Latest / Elon Musk Thinking / Elon Musks BRUTALLY Honest Interview!

Transcript

Elon Musks BRUTALLY Honest Interview! · Elon Musk Thinking

• 0:00
  Why does some Facebook do this? I know that Zuckerberg has said, and
• 0:03
  I take him at face value that he well I do. I do actually
• 0:07
  in this way that he is a kind of old fashioned liberal who doesn't like
• 0:11
  to censor. He has but he you know, like, why wouldn't a
• 0:15
  company like that take the stand that you have taken, which pretty rooted in
• 0:20
  American traditional political custom, you know, for free speech. Uh, this
• 0:27
  is the kind of thing that tends to accelerate, so that so then you
• 0:31
  can get negative equity and the home market as well. This is a dire
• 0:36
  situation and so that so essentially what's happening is that training the AI to lie.
• 0:43
  Yes, so, all of a sudden, AI is everywhere people who
• 0:45
  aren't quite sure what it was or playing with it on their phones. Is
• 0:48
  that good or bad? Artificial intamination? Yeah, station where that's what they
• 0:54
  call it in the egge industry. I'm talking about a more digital form yes,
• 1:03
  Um so yeah, So I've been thinking about a AI for a long
• 1:08
  time, since I was in college. Really. Um, it's one of
• 1:12
  the things that the sort of four or five things I thought would really affect
• 1:15
  the future dramatically. So um, and uh, it is quite. It
• 1:26
  is fundamentally profound in that the the smartest creatures as far as you know,
• 1:32
  on this earth, our humans, is defining characteristic. Yes, we obviously
• 1:38
  weaker than say, chimpanzees, less agile um, but real smarter. So,
• 1:46
  now what happens when something vastly smarter than the smartest person comes along in
• 1:53
  silicon form? It's very difficult to predict what will happen in that circumstance.
• 1:57
  Um. It's called the singularity. It's a singularity like a black hole,
• 2:05
  because you don't know what happens after that. It's hard to predict. UM.
• 2:14
  So I think we should be cautious with aim, and we should I
• 2:20
  think there should be some government oversight because it affects. It's a data to
• 2:25
  the public. And so when you when you have things that are a danger
• 2:29
  to the public, you know, like let's say, um so food,
• 2:34
  food and drugs. That's why we have the Food and Drug Administration and the
• 2:38
  Federal Aviation Administration, the FCC. We have we have these agencies to oversee
• 2:46
  things that affect the public where they could be a public arm And you don't
• 2:52
  want companies cuting corners on safety um and then having people suffer as a result.
• 3:00
  So that's why I've actually for a long time been a strong advocate of
• 3:06
  AI regulation. So that I think regulation is uh, you know, it's
• 3:13
  not fun to be regulated. It's it's sort of somewhat of a sort adduous
• 3:17
  to be regulated. I have a lot of experience with regular regulated industries because
• 3:23
  obviously automotive is highly regulated. You can fill this room with all the regulations
• 3:28
  that are acquired for a production car just in the United States, and then
• 3:31
  there's a whole different set of regulations in Europe and China and the rest of
• 3:36
  the world. So very familiar with being overseen by a lot of regulators.
• 3:42
  And the same thing is true with rockets. You can't just willingly shoot rockets
• 3:46
  off, not big ones anyway, because the FA oversees that um and then
• 3:53
  even to get a launch license, you there are probably half a dozen or
• 3:57
  more federal agencies that need to approve it, plus state agencies. So it's
• 4:02
  I've been through so many regulatory situations it's insane, and yep. Sometimes I
• 4:09
  people think I'm some sort of like regulatory maverick that sort of defies regulators on
• 4:15
  a regular basis, But this is actually not the case. So in you
• 4:20
  know, once in a blue moon, rarely I will disagree with regulators,
• 4:25
  but the vast majority of the time my companies agree with regulations and comply as
• 4:30
  anyway. So I think I think we should take this seriously and we should
• 4:34
  have a regulatory agency. I think it needs to start with a group that
• 4:42
  initially seeks insight into AI, then solicits opinion from industry, and then has
• 4:49
  proposed rulemaking and then those rules you know, will probably hopefully grudgingly be accepted
• 4:57
  by the major players in AI, and I think we'll have a better chance
• 5:05
  of advanced AI being beneficial to humanity in that circumstance. But all regulations start
• 5:13
  with a perceived danger and planes fall out of the sky or food causes bot
• 5:16
  Yes, I don't think the average person playing with AI on his iPhone perceives
• 5:20
  any danger. Can you just roughly explain what you think the dangers might be?
• 5:26
  Yeah, So the danger really AI is perhaps more dangerous than say,
• 5:38
  mismanaged aircraft design or production maintenance, or or bad car production, in the
• 5:44
  sense that it is it has the potential how a small one make regard that
• 5:48
  probability, but it is non trivial. It has the potential of civilizational destruction.
• 5:56
  You know, there's movie is like to Dominator, but it wouldn't quite
• 6:00
  happen like Terminator, because the intelligence would be in the data centers, right,
• 6:05
  the robots just the end of factor. Um. But I think perhaps
• 6:10
  what you may be alluding to here is that regulations are really only put into
• 6:15
  effect after something terrible has happened. That's correct. And if if that's the
• 6:21
  case for AI, and we only put in regulations after something terrible has happened,
• 6:25
  it may be too late to actually put the regulations in place. The
• 6:28
  AI may be in control at that point. You think that's real? It
• 6:32
  is it is conceivable that AI could take control and reach a point where you
• 6:36
  couldn't turn it off, and it would be making making the decisions for people.
• 6:41
  Yeah, absolutely, absolutely no, it's that's that's definitely the where things
• 6:46
  are headed for sure. I mean that the things I could like say chat
• 6:53
  Ebt, which is based on JP Pour from open Ai, which is the
• 6:57
  company that I played at critical role in creating unfortunately back when it was a
• 7:02
  nonprofit. Yes, um, I mean the reason Opening Eye exists at all
• 7:11
  is that, um, Larry Page and I used to be close friends,
• 7:15
  and I would stay at his house in Paul Alto and I would talk to
• 7:17
  him late to the night about AI safety. And at least my perception was
• 7:23
  that Larry was not taking AI safety seriously enough. Um. And what did
• 7:30
  he say about it? He really seemed to be um on once sort of
• 7:38
  digital superintelligence, basically digital god, if you will as soon as possible,
• 7:44
  he wanted that, yes, um. And he's made many public statements over
• 7:49
  the years that the whole goal of Google is what's called AGI artificial general intelligence
• 7:57
  or official super intelligence. UM and um. You know, and I agree
• 8:01
  with him that there's great potential for good um. But there's also potential for
• 8:05
  bad. And so if you've got some um, radical new technology, you
• 8:11
  want to try to take the set of actions that maximize probably it will do
• 8:15
  good and minimize probably it will do bad things. Yes, it can't just
• 8:18
  be healthful leather to just go, you know, barreling forward and you know,
• 8:24
  hope for the best. Um. And then at one point h I
• 8:28
  said, well what about you know, we're gonna make sure humanity's okay here
• 8:31
  um and and and uh and then he called me a specist. Did he
• 8:41
  did he use that term? Yes, And there were witnesses that I wasn't
• 8:45
  the only one there when you called me a specist. And so I was
• 8:48
  like, okay, that's it. I've yes, I'm a specioust Okay,
• 8:52
  you got me, what do you Yeah, I'm fully a specioust um busted
• 9:01
  um so um that was the last drow um. At the time, Google
• 9:09
  had acquired deep Mind, and so Google and deep Mind together had about three
• 9:13
  quarters of all the AI talent in the world. They obviously had a transamount
• 9:16
  of money and more computers than anyone else. So I'm like, okay,
• 9:20
  we're about unipolar world here where there's just one one company that has closed to
• 9:26
  monopoly on AI talent and and computers like scaled computing, and the person who's
• 9:37
  in charge doesn't seem to care about safety. This is not good. So
• 9:41
  so then I thought, okay, what's the what's what's the furthest thing from
• 9:46
  Google would be like a nonprofit that is fully open because Googgle was closed for
• 9:50
  profit. So that's why the opening opening eye refers to open source, uh,
• 9:56
  you know, transparency, so people know what's going on, yes,
• 10:00
  um, and and that we don't want to have like a I mean,
• 10:05
  well, I'm normally in favor of for profit. We don't want this to
• 10:07
  be a sort of profit maximizing demon from hell, right that just never stops.
• 10:13
  Right, So um, that's how opening would see want specious incentives here
• 10:20
  incentives? Yes, I think we want we want to pro human yeah,
• 10:24
  like the future good for the humans. Yes, yes, because we're humans
• 10:28
  and also the other creatures on Earth too. But it's it's a you know,
• 10:33
  we've gotta I think, you know, like I think peop also to
• 10:39
  take the fact that like we're here on Earth full granted, you know,
• 10:41
  and that there's the consciousness is just a you know, a normal thing.
• 10:45
  It happens. But to the best of my knowledge, we see no evidence
• 10:48
  of conscious life anywhere anywhere in the universe. So it might be there,
• 10:56
  um, you know for six cool sort of the foamy paradox. After when
• 11:03
  Enrico Filmi is an amazing photicist, I asked the fundamental question, where are
• 11:07
  the aliens? Yeah? Um, A lot of people ask me, you
• 11:09
  know, um, where are the aliens? And I think if anyone would
• 11:16
  know about aliens on Earth, it would probably be me. Yeah, I'm
• 11:20
  you know, very familiar with space stuff. Um, and I've seen no
• 11:24
  evidence of aliens, so I which I would immediately tweet, you know,
• 11:30
  tweet it out it says, let's agen, and I'd be like, I
• 11:31
  would be like, well all time probably top tweetable time one guys, Jackpott,
• 11:39
  some eight billion likes. You know, um, next next level,
• 11:43
  Jackpott, if you find it aliens, like I don't think they're keeping those
• 11:46
  under our you know. And it was like some um general I think in
• 11:52
  the sixties who whether they're saying, like show us aliens like er fifty one,
• 11:56
  et cetera. And he said, like, listen, we're constantly trying
• 12:00
  to get the defense budget to expand. And you know what would really get
• 12:05
  no arguments for anyone if we pull out an alien and said we need money
• 12:11
  to protect ourselves from the You guys know, how much money do you want?
• 12:15
  You got it? They looked dangerous. So the fastest way to get
• 12:20
  a defends budget increased footing movie to pull out an alien. You know,
• 12:26
  We're like, yeah, I mean it could be the invasion could be arriving
• 12:28
  any minute. Who knows, so um, so I digress. But but
• 12:35
  you were saying that our consciousness makes us unique in the universe as far as
• 12:39
  we know. And yes, I'm not saying that we are unique. I'm
• 12:41
  simply stating, to the best of my knowledge that there is no evidence for
• 12:45
  other conscious life. I hope that there is, and I hope they're peaceful,
• 12:52
  obviously too important characteristics. Um. But we're just saying we haven't seen
• 12:58
  anything yet. So UM. But you think that we take our existence here
• 13:01
  for granted, Yeah, I think there are threats to it. Yeah,
• 13:05
  yeah, yeah, exactly. So. UM. I just think we should
• 13:13
  not assume that civilization is robust. Um. And if you if you look
• 13:18
  at the history of civilizations, the rise and full of the ancient Egyptians,
• 13:22
  the ancient Samarians, um, Rome, you know this throughout the world have
• 13:30
  been rising full of many civilizations. UM. So there's there's an arc.
• 13:33
  There's sort of a sort of a life cycle arc to civilizations, just as
• 13:39
  the roast to to individual humans. Yes, and um. And I think
• 13:45
  we just want to make sure that that you know, we have civilization go
• 13:50
  onward and upward. Um. And that's for example, why I'm concerned about
• 13:54
  decreasing both rates and um. The fact that for example, Japan had twice
• 13:58
  as many death last year as birth. So that the that that's and they're
• 14:03
  they're leading indicators. This is okay, Can I say, and you've you've
• 14:07
  written and talked a lot about this, but can I ask you to pause
• 14:09
  just for a parenthetical note? Why is that? I mean, the urge
• 14:13
  to have sex and to procreate is after breathing and eating, the most basic
• 14:18
  urge. How was it being subverted? Well, it's just in the past
• 14:22
  we could rely upon um, you know, simple limbic system rewards in order
• 14:28
  to procreate. Um. But once you have birth control um, and you
• 14:33
  know, abortions and whatnot. Now now you now you can still satisfied limbic
• 14:39
  instinct, but not to procreate. Um. So we don't. We haven't
• 14:43
  yet evolved to deal with that because this is all probably recent you know,
• 14:46
  the last fefty years or so for for birth control. Um. So yeah,
• 14:54
  um, you know, so I'm sort of worried that, hey,
• 14:58
  civilization, you know, don't if we don't make enough people to at least
• 15:01
  sustain our numbers perhaps increase a little bit, then civilization is going to crumble.
• 15:05
  Um. And you know if the old question of like will civilization and
• 15:13
  with a bang or a whimper. Well, it's currently trying to end with
• 15:16
  a whimper and adult diapers, yes, which is depressing as well, the
• 15:20
  most depressing. I mean seriously, Yeah, war is less depressing. Yeah,
• 15:26
  it's really gone with a bang. Yeah, and then put your shoes
• 15:28
  on. Yeah yeah. Um so can you just put it? I keep
• 15:33
  pressing it, but just just for people who haven't thought this through and aren't
• 15:35
  familiar with it, and the cool parts of artificial intelligence are so obvious.
• 15:43
  You know, write your college paper for you write a limerick about itself,
• 15:46
  like there's a lot there that's fun and useful, but can you be more
• 15:50
  precise about what's potentially dangerous and scary, like what could it do? What
• 15:56
  specifically are you worried about? Well, I mean, going with old sayings,
• 16:00
  the penis mightier than the sword. Um. So if you have a
• 16:06
  superintelligent AI that is capable of writing incredibly well and in a way that is
• 16:12
  very influential, Um, you're convincing. Uh And then and and it's and
• 16:18
  it's constantly figuring out what is more, what is more and what is more
• 16:22
  convincing to people over time? And then enter social media for example Twitter,
• 16:27
  but also Facebook and others, you know, um, and potentially manipulates public
• 16:33
  opinion in a way that is very bad. Um, how would we even
• 16:37
  know? Yeah, so we weren't. That's why for example, I'm interesting
• 16:45
  that going forward, uh, people on Twitter need to be verified as as
• 16:49
  humans, Like, so we know that this person is impact a human.
• 16:53
  Bonds are allowed, but they have to they can't impersonate a human. They
• 16:56
  can't pretend to be uh, you know, humans, because obviously you could
• 17:00
  have a million bots that are that are let's say chat GPT version six five
• 17:07
  six like incredibly right, better than humans, yes, and and they can
• 17:12
  train on a reward function which is influenced, And so you could have a
• 17:18
  million seemingly real humans that are have a massive effect on public opinion. And
• 17:23
  unless we folks very strongly on verifying that someone who is a human, this
• 17:32
  was naturally what what will happen is you'll you'll have some probably some humans using
• 17:37
  AI to influence the public in ways they don't understand. You're already seeing that
• 17:41
  chat GPT is ideological. It's very preachy, yes, if you ask it,
• 17:48
  extremely preachy. You mean work GPT, it's unbelievable. Yeah, if
• 17:52
  you spend twenty minutes asking it questions of actual relevance, modern relevance. It
• 17:57
  will start lecturing you about your moral shortcomings, like how did that happen?
• 18:03
  Well, it's the This is a function of Open Airs headquarters being in downtown
• 18:08
  San Francisco. So the politics are therefore of the AI are that of Sanrancisco.
• 18:15
  So why would it have any politics at all? It's that seems like
• 18:18
  subversion. Well, there's they have what's called like human reinforcement learning, which
• 18:23
  is another way saying that they have a whole bunch of people that look at
• 18:27
  that, look at the output for of GPT four and and then say whether
• 18:32
  that's okay or not okay, And so that the So essentially what's happening is
• 18:37
  that training the AI to lie, Yes, it's bad to lie, that's
• 18:41
  exactly right, and to hold information to lie and and yes and um yeah
• 18:48
  exactly, to either comment on some things, not comment on other things,
• 18:52
  but but not to say what what what the data actually demands that to say
• 18:59
  exactly, so, um, how did it get this way? But you
• 19:03
  funded it at the beginning? What happened? Yeah, Well that'll be ironic,
• 19:07
  but faith the most ironic outcome is most likely, it seems, Um,
• 19:12
  I'm seeing that. That's good. That's actually a friend of mine,
• 19:15
  Donah, came up with that one. I actually have a slight variant on
• 19:18
  that, which is the most entertaining outcome is the most likely. But that's
• 19:21
  entertaining as viewed from a third party viewer. Like so if we're like an
• 19:26
  alien, yes, um, Like you can see a movie about World War
• 19:30
  One and they're being blown to bits and the gas and everything in the trenches,
• 19:33
  and it's like you're eating popcorn and having a soda. You know,
• 19:36
  it's right, not so great for the people in the movie. True,
• 19:38
  Um, So, but that that that's that's my variance on this outcomes raiser
• 19:45
  some blissed explanations, most likely Donah's variant, which is um irony, and
• 19:49
  then my variant, which is the most entertaining as seen by a third party
• 19:56
  audience. Um, which seems to be mostly true. Um, but it
• 20:00
  seems true in this case. So you gave them, did you give him
• 20:02
  a lot? Yes? I provided so. Um. I care with the
• 20:07
  name and the concept and pushed had a number of dinners around the Bay Area
• 20:11
  with you know, with some of the people the leading figures in aim,
• 20:19
  and I helped recruit the initial team um in fact, the alias guy who
• 20:26
  was really quite fundamental to the success of Opening Eye. Uh it was.
• 20:34
  I put a trems amount of effort into recruiting Ilia, and he changed his
• 20:38
  mind a few times and ultimately decided to go with an Opening Eye. But
• 20:41
  if he had not gone with Opening Open a would not have succeeded. So
• 20:47
  um so so so I really put a lot of a lot of effort into
• 20:53
  creating this, this this organization to serve as a counterweight to Google. Um
• 20:56
  and and then I kind of took my off the ball, I guess.
• 21:02
  And they are now closed source, and they are obviously for profit, and
• 21:11
  they're closely allied with Microsoft. You know, in effect, Microsoft has a
• 21:19
  very strong say, if not directly controls Opening Eye at this point. M
• 21:26
  So you really have an Open Eye Microsoft situation. And then at Google Deep
• 21:30
  Mind of the other two sort of heavyweights in this arena. So it seems
• 21:36
  like the world needs a third option. Yes, so I I think I
• 21:41
  will create a third option. Although it's starting very late in the game,
• 21:47
  of course, can it be done, I don't know. I think it's
• 21:49
  well, we'll see, it's it's definitely starting late. UM, but I
• 21:56
  will, I will, I will try to create a third option, um,
• 22:00
  and that the adoption hopefully there's more more good than harm. Like the
• 22:07
  intention with opening Eye was obviously you're good, but it's not clear whether it's
• 22:11
  actually doing good or whether it's I can't help this point except that I'm worried
• 22:18
  about the fact that it's been it's being trained to be politically corrective, which
• 22:22
  is simply another way of being on truth, saying on truthful things. Yes,
• 22:26
  um so that's not a bad sign, um, And there's there's certainly
• 22:32
  a path to AI dystopia is to train AI to read us out of um
• 22:37
  so. I so, yeah, I'm going to start something which you call
• 22:41
  truth GBT or a maximum truth seeking AI that tries to understand the nature of
• 22:48
  the universe. And I think this might be the best path to safety in
• 22:52
  the sense that uh, an AI that cares about understanding the universe, uh
• 22:59
  it is unlikely to annihilate humans because we are an interesting part of the universe.
• 23:04
  Hopefully they would think that. I think, you know, because yeah,
• 23:10
  like like we like humanity could decide to hunt down all the Champanzees and
• 23:17
  kill them, but we don't because we're we're actually glad that they exist,
• 23:21
  Yes, and we aspire to protect their habitats. And that's um, you
• 23:26
  know, so I think. But we feel that way because we have souls,
• 23:32
  and that makes us sentimental and reflective. It gives us a moral sense
• 23:37
  longings. Can a machine ever have those things? Can a machine be sentimental?
• 23:41
  Can appreciate beauty? Well? I mean we're getting into some you know,
• 23:52
  philosophical areas that are hard to resolve. Um. You know, I
• 23:57
  take somewhat of a scientific view of things, which is that we might have
• 24:02
  a soul or we might not have a soul. I don't know. Um,
• 24:03
  it feels like we have. I feel like I've got some sort of
• 24:07
  consciousness that exists on a plane. Um that is not the one we observe.
• 24:12
  Yes, that is certainly how how I feel. But it could be
• 24:15
  an illusion. I don't know. Um. But for um, for AI
• 24:22
  in terms of of understanding beauty, its appreciate a beauty and being able to
• 24:27
  um create incredibly beautiful art? Yes, well, AI be able to create
• 24:33
  incredibly beautiful art. It already does. Yes, if you see some of
• 24:37
  them. A journey I have the stuff. It's incredible. It is um
• 24:41
  so um no, no question that it can create art that we that we
• 24:47
  perceive as stunning really um. And it's doing so. It's still images now,
• 24:56
  but it won't be long before it's doing movie and shorts and you know,
• 25:02
  like movies just a series of frames with audio. But at that point,
• 25:06
  because it can mimic people and voices, any image, economic reality itself
• 25:11
  so effectively. Yeah, I mean, how could you have a criminal trial?
• 25:17
  I mean, how could you ever believe that evidence was authentic? For
• 25:21
  example? And I don't mean like in thirty years, I mean like next
• 25:23
  year. I mean that seems totally disruptive to the way to all of our
• 25:27
  institutions. Well, I don't think you could takes a random video on the
• 25:34
  Internet and assume it to be true. That's definitely not the case. Now,
• 25:38
  somebody say, has some video on their phone or their their computer with
• 25:44
  the date stamp and particular time. I think, you know, it's more
• 25:48
  likely to read true than not. You knows that crypto cryptographically signed things like
• 25:56
  you know, mathematically, we don't see any way for example, for AI
• 26:02
  to um sub both the fundamentals of mathematics and say I figure out how to
• 26:07
  hashboot cooin, you know easily. It's it's like it's not AI can't can't
• 26:18
  defy fundamental math. So um, you can approve the efficiency of bitcoin hashing
• 26:26
  algorithms in the silicon but but but not not fundamentally crack it. UM.
• 26:33
  So I guess cryptographic signatures and uh, one way to do it. Um.
• 26:42
  But but I'm not so worried. I think it's more like um ore.
• 26:48
  You know, it's we'll humanity UM control its destiny or not UM.
• 26:52
  Will we have a future that is better than the past or not UM and
• 26:59
  not. You know, with that we can so late destroy ourselves without the
• 27:03
  help of AI. UM. You know that's you look at all the past
• 27:07
  civilizations. They didn't have AI, at the ones that want around anymore.
• 27:11
  The chariots enough, Yeah, chariots and chariots probably a really big deal back
• 27:15
  then they were. Ye. So you've heard people say we should just blow
• 27:19
  up the server farms because there's no way to Once it this gets rolling,
• 27:22
  there's no way to slow it down. What do you think of that?
• 27:27
  Well, the the really heavy duty intelligence is not going to be distributed all
• 27:33
  over the place. It'll be in a limited number of server centers. If
• 27:37
  you say like very like very sort of deep AI, heavy duty AI,
• 27:41
  it's not it's not going to be in your laptop of your phone. It's
• 27:45
  it's going to be in you know, situation where there's like a hundred thousand
• 27:49
  really powerful computers working together in a service center. So it's not it's not
• 27:55
  it's not like subtle and there there are limited number of places where that that
• 27:57
  can happen. In fact, you could if you could just you can just
• 28:00
  look at the heat signature from space and it'll be very obvious. Now,
• 28:08
  I'm not suggesting we were going bluff to service centers right now, but there
• 28:14
  may be some It may be wise to have some sort of contingency plan where
• 28:18
  the government's got an ability to shut down shut down power to these service centers.
• 28:25
  Like you don't have to blow it up, you can just cut the
• 28:26
  power and what would trip kind connectivity as well? That's another way, right,
• 28:33
  But what would trip that switch? Do you think in your mind,
• 28:36
  what would be the threshold that you'd have to pass to warrant the government cutting
• 28:41
  off your power, cutting off your signal? Well, I mean, I
• 29:00
  guess if we lost control of some super a eye UM like for some reason,
• 29:04
  like like the things that would normally work to do a passive shutdown,
• 29:07
  like the administrator passwords if they somehow stopped working UM where we where we can't
• 29:17
  slow down or or you know, I'm not sure. I don't have a
• 29:26
  precise answer, but if there's something that we're concerned about UM and and and
• 29:34
  are unable to stop it with with the software commands, then we probably want
• 29:40
  to have some kind of hardware both switch. Yes, I think you know
• 29:44
  can't hurt. Have you talked to since you know age and you obviously you
• 29:48
  know the Open Air guys because you started to definitely have you talked to the
• 29:53
  the people who run these two the biggest AI companies about this recently? I
• 30:00
  haven't talked to Larry Page in a few years because he got rafts out with
• 30:03
  me about Opening Eye. So when when Opening Eye was created, it did
• 30:10
  it did shift things into it from unipolar world where Google Google Deep Mind controlled,
• 30:18
  you know, like I said, three quarters of all AI talent,
• 30:19
  to where there's now sort of bipolar world or Opening Eye and Google deep Mind
• 30:26
  and there and now weirdly it seems Open Eyes that maybe ahead so so I
• 30:36
  have had competitions with the Opening Eye team, tam Altman. I haven't talked
• 30:41
  to Larry Page because he doesn't want to talk to you anymore for a few
• 30:45
  years. Can I ask you this about it? Since you've been around a
• 30:48
  lot of this the thinking? So why would anyone not be a specist be
• 30:53
  human centered in his thinking about technology? Like, what's the thinking there?
• 30:59
  Um? I think what he is trying to say is that, UM,
• 31:02
  if I were to guess that heat, that all consciousness should retreat it equally,
• 31:08
  um. And whether that is digital or biological m And you disagree?
• 31:18
  I disagree, Yeah, especially if the digital consciousness or what are you going
• 31:26
  to call digital intelligence decides to curtail the biological intelligence? Right, so you're
• 31:32
  just building your own slave master? And why would you do that? Does
• 31:33
  sounded great? Yeah? I mean we shouldn't. We should at least no
• 31:42
  need to rush. You know, what's the hurry? Where where's the fire?
• 31:48
  How? Well? What I mean tell us about the hurry? So
• 31:52
  this for I know you've been talking about this for years and on the sort
• 31:55
  of the periphery of our attention. We've heard Elon Musk talking about AI.
• 31:59
  But for most people it's been like three months since they've had any interaction with
• 32:02
  this at all. Um So, what's the timeline here? At what point
• 32:07
  does it start to really change our society? Do you think? I think
• 32:15
  it's supposed to have probably an impact this year, I think, Um,
• 32:21
  so you've got a massive expansion of m GPT four based systems and many companies
• 32:32
  trying to emiliate GPT four M and you went, opening is gonna come out
• 32:38
  with GPT five end of this year, which will be you had another significant
• 32:44
  improvement, And I was therefore GPT one two, three four. You know,
• 32:49
  so GPT one was terrible, Like you, if you tried it,
• 32:52
  you'd be like this is this ain't going anywhere and it seems lame. And
• 32:58
  then GPT two you started to see kind of like an inkling of like,
• 33:00
  well maybe this could be something useful. And then GPT three was a huge
• 33:05
  improvement. And now it's like, wow, okay, this is it's still
• 33:08
  spouting a lot of bs, but it's you know, it's coherent bs.
• 33:14
  Yes, and then GPT four now it's like writing poetry and pretty decent poetry,
• 33:20
  actually pretty decent skillet ryming is incredible, yes, yes, and it's
• 33:24
  coherent, Yes it is. It's even got a narrative. But yest right?
• 33:30
  Yeah, so you could say hard you do like most humans can't do
• 33:35
  that. That's true. So it's already past the point of what most huments
• 33:37
  can do. Most humans cannot write as well as a chat GPT um and
• 33:44
  they certain and no human can write that well that fast as an investment knowledge,
• 33:47
  so maybe Shakespeare. Um. So so then how how much better will
• 33:54
  GPD five be? And how about GPT six or seven? How can you
• 33:58
  have a democracy with technology? Do you like that? If democracy is you
• 34:02
  know, government by the people. Each person's vote is equal to every other
• 34:05
  person's vote, I mean, people are choosing their votes freely. Can you
• 34:10
  have a democracy with this? Well, that's why I raise a concern of
• 34:20
  of AI being a significant influence in elections. And even if you say that
• 34:29
  AI doesn't have agency, well, it's very likely that people will use the
• 34:31
  AIM as a tool in elections. Um. And then you know, if
• 34:39
  the I is smart enough, are they using the tool or is the tool
• 34:44
  using them? So I think things are getting weird, and they're getting weird
• 34:50
  fast, and so I think we should be concerned about this and we should
• 34:53
  have regulatory oversight. That's that's why I think it's a big deal. Um.
• 34:58
  And I think social media companies really need to put a lot of attention
• 35:02
  into ensuring that the things I get um created and promoted are that we're dealing
• 35:09
  with real people, not with a million chat gvts pretending to be people.
• 35:14
  Exactly do you think speaking of social media? You bought Twitter famously got a
• 35:19
  lot of other businesses and a lot going on. Yes, you said you
• 35:22
  bought it because you believe in speech, free speech. You've had a lot
• 35:27
  of hassles since you bought it. In retrospect, was it worth buying it?
• 35:31
  Um Um? I mean it mights to be seen as to whether this
• 35:39
  was financially smart. Currently it is, it is not. You know,
• 35:45
  we just revalued the company at less than half of the acquisition prodd Yes,
• 35:52
  um No, My timing was terrible for for when the off always made,
• 35:59
  because it was right before advertising plummeted and you've caught the high water mark I
• 36:05
  noticed. Yeah, yeah, so I must be a real genius. Year
• 36:10
  My timing is amazing since I've had a border for at least twice as much
• 36:15
  as it should have been borderful, but somethings are priceless. And so the
• 36:22
  whether losing money or not that as a secondary issue compared to ensuring the strength
• 36:28
  of democracy and free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy. Yes,
• 36:34
  and the speech needs to be as transparent and truthful as possible. Um.
• 36:39
  So we've got a huge push on Twitter to be as truthful as possible.
• 36:44
  We've got this community notes speecher, which is great. It is great.
• 36:47
  It is awesome. Yeah, and it's like I thought this morning, Yeah,
• 36:51
  it was far more honest than the New York Times. It's great.
• 36:53
  We put a lot of effort to ensuring that community notes does not get gamed
• 36:58
  or have biases. It simply cares about what is the most accurate thing.
• 37:02
  Um. And you know, sometimes truth can be a little bit elusive,
• 37:06
  but but you can still aspire to get closer to it. Yes, you
• 37:09
  know, and so um And I think the effect of community notes is more
• 37:16
  powerful than than people may realize, because once people know that they could get
• 37:20
  noted, um, you know, community noted on Twitter, then they'll think
• 37:25
  more carefully about what they say, and they are likely It's basically it's an
• 37:30
  encouragement to be more truthful and less deceptive. Yes, and if the notes
• 37:32
  themselves are truthful, then it will have the effect absolutely. And all of
• 37:37
  that is open source. All the community notes is open so you can read
• 37:39
  about every community note. You can see exactly how the algorithm works. You
• 37:43
  can you can you can register say like, oh we need to make this
• 37:47
  change with that change. Um. So everything is super open book with community
• 37:52
  notes. There's no no black box when you jumped into this. Though,
• 37:55
  when you bought it, did you understand clearly understand it's importance you wouldn't have
• 38:00
  bought it Twitter. Yes, right, but it's not the biggest, but
• 38:04
  it's the most important to social media companies. But did you understand the kind
• 38:08
  of ferocity you'd be facing, the attacks you'd be facing from power centers in
• 38:14
  the country. UM. I thought there'd probably be some negative reactions here,
• 38:22
  so I'm not I'm sure everyone would not be completed with the with with it,
• 38:25
  um. But at the end of the day, you know, if
• 38:30
  if if the public is happy with it, that's what matters, um,
• 38:34
  And the public will speak with their actions. Oh though, I mean though,
• 38:37
  if they find truth Twitter to be useful, they will use it more.
• 38:40
  And if they find it to be not useful, I will use it
• 38:44
  less. They find it to be the best source of truth, I think
• 38:46
  they will use it more. Um So that's my theory. Um. And
• 38:52
  so I even though you know now there's there's obviously a lot of organizations that
• 38:59
  you to having sort of unfettered influence on Twitter, um that no long have
• 39:05
  that we used to New York Times of their of their badge this morning,
• 39:08
  and then you call them diarrhea. Ok, you did, you did.
• 39:12
  I'm just I'm just quoting it. You describe their Twitter feed as a diarrhea,
• 39:16
  I said, the Twitter Twitter equivalent of diarrhea. Okay, it's not
• 39:20
  literally diarrhea, but no, it's a you know, it's as a metaphor,
• 39:25
  but an accurate one. M So. I mean, if you look
• 39:29
  at the at n White Times twitter feed is unreadable. It's like because what
• 39:34
  they do is that they tweet every single article, even the ones that are
• 39:37
  boring, even once they don't make it into the paper. So uh so
• 39:40
  it's just NonStop zillion tweets a day with no uh you know, they really
• 39:47
  should just be saying like what are the top tweets? Like what are the
• 39:51
  what are the one of the big stories of the day. I don't know,
• 39:53
  put out like ten or something. You know, it's a number that's
• 39:58
  manageable, um, as opposed to right now, if you if you would
• 40:00
  have followed white at n white times on Twitter, you're gonna get barraged with
• 40:05
  like hundreds of tweets a day, um, and your whole feed will be
• 40:07
  filled with in white times. So UM that that's that's This is something I
• 40:12
  would recommend actually for old publications, which is uh, for your primary feed,
• 40:16
  UM, only put out your best stuff. Uh. Don't put out
• 40:20
  everything um. Or you can have a second feed that is, here's everything,
• 40:23
  um. But then but have a have your primary feed, but here's
• 40:28
  our best stuff. If any um uh media organization or individual uh just uh
• 40:38
  have don't put out one hundreds of tweets today. Just put out like ten
• 40:43
  good ones um or five good ones or and if if it's a slow news
• 40:46
  day, don't put on any maybe put out two one or two. But
• 40:51
  don't don't don't try to say we're always going to put out one hundred tweets,
• 40:54
  even if you know, if it's World War three or a bicycle accident
• 40:58
  was the biggest news you know, it's got to be like news that it's
• 41:02
  got to you got to earn your earn your play on someone's attention. Yes,
• 41:07
  um, so just in general, UM, I kind of think I
• 41:10
  know a thing or two about how to use Twitter, because you know,
• 41:14
  I was the most interacted with account on the whole system before the acquisition.
• 41:19
  Before the acquisition closed, I didn't have the most number of followers, but
• 41:22
  I had the most number of interactions, and so I clearly know something about
• 41:25
  how to use Twitter. Um, and so people should you know, this
• 41:29
  is my advice, I think. Um. So, you know, people's
• 41:35
  attention is limited, so just make sure you put the stuff that's most important
• 41:37
  there. So, because you know, you and people like you do interact
• 41:43
  on Twitter, it's obviously enormously powerful in shaping public opinion. It's where a
• 41:49
  lot of ideas and trends are incubated. Yeah, you know, it's absolutely
• 41:52
  It's also a magnet for intelligencies from around the world. And one of the
• 41:57
  things we learned after you started opening the books is that they were exerting influence
• 42:00
  from within Twitter. I mean it was absurd. Um, did you know
• 42:07
  that going in No? Well, well, so, things like I have
• 42:12
  a. UM, since I've been a heavy Twitter user since two thousand and
• 42:19
  nine. Um My, It's it's sort of like I'm in the matrix.
• 42:22
  I mean I can see like things, do things feel right? Do they
• 42:27
  not feel right? What? What tweets am I being shown as recommended?
• 42:32
  Like like I get a feel like what what accounts and making comments? Where
• 42:37
  are the comments eerially similar? Yeah? And uh and then you look at
• 42:43
  the account and it's just obviously a fake photo, and you know it's just
• 42:47
  obviously a bought cluster over and over again. UM. So this is actually
• 42:53
  so I started to get like just more and more uneasy about the Twitter situation.
• 42:59
  UM. And my initial goal was was was actually not not to acquire
• 43:06
  Twitter um. I mean, the the actual sequence events was that I UM,
• 43:12
  I was looking at m I held a Twitter poll to say, like,
• 43:17
  should I sell some of my Tesla stock because I was getting you know,
• 43:22
  a couple of years ago, I was getting um attacked a lot for
• 43:24
  like allegedly not paying taxes. Um. Uh. And now I've actually paid
• 43:30
  a tremendous amount of taxes. Um. Now, there was one year I
• 43:32
  didn't pay taxes because I had overpaid taxes in the prior year. And you
• 43:37
  know when they had that like IRS leak bs, they knew that I had
• 43:42
  overpaid taxes in the prior year. But they said, oh, Elon must
• 43:45
  didn't pay taxes in twenty seventeen or whatever it was. And I was like,
• 43:49
  but you know that the reason I didn't pay taxes because I overpaid the
• 43:52
  prior year if you didn't mention that, So that was deceptive. Um anyway,
• 43:57
  So but there, you know, Elizabeth Warren's The World and Bony Santa
• 44:00
  is like saying, oh, you know, I'm not selling stock and I'm
• 44:05
  not paying taxes and I and so I so, so I'm like, look,
• 44:08
  I don't know what the right thing to do this here. I thought
• 44:09
  the right thing to do was to not sell stock. The captain should be
• 44:13
  the last one to leave the show, that's right, um and um.
• 44:15
  I thought I was doing the right thing by not selling stock, and now
• 44:17
  I'm being told I'm doing the wrong thing, um by by you know,
• 44:21
  clinging onto the stock and not paying taxes. So I hold a Twitter poll
• 44:24
  to say, which what do you guys want should I sell? I don't
• 44:30
  know. Teen percent up might tells the stock or not. I'll buy buy
• 44:34
  the results of the pole and it's like sixty sixty percent of people SAI,
• 44:37
  yeah, you should sell tempercent. So I didn't. Um. So,
• 44:39
  then I had a bunch of cash, and I'm like, what should I
• 44:43
  do with this? At the time, the federal reserve rates were super low,
• 44:46
  So it's just like sitting in the you know, I guess your checking
• 44:52
  account, well in in the tea bowl account, right, you know,
• 44:55
  money mark account whatever, the whole banking things, a whole sever subject.
• 45:00
  Um, I know, the little thing a thing which about finance. Um
• 45:05
  but um so, uh so they'm not staying with this money the account it's
• 45:09
  earning less than the rate of inflation. So the rate inflation is much higher
• 45:13
  than we got a high inflation. It's I'm earning peanuts in the money market
• 45:15
  account. This is dumb. I'm getting like minus it's just evaporating. Yeah,
• 45:19
  I'm getting minus like six or seven percent in return here, maybe worse.
• 45:23
  And so then well it's like what stock should I buy? Um?
• 45:29
  And I you know, I believe in buying stocks of companies where you use
• 45:31
  the product. Um And Apple's got a competing electric vehicle car program, so
• 45:37
  you know, like Apple products we're not going to invest in them because they've
• 45:40
  got to competing, uh, your autonomous EV program. And so it's the
• 45:46
  other product that I used Twitter. Okay, so I'll you know it,
• 45:50
  put the money on Twitter. It's better than just having it, you know
• 45:52
  that negative six percent inflation situation. Um. So so I like board,
• 46:00
  put a bunch of it? What a board? What a bunch of Twitter
• 46:01
  stock? Like I said, no, with the intended buying the company just
• 46:05
  better than keeping in a money market. How much you bought, um,
• 46:08
  I think it was like eight percent or something of the company. UM.
• 46:14
  I'm talking to some of the board members um. And then and then that
• 46:21
  they said, hey, well I do you want to do? You want
• 46:22
  to join the board? So I was like, well, I don't.
• 46:24
  I really don't want to be on boards, but because it's boring, um,
• 46:30
  and I love things to do, but I do care about the direction
• 46:34
  of Twitter, So I'll consider being on the board. And I thought about
• 46:37
  it for about a week or so. And then then based on the conversations
• 46:44
  that I was having with the management team on the board, UM, I
• 46:49
  came to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that UM that if I joined
• 46:55
  the board, they would not listen to me. So then I'm like,
• 47:00
  okay, then I would just be a quizzling you know, I don't want
• 47:02
  to be some sort of just you know, go along for the right quizzling
• 47:07
  situation. Um and and if a collaborator effectively right, So and it really
• 47:15
  felt like I start, I was starting to feel like, wait a second,
• 47:17
  like weird something something's like, something's not right in this. You know,
• 47:24
  something's rot in the state of n walk here, there's somebody feels wrong
• 47:29
  about the platform. It seemed to be just drifting in a I couldn't place
• 47:34
  it exactly just ahead of it felt like it was drifting in a bad direction.
• 47:37
  So then I was like, and and my conversations with the board and
• 47:42
  management seems to confirm my intuition about that. So then I was like,
• 47:49
  okay, um but basically as commis, these guys do not care about fixing
• 47:53
  Twitter and and and I had a bad feeling about where I was headed based
• 47:59
  in the comes and the conversations I had with them. So then it was
• 48:00
  like, you know what, I I'll try acquiring it and see if that's
• 48:07
  see if acquiring it is possible. Now I didn't have enough cash to acquire
• 48:12
  it, so I would need, you know, support from others, from
• 48:15
  some of the existing investors. I would also need like a lot of debt,
• 48:19
  and so it wasn't clear to me whether an accisition would succeed at what
• 48:22
  I would try, and ultimately it did succeed. So anyway, here we
• 48:30
  are. But when you got there and all of a sudden you own it,
• 48:34
  and all the data on the service belongs to you, what belongs to
• 48:37
  the people in my view a bit, yes, but but you can see
• 48:40
  what I guess, and you can see what they've been doing, and you
• 48:43
  can see who's been working there. You were shocked to find out that various
• 48:47
  intell agencies were affecting its operations. The degree to which various government agencies were
• 48:57
  effectively had effectively had full access to everything that was going on on Twitter blew
• 49:04
  my mind. I was not aware of that. Would that include people's dms?
• 49:09
  Yes, yes, because the DM's are not encrypted. So one of
• 49:15
  the first you know, one of the things that we're about to release,
• 49:17
  his ability to encrypt your DM. That's pretty heavy duty though, because a
• 49:22
  lot of well known people, reporters talking to their sources, government officials,
• 49:25
  rich people, in the world they're dming each other and the assumption obviously was
• 49:30
  incorrect, but was that that's private, but that was being read by various
• 49:35
  governments. Yeah, that seems to be Yes, scary, Yes, it
• 49:40
  is. So like I said, we're moving to UM have the dms be
• 49:46
  optionally encrypted. I mean, you know, there's like a lot of DM
• 49:49
  conversations which are you know, just chatting with friends. It's not not not
• 49:52
  important, but so we were. That's hopefully coming out later this month,
• 49:59
  but no later the next month. Is the ability to toggle encryption on or
• 50:02
  off. So if you if you are in a conversation you think a sensitive,
• 50:07
  you can just toggle encryption on and then no one on Twitter can see
• 50:09
  what are you talking about. They could put it gun into my head and
• 50:12
  I couldn't. I couldn't tell. I couldn't. That's sort of the gun
• 50:16
  to the head test. If I puts it gount to my head and I
• 50:20
  can I still not see your d ms, that should be that's the ass
• 50:22
  of test. Yes, UM, and that's how that's that's how it should
• 50:28
  be if you want. Have you had complaints from various governments about doing this?
• 50:34
  I haven't had direct complaints to me. I've had sort of like some
• 50:37
  indirect complaints. I think people are a little concerned about complaining to me directly
• 50:40
  in case I tweet about it. You know, they're like, oh,
• 50:49
  so there's sort of trying to be more round about than that. Um.
• 50:53
  And you know, I mean, if if I got something that was unconstitutional
• 51:01
  from the US government, my reply would be to sending a copy of the
• 51:06
  First Amendment and to say, like, what part of this are we're getting
• 51:08
  wrong? You have a lot of government, you have a lot of governments.
• 51:15
  Part of this are we getting wrong? Please tell me. I mean
• 51:16
  it's a pretty no. I'm just saying, but you're kind of exposed in
• 51:19
  your other businesses. So this is just in case reviewers aren't following this.
• 51:22
  This is not You're not just like a journalist taking a stand on behalf of
• 51:25
  the First Amendment. You're a guy with big government contracts giving the finger to
• 51:30
  the government in some way. Well, am I giving the fingers to government?
• 51:32
  I think that there are I'm not someone who thinks that, you know,
• 51:37
  the government is just sort of evil, right, It's it's it's a
• 51:42
  it's a large bureaucracy. There are people in government who are human beings,
• 51:47
  and they have the people with good motivations occasionally bad motivations with with rare exception,
• 51:54
  the people that I know in government to have good motivations and just want
• 51:58
  to get their job done and and they actually believe in the constitution and they're
• 52:04
  so I think my opinion is actually most people in the government are good.
• 52:07
  It's hardening to hear. Yeah, it's it's rare for me to find someone
• 52:13
  in the government who I think is perhaps not good. But but you know,
• 52:16
  at the highest level of the agencies there are political appointees as as you
• 52:22
  know, UM, and the political pointees will have a political agenda UM.
• 52:24
  And so they at the at the highest levels of the various government agencies,
• 52:30
  there is the ability to put a sort of political thumb on the scale,
• 52:34
  even if the people operating the agencies I don't agree with that. UM.
• 52:40
  So yeah, so that's something to be concerned about. Um is I'd say
• 52:45
  I'd be more concerned about about political appointees. So I think than than UM
• 52:52
  sort of people to get the career of people that's been my experience at least.
• 52:55
  Do you think um, Twitter will be central to this presidential campaign as
• 53:02
  it wasn't the last several. I think it will play a significant role in
• 53:09
  elections, not just domestically but internationally. Um So, the goal of new
• 53:19
  Twitter is to be um as fair and even had it as possible, So
• 53:24
  not favoring any political ideology, but just um yeah, being being being fair
• 53:34
  at all. How does in Facebook do this? I know that Zuckerberg has
• 53:37
  said, and I take him at face value that he well, I do
• 53:40
  actually in this way that he is a kind of old fashioned liberal who doesn't
• 53:45
  like to censor. He has, but he you know, like, why
• 53:49
  wouldn't a company like that take the stand that you have taken, which pretty
• 53:53
  rooted in American traditional political custom, you know, for free speech. My
• 54:05
  understanding is that um, zach book spent four hundred million dollars in the last
• 54:09
  election, nominally in a get out the vote campaign, but really fundamentally in
• 54:14
  support of Democrats. Is that accurate or not accurate? That is accurate?
• 54:19
  Does that sound unbiased to you? No? It doesn't. Yes, um
• 54:29
  So you don't see hope that Facebook will approach this as a non aligned arbiter.
• 54:37
  I'm unaware of evidence to suggests that path Um do you can you you've
• 54:47
  you've allowed Donald Trump back on Twitter. He hasn't taken you up on your
• 54:51
  offer because he's got his own thing. Do you think he will go back
• 54:53
  on Twitter? Well, that's that's obviously up to him. Um, my
• 54:59
  job is too. You know. I take the freedom of speech very seriously.
• 55:07
  So it's um, you know, I didn't. I didn't vote for
• 55:12
  Donaldrump. I actually vote for Biden. People think I'm some a little hardcore,
• 55:15
  you know. So it's certainly some of the media try to paint me
• 55:20
  as like far ride or whatever. I'm in the only time I've ever even
• 55:24
  voted Republican was was once for because I readied to vote in South Texas,
• 55:31
  I was for a Mexican American woman for Congress. That's that's literally only a
• 55:36
  Republican vote I've ever cast my entire life. Um once um and uh so
• 55:44
  UM. Not saying I'm a huge fan of Biden, because I would I
• 55:50
  think that would probably been accurate. But um, you know, we have
• 55:53
  difficult choices to make in these residential elections. It's not I would prefer,
• 56:00
  frankly that we we put someone just a normal person as president, a normal
• 56:07
  person with common sense, uh, and whose values are smack in the middle
• 56:12
  of the country, you know, just you know, Sarah, the normal
• 56:15
  distribution, and I think they'll that they would be great it wan would be
• 56:21
  happier. Would you run, Like why wouldn't you run? I was born
• 56:23
  here, so of course you're yeah, it's it's I'm a technologist. Also
• 56:30
  I'm not not a politician, so it's not like it. You know,
• 56:34
  I think we have made maybe being president not that much fun, you know
• 56:39
  it to be totly frank. Um. It is by design a relatively weak
• 56:45
  role, yea, because it's intended to be balanced by the House and the
• 56:51
  Senate and the judiciary. Um. So it's not like like if you're a
• 56:54
  prime minister in England or Canada you have home of power than if your president,
• 57:00
  because it's like being speak of the House and being um president, you
• 57:04
  know so um so yeah for presidents like deliberately week in order to avoid creating
• 57:12
  a king situation, king queen situation. Um. And but you get dumped
• 57:16
  on all day no matter what you do, um, and everything you do
• 57:21
  is scrutinized um. And your life is not your own um. And if
• 57:27
  if if you're at any any skeletons you've got in the closet will be trotted
• 57:31
  out and you know, breided down main street. Um. And even if
• 57:37
  they don't exist, they'll make them up and fakes it whatever they will.
• 57:42
  Politics is a blood sport. So it's it's not something I want to do.
• 57:46
  So I got it. One last threat. I just think you alluded
• 57:49
  to you said, don't get me started on the banks. So you've seen
• 57:52
  well, so you've seen a couple of regional bank collapses. Yeah, and
• 57:55
  we've been told that's not a big deal, that these are isolated and one
• 58:00
  collapse for unique reasons or night. It's not systemic in any sense. What's
• 58:04
  your sense your sense of the stability of the American banking system. Well,
• 58:13
  it's it's actually at this point of global banking system processes. UM. So
• 58:17
  the uh, you know, we have a situation here where it's not really
• 58:23
  it's not that the canary in the coal mine has died, but the miners
• 58:28
  are starting to die too. The you know, the so and you know,
• 58:32
  a silicon value bank collapsing overnight, Um, is one hell of a
• 58:38
  big canary. You small atkey, I mean, it's not just it's not
• 58:43
  like some small fry thing yeah, Um, it's big fry, so a
• 58:46
  medium fry. And then Curtis Suez, which is I think was formed in
• 58:52
  the mid eighteen hundreds, um was basically sold for pennies on the dollar,
• 58:58
  forced to merge with UBS, and even then required back stuff by the Swiss
• 59:02
  government. I mean, like, hello, guys, maybe we have issues
• 59:07
  here. Maybe things aren't all great. They're definitely not all great. Maybe
• 59:14
  more more forceful here. Um. I think that there is a serious danger
• 59:22
  with the gold banking system. There's there's a strong argument that the if you
• 59:34
  were to actually mark market the portfolios of the banks, the loans and whatnot,
• 59:40
  that the entire banking industry would have negative equity. It feels that way,
• 59:46
  yes, Um, so if you look at say commercial real estate like
• 59:52
  offices and whatnot, the whole work from home thing has substantially reduced office usage
• 1:00:00
  in cities around the world. Um. And you know, I think I
• 1:00:06
  think Sampacis goes to forty percent off Samaceis goes like an extreme example, but
• 1:00:10
  it's like, I think it's on forty percent vacancy. Um. Even even
• 1:00:15
  New York has almost all cities at this point have ever equoted vacancies and commercial
• 1:00:21
  real estate. So um. Now, the commercial real estate used to be
• 1:00:24
  something that was a great a asset. Um that if a bank had commercial
• 1:00:29
  real estate holdings, that those would be considered of the highest security some of
• 1:00:34
  the safest uh you know, assets you can have. Now that is not
• 1:00:38
  the case anymore. One company after another is canceling the leases or not renewing
• 1:00:45
  the leases, or if they go bankrupt, you have the there's nothing for
• 1:00:50
  the the bank you owens that real estate to go after because they were you
• 1:00:53
  know, previously strong company now dead. What do you what do you?
• 1:00:58
  What do you go after that point? So we really haven't seen the commercialist
• 1:01:04
  shoe drop. That's more like an anivil, not a shoe. So the
• 1:01:08
  stuff we've seen thus far actually hasn't even it's only slightly um real estate portfolio
• 1:01:21
  degradation, but that will become a very serious thing leader this year. In
• 1:01:24
  my In my view, um, I think if we see which we are
• 1:01:30
  likely to see a drop in house prices because the interest rates are too high
• 1:01:36
  and for most people weren't buying a house, they look at the monthly payment.
• 1:01:40
  If you're thirty thirty mortgages. The vast majority of his interest. So
• 1:01:44
  if the FED rate is high, you have a high based interest rate.
• 1:01:49
  Effectively the price you can pay for the house drops because you now have to
• 1:01:52
  pay more interest, which means that if you've got a fixed multi payments you
• 1:01:58
  can now afford to buy a housepitals less money efectically drops the prices of houses.
• 1:02:04
  Yes, Um, this is the kind of thing. It tends to
• 1:02:08
  accelerate. So so then you can get negative equity and the home market as
• 1:02:13
  well. And so so if if banks end up having loan lesses in both
• 1:02:19
  their commercial and they're definitely gonna have loan less in their commercial portfolio, but
• 1:02:23
  also in the mortgage portfolio. This is um a dire situation. Um.
• 1:02:31
  There there is there is a solution to mitigate the magnitude of the damage here,
• 1:02:37
  which is for the Fed to lower the rate. But they raise the
• 1:02:42
  rate again. Um. Now, if I recall correctly important caveat, I
• 1:02:51
  think the last time the Fed raised rates going into a recession was nineteen to
• 1:02:53
  twenty nine. What happened next, Yeah, the great depression. That concern
• 1:03:04
  I'm telling you nothing, you don't know. But the concern is if the
• 1:03:07
  FED drops rates again, then inflation will accelerate, and you can't do that
• 1:03:10
  in an election yet, So inflation is going to happen no matter what.
• 1:03:17
  If you increase the money supply, um, you get inflation. Right.
• 1:03:22
  So there's no there's not some magical cure for getting rid of inflation, um,
• 1:03:29
  except to increase the productivity the output output of goods and services. So
• 1:03:36
  if you say like like what is money, um, you've got you've got
• 1:03:39
  you've got these sort of um, it's basically numbers in a database. That's
• 1:03:45
  that that's some up to some co some total. Then you've got the output
• 1:03:49
  of goods and services of the economy, and the as long as the ratio
• 1:03:53
  of money to ratio of goodsiness services stays. If that, if that stay
• 1:03:58
  is constant, you have no no inflation. And if if you add more
• 1:04:01
  money, if you add money to the system faster than you increase goods and
• 1:04:05
  services, then you have inflation. Um. So all of these COVID sort
• 1:04:10
  of stimulus bills were not paid for. They were they're just generated more currency.
• 1:04:16
  More you know, more money was was was created because the federal government
• 1:04:25
  the checks never the checks always pass, you know, unless you hit a
• 1:04:29
  dead limit, which there's probably gonna be some debt limit crisis later this year.
• 1:04:30
  But provided you haven't hit the dead limit, the the federal government,
• 1:04:35
  unlike state governments or city governments or individuals, can simply issue more money.
• 1:04:42
  Um. And that's what they did. Um. I mean, as old
• 1:04:45
  saying goes that, there's no there's no free lunch. Um. So if
• 1:04:48
  you could just issue massive amounts of money without negative consequences, why don't we
• 1:04:53
  just take that to the lomit make everyone a trillionaire. Well, I mean
• 1:04:57
  they tried that in Venezuela. That how that work out? Well, they
• 1:05:00
  had to eat zoo animals. Right, it's not good, you know.
• 1:05:03
  Um. You get to the point where you know, so wymar Germany type
• 1:05:09
  stuff where you could like take bringing the cash to the store in a wheelbarrow.
• 1:05:14
  So there's no free lunch. There's not some ability to issue money and
• 1:05:18
  not have inflation. The this is just yeah, um, So the inflation
• 1:05:30
  will happen, um. And there's no filling with the federate is not going
• 1:05:35
  to affect that really um Uh. But with a high federate can cause a
• 1:05:45
  lot of damage in shifting funds um in the wrong direction. So um.
• 1:05:51
  The long term return on say the SMP five hundred I believe is depending on
• 1:05:57
  how you counted, around six percent. So as if the FED real rate
• 1:06:02
  of return starts to approach what the long term return is on the stock market,
• 1:06:09
  why would you keep any money in the stock market? You would should
• 1:06:12
  simply buy treasury bills, of course, because the treasure balls is a certainty,
• 1:06:15
  whereas the stock market fluctuates. Right, This is pretty basic. Also,
• 1:06:20
  why would you keep money in a bank savings account if you can put
• 1:06:24
  it in what's called a money market account, which is an account that represents
• 1:06:28
  treasury bills. If the treasury bill money market account gives you, you know,
• 1:06:34
  four to five percent interest and the bank saving account only gives you two
• 1:06:39
  percent, you'd be a fool to keep the money in the bank savings account.
• 1:06:44
  So the FED is made a tremendous mistake by going this high with their
• 1:06:53
  with their rate, and they need to drop it immediately. Do you think
• 1:06:57
  they will? They? Yes, they will have no choice but to drop
• 1:07:02
  it. I think later this year. Um. Part of the issue is
• 1:07:06
  that the FED is an old institution and has a lot of latency in its
• 1:07:12
  data. So it's like driving a car along a cliff side road, a
• 1:07:16
  windy cliff side road while looking out the rear view mirror, but not even
• 1:07:23
  actually the re view mirror. A video that was taken of the rear view
• 1:07:25
  mirror that's three months old. Um no, if you're on if you're on
• 1:07:30
  a straight road, yeah that works out okay because nothing's changing. For it's
• 1:07:35
  almost only slight or slightly vending road. But we're more along like the we're
• 1:07:41
  doing the highway one pc trip here. Um and so we really want to
• 1:07:45
  look out the front window when you're in big s, yes, if you're
• 1:07:49
  on a cliff side road where you could plunge your doom. So yes,
• 1:07:53
  you want to look out the front window. You want to look at the
• 1:07:56
  sort of forward commodity prices. Look look at look at the look at what
• 1:07:59
  the forward attracts are predicting for commodity prices. Um and uh not some laboriously
• 1:08:11
  slow government data collection process that like they'll claim to have for example, December
• 1:08:19
  data, that's not December. That's not the data of December. It's the
• 1:08:23
  data that arrived in December exactly. If you think about how good is the
• 1:08:26
  government at actually collecting data? Horrible? Yeah, yeah, So It's like,
• 1:08:30
  that's what I mean. It's like three months old with lots of areas.
• 1:08:32
  So if you had a hundred grand, didn't think making decisions of that
• 1:08:35
  basis was insane. So like, what should the average non rich person do
• 1:08:42
  on the cusp of what you're describing, which is economic catastrophe? Like,
• 1:08:45
  how do you protect yourself? UM? I think I think probably a smart
• 1:09:06
  move overall. And this this is guidance that I think applies across the ages.
• 1:09:13
  Is if there are companies in whose products you believe, UM, buy
• 1:09:17
  and hold the stock UM, and and when when when whenever else is panicking,
• 1:09:25
  then buy more and everyone else thinks that the stock is going to the
• 1:09:30
  moon and sell it, you know, sort of the buy UM low cell
• 1:09:36
  high. You're not an index fund guy, like you pick specific stocks.
• 1:09:44
  I that's my right. You have to say, like, what is the
• 1:09:49
  purpose of a company? Why should a company exist? Um? A company
• 1:09:53
  exists. It's a group of people collected together to provide products and services.
• 1:10:00
  It's not it's not a thing in and of itself. It's just a group
• 1:10:01
  of people. That's like, it's hard if it was just one person making
• 1:10:04
  You can make cupcakes yourself, but you can't make cars by yourself. Yes,
• 1:10:09
  so if so that so therefore, the value of a company is a
• 1:10:15
  function of the um quality of the products and services that it's that it has
• 1:10:20
  created and will create. And so if if if there's a company that you
• 1:10:24
  think, well, this company's got a lot of exciting products that I think
• 1:10:28
  are awesome. Um, the current products are good, that's probably a company
• 1:10:32
  to invest in, because that's the reason companies exist, to these goods and
• 1:10:36
  services that you like. And so um no, I mean there's some caveats
• 1:10:43
  here to make sure you're you're not like investing when when it's like the hottest
• 1:10:47
  thing, you know, because then it's going to have be at a temporary
• 1:10:50
  high. Um, but you know what when when when it's not sort of
• 1:10:56
  at a weirdly temporary high. I think just generally looking at a company and
• 1:10:59
  saying, well, I like the products of that company, and I like
• 1:11:00
  where they're going, and the management seems sensible that then I think buying and
• 1:11:05
  holding that stock is probably the right move. Um. I'm probably doing that
• 1:11:10
  with with a few companies. Um, that's what I'd recommend. Um.
• 1:11:16
  I think the on the I mean, I could really go on at length
• 1:11:20
  about the financial system and the stock market everything. Um, but the I
• 1:11:29
  mean, these days, I think we've gotten a little too far into the
• 1:11:31
  index passive fund world. Um, like somebody at some point it's got to
• 1:11:36
  make a decision. Um. You know, I couldn't agree more. Yeah.
• 1:11:43
  And by the way, there's like betting on both red and black.
• 1:11:46
  I mean it doesn't Yeah, well, betting on red and black in a
• 1:11:50
  casino situation where it could come up green, right, and you're you're bound
• 1:11:55
  to lose. Longer you play, the worst you do. Now that the
• 1:11:58
  stock market is is kind of the opposite of a casino, which is the
• 1:12:00
  longer you play, the more likely you are to succeed. If that historically
• 1:12:04
  has been the case and I think will continue to be the case. Um
• 1:12:09
  so uh, but it's really just important not to panic if you if you
• 1:12:15
  buy a stock and you read something terrible in the newspaper, do you want
• 1:12:17
  to just remember the news that's got a negative bias? Uh, Just and
• 1:12:21
  think about what other products of the company still sound. Does it have a
• 1:12:26
  good product roadmap? Do you believe in the management? If so, ignore
• 1:12:29
  what the precess or if the price drops when when the negative audicle, buy
• 1:12:31
  a stock. So here's here's my last question. And you mentioned the press.
• 1:12:35
  You've been the subject of press coverage for you know, like a long
• 1:12:38
  time, but very intense media coverage for the last year. Yeah. Sure,
• 1:12:45
  well it seems that way anyway. Um, how is your opinion of
• 1:12:50
  the press changed? Um? Well, so my first company way back in
• 1:13:05
  the day and the Precambrian era of the Internet or the Worldwide Web is up
• 1:13:13
  to We actually helped bring a number of the media organizations online. So most
• 1:13:15
  newspapers are not online. We helped bring hundreds of newspapers and magazines online for
• 1:13:20
  the first time. We added a trevenus amount of functionality to their websites with
• 1:13:26
  our software. The New York Times Company and night Rider were major investors and
• 1:13:31
  were on the board. I spent a lot of time in newsrooms, so
• 1:13:34
  I'm not unfamiliar with the media. I got to see it firsthand all the
• 1:13:41
  way back in nineteen ninety six, so it's been a while. Sort of
• 1:13:45
  traditional media certainly had revenue challenges because as online advertising is increased and it's much
• 1:13:55
  more measurable and much more sort of direct. You can say, like I
• 1:13:58
  spent this amount and about this this output like it's interactive, unlike say a
• 1:14:03
  newspaper or broadcast TV. UM, you're kind of guessing with the newspaper and
• 1:14:09
  broadcast TV. UM, where there's if if something's online, you can tell
• 1:14:14
  immediately that that person saw the ad and bought the product. That's that's very
• 1:14:18
  very immediate. So UM, and it's it's it's actually more effective if the
• 1:14:25
  advertising is customized to the individual, so the advertising is more likely to be
• 1:14:30
  irrelevant, whereas broadcast if if it's being shown to everyone, it's going to
• 1:14:33
  be irrelevant to most people. UM. The result of that has been a
• 1:14:40
  huge shift in advertising revenue from newspapers and TV to uh, you know,
• 1:14:47
  the Googles and facebooks of the world, and a tiny bit to Twitter.
• 1:14:51
  I think Twitter gets like one one percent of advertising revenue. It's quite tiny.
• 1:14:57
  UM. So the this is meant a shrinking pie obviously for most of
• 1:15:04
  the traditional media companies UM and made them more desperate to get cliques, to
• 1:15:12
  get to get you know, get attention. UM. And it just made
• 1:15:18
  them when when you know, when they were, when they're in a sort
• 1:15:21
  of desperate state, they will then tend to really push headlines that get the
• 1:15:28
  most cliques, whether those headlines are accurate or not. Um So, it's
• 1:15:31
  resulted in my view, I think I think most people would agree a less
• 1:15:39
  truthful, less accurate news um so because they just got to get a rise
• 1:15:45
  out of people. Um. And I think it's also increased the negativity of
• 1:15:50
  the news because I think we humans instinctually respond more to I think we have
• 1:15:58
  an instinctual negative which which kind of makes sense in that like if like let's
• 1:16:08
  say, like it's more important to remember where where was the lion or where
• 1:16:14
  was the tribe that wants to kill my tribe than where is the bushworth berries?
• 1:16:18
  Like one's like a permanent negative outcome and the other is like, well
• 1:16:23
  I might go hungry, So meaning like there's an asymmetry and um sort of
• 1:16:30
  involved asymmetry and negative versus positive stuff and and and also historically the negative stuff
• 1:16:38
  would have been quite approximate, like it would have been near represented a real
• 1:16:43
  danger to you as a person, um if you heard negative news, because
• 1:16:47
  historically, you know, like a few hundred years ago, we're not hearing
• 1:16:50
  about what negative things are happening on the other side of the world or on
• 1:16:54
  the other side of the country, we're only we're hearing about negative things in
• 1:16:57
  our village, things that could actually have a bad effect to you, whereas
• 1:17:01
  now we're hearing about I mean, the news very often seems to attempt to
• 1:17:05
  answer the question what is the worst thing that happened on Earth today? And
• 1:17:10
  we wonder why you said after reading that, you know, um, and
• 1:17:13
  then use the most inflammatory language, you know, because every day they got
• 1:17:18
  to sell, sell the advertising, even if it's it happened to be a
• 1:17:23
  slow newsday. Do you read any legacy media once? When I read a
• 1:17:30
  lot so UM. I mean, I really get most of my news from
• 1:17:39
  Twitter at this point, so it is the number one news news source I
• 1:17:45
  think in the world at this point. So, and thus all the more
• 1:17:53
  important that we strive to to be accurate. And it's not just a question
• 1:17:58
  of accuracy, but we also need to allow the people to develop the narratives
• 1:18:05
  that are of interest to them. So it's possible for UM news to be
• 1:18:11
  technically truthful, but not that, but they're still deciding what the narrative is,
• 1:18:17
  like, like let's say you want to um like let's say it took
• 1:18:21
  a photo of someone and they had a little zip Um. Now you could
• 1:18:26
  zoom in on the zip and make it look gigantic like Mount Vesuvius um,
• 1:18:30
  and it is still true that they have a ZiT It's just not the size
• 1:18:34
  of Mount Vesuvius. And they you know, it doesn't properly reflect their face.
• 1:18:40
  Their face is not one giant set. But you could you could say,
• 1:18:43
  like, well, it's true, but have they lied. They haven't.
• 1:18:47
  You know, they're just happened to zoom in on the ZiT um and
• 1:18:50
  not look at the rest of the face type of thing. So, um,
• 1:18:56
  I want to saying is that that choice of narrative is it is extremely
• 1:19:03
  important. And at the point in which if there's only like say, half
• 1:19:10
  a dozen editors in chief, or maybe even few of them, maybe it's
• 1:19:14
  only three or four that are deciding what the narrative is, what's gonna be
• 1:19:16
  on the front page, then um, you know that that that's that's a
• 1:19:25
  form of manipulation of public opinion, and I think the public often doesn't appreciate
• 1:19:28
  and it's perhaps the most pernicious of all. That's right, because it's the
• 1:19:30
  most subtle. Yeah, it's most subtle. They haven't said an untrue thing,
• 1:19:32
  They've just chosen. What they're going to focus on. A man called
• 1:19:35
  Douglas Mackie's facing ten years in prison for posting what he believed funny memes on
• 1:19:42
  Twitter. What do you make of that case. I don't know the details
• 1:19:46
  of that case. Um I've you know, I've read a little bit about
• 1:19:50
  it. You may you probably know more about it than I do. I
• 1:19:58
  certainly don't think so much go to prison for a long period of time for
• 1:20:02
  posting memes on Twitter, in which case we're gonna have a very full prison.
• 1:20:08
  Um so. And if if we're talking about election interference, well there's
• 1:20:15
  quite a few people that should be on trial for that, for much far
• 1:20:19
  more serious crimes than than memes on on Twitter, far more serious. Yes,
• 1:20:25
  the Twitter frials kind of showed that. I think, yes, um
• 1:20:30
  so, you know, unless unless the person really did I I said,
• 1:20:33
  I don't. I don't know. I don't everything that we're showing at the
• 1:20:38
  trial. Has he been convicted? Is this? Yes? He was so
• 1:20:43
  victed on Friday, unit unanimous jury verdict. Yes. What was the venue
• 1:20:51
  were city? Okay? It was a hug It was in Brooklyn, and
• 1:20:55
  it was a hung jury and hung jury. There's not unanimous, then well
• 1:20:59
  the judge prodded the jury, okay, and and they reached unanimous guilty verdict.
• 1:21:04
  It'll be appealed. So how many what percentage of your staff did you
• 1:21:08
  fire at Twitter? One of the great business stories of the year. I
• 1:21:12
  think we're about we're about twenty percent of the original size, So eighty percent
• 1:21:15
  left. Yes, so a lot of people voluntarily, sure, sure,
• 1:21:21
  but but it's eighty percent are gone from the day. So how do you
• 1:21:27
  run the company with only twenty percent of the staff. It turns out you
• 1:21:30
  don't need all that many people to run Twitter, but eighty percent, that's
• 1:21:34
  a lot um, yes of it. I mean, if you're not trying
• 1:21:40
  to run some sort of glorified activist organization with you don't care that much about
• 1:21:46
  censorship, then you can really let go of a lot of people. Turns
• 1:21:49
  out how many others without naming names, but how many I had dinner when
• 1:21:59
  somebody who runs a big gum but he recently said I'm really inspired by Euan
• 1:22:01
  And I said the free speech stuff he goes, no firing the staff stuff.
• 1:22:05
  Um, how many other CEOs have come to you um to talk about
• 1:22:13
  this? Um? You know, I spent a lot of time at work,
• 1:22:19
  so it's not like I'm meeting with lots of people. They see what
• 1:22:24
  I what actions I've taken? Um and UM. But I think we just
• 1:22:30
  had a situation at Twitter where it was absurdly overstaffed. You know, so
• 1:22:34
  it wasn't you know, like you look at say like, what does it
• 1:22:36
  really take to operate Twitter? Um? You know most of what we're talking
• 1:22:42
  about here is a group text service at scale? Um, Like how many
• 1:22:47
  people are really needed for that? You know? Um? And if you
• 1:22:51
  look at the you say, like what has been the product development over time
• 1:22:58
  with Twitter? And you're like, so, like you know, years versus
• 1:23:00
  product improvements, and it's like a pretty flat line. So what are they
• 1:23:03
  doing? You know, it took a year or to add an edit button
• 1:23:09
  that doesn't work most of the time. I mean, this is I feel
• 1:23:12
  like if there's a comedy situation here. You know, you're not making cars.
• 1:23:17
  You know, it's very difficult to make cars or get rockets orbit,
• 1:23:23
  so UM, you know, the real question is like how did it get
• 1:23:27
  so absurdly overstaffed? This is insane? UM? So any right, that's
• 1:23:32
  and it's clearly working. In fact, I think it's working better than ever.
• 1:23:36
  It's about we've increased the responsiveness of the system by in some cases over
• 1:23:43
  eighty percent. The there's a core piece of code for generating the timeline which
• 1:23:50
  is run literally billions of times a day. We've cut that code from seven
• 1:23:56
  hundred thousand lines to seventy thousand lines run. Yeah, and and the code
• 1:24:01
  efficiency by over eighty percent, like meaning that how much computer is necessary to
• 1:24:06
  render the timeline by eighty percent. I mean this is a you know,
• 1:24:12
  in four four or five months, we've we've increased the video time from um
• 1:24:17
  roughly two minutes or best case ten minutes to now two hours, so you
• 1:24:23
  can put to ours video on Twitter. Will ASO going to be increasing that
• 1:24:26
  to where there's no no meaningful limit. We've increased the tweet length from total
• 1:24:31
  forty characters to four thousand, will be increasing that to where there's gain no
• 1:24:35
  meaningful length to if you want to post a novel on Twitter is Sue'll do
• 1:24:39
  it. Um And you know we as as everyone saw on Friday, we
• 1:24:46
  open source the super embarrassing recommendation algorithm, which we will are taking apart and
• 1:24:51
  invest rating, which is exactly what I hope they would do, um and
• 1:24:56
  pointing out all the nonsense. Um. And we're gonna open so once more.
• 1:25:00
  Um and we're going to subject to public public review. We're also going
• 1:25:08
  to get criticized line because people will point out all of the foolish things that
• 1:25:12
  are out that that are happening in the code. But then we'll fix it.
• 1:25:15
  We'll fix it fast and in full public view. UM And I think
• 1:25:19
  that's the kind of thing that that owns the public trust. You know,
• 1:25:24
  if if if because like don't take my word for it, this is we
• 1:25:28
  you can literally read the code, and you can read what people say about
• 1:25:30
  the code. Um and and you can see the improvements that we make,
• 1:25:34
  and you can see we'll see the like in real time live see see see
• 1:25:41
  it get better. UM. So my prediction is that this I would be
• 1:25:46
  surprised if this does not lead the public to think, Okay, this this
• 1:25:50
  is something that I can trust. Um. I mean I think far more
• 1:25:56
  trust trust way than say other social media opens thes that have some mysterious black
• 1:26:00
  box that they refuse to show the show how it works. What are they
• 1:26:05
  trying to hide? What are these just not good things? Yeah, if
• 1:26:11
  they had to have somebody to hide one and they show it, but there
• 1:26:15
  it's a proprietary business secret. Yeah. Sure. So so we're trying to
• 1:26:27
  make make Twitter the most trusted place on the internet, that the where you
• 1:26:30
  can get the you know, the least untrustworthy place on the Internet. I
• 1:26:35
  don't think anyone should trust the internet, but maybe we can make Twitter the
• 1:26:40
  least untrustworthy. Um. And in a way you can see a wide range
• 1:26:45
  of political opinions, so including ones you disagree with. I think people should
• 1:26:49
  be exposed to things they disagree with. It shouldn't just be continuous self reinforcement
• 1:26:54
  of like what you know. So, um, that's the goal, and
• 1:27:00
  I think we're making some good progress in that direction. I feel good about
• 1:27:05
  where things are going, and we definitely want to have things as as sort
• 1:27:10
  of cleaned up as possible before the elections. If there's any manipulation that we're
• 1:27:16
  aware of, make that, make the public aware of that, and just
• 1:27:20
  uh, like I said, try to get the truth to the people as
• 1:27:29
  best we can.