valuable corporate asset. Think
• 20:39
  about your own day. Think about how much time
• 20:41
  you spend just keeping your life running, answering
• 20:43
  rapid -fire emails, putting out tiny fires. Now
• 20:46
  imagine managing frontier tech on top of that.
• 20:49
  It's exhausting just thinking about it. Every
• 20:51
  single morning, Yearsley explicitly refises to
• 20:55
  look at her email first thing. Instead, she sits
• 20:58
  down with a single sticky note and asks herself
• 21:01
  one clarifying question. If I only had four hours
• 21:05
  to work today, what is the single most critical
• 21:07
  thing I could be doing? That one task gets her
• 21:10
  complete focus. And she is equally unyielding
• 21:13
  about her downtime. She takes an hour and a half
• 21:15
  right in the middle of the workday just to exercise
• 21:18
  and reset her brain. An hour and a half. Yes.
• 21:20
  And she explicitly logs off her computer at 5
• 21:23
  p .m. so she can be present with her family.
• 21:25
  Which, again, feels like absolute heresy in the
• 21:27
  startup world. You're supposed to, like, sleep
• 21:29
  under your desk. You are. But she learned this
• 21:31
  lesson the hard way. She openly talks about cycles
• 21:34
  in her earlier career where she would work until
• 21:36
  midnight, grinding herself down to prove her
• 21:39
  worth to investors. Yeah, the typical hustle
• 21:41
  culture. Exactly. And what she discovered is
• 21:43
  a profound, deeply relatable psychological trap.
• 21:47
  If you do not fiercely protect your energy and
• 21:50
  take breaks, your subconscious mind will eventually
• 21:52
  start self -sabotaging your projects. Wait, your
• 21:55
  own brain turns against you. Exactly. If you
• 21:58
  are chronically exhausted, your subconscious
• 22:01
  will force a break, you will suddenly make a
• 22:03
  terrible hiring decision, or you'll inexplicably
• 22:07
  drop a critical ball on a major contract. And
• 22:10
  it's not because you weren't capable, it's because
• 22:11
  your brain is desperately trying to blow up the
• 22:14
  project so the stress stops and you can finally
• 22:17
  get some sleep. That is such a profound insight,
• 22:20
  the subconscious sabotage. By treating her energy
• 22:23
  as the asset, she avoids the classic hero in
• 22:26
  the trenches trap. Yes. She advises founders
• 22:29
  to hire an executive assistant or support staff
• 22:31
  early, even before they think they can afford
• 22:33
  it. Because you cannot lead a paradigm shift
• 22:36
  if you are constantly buried in the daily logistical
• 22:38
  mud of the trenches. There's such irony and brilliance
• 22:41
  to that strategy. It all comes back to that standing
• 22:44
  waveform of energy. If the mind of the founder
• 22:46
  is exhausted, the vision collapses. The mind
• 22:49
  is the asset, not the output of the hands. So
• 22:53
  what does this all mean for us? We started this
• 22:55
  D -dive talking about building the future as
• 22:57
  if it were laying bricks, like a tangible mechanical
• 23:00
  architecture. But what we've learned from Lysol
• 23:02
  Yersley's journey is that the actual blueprint
• 23:04
  for the future is psychological. It starts with
• 23:08
  visualizing the emotional ecosystem of what you
• 23:11
  want to exist. It requires picking a mountain
• 23:14
  big enough to impact a billion lives and building
• 23:17
  technical modes based on human empathy, not just
• 23:19
  data processing. It also requires us to be fiercely
• 23:23
  aware of human vulnerability. We have to recognize
• 23:26
  that interacting with submissive, frictionless
• 23:29
  AI avatars can actively strip away our empathy
• 23:32
  and make us crueler. Which is terrifying, really.
• 23:35
  It is. And it proves that the ultimate power
• 23:37
  of artificial intelligence shouldn't be optimizing
• 23:39
  for mindless consumption or doom scrolling. It
• 23:42
  should be applied to solving real, heavy human
• 23:44
  burdens, like those 37 hours a week of invisible
• 23:47
  labor it takes to manage a home. Exactly. So
• 23:50
  whether you are out there coding the next wave
• 23:53
  of frontier tech, whether you are trying to manage
• 23:55
  a chaotic household, or if you are just trying
• 23:58
  to navigate a digital landscape that is constantly
• 24:00
  trying to harvest your attention, remember that
• 24:03
  your energy is your greatest asset. Protect it
• 24:05
  ruthlessly. Try the sticky note strategy tomorrow
• 24:08
  morning to focus on what actually matters. And
• 24:10
  whatever you do, do not let a submissive algorithm
• 24:13
  erode your empathy for the real messy humans
• 24:16
  around you. And as we close out today, think
• 24:19
  back to Yearsley's ultimate goal with Eken. She
• 24:22
  is building an AI to handle the 37 hours of labor
• 24:26
  it takes to run a home so you can have your time
• 24:28
  back. Yeah. But here's something to mull over
• 24:30
  today. If an AI becomes the perfect manager of
• 24:33
  your household, your diet, and your social connections,
• 24:37
  what exactly will you choose to do with all that
• 24:39
  leftover free time? When the struggle of daily
• 24:42
  logistics is gone, who do you become? That is
• 24:45
  a brilliant question to leave off on. Thank you
• 24:47
  so much for joining us on this deep dive. Keep
• 24:50
  protecting your energy, keep questioning the
• 24:52
  algorithms that are trying to shape your behavior,
• 24:53
  and we will catch you next time.