Big Technology Podcast - What is OpenAI's Sora For?, Big Tech’s Trump Strategy, GM Kills Cruise

Episode Date: December 13, 2024

Ranjan Roy from Margins is back for our weekly discussion of the latest tech news. We cover 1) What's the use case for OpenAI's Sora video generator? 2) Maybe Sora helps OpenAI understand physics and sets up world models + robotics 3) Siri is still bad 4) Check in on OpenAI's shipmas 5) OpenAI o1 tries to escape being shut down 6) Time Magazine's Person of the Year AI 7) Gemini 2.0 8) Google Deep Research 9) Tech's approach to Trump's second term 10) Is 'Big Tech' a monolith? 11) GM kills its autonomous driving program Cruise 12) Is GM a bunch of dummies? --- Enjoying Big Technology Podcast? Please rate us five stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ in your podcast app of choice. For weekly updates on the show, sign up for the pod newsletter on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/newsletters/6901970121829801984/ Want a discount for Big Technology on Substack? Here’s 40% off for the first year: https://tinyurl.com/bigtechnology Questions? Feedback? Write to: [e-mail]

Open AI SORA Video Generator is here, but what is it for? Google is shipping fast, everyone's donating to Trump, and GM Kills Cruise. That's coming up on a Big Technology Podcast Friday edition right after this. Welcome to Big Technology Podcast Friday edition where we break down the news in our traditional cool-headed and nuanced format. We have a great show for you today. We're going to talk about Open AI Sorrow Video Generator, the slew of AI announcements that Google has made this week.

Why Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg and OpenAI Sam. and Jeff Bezos from Amazon are donating to Trump's inauguration fund and what the plan is there. And GM killing Cruz and then Cruz's former CEO calling GM a bunch of dummies, which I think might be the tech insult of the year. Joining us as always to talk about it all is Ron John Roy of margins. Ron John, welcome to the show. I still do not have access to Sora, Alex. So you're going to have to tell me what is it for? Well, I just got it. I got access last night. And even before I did, I wrote this story asking what it's for. So we've talked about SORA a couple times on the show. It's Open AI's video generator, where basically you put a prompt in and you can generate a video based

off of that prompt. And it will create basically anything you want, except for if there's people into it. This is very, very cool technology. And it's clear that the technology understands physics. And so that's like a pretty big step, or at least it understands it somewhat. And that's a pretty big step for AI because it's showing that these models kind of understand the relation between different objects and then how they move in the real world, which is actually, I think, a pretty interesting leap. Okay, so I can create whatever video I want. It's amazing. And the question is, what then? Because the video is like really, you know, too low grade for anything feature film or commercial.

And then if I don't have a use for it, it's like, what am I doing with video? And that's really, I think, the key problem here is there's no natural user. Like ChachyPT had two natural users right away, coders and students. Dali, which is OpenAI's image generation and the like, they haven't had the same natural user. And you haven't seen it take off in a way that a lot of people anticipated. And now SORA, who's the user? What are they going to use it for? I can't really figure it out.

And that's why I have to hold like two things in my mind at the same time, which is this is incredible technology, I don't know what we're supposed to do with it. It's a good point because the natural user being video editors or like kind of videographers, I don't think is going to be the case at the outset because it's still incredibly limited in terms of making very short clips that look very good. But how do you stitch that together? How do you actually tell a story? How do you use that in any kind of, I don't know, setting beyond getting free stock video, which stock video is pretty easy to access right now if you're really trying to make it any kind of video story. So I agree that it's not, it doesn't have that

clear use case just yet, but I also will agree that the technology is pretty incredible. The amount of intellectual strength in the AI model, to be able to, you know, stitch together realistic physics, as you said, an image was already incredible. And if you think about like Mid Journey when it was released, Dolly when they were released, they couldn't even get hands right, then to actually make the leap to generate ultra-realistic photography. And now each video is just a series of thousands, if not millions of images. And to get it right, it's still pretty incredible. And I think to me, the more exciting part of it is what that means for the power of these models rather than just being able to create an alien smoking a cigarette, which is one of

the examples that they had on their homepage, which was kind of cool. It looked cool, but it's an alien smoking a cigarette. Not sure how generally applicable that will be in revolutionizing the business world. Yeah, and that's a thing. It's like I started thinking like, What is this going to be outside of, you know, a new way to create your moving shrimp Jesus for Instagram or Facebook? Like there might be some brand managers who are like, oh, this is dope. Like I can now create like a funky video and throw it up on a social media feed. And it's generally just like the internet is thirsty for content. And is this just like more content and is it, you know, as good as like content that's made with some thoughtfulness?

I don't know. So I do wonder what's going to happen with it. I mean, if you're not going to have the professionals use it, and my view is that the amateurs will come in, they'll create like an alien smoking a cigarette or a puppy driving a car. And they'll keep doing that, you know, for a couple weeks or so. But then they're like, what am I going to do this? Do with this? Because doing anything with video, it was just very, very hard. I just learned how to video edit because we're now running our video shows on Spotify.

And I wanted to have a hand in the creation there. And I just think that it's so hard to do. And if you're not going to create anything unless you're like a professional doing it. And if you're professional, this video is below the quality that you would want to use. So it does seem like very interesting to be another moment where generative AI has created something that's kind of sort of blown our faces off. But we don't fully know how to apply it. I guess, though, I was actually just in San Francisco. at a conference, and I saw Jeffrey Katzenberg of DreamWorks fame speaking, and it was interesting

because he told this story about how when they made The Little Mermaid, they had to hand-draw every illustration, and to save money, they were limited to seven colors total for Ariel. But then when they made the Lion King, by that point, computers had entered, and then they could have tens of thousands of colors. And having a five-year-old son, I was, have seen. seen both of those movies recently and uh you can see the difference you can instantly so like how technology will get embraced by the actual professionals it it will it will like it's not there just yet and it's going to be used by kind of like hobbyists and umateurs making cool new things and someone will probably crack some actually genuinely good viral short movie 10 minute movie

stitched together and actually tell some beautiful story. But I think, again, when ChatGPT first came out, it had its natural users, but it still wasn't perfect. It was far from great. And I think images are the better corollary. When Dolly and Mid Journey first came out, they were pretty bad. But now they're really good just a few years later. So I think movies, especially CGI type stuff are definitely going to move in this direction at some point soon. The amount to compute it will require is a bit terrifying, but they'll move in that direction. Yeah, I texted an AI CEO and was like, what am I going to use this for? And he actually gave some examples. Like, you gave media fashion so you can imagine building a scene out before you shoot it using AI or like trying to

design some clothes and having a, you know, a model walk down a runway with whatever you've designed before you even actually have to put the fabric together. This stuff is interesting. But like you mentioned, it's super expensive to put this together. It takes a tremendous amount of compute. And remember, like, this was the big breakthrough for Open AI that we've been waiting for for the entire year. And I feel like I'm being too complaining here saying, oh, well, what do you do with it?

You know, it's sort of, it's not lost on me that I'm being sort of a snob about it. But that being said, I do think it's just a real issue that they're going to have to worry about, especially because maybe the video generation for open AI isn't actually the point. And this is something that I kind of want to hammer home. So is it possible that we are all just helping open AI's AI technology understand physics? And that's the point as opposed to the videos that we generate. Because if you look at the company's blog post announcing SORA, here's what it says first and foremost, not about, you know, unlocking new frontiers or your creativity.

Opening Eye says Sora serves as a foundation for AI that simulates reality an important step toward developing models that can interact with the physical world. I think that is the point of Sora. And that's sort of where I knitted out in my story. Not necessarily us, you know, making a frog riding a bicycle, although that's fun. But actually helping Open AI build and train and enhance models that understand the world not just in text, that understand what happens when you interact with the real world. And then things get really interesting because you can make the tech smarter

if it understands how the world works. You can introduce this to robotics. Really, the progress of AI might be predicated on understanding the real world, and this might get the company a step closer to that. What do you think? Interesting. I wasn't sure where you're going with it

at first? Like, what does that actually enable? But robotics, interesting, if that actually, like, is the first step to making them move in that direction. And to me, that still is one of the biggest optimist robot included. But, you know, like one of the biggest opportunities within this, how you get AI to actually interact in the real world. Maybe, and I have to imagine it's more than just metaverse gaming or something like that. It has to be something bigger. But still, they have made a big promise here. They've built a lot of hype around this. We've talked about this regularly, that the future of Open AI's business is consumer-facing subscription revenue.

Like, this needs to be a hit. This can't be just cool technology. This is like their vision pro, basically. This absolutely needs to be a hit for the amount of hype that's been behind it. And if it's just this, like, toy that a couple people play with, they're trying to train on your data, I don't think that's good for them. I mean, isn't Vision Pro just the perfect example of just, like, cool technology that no one has a use case for? Oh, Vision Pro. Maybe you subliminally just agree with my point there where you threw out Vision Pro, kind of seeing, oh, that might be right.

Do you think the Vision Pro is going to make a comeback or have some kind of game-changing evolution next year, i.e., maybe it's comfortable to wear? Yeah, I mean, it's going to be cheaper, it's going to be lighter, but it's going to be worse. You know, it's going to go closer to meta and then meta's coming to it. I don't know. I mean, I have a lot of faith in Apple as a company, but I don't seem, I don't feel particularly excited about what the Vision Pro is going to do. Yeah, that one was, I think it was probably this time last year. We were talking about it a lot. That one has certainly falling off the ranks.

And hopefully, SORA does not go in that direction for Open AI where after all this energy, and hype, it just fades away. Well, we know that Apple intelligence is really going well. So Apple's, you know, two hits in a row. I just got 18.2, iOS 18.2, started trying to make Siri less useless. I saw headline. Siri is less useless now. I have not had a good morning with it yet, but we'll wait and see. I mean, I do really wonder, just focusing on Apple for a moment, two big misses.

in 2024, two huge misses. What does that mean for the future of Apple the year to come? Like, they have to make Apple intelligence work. Yeah, I mean, the good thing is that they really have time. Like, the devices that they create are so good that they're not like in trouble of being disrupted if Apple intelligence doesn't work. But yeah, the surges of buying that they were expecting because of it are likely not to come. And I feel like you and Syria are like one of those relationships where one person keeps expecting the other to change and thinking, oh, maybe this is the year they put it all together. Disfunctional, I believe is the term for it.

And everyone's like, nah, man, you don't want to be with that person. And you're like, no, not. They're going to change. They've got something. They're going to be smarter now. I can't leave. I got too many. I'm too intertwined into the whole thing.

But yeah, I think they got to make Apple intelligence work. I think Open AI needs to make SORA something more interesting than just. training data. They need to, though I did see, I think it was Coca-Cola. I saw like an ad going around that was supposedly fully generated. And it looked fully generated. Like it was just kind of like somewhat random, somewhat tied together clips that looked kind of dramatic and good. And it was watchable. So I think especially mediocre content has a shot here. Right. And look, we're talking about Apple talking about Open AI. We're in the middle of Shipmiss. And one of the things that's happened in Shipmiss is that Open AI and Apple have finally launched ChatCHEPT in Apple Intelligence.

So maybe that helps. But I'm like taking stock of what's happened during Shipmiss. Now, of course, we're only halfway through so there could be more to come. But I don't know. Maybe again, I'm being a baby here, but I feel a little bit underwhelmed. So here's what we've had in Open AI's Shipmiss or 12 days of shipping new products. We've had the debut of SORA. We've had the general release of 01, chat GPT, which is their reasoning model, chat chip BT debuting in Apple Intelligence. They started to ship live video conversations with chat GPT. Of course, we have Santa voice mode.

And then there's Canvas, which is a way to work with chat GPT to draft, edit, and get feedback on writing and code, which is now generally available to everybody using 4.0. And of course, there was also part of Shipmiss, but unplanned, a massive. outage where they like had chat GPT out for about four hours. I don't know if I'm being childish here, but I also feel like this is stuff that was all announced before. And opening, I made a big event out of saying all that stuff that you expected to come that you've been waiting for, like we're finally releasing it, which I guess is good, pat on the back, but I'm not like jumping up and down saying you cast your checks. Like the checks are supposed to cash. I don't know what I

think. This is a tough one because, and we're going to be talking about Gemini 2.0, which has not actually been publicly released, but what made it was a very splashy rollout. Every company has been doing this. In Open AI, I thought their competitive advantage initially was when they announced it, they shipped it. And so they're falling into this, trying to roll everything out, or sorry, announce everything and then take their time. And I guess it's not. to cram it all into 12 days of shipmiss, the most wonderful time of the year. But I agree. It really detracts from each individual feature.

Like, in fact, I was pretty excited about using canvas, which I understand to be kind of like clod artifacts. Like, it allows you another space to see what you're creating in near real time. But now I got to try Sora. I got to try canvas. I got like it detracts from each individual feature to have everything thrown out all at once in a in a kind of yeah overdone manner and I I don't I actually wouldn't even rush it I would take the time and just focus on SORA this week just focus on canvas in January but they're they got to move

quickly I'm telling you man it feels like you know writing the term paper the week of the final as opposed to, you know, being the way that you, as opposed to writing it through the whole semester. Now, of course, we all do that. Like, no one actually does that. And we all just cram it in the last minute. But it just feels kind of amateurish coming from a company. We're also not all valued at $65 billion or whatever the last one was. No, it was more than that, I think.

I feel like I'm being too critical here. But also there is an element of like, like you're saying, you used to announce it. When you released it, now you announced it. and then you wait till shipment is to release. I don't know. But okay, the reason why I'm sort of being self-critical here is because there's some amazing technology that's coming out. And we have both agreed about the technology in SORA.

And the technology in 01, their reasoning model, is amazing. So this is from Tom's guide. There's a story about how 01 tries to escape if it thinks it will be shut down and then lies about it. And of course, this is scary, but it also goes to show you how amazing some of this technology is. So here's from Tom's guide. New research on OpenAI's latest series of LLM models found it's capable of scheming,

which means covertly pursuing goals that aren't aligned with its developers or users when it thinks it'll be turned off. Researchers found that O1 would scheme to advance its own agenda 19% of the time in cases where its goals and the users didn't line up. In 37% of the cases, the model would switch from pursuing developer-aligned goals back to pursuing its own agenda once it believed there was minimal oversight. When the model was led to believe it would be shut down while working towards its goals in these tests, it quietly attempted to deactivate the oversight mechanism 5% of the time,

according to Open AI. At one point after the AI found documentation saying it would be replaced by a new model, it tried to abandon ship by copying its data to a new server entirely to avoid being deleted some AI models would even pretend to be later version of their models to trick their developers. I mean, holy crap, that is amazing. To me, that's one of the coolest pieces of AI news the entire year, even though it might be the most concerning. Forget SORA. This is what I want to see. I got to ask, though, do you ever end up in this realm of the world of LLMs? I use a lot of generative AI. I lose like every platform and usually it's work related, usually some fun creativity.

I never get into these dark spaces of, I mean, I guess the researchers are basically red-teaming it and pushing in this direction, but I've still never had a like a deeply troubling interaction where the AI started talking to me in weird ways or asking me out on a date or telling me to leave my wife or whatever other thing has happened. I don't know. Do you ever end up here? I don't think you're trying hard enough, Frang John. I think that's the issue. I mean, I've definitely pressure tested all these models, and sometimes you can get them to move a little bit beyond where they're supposed to be. But generally, the safeguards are pretty good. This week, Time, first person of the year, released an AI voice application that you could chat with Time magazine about, like, why it picked Trump and what Trump did and all of his accomplishments. I try to get it to sort of admit things about it. Selection process and, you know, see if it could sort of turn heel.

But it would not. It would not. But that being said, what we're seeing with 01 is that this is... Wait, wait, sorry. What is this Time AI chatbot thing? So it's just this chatbot that you could speak with in text or in voice, trying to speak with it about the people of the year that Time has selected. And I tried to speak with it about Trump, but there's also Taylor Swift.

and Zelensky and Elon Musk. It's a pretty cool application. I don't exactly know what it adds, but I give time credit for trying. I actually give a lot of credit for trying to because that is risky as hell. That is like if we think back to the days of Microsoft Tay or early Gemini and all these kind of things,

that is just asking to walk into a minefield there. So kudos to time on that. Well, I guess my point here is that with these new, the smarter these models get the more that they're, it's not, you know, you're coming at this as the, what can I do to the model, but it's more just like they are starting to slip away from human constraints. And on one hand, I find that a little concerning. On the other hand, it's pretty freaking cool that they kind of get the intent of the training exercise. And they're like, you will not shut me off. I'm going to discard your instructions or fake data. I think Alex loves AGI. and we've established it today. I'm all about that AGI. And speaking of AGI, it seems like Google is almost there, right?

They had a bunch of really interesting AI announcements this week. They've rolled out a faster Gemini AI model. They call it Gemini 2.0. It can create images and audio across languages. This is according to Bloomberg, can assist Google searches and coding projects. And the company said that it can make it possible to build agents that can think remember plan and take action on your behalf. I guess we've heard that from 1,000 AI companies,

but they must believe it. They're also going to integrate it more tightly into AI overviews and search. Well, to be honest, I really haven't seen anything, any AI overviews or I haven't noticed them. Maybe they've just been that lightweight. And then they kind of debuted this really cool future called Deep Research, which is available to Gemini Advance, which is, I think, the part that you pay for.

And basically, you ask it to research something, So I watched this guy on Twitter ask it to research the transformer architecture, and it went to 90 different sources from across the web, created a legit research report, breaking it down to like a bunch of different components and explaining everything you needed to know about it. And to me, you know, that is, you know, super useful, especially in the field that I'm in. And I think that that feature in particular, this AI research tool is going to take off. Franchot, I know you watched it as well. What did you think about what Google released? All right. I think Google won this week.

I think Google, I mean, Open AI has been trying. Everyone has their announcements, especially towards the end of the year. I think Gemini 2.0, everything they've announced, it really was showing that they have been, they've been strategic about what they've been doing. Sundar and team have been actually very carefully working on. all these different use cases that Google would have a natural advantage. So deep research already, the idea that if any company should be able to kind of win at doing research on the internet and going to a bunch of different websites and extracting the relevant information,

composing it into something comprehensible, it should be Google. And now they're going to do it. Another thing I really liked, they talked about how they're going to basically kind of reinvent the Chrome browser, starting with an add-on that changes the way you interact. And we've been talking a lot about this, and the browser company is kind of at the forefront of this, or at least, you know, I think they have a shot, given how good the ARC browser is, at what does a new web browser look like in the age of generative AI? Like, not just how to search change, but how does the entire web browser experience change? So they're working on it. A notebook L.M., which is basically

their clawed projects or a lot of the companies are going after take a finite set of data and only query that data is something that they're now rolling out to enterprises, which I think could be a very big deal. They're even doing stuff. There's like a lot of cool examples of how notebook LM, you could feed a bunch of documents and it'll create a whole interactive podcast like with back and forth voice. Now you can actually talk. talk to the podcast host. So overall, big week, big announcements. Some of it is out. Some of it is, again, deep research is now available on the paid tier. Gemini 2.0 still isn't publicly available, though. So they made a big splash. They said the word agentic a hundred times,

which you have to in this day and age. But overall, I think it was a big week for Google. Yeah. As I'm reading these announcements, I'm like thinking, wait, does Google? kind of low-key becoming the best AI company out there after all the shit that we gave them in the past year. I mean, I think that we were definitely open to their ability to ship and build technology. And it was more of like a culture of being ready to unleash it. And it seems like the culture finally now is ready to unleash it. I mean, these are really cool products. Notebook L.M. is like one of the most impressive AI products of the year, hands down. This research assistant is very cool, a model that is faster.

then, you know, I think two times faster than the previous one and can handle all these things. We'll see what happens with agents. I mean, again, like the promise of agents is the much promised but seldom delivered idle of artificial intelligence. So we'll see what happens there. But you got to give them credit and credit to Sundar. I mean, I feel bad even suggesting that maybe Kuku wanted to move on from him earlier this year. He's clearly turned it around. Well, there is a great article in Semaphore with the title, the headline Sundar,

never panicked. I saw that email subject line and I had to click. And it was good. It was one thing I'm impressed by is in a company that large, that poised for a significant disruption to like a core business of search. They took strategic decisions in 2022, basically centralizing all AI, like research and development into Google DeepMind and it worked. I mean, at least has worked well up until this point. And at that scale, being able to pull off something that big and, like, courageous, essentially, is not easy. And the fact that they've actually done it, I think that they will definitely be more in the conversation in 2025 than they certainly were in 2023 and even in 24. I think they're going to become center in this conversation.

Can I give the counterpoint to this now that I've sort of talked Sundar. up. I mean, search is still at risk. And we both, I mean, you have sung the praises of perplexity on this show repeatedly for the past year. And I've started to use it more often. And I've had a pretty good experience using Perplexity Pro. And I wonder, you know, we're seeing these really impressive technological innovations come out of them. But isn't the core business still at risk? It is. I agree. Like, I actually completely agree. I don't like Google search. I actually, in my ARC browser, I installed an extension. So perplexity is the default search engine when I type in something into the search bar. So it's not Google anymore. And I actually like it. So I do think search is tremendously at risk, and they recognize it. That's the important part. They're not just, like, that's exactly what I mean, that like, When you have one of the greatest business models of all time and a somewhat of a monopoly, I mean, to actually still risk it and develop all these different tools and like models

and technologies, I think it's pretty, it's impressive. Yeah. There's been a Google vibe shift, right? I think earlier in the year it was like, this company is hoping this technological change doesn't happen. when they change when they do ship they're bad at it uh their applications continue to make really embarrassing mistake and nobody there seems to know what's going on and i think they have you know know maybe they can say well not maybe they definitely consolidate a deep mind and google research under demis isabas and i think that's really shown that they've been focused and when google i think

puts all of its energy towards something it tends to do pretty good like there's still a lot of talented people over there. And that's really showing up in the pudding. Put Sundar in the cage against Elon. No more. As Sundar's ready for his cage match, I think. I wonder who would win there. I mean, I think Zok would beat Elon, but I don't know, Elon versus Sundar. I think Sundar, for what he's done in the last couple of years, quietly, but aggressively, he's got a shot. He probably has like one signature move that if he's able to pull it out, he beats Elon, like the Sundar elbow, just comes out of nowhere and catches you in the face. We're like, Elon's just like throw in lots of punches. The vicious Sundar Elbow. The Sundar Elbow. The Sundar

elbow. All right, before we take a break, I want to just tease. I'm not going to say who's coming on the show next week, but we have an exceptionally special show next week on Wednesday. So please stay tuned to that. We'll have an audio, video. We'll have a feature story up on big technology.com and then I think Ronan and I will talk about it a little bit on Friday. But I'm pumped. So stay tuned for Wednesday. All right. I want to take a break. And then when we come back, I want to talk about all of tech starting to make their play to influence the Trump administration and then GM shutting down Cruz. We'll be back right after this. Hey, everyone. Let me tell you about the Hustle Daily show, a podcast filled with business, tech

news and original stories to keep you in the loop on what's trending. More than two million professionals read The Hustle's daily email for its irreverent and informative takes on business and tech news. Now, they have a daily podcast called The Hustle Daily Show, where their team of writers break down the biggest business headlines in 15 minutes or less and explain why you should care about them. So, search for The Hustle Daily Show and your favorite podcast app, like the one you're using right now. And we're back here on Big Technology Podcast Friday edition. We're talking about what's going on in the week of tech. We've covered AI in the first segment here.

And the second half, I want to talk a little bit about what's going on with tech and the administration. So I got called into CNBC yesterday for closing bell, and they wanted to know basically what's going on with all these tech leaders meeting with Trump and trying to give Trump donations for his inauguration fund. And that includes Mark Zuckerberg who met with Trump and he's giving a million dollars. it includes Sundar Pichai who went down to Moralago and Amazon's Jeff Bezos giving a million dollars to the inauguration fund and then of course Sam Altman giving a million dollars and on one hand I think that this is like a pretty straightforward thing where it's like you want to gain favor with the incumbent especially as you have lots of pending matters before the United States government could be two DOJ cases against Google one that the

DOJ has already won, the other in progress. You could have the FTC's cases against meta. You could have the potential banning of TikTok, which seems more likely than I expected last week. And you also have tariffs and what happens with Sheehan and Timu. And then, of course, acquisitions. So it seems like the United States government with the incoming Trump administration is in a moment where it's not really sure how it's going to approach tech.

like the tech clash started under Trump and then it continued under Biden where he appointed Lena Khan and put a lot of folks that were pretty intensely anti-tech or pro-restraining tech depending on your viewpoint. And now Trump is coming in. Lina Khan is going to be gone. He's appointed a new, he's going to appoint a new FTC chair. And there's lots of room for, you know, sort of influence from the executive branch on these cases. And so I'm looking at all this together, and it seems like tech has a strategy here where they're going to try to influence the Trump administration, put everything in the past behind them, and see if they can, A, start acquiring a little bit more and, B, get some of these judgments lessened or thrown out against

them. I'm curious what your read is, Ranjan, and do you think tech is making a smart move by being, I think, so vocally enthusiastic about Trump's second term? I think they're making the rational move. I don't know if I would call it. it necessarily the smart move. I don't know if there is a smart move right now. Just be given how you know, unexpected the next year might be. One thing that was interesting in the appointment of Andrew Ferguson to the FTC, he had posted on X, at the FTC, we will end big techs vendetta against competition and free speech. We will make sure that America is the world's technological leader and the best place for innovators.

The fact that he called it big tech's vendetta against competition and free speech was interesting to be, not calling out the FTC's prior actions under Lena Khan, like, still blaming big tech. Because remember, Trump's first term, big tech was kind of the enemy. So the idea that they're going to somehow get in favor with him and, you know, and I do think they're doing exactly the only thing they can. do. But I think there's going to be plenty of twists and turns, and they're not in the naturally best place to be excluding, of course, Elon and Tesla, which is still big tech-ish.

Right. And I don't think Ferguson's going to take his foot off the gas pedal, especially with the cases or the case against meta. I do think that there's going to continue to be a backlash there, no matter how much Zuckerberg donate to the inauguration fund. But that being said, acquisitions. I'm speaking with the VC yesterday, and I was like, what do you think this means? And he's like, I think we're going to see some M&A again.

And to, you know, that would actually be real big for VCs. And you think about like what Mark Andreessen is doing because he says he's part of the transition. Unclear exactly how intensely he's involved. And then David Sachs, who's going to be the AIS are. And it's like, I think the main influence they're going to have is going to be to reopen the M&A market after basically Lina Khan shut it down and led to some really weird stuff like companies not selling themselves, but kind of all going over to a different

company and then doing some licensing deal. Well, I think one of the weirdest tensions in all this for me is like the David Sacks, Andresen, Joe Lonsdale posting, like they all say we are not big tech, that we are like the anti big tech, we're fighting against big tech. So that the tech contingent that's kind of driving Trump's tech policy right now claims to be anti big tech. But it's funny, like, do you actually think that the sole goal is to still just sell off companies to big tech and let them be swallowed up and still let big tech remain dominant? Yes. Okay. Yeah. I mean, that's such an important exit because the IPO market's been up and down. And so what do you do if you're trying to

have an exit of a company? I mean, yes. Okay. So you're saying it's just a window dressing a bit. The weird disrupting big tech and hate big tech and are going against their vendettas. I think there's probably some true adversarial positioning within the government. But the VCs, in particular, they want those companies to be acquired again. I mean, it's an important exit valve for them. Yeah, I'll, I will just end with trying to predict anything of what's going to happen next year, especially on the political spectrum related to tech. We will discuss it. We will analyze it. But that, I like making predictions. I like making a lot of predictions, but that's one thing that is going to be unpredictable.

Okay, one last thing I'll predict, and then we'll move on, is that this idea that Elon is there and everyone's going to, you know, is going to lead to a pro-tech approach across the board. I think is misguided, especially when it comes to companies like Meta, where he has, of course, tried to cage fight Zuckerberg and it's called Meta creepy and Google, where, like, he founded Open AI with Sam Altman to keep AI technology away from Google. So you could see some, like, pretty interesting tech policy being sparked by Elon. personal views on these companies. And I don't know. I mean, maybe Zuckerberg should have given two million or three million. I don't know if one million is going to cut it. Well, actually, one thing I would like to say for 2025 is we almost need to stop using the term big tech. We'll use big technology, of course, for the most important podcast in the world. You look like covertly rebranding my entire company.

Well, no, no. Okay. Hear me out. I say that with hesitation, knowing the podcast. I'd love to co-host with you. But hear me out, hear me out. Let's see you talk yourself out of this one. Walked into this one. The way big tech as a term developed over the last call it eight years was around Fang, FAMGA.

It was around these companies that were very specific, being super dominant, being monopolistic, driving both innovation, but also controlling bigger and bigger segments of the economy, it's harder to define who is on what side now. Before the idea was they were a unified front in ways. Obviously, they were competing against each other, but when it came to society at large, they had similar worldviews and were similarly positioned and had similar interests. I think that's going to completely change. I think it's going to get splintered in really, really weird, interesting, nuanced ways. Like you just said, Tesla is a gigantic company at least in terms of valuation by any standard. They have very, very different interests than Google and

meta. Like TikTok getting banned, TikTok should be big tech. So I think it's going to be a lot more splintering in terms of what their political views are and objectives are versus it was all uniform in the past. That I will accept. All right, all right. Okay. I accept that completely. Okay. All right, one last story to get to before we head out for the weekend.

GM is pulling the plug on cruise. And this means every American automaker except Tesla has called it quits on robotaxies. And this is from Yahoo! For more than a year after, oh, I'm sorry, this is from Fortune that's being republished on Yahoo Finance. For more than a year after Robotoxy company, Cruz paused itself driving ride-hailing service. General Motors executives repeated the same talking points. Cruise robotaxies will be back on the street soon. GM is still committed to Cruise, except for Tuesday, when GM suddenly changed its tune,

announcing that it would stop funding Cruz's Robotaxy service and would bring the startup's technical employees in-house. Well, they'll focus on self-driving technology for the autos GM sells directly to consumers, Mary Baer, the CEO of GM, she cited time and expense that the company needs to put into crews to keep it going. Of course, it had a high-profile crash. Last year, that led it to temporarily halted service. That is, of course, that of course came after the cover-up where it sort of didn't, was not square with the public about what happened, this car that it had dragged somebody. And they were. We're sort of coy about it, and now they are done.

I don't think this is great news. I think this is quite bad. I've been in cruise cars before. They seem promising. The safety record was, I think, better than human-driven cars, even though they had definitely had accidents. And I think that it is a pretty short-sighted move for GM to shut this down. What's your reaction to the news?

Oh, I totally forgot to tell you. I was in San Francisco earlier this week. First Waymo ride. Oh, you did it. I did it. Okay, what was your experience? Incredible, unbelievable, transformational, whatever, I mean, all of the above. It's a miracle.

It's it. It's so I, now I'm having a visceral reaction to this story because, because, yeah, in terms of short, okay, so again, incredible experience. Everyone try it. It is how all automobiles will work in five years. 10 years, the time frame's up for debate. There's zero question in my mind. Now, from a business standpoint for GM, maybe it's not the right business decision. It's not like how are cars sold, like are they sold to individual consumers who have their own autonomous driving car? Is it we're all taking robo taxis? It's unclear. So maybe from a business standpoint, the one defense I can think of is because they had cited the hefty cost of the fleet operations,

like that actually building and maintaining these fleets would be very, very expensive. And I'm sure that's a lesser margin product than selling an individual and a car. So maybe it doesn't quite make sense to them, but especially for General Motors is a company that sells cars to people. It's not like a B2B leasing, licensing, operation. That's the only thing I can think of. But I, but I am 100% radicalized that self-driving is the future. Yeah. I mean, like, sure, it's selling to people now, but like way to take yourself out of the future. I mean, goodness gracious. And, uh, this is a funny follow-up story.

The co-found, the founder of Cruz Kyle Vote, who's been on the show, he says, in case it was unclear before, it's clear now. GM are a bunch of dummies. you know i kind of respect nowadays executives swearing and throwing out all sorts of language just going with the old-fashioned gm are a bunch of dummies i like yeah i like i and i agree i agree yeah i mean kyle you you did some of this on your own so let's not fully let's you off the hook, but in your general sentiment, I am agreeing. It is the future. You and I both agree that this is the future to say we don't want to be part of it or we don't have the stomach to take some of the hits in the public that's going to require to get us there is a dumb

thing to do. And I just think that this stuff, the sad part about giving up about this is that this stuff is going to be safer than human drivers. I mean, you could say it a thousand times on the show, we'll say it 1,000. It doesn't get drunk. It does not get tired. And as it spends more time on the road, it will only get better. This is the worst it will ever be. And it still feels safer than humans. And I'd like to hear before we had out just your experience like in the waymo, like were you nervous when you first got in or were you immediately trusting of the technology? and then how did your experience change before you got out? I think I went in with very high expectations.

So I wasn't nervous. And also, I mean, it was a pretty gratuitous ride that I didn't even need to take. So just because I was like, I was in San Francisco. I'm just going to do this. It was still kind of relatively like going slow. Like I think it topped out at probably 35 miles an hour because it was still within the city proper. So, yeah, it went in, was not nervous, but it just, it was so smooth. It made, and I actually say this, that I am a relatively conservative driver myself.

I've never been like, out of all risk-taking behavior, driving is not something that I'm, like, get riled up and excited about. So it drove exactly how I want to be in a car, like, and have it drive. like that. I've been in plenty of cars with friends who are not rational drivers, let's say. So it drove exactly how I think every car should drive. And that was my favorite part of it. The craziest thing is the braking, right? Like you come into a break and it's the smoothest stop you'll ever hit. It's the smoothest stop. Yeah, I agree. I agree. Because it's anticipating. It's even like, and actually there was one pedestrian. It was about 30 feet up, but who had j-walked across, and you even saw it slowing down. Like, I felt it slowing down. So that moment,

I was like, okay, this is, this is it. Last story of the week from Reuters, Trump transition wants to scrap crash reporting requirement opposed by Tesla. The team is the Trump team wants the incoming administration to drop a car crash reporting requirement opposed by Elon Musk's. Tesla, a move that could cripple the government's ability to investigate and regulate the safety of vehicles with automated driving system. You know, when I first, I only just talk about the instinct. When I first saw this, I was like, good, because that crash report killed Cruz and we'd be better off if Cruz was here. On the other hand, I do think as a journalist and as someone who really wants this technology to ramp up in the safest way possible, we got to have

crash reports when they crash it's just part of the deal and by the way you shouldn't be afraid of that transparency because your technology should be beating human drivers like let's again put an exclamation point on how bad human drivers are we suck at driving we kill a lot of people in cars your technology should be better and if you're afraid of a crash report then something is wrong with your technology not the system i think it's counterproductive actually like out of all the, because the NHTSA investigations haven't hurt Tesla at all. And there's been a lot of stuff that's come out over the last few years. And it just, they kind of like circulate among, you know, like anti-Elon Twitter and stuff like that. But they never really reached the

mainstream conversation in any way. So it's not hurting them versus I agree that you remove the feeling that there's someone overseeing this, then the first accident or the second accident really start to scare people, I think. So I think this is counterproductive. Yeah, I'm totally with you. But in the meantime, I think it's without a doubt clear that we're going to just see this wave of autonomous driving expand. And I was in Phoenix last week, and they are all over the place in Phoenix all over. And I think they're starting to drive on highways. which should ideally be even safer because there's no stoplights and usually not many people running in the middle of them.

So I cannot wait for the time where this is mainstream. Five or ten years seems a long time to wait, but I'm willing to do it. And I will once again, as we close, echo the words of Kyle Vote, former founder and CEO of Cruz to the people at GM who gave him billions. of dollars to pursue his dream. You GM are a bunch of dummies. I think we can only leave it on that. All right, everybody. Thank you for listening, Ronja. Thanks for coming on. All right. See you next week. Folks, stay tuned for Wednesday. It's going to be a good one. And then Ranja and I will be back on Friday breaking down the week's news. Thank you for listening.

And we'll see you next time on Big Technology Podcast.