a16z Podcast - a16z Podcast: Beyond Zero Sum, Again

Episode Date: July 4, 2019

with Marc Andreessen (@pmarca), Ben Horowitz (@bhorowitz), and Steven Johnson (@stevenbjohnson) Continuing our 10-year anniversary series since the founding of Andreessen Horowitz (aka "a16z"), we’re resurfacing some of our previous episodes featuring Andreessen Horowitz founders Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz. This episode was actually recorded in 2017 at our annual innovation Summit, and features technology writer Steven Johnson interviewing Ben and Marc about everything from their relationship to creative inspirations. You can find other episodes in this series at a16z.com/10.

The content here is for informational purposes only, should not be taken as legal business, tax, or investment advice, or be used to evaluate any investment or security and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any A16Z fund. For more details, please see A16Z.com slash disclosures. Hi, everyone. Welcome to the A6 and Z podcast, I'm Sonal. So this week, to continue our 10-year anniversary series since the founding of A6 and Z, we're actually resurfacing some of our previous episodes featuring founder. Mark Andreessen and Ben Horwitz. If you haven't heard our latest episode with Stuart Butterfield turning the tables as the entrepreneur interviewing them, please do check that out and other episodes in this series on our website at a6.c.com slash 10. But this episode was recorded at our annual innovation summit in 2017 and features writer Stephen B. Johnson interviewing them about everything from their relationship to creative inspirations. All right. I'm delighted and honored to be here with you. And we've got a lot to cover. And what the kind of architecture for this conversation is,

in a sense, we're going to kind of zoom out. We're going to start on a more personal level and broaden out to think a little bit about tech cultures inside a given organization and then start thinking a little bit more about broader social trends coming out of technology and looking into the future a little bit. But I wanted to start with something actually just listening to your conversation with JJ, who I don't know at all that I'm going to call JJ. He was talking about that first kind of literally magical moment going and seeing Universal Studios and then getting into magic and how that was so transformative as an eight-year-old. And it occurred to me, do you guys have a memory of something like that with tech at any point where you really saw something?

For me, it was late. It was Hypercard. Sophomore year in college where I was just like, oh, there is this whole possibility that I hadn't imagined could happen on a screen. Do you have similar stories? It's funny. This is an embarrassing question because I'm sitting next to Mark, But, you know, one of the ones I remember most vividly was seeing Mosaic. Because, you know, for years in tech, there were all these ideas about, like, if you were in computer science, about what was possible from all the things that you ought to be able to do. But you could never actually quite get them to work. And HyperCard was like that in that way. But Mosaic was really it.

Like, it was all there on it. And when you down it, you were like, oh, my God, the whole world is like right there. I can reach the world. That's the most craziest thing ever. But I hate to say that with him sitting here because I go right to his head. Well, it was a really striking point because up until, I mean, certainly for me,

and I think for a lot of people, there was discussion about hypertext that had been circulating through different subcultures. But I would say probably 80% of the precedent received at that point was, strangely enough, about hypertext fiction. It was people who were writing

these non-linear stories. And when you saw a mosaic for the first time, you're like, oh, this isn't some obscure avant-garde postmodern literary device. This is the future of media. I have a much better answer than that. So I actually just mentioned on stage, but like the early PCs really were the mystery box,

the magic box. And that really, that just, you know, the flesh and cursor had me from go. So that sense of potential was a really big deal. The other, I swear to God, that this is true, Knight Rider. Who remembers Night Rider, Night Rider? You're talking about Kit?

Kitts. Holy shit. So I was, I forget, so it was 82, so yeah, I was 10, right? And so this show is on and I don't know, it's this guy in the leather jacket and I don't know, he seems cool, whatever. But they did this very clever thing, the mystery box thing. And then, you know, no internet, no nothing, couldn't find anything. You just saw a few commercials.

They did not tell you that the car was like that special. And if you go back and watch the pilot, it's like 45 minutes in. And like, it's the whole thing has happened. He's been shot in the face. He's had reconstructive surgery. He's got the new name. He's got the mission. He's got the car.

He's driving along 45 minutes in the car talks. And, like, I think I fell out of the couch. Like, I think I just, like, literally, I was like, the car is talking. Right. And then I still remember what that felt like. And then I have to remember the screens, like the dash on that thing, right? It was like being in the space shuttle. And to this day, when I get in a car that, you know, the modern cars are like that, right?

They've got to it, including the fact that they talk to you now. But, you know, they got all the screens and this and the dash and the Tesla and the whole thing. It's still, I always still feel like I'm getting behind the dash of kit. So that is the best answer. That is great. So there's a great thing about your, the relationship that you guys have. It's a long, enduring one, incredibly productive one. There's a line in The Hard Thing About Hard Things in your book,

not to embarrass you, Mark, but I just wanted to quote it here. This is you're talking about the relationship. And what you said is, even after 18 years, he upsets me almost every day by finding something wrong in my thinking, and I do the same for him. It works. So first off, is that true? But more than that, are you guys, is there something predictably wrong? Are you guys wrong?

Are you finding yourselves correcting each other in ways that are kind of, are there patterns to the way in which you disagree? Do you tend to err on the side, this side, where Mark errs on another side? You know, I think it's, you know, we're close enough in personality, but different enough kind of in skills that we often see things from different angles. And then a lot of it is Mark himself, which is like Mark always likes to take the other side of the argument, whatever side, like he just enjoys taking the other side. thing. And so, you know, it just kind of goes that way. I think that the real key to it is that

we somehow got to a level of trust where we can really go at it in a way that would, for most people, you just go, like, if you. Like, you can't talk to me that way. Like, how, you know, like, so disrespectful. Like, you're stepping on me, you're asking me these questions that hurt my feelings. But, you know, for us, you know, it has still, like, you know, sometimes, like, get close to that, but not, not all the way. I think the big thing is, the thing I decided at a certain point, because we get asked a version of this question by the founding teams that we work with, or if we bring a CEO into a company, help a founder bring in a CEO, and they're going to have a partnership that hopefully works something like this, you know, kind of ask, how do you make it

work? Because it is so easy for the conflict, for the emotion to drive people apart. And so the way I think about it is, it's more important to me that we have the successful partnership than it is that I'm right, not any particular issue. And I'm proud to say that Ben, of course, is the exact opposite. It's far more important for him to be right than it has a successful part. And so it meshes perfectly right hand and glove. I'm joking. That was a joke.

And so we both will argue it all the way out, but each of us will defer to the other. At the end of it, if it's an argument, it's over which one, which of us is going to defer to the other one with each of us volunteering to do it most of the time. And that's really, like sometimes the argument will not resolve, but we'll kind of know who knows more about that thing and will yield in that way. And that's been super productive. And are there ongoing disputes about where the technology world is heading? Are there kind of senses like, oh, no, you think this thing is going to be huge,

but this is the old argument we've been having for five years. It's never going to happen. Well, we both believe a lot in disagree and commit, right? And so it's important. As an example, one version of the question you asked is like, what if we're arguing about some startup we funded and whether it's, are we going to have some argument about like that was a mistake or not or whatever. Like, we basically, I don't think ever have those arguments.

And the reason is because we may argue whether, and this is true of our partnership more broadly, we may argue about whether to make the investment, but once we make it, we're in. Yep. Right. And then at that point, it's important that it's the dynamic, sort of implicit promise in the team,

and including between the two of us, is we're all in this. We've all committed. And I think that's really critically important because that's how you maintain. That's how you don't have, I told you so. And backbiting and talking about people

when they're not in the room and that kind of thing. Right. Yeah, that's not bad. Do you all have a, I'm actually in the middle of writing a book about long-term complex decision-making. So I have my own kind of bias in this question,

but do you have... When you're confronting a decision, say, for instance, like, should we fund this company or should we follow in this round or other life decisions, do you make, do you find that you have a process for that decision-making act that you go through and think about as a series of stages, or is it something that's more fluid and conversational and intuitive? Yeah, so it's interesting. This business is different than our last. So running a company, you try to be more structured in how you do this in some ways in that speed is really. important. So if you're running a company, your output is decisions and you rate it on quality and speed. And if you have to make the trade, which you always have to, you generally go towards speed because you have a lot of decisions to make. And if you don't make them fast, then you freeze the

entire organization. In our new business, basically quality is everything. And so we'll go around the horn 50,000 times if we have to, to make sure that we've explored every quarter. corner in every crevice of the discussion and we've not missed something. So I would say in some ways, you know, we have a lot of like a framework in our minds about how we think of investments and deals and so forth. But we're willing to go in many loops where we would never do that in a company. One of the things that I love investigating talking to people about is their kind of creative workflow and where they find inspiration. There's a lot of research out there that some of which that I've done and other people have done about the importance of kind of diversity

of influences in your kind of worldview leading to more creative thinking. So I'm just curious about your kind of daily information diet in a sense beyond the kind of the routine of the meetings that you have with the founders and the pitch meetings and so on. Where do you find that kind of outside influence in new ideas? So we sort of cheat in a sense, which is we have, we see 2,000 inbound startups a year. These are, you know, by definition, and 2,000 to the smartest people in the world and all the domains that they're operating in. And so, I mean, honestly, after that, it's just, you know, it's hard to pick up like a magazine and open it with any level of enthusiasm. It's like, you know, you kind of have this, you know, you're kind

of seeing this stuff, you know, months or years before it shows up in the press. And so that's part of it. Personally, I've been running this year a big experiment and I've always been a big reader and sort of information omnivore. And it just, you know, I've always trying to kind of balance short term, long term, you know, different kinds of, different times of, different times of material. And so I've been running a big experiment this year, which is I've been trying to do a barbell. I've trying to polarize it. And so I've stopped completely reading newspapers, magazines, basically anything that has a time horizon, basically greater than, let's say, five minutes to, you know, anything basically between five minutes and five years, which is to say I basically

only read social media on the one hand, and then only books on the other hand, right, and just polarize it and gap it way out. So what's interesting about that is, of course, being on social media, like that process, you know, necessarily you end up consuming a lot of news in a lot of what's there, notwithstanding the false reports of the death of the web, a lot of what social media is is links to things that are interesting, right? People who you're following are interested in. And so, you know, I do end up reading basically everything. But one of the experiments was, does it matter?

Like, if you don't see the homepage of the newspaper, do you miss things? And it turns out if you follow the right people, you really don't, because they surface all the interesting stuff anyway. And you get to see a lot of stuff that you wouldn't necessarily see looking at the homepage. But the other side, honestly, and you know, you're very accomplished book author. The other side of it is just books, you know, books have probably become the great, underestimated source of information relevant to our daily lives that just gets, you know,

as there is just such a surplus of kind of near-term information and consumption. And let's just say, as the real world is getting continuously more interesting in real time, you can spend all day along just following the ins and outs of what's happening in the political scene or what's happening in the sports scene or what's happening in, you know, the business world or whatever. And so you can really get, you know, to talk about myself, I can get really trapped in the present. And so the ability to at least have some time to be able to go back and be able to read things that were written five or 10 or 50 or 100 years ago that have stood. the test of time in the form of books has been, I think, is very valuable.

It has been very interesting. I mean, the book business is actually quite healthy, and people are reading, you know, reading print books. There's a kind of return to print books. And it does feel as if I think one of the things you don't realize until you write them, particularly with nonfiction books, but it's true fiction as well, that when you meet someone who's read one of your books, they have been living inside your mind for 12 hours, 20 hours, depending how long the book is.

And so it is still an unrivaled way to get complicated ideas into other people's minds. And so it's been, I think, a sign of health in the culture that books are actually thriving in the midst of all this kind of minute-by-minute social media. And also, by the way, as you will know, like audiobooks, right? I think there's a renaissance and audiobooks, which is just having the smartphone and now the wireless, you know, AirPods makes it so much more convenient for right to consume audio content, long-form audio content. And podcasts obviously are a big part of that. But audiobooks in the course is drive time and wait time and this time and, you know, morning time and so forth. Completely fit into my life in a way that books didn't use to. I also wanted to ask you, Ben, about music.

You should talk about that in terms of your own kind of creative view of the world. Yeah, well, it's interesting, and it's very specific to hip-hop for me. And hip-hop is an unusual music form in that it's a very kind of capitalistic form of music, which is completely kind of unheard of in popular music, in that the main theme of hip-hop, if you go through all the great rappers, is like, how do you build something out of nothing, you know, how do you compete these kinds of things, as opposed to R&B, which was maybe love songs, and like rock and roll, which is more communist.

but it's a perfect analog to entrepreneurship. It's kind of the exact kind of motivational soundtrack for entrepreneurs. And that's really how I started with it because any theme I wanted to write about, like it was a great way to find inspiration. But it led to, if you say I made a contribution to the management literature. It actually came out of rap music in that. The big thing that was different in my book was that the logic, of management, it's not very complicated. And you can understand all the management theory.

It's just not that hard. But the emotional, psychological complexity of doing it is incredibly difficult. And we see tremendous fallout from brilliant, brilliant people who can never get over that. And so the big challenge for me was, like, how do you communicate the emotional part of the lesson? And hip-hop is great for that because it carries the emotion and it's all about kind of the capitalism. So I wrote a post, how do you handle politics in a company? And I went through all the things that cause politics and the subtle things, you know, like how somebody asking for a raise can do it and how you deal with that technique and so forth. But a lot of it is the attitude of the manager. And so the rap quote that I used was Rick Ross, who do you think you're fucking

with? I'm the fucking boss. And like, once you get that, then you know how to do it. It's good. That's great. Okay, so let's zoom out a little bit now. You were asking J.J. Abrams about L.A. as the kind of epicenter of the movie business. So with all the changes that we've seen in the tech sector and all the volatility, the one constant really for half a century has been that the Bay Area and Silicon Valley have been the epicenter of the technology world, really, without any near rival, probably for 50 years, I think it would probably be fair to say, despite the fact that it has gone

through all these different revolutions and you had big computers and then personal computers and then the web and then social media. So really two questions I think why, why they are? Like what was it about that particular configuration that rooted tech in that world? And do you think we're going to look back in 30 or 40 years and it's going to have the same concentration? Yeah. So the why, so the why is I think it's history, right? And so just the fact that it's been a network effect, right? It's been a snowball rolling down a hill picking up momentum now for 56. Actually, it turns out 50, 70, 70, 80 years. In a lot of ways, it goes back to the 1920s, 1930s, the early defense contractors. Right.

Steve Blank has a whole series of videos called The Secret History of Silicon Valley, and he traces it all the way back almost 100 years. Yeah, they're fantastic. And the point of it is, it's just this kind of network effect that's just kept rolling, right? And so it's been this place where it's just like, it's the place where the next really smart engineer programmer or, you know, equivalently salesperson, marketing person, who wants to work and tech, whoever they are, a finance person, on the margin, right, is more tempted to move to the valley than many other places, which isn't to say that

there aren't many capable people all over the world. It's just on the margin. Many of the ones who are super ambitious end up in the valley. And, of course, I'm an example of that. And as a consequence, right, it's a story of imports, right? And so another thing just to read of people interested, Tom Wolfe, the great novelist, journalist wrote a piece in the 80s in Esquire about literally Bob Noyes, who was the original CEO of Intel, one of the fathers of Silicon Valley.

And literally grew up in Iowa, grew up in the Midwest and was the Silicon Valley import. And actually, Wolf ascribes a lot of modern valley culture to literally Bob Noyes importing, interestingly, Midwestern culture, right, including, by the way, egalitarianism, right? So the whole open floor plan thing, stock option ownership, everybody owns a share in the company. He traces that actually back to Midwestern culture. And so it just got established and it developed this ethic and it's probably not an accident that it's the frontier, right?

It's probably not an accident that's sort of the gold rush happen, right? It's just kind of this frontier ethic and mentality that's continued. So that's the good news, right? The bad news is, as I discussed with JJ, like, it's just number one, we're just bursting at the seams. Like, it's just become a hard place to do business. And the number two is there's great people all over the world and like, why on earth. So the joke in the valley is, you know, help wanted, right? Software company puts

up Silicon Valley. Software company puts up a help wanted out on the internet or whatever and says, you know, help wanted, you know, software engineer to work on new collaboration software tool, online collaboration software tool that will enable people to work together independent of geography all over the world in real time. P.S. must relocate to San Francisco to apply. And so it's this really congruity, which is we're building the technologies that in theory should let this stuff spread. And yet for some reason in the last 10, 20 years, it's actually been concentrating more and more. And so I've come to believe it's a, maybe this is obvious to some people, but I would come to believe it's a human dynamics question. It's a psychology and sociology question, not a technology

question in a lot of ways, which is it's just like how do people best work together, right? And it just so happens that at least for the form of traditional companies, which you just see over and over again, is it's just when you can get everybody in the same room, physically in the same room, right, with the level of, say, fidelity of communication or action where we're sitting, you know, by the way, it's why we're all physically here. And there are a few successful distributed companies, but there really aren't very many is a consequence of that. And so my hope is that we're going to get there in the next, you know, let's say 10 or 20 years. My hope is that we're going to get telepresence, right, in the form of video conferencing and

telepresence robots and VR and AR and all these things, collaboration software and workgroup software and Slack and GitHub and all these amazing technologies we're building for collaboration. My hope is we're going to get it to the point where it's just going to be obvious that we don't all have to be in the same place. If that happens, you could say it's, quote, bad for the valley in the sense of like maybe Silicon Valley's not central anymore, but it would be so good for the world for that to be the case. And we would all benefit so much from that. I think it's a very worthwhile thing to pursue in something I'm very fired up about.

How much do you think, just to go back to the point about noise in the early days of Silicon Valley and the history of it, so I've written about this a little bit as well. How much do you think that the participatory option-granting culture, which is very different, there were very few kind of East Coast firms that were doing that. So you had much more traditional kind of top-down equity systems. and those corporate entities. How much do you think that is part of the success? This is something I think that would be interesting

to go back and look at just economically. So I think it ends up being very important because of the nature of technology companies. So if you look at, you know, there are other kinds of companies where the people are much more interchangeable. And this kind of gets into why the network effect is so important and so forth.

And in like a tech company, there's lots of people who are extremely valuable and that innovation as a way to get them their kind of proper compensation for their contribution with a great conversation with Mark and Charles Koch where he talked about like you have to be rewarded for what you contribute to others and that really is key to any business and any incentive system and particularly in technology because there are so many people in the company who are so valuable and so fundamentally critical to the company's success it really is one of a very few kinds of compensation systems that would work.

And certainly, you know, a lot of the systems on the East Coast would never work for tech companies to be kind of world-class competitive. So it's been six years since Mark, you wrote the Software Eats the World essay. I went back and looked at it and reread it. Oh, this is a great piece. It reminded me of, I'm sure a lot of people have seen this, there was a great thing that was circulating on social media a couple years ago. It was an old kind of single-page flyer for Radio Shack from like 19.

1988 or something like that. It was a list of like 30 products that Radio Shacks sold. And it was the answering machine. It was a VCR, an alarm clock, like a TRS 80 kind of descendant, a game console, something like that. And literally, without exception,

every single one of them is now an app on your phone, right? The whole thing had gotten swallowed up by software, which is, of course, a measuring productivity problem because all those things, an aggregate cost $30,000 in 1988, and now they're free on a phone. They cost $600, which is actually progress but doesn't sometimes look like it.

So obviously I think that that was a very prescient forecast to make. Has anything kind of surprised you six years later looking back on it? I mean, in it you say the next big stages are health and education. And I'm wondering, you know, particularly on those fronts, has it lived up to the kind of promise you saw back then? Yeah, there's sort of the overall concept of software rates of world. But then there was a specific framework that I proposed in the piece, which is sort of a weak form, a semi-strong form and a strong form of this hypothesis, right?

And so the weak form was every product that can, right, every physical product will become a software product, right? And that's exactly your radio check example. Things go from being physical products to being apps. The second sort of semi-strong version of that was, therefore, any company that makes a product that can be turned into software will itself, therefore, have to become a software company, right? And in fact, I was thinking you could, you could see this, for example, playing out right now in the car industry, right? Where all the car companies are spinning up software efforts, they're buying software companies, or spinning up software into as fast as they possibly can because they see. what's coming with autonomy and all these other software advances. And then the strong and sort of audacious slash, ambitious, arrogant, hubristic version of the thesis is in any industry as a result of this dynamic. In the long run, the winning company in the industry will be the best software company, right, which is a provocative statement, right, because in a lot of these industries, and again, cars are a great example, you have incumbents who are really good at making

cars trying to become great software companies. And then you have great software companies that have no idea how to build a car, right, who are going to start making cars. right and then you're going to have basically right this giant collision between companies coming from two totally different backgrounds and so i think that you're seeing lots of that first stage that week stage lots of products transitioning you're seeing lots of companies becoming software companies i think we're just entering in a lot of industries we're entering that third stage where there's sort of this very interesting structural battle that's forming up the other thing that says yeah i think you exactly nailed it with health care and education right which is there are these

giant sectors of the economy in which not only is there no productivity growth like overall in both health care and education, there is no measured growth. There is no measured results in the application of technology in those fields. And in fact, probably it's negative productivity growth, right? Like the typical university has been going backwards in productivity, right? You just look at the charts. The number of administrators that they hire, right, per student is just skyrocketing. And that is literally negative technological productivity.

And so those industries are extremely enticing to Silicon Valley because they're so big. They're gigantic, right? Healthcare. Healthcare is a sixth of the American economy. Yeah. Right. And left unchecked, it will become a fourth and then a third and then a half and then two thirds and the three quarters. Like it's just left unchecked. It's just going to keep growing. And so it's so much money. It's so big. It's so important. It's very enticing. And the incumbent structure of, there's many smart companies in that industry. But the incumbent structure of how the industry works is just is wired to go the wrong direction. And so there's this huge opportunity to insert into it, which obviously we're going after hard. But that's still like super early. Yeah. And education? Ben, do you have thoughts on that front? I mean, there's this. Interesting point we're at where there seems to be a growing backlash to the presence of screens, particularly in younger kids' school classrooms, that it hasn't lived up to the potential.

And maybe the kids already have too much software in their lives as it is. So, you know, it's funny, or it's not funny. It's sad that we've not applied technology that well. And a lot of it has to do with the kind of structure of the kind of political regulatory structure of schools. and we have a company, Udacity, that's worked hard on this, and their final conclusion was to kind of run outside of the school system, but it's very powerful. I'll tell you a quick story about that.

But, you know, obviously, very obviously, if you could have, like, any teacher or the best teacher in the world, teaching a math class, if students have to study and then be tested. Like, when do you take a test outside a school, like, ever in life? Like, what the hell skill is at? Does this create, like, tremendous anxiety and, like, give people, of complexes. But you ought to, with technology, you ought to be able to measure how people are learning every step of the way, give them harder problems if they're going very fast or

get them help if they're going slow. And there's a lot of things that ought to be able to be done. But then I think the more kind of pressing thing and the thing that Udacity really addresses is the four-year education, general education, doesn't work that well in the modern economy because people are switching careers very, very often every, you know, two, three years sometimes. And, you know, like four years and then you never go back to school for the rest of your life doesn't make any sense at all because people need to get retrained jobs, get displaced. And so what Udacity has come up with is this thing, the nano degree, which is two months, three months you can learn to program an Android phone or build a self-driving car or learn to do

technical marketing. And those degrees are connected right to the job market. you can roll right in with a skill and a certificate that says you understand the material and you're ready to work. And that is a great innovation and something that we're really excited about. And just a quick story on that. So one of the huge problems we have in this country is prison and the need for prison reform because we've got, you know, 75% recidivism rate where people who go to jail and come out, go back to jail. And the reason they go back to jail is they can't get jobs. And the reason they can't get jobs is because two things. One is we've outlawed

like college in prison. And then two, once they come out, their record follows them wherever they go. So, you know, I've got a friend who came out of jail and I said, go to Udacity. He goes to Udacity and he's coming up on his technical marketing degree and he's already got job offers. And it's like that's what we need. Yeah. And I think it's almost as if school, particularly, you know, high school, I have two kids in high school, so I think about this a lot. It's kind of trapped in this middle zone that doesn't really work.

In a sense, it's much more effective to have those kind of nanoskills, right, where you can actually kind of apply them. Or the skills should be broader, right? I mean, when you read through, again, a book like The Hard Thing about Hard Things, I just think about how there's so many skills in there

that no one ever thought to teach me in high school, right? I mean, the skills about decision-making, skills about kind of emotional intelligence, dealing with, you know, difficult decisions. My kid, actually, in his high school, to its credit, is doing a kind of design thinking class. And they're basically learning how to brainstorm ideas, interview a customer, think about different possibilities, do mock-ups. And I was like, this should be the default. This should not be an elective.

This should be the thing you learn. And then if you want to go off and do advanced chemistry or do advanced calculus, that's fine. But those types of skills that are just everyone is going to have to know on some level, but it's very rare to encounter them. Yeah, we've got very dated curriculent. There's no question. I'm on the Board of Trustees at Columbia, and there are certainly people who are going to go to, like, an elite school and become a scholar, a PhD. And I think the system works reasonably well for them, but for, you know, the kind of bulk of the population who goes to college to get into the workforce, it's really difficult. It's exactly, as you say, it's kind of neither here nor there.

Let's talk a little bit then, kind of segueing a little bit to the job and automation question anyway. In general, I think we all agree that there has been this growing and now kind of reaching crescendo backlash against big tech and the tech sector that the last year has particularly brought to the fore. And I feel it very strongly going back because I live part of the time in Bay Area and part of the time in New York. When I'm back in New York, you know, nine out of ten kind of opinion like pieces written in East Coast media are negative pieces. It's a only nine out of ten. I mean, so I want to get into some of the specifics about why that is happening. you guys feel about it. But how much in general do you, and how much recently have you found, do you find yourself taking that seriously and how much do you feel that people just don't

understand what's going on here? We might give two different answers. Yeah. So I would first say there's a huge difference between what gets written in opinion pieces and the actual opinions of the public. So if you look at approval ratings of tech, they're incredibly high. Like they're the highest of any industry. And like Amazon's approval raising, which is one of the biggest targets, is like 80. Whereas Congress is like 20 and the press is like 20. And so like the guys at 20 are saying the guys at 80 need to be stopped because everybody hates them. So there is that dynamic and I think it's very real. This is the concept of false consciousness. Right. So literally the whole problem with the communist revolution was the business weren't signed up for it. And so and the intellectual leaders

were like, well, but we got to take down the capitalist. The other thing is I think there's something else going on that this is a side effect of. And I think it's the rise in the last several years, and in particular after the 2008 crisis, credit crisis crash, I actually think it was the catalyst for a lot of this. It's the rise of zero-sum thinking in both economics and in politics. I say zero-sum as opposed to positive sum, right? Which is this is sort of game theory, right? Zero-sum game is, I win, you lose.

And by the way, if I'm winning, it must mean that you're losing because it's zero-sum. It's only a question of how we slice up the pie, right? Whereas positive sum is we can all win together. It's actually a great book called finite and infinite games that actually goes through. If you go back historically, basically economists, philosophers, and so forth, thought the politics and economics were zero sum. And there were huge battles over resources. And this was, you know, colonization, all these other horrible things that happened over years

were fought through mercantilism, trade wars, right? All these things were fought based on zero sum. And about, you know, 300 years ago, Adam Smith and a whole bunch of other really smart thinkers figured out, no, you can actually gain from trade. You can actually interact with more people and it's good for everybody. And politics can be positive some. Just because I'm doing well might mean that you're also going to do well. Because, again, we're able to culturally trade. We're able to educate each other. We're able to contribute to each other's thoughts. and we're all able to succeed. And so in the wake of the credit crisis,

I think zero-sum thinking kind of came snapping back. And what's interesting is you see that on both the political left and on the right, right? For the anti-attack, the Luddite stop tends to come out of the left. And Marx actually was shot through with Luddism. Like, that's one of the things he didn't understand was the positive some nature of productivity, growth, and time. Anyway, so you get that on the left.

You also get it on the right, right? And you get it on the right, you get it in the form of populism, right? Which in the form of opposition to trade and opposition to immigration, right? And so I just think as a culture, as an economy, as a country right now, if you think that the formulation is zero sum, you will then do things that will cause it to get worse. For example, on the right, you'll want trade barriers, right? And so

you'll want to cut trade under the theory that that will make your people better. In reality, cutting international trade makes your people worse. You're dividing up a smaller pie. Yeah, you're shrinking the economy for everybody for no reason other than that you're just mad at other people because you think it's their fault that you're not doing well. And so it's zero some thinking. And then on their left right now, it's this anti-tech sentiment where like if those tech people are doing well, then somebody else must be, you know, suffering. Somebody else must be eating it. And it's just, it's the same sort of extremely reductionist thinking. And, of course, the risk is as that sentiment builds that it leads to policies that actually impair the ability to be able to make progress, make progress in the economy, make progress with productivity growth, make progress with job creation, make progress with wage creation.

And so there's a pretty big risk, but this is all going to go pretty seriously sideways for the wrong reason. Right. Well, let's take the tech backlash argument from a slightly more maybe sympathetic level, which is critiques that have come from within the tech sector that the original vision of the web, that inspired so much of us, which was going to be this decentralized platform that was going to distribute the kind of power of self-publishing and voice to far more people, and it was going to kind of topple this big, top-heavy mass media model. That's what inspired a lot of people to get involved in it in the first place. At the end of that process, we've ended up with four or five companies that, in terms of their command over people's attention, probably

are the most powerful companies that have ever been on this planet and also some of the greatest concentrations of wealth. So inside the tech sector, people will say re-decentralize the web and then we need to look at technologies that will enable us to have a more even distribution

in terms of the companies in terms of people's attention and so on. And blockchain is part of that. There's some argument that people are making along those lines. How sympathetic are you to that side of the case? Which does align with some of the critiques that big tech is too big.

that are coming from people outside the tech sector. Yeah, so there's a technical argument for decentralization, and then there's the kind of other thing that you're getting at, which is should there be some, like, policy answer to the big tech companies? And I think that, you know, you have to be very careful there and look at specifically what's going on. Well, are they kind of harming, are they suppressing innovation? So do people like us no longer want to fund anything because, you know,

or Amazon will wipe it out. If you look at the numbers, there's probably more startups than there's ever been. And what we're seeing and what we're funding is like super interesting. And, you know, for the most part, isn't existentially threatened all the time by those companies. Once you introduce policy, the potential side effects are, you know, really scary. Chronism, corruption, the people who have the best relationship, get the best deal, and these kinds of things. And that has knock on effects that are very difficult. And, you know, if you compare it to the early 90s when Microsoft was super strong, that was really actually a far bigger suppression of innovation. There was way less venture capital. There were far fewer companies

being created. But like the technology took care of it over time. And I think technology is changing at a faster rate now than it was then. And there's blockchain and there's quantum computing. And there's many technologies on the horizon that could rejigger the playing field, you know, without a policy intervention. One other question about the blockchain possibilities. I've been really enjoying reading Chris Dixon, writing about this over the last year or two. And there is really an interesting new way

of incentivizing and compensating people, both inside a technical organization, associated with an open protocol, early users of the service, where all of those people are participating in the value that's created with it. And thinking back to the early stock option participation, of noise. I wonder whether this suggests maybe that there's a new model here that

might be as revolutionary as those kind of option plans were. So the good news is the tech industry has had two models for making forward progress. One has been what you might call pure capitalism, which is corporations, right, which is startups, C corporations, employees, stock options, all the things we can take companies public with that traditional structure. And then there's been this other structure all the way over on the ideological spectrum, right, which is open source, right, which is basically a tribe, right, of developers that are interested in having something happened coming together, by the way, geographically distributed all over the world in a lot of cases, right? And great examples, Linux and the web itself is an example of this and so forth.

Actually, the internet itself, TCPIP was an example of this, right? Or the new project at MIT was an example of this. And people, technical people coming together and volunteering, literally with metaphors like barn raising, right? It's just like come together and make, sort of breathe life into these projects without a financial incentive and generally without, you know, at least direct financial rewards. So sort of is polar opposite of corporations you can get. blockchain is the first new third thing in I don't know probably 40 years right free software open sources like 40 years old it's the first new structure in 40 years and it's an interesting one because it's a hybrid it's got the it's your point it has the decentralization of open source

right these are protocols these are things that run internet wide these are things that are not necessarily developed by a team of you know 100 people in a building in the bay area they have that kind of open source characteristic to them and they are decentralized like their protocols they're inherently decentralized. But they've got capitalism wired in. They've got money wired in, right? In the protocol, yeah. Right, right, into the protocol, right?

In a way where there is a direct reward and incentive for the people who actually create the thing. There's a reward and incentive for the people who use the thing. And then there was a reward incentive for the so-called miners, the people who actually run all the computers all over the Internet that make these things work. And it's just been so fascinating to watch because this is one of those kind of moments where people walk up to this idea.

And if they walk up to it from the right, they're like, what on earth is this decent? centralized, hippie, like, what on earth are you people doing? If they walk up from the left, they're like, oh my God, it's got money in it, it must be evil, right? It's sort of this weird, you've got to kind of wrap your head around it. And so what we see is like it is fundamentally a third model for innovation. And I will also say this, the thing that we see that I think maybe other people are missing, many of the smartest programmers and mathematicians and economists and theorists and systems builders in the world and photographers in the world

are obsessed with this. Like, they're just magnetically drawn to it. Not because of the money or this or that or the hype or whatever because of the technical innovations that underneath this that are making this possible and what can come out of this? And we just think like that's the most positive sign you can possibly see. We just have about five minutes off. So I want to just cover a couple of other giant topics. Artificial intelligence and the super intelligence debate. Can we solve that in about two minutes? Can you give me, is this a legitimate concern? Is it appropriate to be worrying about the threat from superintelligence now? Of the really scary things in technology, I would have that one pretty low.

low on my list. I mean, I think that, one, like, I think it's a little bit of a miss. You know, intelligence is a funny word, right? Like, what is intelligence? And it's not one-dimensional. And there are a lot of things that we have considered intelligence, like doing hard math problems. Computers are already more intelligent, like playing chess, computers are already more intelligent. But there's a lot of dimensions of intelligence that computers are nowhere on. And AI, nobody is demonstrating anything in AI that says, like, it's going to get comprehensively more intelligent and certainly nothing along the lines of free will yet so yeah maybe maybe it'll happen but of all the things it's a very theoretical so I think it's a little overblown I do think

also there's a motivation of technologists too it's a very kind of it makes you seem very intelligent when you can talk about the robots taking over the world so it's a great thing to talk about the thing that drives me with bananas is it's the freaking physicists and it's like I'm a computer scientist I don't have like crazy conspiracy theories about black holes you know I I guess I could, you know, like, in theory, a black hole could open up here in this room and swallow us all, like, I don't have crazy theories about dark matter. Like, I'm not worried there's dark matter

in the glass, and I'm not going to go around telling everybody it's going to eat it. It's just like, I don't know why. Yeah, it's hard to find an AI expert who goes, oh, yeah, this is a big problem. Well, in fact, and the AI experts, of course, tend to be worried about the opposite, which is they're like, oh, shit, expectations are getting set off. Yeah, like, we're never going to build that. We're never going to build the robot apocalypse. I'm still trying to get the thing to play Mario

Mario Brothers, right? Like, oh. Okay, so last question. I'd love to hear what you think, looking forward to the next kind of 20 years, what's the thing that you're most curious to see how it turns out, right? Where you think maybe it's going to this way, but you really are just dying to fast forward 20 years and be like, ah, that's what happened with that? Like, what's the biggest kind of question mark that you have over the next, say, two decades? So the thing that makes my brain melt is this, now that we can program biology, so that kind of, or we're getting to the point where we can program biology, you know, the first step is, you know, or one kind of dimension of that is, you know, solving

disease, you know, in a much, much better way. You know, another aspect of it is creating better humans. And I'm very fascinated to see how that comes out and what it ends up meaning and, you know, whether it goes horribly wrong or incredibly right. And what does that even mean better humans and how will, like, are humans even suited to, like, figure that out? So that, from a curiosity, standpoint, I would say that for me is probably it. Yeah, yeah. The thing I think a lot about is, so through all of recorded history, and this is why I just think that a lot of the tech credit systems are just misguided, through all of recorded

history, most people have not been, I would say, most people have not been plugged into what we would consider to be modern systems, right? So most people have not been literate. Most people have not been healthy. Most people have not been fed well enough to be able to reach fully health maturity. Most people have not been educated and still aren't, right, to the level that we consider are modern. Most people don't have access to economic opportunity that we would consider to be modern jobs. Most people don't have access to what we consider be high quality health care.

Most people don't have access to high quality housing, transportation. You just go right down the list of all these things that we've been lucky enough in this country to enjoy, you know, large percentage of the population for a long time. Most people in the world have not had access to those things. And I know that the existing systems, existing education system, the existing health care system, the existing transportation system has had, you know, 50, 100, 200, 500 or 500 years. to get to the 7 billion people on the planet. Every one of those systems has only gotten a fraction of the people.

And now we finally have the way to get, right, to everybody. We're at the point now, three billion smartphones on its way to six, seven billion on the planet. We're going to be able to connect everybody. We're going to be able to get over time, we're going to be able to get everybody all the things that I went through,

starting, by the way, with education, right, as sort of a foundational one. And so what is it going to mean for the planet when everybody around the planet all of a sudden starts to, I would say, become part of the systems that we know and understand. and we literally have 10, 20 times the number of people around the planet who are contributing

in all these different areas. And I just don't understand how people can be possibly pessimistic about the future knowing that that's the potential. And I think we're going to see that. And I think our kids are going to see that. And I think that's very exciting. That is. Okay, so we covered Knight Rider, Karl Marx, and Universal Education for the planet. I think we've done our job. Thank you, that was great. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.