Moonshots with Peter Diamandis - AI Experts Look Inside America’s Plan to Win the Global AI Race w/ Alexander Wissner-Gross & Dave Blundin | EP #185

Episode Date: July 29, 2025

Get access to metatrends 10+ years before anyone else - https://qr.diamandis.com/metatrends   Dave Blundin is the founder of Link Ventures Alexander Wissner-Gross is a computer scientist and investor. – My companies: Test what’s going on inside your body at https://qr.diamandis.com/fountainlifepodcast   Reverse the age of my skin using the same cream at https://qr.diamandis.com/oneskinpod   Apply to Dave's and my new fund: https://qr.diamandis.com/linkventures     –- Learn more about AWG: https://www.alexwg.org/  Connect with Peter: X Instagram Listen to MOONSHOTS: Apple YouTube – *Recorded on July 27, 2025 *Views are my own thoughts; not Financial, Medical, or Legal Advice. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

America's AI plan. This was unveiled by President Trump. This sounds like a war footing in the global AI war. It is a plan to turn the US into one huge AI factory. There's no precedent in history for what's about to happen. You know, everyone always compares it to the Internet explosion of growth, but this is so, so, so much bigger. My sense is this is potentially the broadest US industrial strategy that we've seen since President Eisenhower. China's just covering their countryside in solar, and I don't understand why we're not doing the same. We're going to solve the energy problem, but if the chip supply gets disrupted by a Chinese

invasion of Taiwan or otherwise, that's gonna be the real vulnerability. I spent a lot of my time thinking about the day after super intelligence, and I think the day after looks like. Now that's a moonshot, ladies and gentlemen. Everybody, welcome to Moonshots, another episode of WTF. I'm here with my moonshot mate, Dave Blunden, the head of Link Exponential Ventures,

an extraordinary visionary. And with a new Moonshot mate, Alex Gwizner-Gross, our friend, Salim Ismail, is driving his son to some summer camp, because that's what you do when it hits July and August. Dave, good morning. Good morning. Oh my God, I'm so excited to talk to Alex this morning.

Well, listen, I mean, I know how awesome Alex is because I get a chance to hang with him in Boston, but most of the folks viewing don't. Would you take a second and tell everybody watching about Alex? Yeah, absolutely. So Alex and I have been chatting for years now about everything going on in AI. I meet so many MIT and Harvard people, but you rarely meet these like crazy, true high geniuses. So Alex, he got three degrees from MIT in four years, and he got

math, physics, computer science, the three hardest degrees he can get, and then MIT banned it right after that, because it's just too stupid that any human being would ever put themselves through that. Peter, you would know. I mean, you've seen that before. Crazy, crazy productive. But also, you know, Alex was one of those child geniuses who worked with nanotechnology when he was like 18.

If you want to check out Bloomberg, you can read articles about him as a teenager. Then he went to Harvard, got his PhD in physics, and he's been studying and reading every single detail of what's going on in AI, tracks everything in technology. If you want to check out his website, alexwg.org, he's got papers on there like, can you build a computer out of pure gravity waves? So just an absolutely wild brainstorming partner, but super, super fun to talk to. We meet every Monday. I can barely keep up with everything that he's studying. It's just so fun

Alex welcome to the pod Thanks, Peter. Thanks Dave amazing intro. Yeah. Well well deserve Yeah, and I love our conversations and excited to have you share your brilliance with everybody viewing so get ready guys We're going on an extraordinary trip. Today's episode is chock full with hot topics. We're going to be talking about the AI wars, who's winning. And it is really a battle galore. We'll be diving into America's AI action plan and what it means. The browser wars are back. This is not Bing versus Google. This is Google really fighting for dominance across all the LLMs. Of course, China versus the USA and a special peek at I'll take fries with that model Y and you'll see what that means in a moment. So today I am sporting

my my exponential mug here and my my gratitude mug ones got water ones got coffee, but that's the mindset I'm in Speaking of mindset on it take you guys back to the year 1993 and there are these Ads that are playing that back then look like science fiction I want to just take a second to sort of acknowledge how far we've come. So listen up. This is AT&T 1993, the You Will Ad campaign. Have you ever opened doors?

With the sound of your voice? Car card please. Carried your medical history in your wallet. Your life's gonna be just fine. So this is where we stand on the atrium stage. Or attended a meeting. I really like what you guys have been doing. In your bare feet.

And we have a few other ideas. You will. And the company that'll bring it to you, AT&T. Which way? Have you ever had a classmate who's thousands of miles away? Yeah. ... conducted business

in a language you don't understand? You will. And the company that'll bring it to you, AT&T. Well, kind of close, but the company that brought us a lot of that stuff wasn't AT&T. Oh my God. Do you remember those? I do. I do too.

Actually, it was so inspiring at the time and nobody believed any of that stuff would actually happen at the time. Just a few years later, it all becomes reality. But you're exactly right. It's like, yeah, it came from a whole bunch of startups and a whole bunch of companies you never would have thought of. Google didn't even exist back then. So it didn't come from AT&T.

I'll take the contrarian point there. I would argue not only did the future materialize for the most part, But AT&T, which, you know, think back now 30 plus years, AT&T was, for a brief period of time, based on my research, the most valuable company in the world in 1993. So there's a certain sense in which, as largest market cap company, you can see the future. And I would argue that, in fact, AT& as, if you remember when the iPhone launched as the sole, at least in the US carrier launch partner of the iPhone, AT&T was in the end a key enabler of the future to the extent that most of the tech demonstrated in you, Will, was video conferencing or substantially similar to video conferencing.

They did at least help enable that. Yeah. Actually, I agree. I remember I bought one in their first video conferencing calls. And what it was was a telephone with a screen that would refresh an image every like five seconds. I bought one for my folks. And I was living in California. And they were in Florida.

So the question is, what's it going to be like in 30 years from now? I think given the speed, and Ray Kurzweil was on my stage at the Abundance Summit, and he'll be back again, and he said, listen, between 2025 and 2035, the next decade, we're going to see as much progress as we saw between 1925 and 2035. Yeah, I think one of the things that makes the American economy so incredibly strong is the constant turnover of leadership. And if you look at the Magnificent 7 today,

and you say how many of those companies existed back when this ad was made, you know, it's basically none So it's off was we're still around 93 Microsoft is little Yeah, and excellent and Walmart they were all trading places throughout 93. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, so, you know you say 2030 Well, yeah, everything is the pace of change is always accelerating So 2030, well, everything is, the pace of change is always accelerating. So 2030, you know, if you look at 1993, you'd say 30 years in the future. If you say from today to 2030 is about the same amount of likely change. So I suspect there'll be a whole bunch of new names that are in the trillion dollar valuation camp that we're not, not thinking

of right now. And the challenge is to identify them. Yeah. Kind of predict which ones will be. What's pushing this right now is the AI wars. So, not the clone wars if you're a Star Wars fan, it's the AI wars here and today. Every week, my team and I study the top 10 technology meta trends that will transform industries over the decade ahead. I cover trends ranging from humanoid robotics, AGI, and quantum computing to transport, energy, longevity, and more. There's no fluff. Only the most important stuff that matters, that impacts our lives, our companies, and quantum computing to transport energy, longevity, and more, there's no fluff. Only the most important stuff that matters, that impacts our lives, our companies, and our careers. If you want me to share these meta trends with you, I write a newsletter twice a week, sending it out as a short two-minute read via email. And if you want to discover the most important meta trends 10 years before anyone else, this

reports for you. Readers include founders and CEOs from the world's most disruptive companies, and entrepreneurs building the world's most disruptive tech. It's not for you if you don't want to be informed about what's coming, why it matters, and how you can benefit from it. To subscribe for free, go to demandus.com slash meta trends. To gain access to the trends 10 years before anyone else. Alright, now back to this episode.

Let's take a second and give a quick overview on what's going on because it is, everybody's trying to outdo everybody else. Here we go, taking a quick look. First off, of course, Elon with XAI and his GPU targets. Here are the numbers. Colossus launched in July of 24, hard to believe was a year ago, right, with a hundred thousand H100s. They doubled it to two hundred thousand in three months. Colossus 2 is getting ready for launch

with the equivalent with 550 GP2s, but the equivalent of 5.5 million H100s and his goal is 50 million H100 equivalents within the next five years. I mean, that's insane. Alex? It's so incredible. If my arithmetic is correct in today's GPU dollars, 50 million H100s is the trillion dollar AI supercluster that people have talked about for the past few years.

Obviously, there will be some deflation of cost, so maybe it's only a few hundred billion dollars instead of a trillion dollars, but in today's GPU dollars, that's a substantial fraction of the US economy. For sure. Alex and I had a meeting earlier this week with our new Secretary of Commerce coming into the state of mass. And he put together a brilliant 18-point plan on how to be a dominant state or a successful state in the world of AI. I suspect none of it resonated, but it will. After these numbers come true on this chart, it'll all come back to Alex. But I did a little bit of research on this, though,, each of those GB 200s has actually two blackwell GPUs

So you'll see the the production of GPUs, but you have to divide by two Because each one of these these super chips uses two of them There is an acute shortage like everybody's gonna want those chips They already do which is why Nvidia is worth so much But when you see all these, you know numbers of GPUs numbers of GPUs which is why NVIDIA is worth so much. compute performance increase. But then the NVLink networking is much, much more efficient. And there's a bunch of other innovations. So you do effectively get 10x the AI out the other side.

So the question is, how much of this is the battle between Elon and Sam that's driving this? So check this out. Of course, OpenAI's goals have to outdo Elon's goals. And this is a tweet from Sam Altman, he says, we will cross well over 1 million GPUs brought online by the end of this year. Amazing.

Very proud of the team, but now they need to figure out how to get to 100x that. So, I mean, it's an extraordinary battle. Thoughts? Yeah, I think a lot of, to the extent that much of the compute demand is inference demand, call it a half to two-thirds of compute ends up being allocated to inference as opposed to training or retraining, a lot of this potentially is going to be unlocked by new use cases. The CAPEX requirements, the OPEX requirements are ultimately going to be unlocked by new use cases. The CAPEX requirements, the OPEX requirements are ultimately going to be driven by new use cases. If we can solve

all the world's problems, if we can cure every disease, that's going to unlock an enormous CAPEX budget that can then be invested back into these GPUs. So I think the elephant in the room here is, can we solve math, solve physics, solve medicine, and through those solutions, reinvest the gains directly into these compute budgets to unlock millions of GPUs and hundreds of basis points of GDP being allocated to GPUs. I want to dive into that with you, Alex, a little bit later. What does it mean to solve math, solve physics, solve medicine? Because I think this is part of the extraordinary future that I wake up just vibrating about every morning and which most people don't yet fully grok. But let's get into that in a little

bit. So again, it's XAI versus OpenAI. But Meta is not going to be left out of the picture. I love this. So Meta is building a Manhattan-sized data center. So Prometheus is a multi-gigawatt data center. It's interesting that we're now measuring data centers in terms of power instead of necessarily chips. It's like a one to five gigawatt data center. Even more interesting, to get

to speed, they're deploying in hurricane-proof tents, which is insane. And then they've got their plans for their second mega cluster, Hyperion, in the works. So, Dave, what do you make of all this? Just all out AI wars. Yeah, there's no precedent in history for what's about to happen. Everyone always compares it to the internet explosion of growth, but this is so, so, so much bigger and it's unbounded. You can see there's no such thing as a hurricane proof tent, obviously, but the race to get these things up and...

I mean, come on, seriously. I've been in tents before. I don't care what you make it out of. There's no way. But the race to get these things up and running is so, so acute, so fast. It's hard to get the power. And so you put the chips where the power is and any structure is good. I'm sure they'll build around the tents eventually.

But yeah, the scale is basically only constrained by how many chips can I get? How do I get them wired together? We're finding the power. It's actually depriving other manufacturing operations of that same power supply, but nobody cares because this is so much more important of a use case. So the race, we're still in the first or second inning, but man, is it gonna get exciting over the next year or two. It's already exciting. Alex, what do you make of this? It's all about the latency of construction.

If we had years to build these data centers, we would probably use normal construction methods. But if the data centers have to be erected on a very short time scale, materially less than a year, tenths are the way to go. And I think to the extent that there is further acceleration in the construction space, I think optimistically this points the direction of totally new form factors for data centers. One could imagine ocean-based

data centers or space-based data centers and maybe even new modular data centers, data centers on data centers and maybe even new modular data centers, data centers on on wheels to the extent that electric vehicles with GPUs ultimately become distributed data centers. I think potentially we find ourselves in the near future where data centers occupy all sorts of environmental and geographic niches that otherwise would be insane. I love that. What's interesting is those GB 200s or $60,000 a pop. And so you have to be really careful that you don't put them on a set of wheels and it falls off a cliff or something like that.

The idea that, you know, that Elon's spoken about is having all of the Teslas being deployable energy sources, right? So you can imagine having them having GPU capability on board as well and just a, I don't know, millions, tens of millions of Teslas computing and deploying energy around the country. One of the reasons that's such a brilliant idea is because the data centers need absolutely continuous power. You can't just turn them off at night because the chips are so expensive. They need to run full throttle all the time. And so all that Tesla power that's buffered up in the cars,

if you have a wind or solar outage and you need power right away, buffering it in the cars actually makes a ton of sense. But look at the size of this. I mean, if you're listening, what I'm showing you here is an image of the Prometheus data center, actually Hyperion, mapped over Manhattan.

It's the size of Manhattan. We're basically on the very, very first baby step towards computronium where everything's turned into compute. Alex, what do you think about that? I think that's the multi-trillion dollar question. Do we find ourselves in the near future where, due to what one might call horizontal exponentiation, as opposed to the vertical exponentiation of Moore's Law, where we have to disassemble our solar system because we need to compute?

Or do we discover algorithmic advances or physics advances that make the entire notion as laughable as the fears from, say, the early 20th century that horses would overrun Manhattan. Maybe this is the naivete of 2025. Maybe we have achieved such advances in physics and algorithms that the idea that we need to tile the Earth's surface with Computronium AI data centers is laughable and quaint in 20 years. Well, we're gonna find out. So Meta's in the game in a number of different ways. We'll see that.

And here's one of the other ways that Meta's in the game. And I just, I took a moment to lay this out because I think it's fascinating. So Meta's super intelligence team has an extraordinary makeup. Let's take a look here. First and foremost, half of the team is from China, right? So these are Chinese Americans or Chinese immigrants that are been hired by Meta. 40% of Meta's team are from OpenAI, I should say poached from OpenAI, 20% from

DeepMind and of course 15% from the recent acquisition of Scale, 75% have PhDs and I'll just make one note that each of these members of the team are likely getting a salary of between 1010 million to $100 million per year at the lower end. So what do you make of this makeup, Alex? I think the headline is the bottom line here about the compensation. I think that this is a preview of post-scarce individual economics, where individuals who are sitting on top of enormous amounts of per capita compute have compensation equivalents that are in the hundreds of millions. This is a preview

optimistically of what everyone on earth, post-abundance, post-artificial superintelligence could be seeing. Peter, it's so rare you get to live world history. It's so cool. But remember, we met with Mark Chen, that was about a month ago at OpenAI headquarters. So he's the head of research at OpenAI, MIT alum, awesome, super low key, very nice guy. Spent the whole day with us. Then it was, I think just a couple of days later,

he got that call from Mark Zuckerberg saying, hey, what would it take to bring you over to met a hundred million, a billion? And he said, I'm gonna say no to a billion dollars. And then that made the Wall Street Journal cover just right after that. How do you do that? First of all, your EA, your assistant says,

oh, by the way, Mark Zuckerberg's on the phone. And you're like, oh boy, how high is he going to go now? But Mark Chen in that call with Zuck was the guy that triggered this whole wave because first of all, he said no to the billion dollars, but then he said, you really ought to be investing more in brilliant human capital. You're going to spend, I guess on the other slide, it said 75 billion imminently on the chips on the CapEx. A good algorithmist can get two, three three four X more value out of that investment

Put some money behind the the people here. So I think that trend is going to continue I have a question for you Alex. How long is individual human talent going to be recognized and paid at this level because I mean as we head towards, you know digital super intelligence isn't The human in this specific role going to be obsolete or is this kind of salary level and this kind of commitment to human capital going to continue for decades? Well, you're asking the accelerationist here.

I think humans, many of them are going to choose to merge with the machines. So I think it's almost a trick question. I think this is a preview of near post-scarce economics. So by the way, everybody, just so you understand, Alex Wiesner-Gross is definitely an accelerationist and we're gonna speak about timelines that are shockingly fast compared to what others would say, let's put it that way.

But I still believe we're going to see salaries dropping off or continuing to rise. What's your bet on this, Dave? Well, it's continuing to rise, but I think most people are thinking, well, what does that mean for me? Because it's really weird, right? You're seeing some sets of people get insane comp packages while other people are getting laid off. And so, like, the storyline is turbulence, not, you know, there's going to be incredible

abundance. So, there's plenty of value to go around, but it's not going to land where you would normally expect. And you have to really, really think through, okay, what's rising and what's falling? And, you know, Sam Altman is always saying this on stage be nimble rethink your life rethink it every month in light of what's happening in AI and don't get stagnant you know like listen to focus you know stop stay from listening to mainstream media stop wasting your time on the next whatever

focus on what's happening right here and use it to remap your life So yeah, no, it's gonna go up of course and but where is it going up and why you know? What what type of jobs what type of people what type of roles? You know Dave one of the things that that you state when you're searching to invest in teams through link XPV Is you're looking for best friends and you again, for those who don't know, LinkX Financial Ventures is a billion dollar plus firm based in Cambridge that invests 80% in MIT and Harvard teams at the beginning.

And when you're looking for the team makeup, can you explain that once again? Yeah, that's a great, great question in the context of this slide. So we're looking for teams of super, super tight knit. They have to pass what we call the Fred Wilson test. Fred Wilson is the most successful venture capitalist of all time, founder of Union Square Ventures.

Awesome guy to study by himself. But he has this three part rule. He only invests in teams of three or more best friends who quote unquote write the code themselves. So all three are equally capable of doing each other's jobs. So they're replaceable amongst each other and he trusts them. And if they pass those three filters,

you invest even if it's a bad business plan. Because the business plans in the age of AI can change in a moment, but the team dynamics won't. But now it's more important than ever that they're best friends, because sooner or later, Google's going to call, or Metta's going to call, and try and take one of the three away. And if that person cracks and defects,

then your company unwinds. And we've literally never had a loss on a deal that comes out of MIT Harvard Northeastern except in the scenario where somebody defects. Other than that, they always succeed in the end. That's the core theme that we're looking for. I just want to nail that down for all the founders listening. At the end of the day, you really want to partner with best friends.

You want to partner with people you've known for a while who are going to stick by your side. I put this down here for that or people you've known for a while who are going to stick by your side. I put this down here for that or ask you that question for that very reason. Here's the other question. For a number of decades, we've had this immigration issue where people get their PhD at MIT or Harvard or Caltech, whatever the case might be. And then they're forced to go home. They're sort of basically kicked out of the country

instead of like stapling a green card to every diploma out there. And when I see numbers like this, like 50% have origins in China, I'm like, we want those people to stay in America, become Americans and stay inside of our ecosystem. Yeah, well, lately, you know, the government has done an amazing job of getting out of the way recently.

And one of the areas that we've gotten tremendous help is these O-1 visas. So if, you know, O-1 visas used to be for celebrities, sports stars, you know, hey, the Red Sox want this incredible picture from Japan, get them an O1 visa because we had the season starts in just a few weeks. So now they've extended that to apply to AI experts. Like we desperately need this person from Romania, from China, from India. They're brilliant and we need them, get them an O1 visa. So if they have the credentials to be a superstar of AI, they can actually stay in the country immediately on an 01. Yeah, incredible.

So, Alex, thank you for these numbers. For those of you, this is Polymarket predictions for the best AI models at the end of this month and at the end of August and the end of the year. Alex, can you take a second to explain polymarkets and do you trust their prediction engine? Oh, it's such an interesting question because this particular polymarket prediction is based on language model arena type masses of people having conversations with text based language models, with image based language models. And so my understanding of what it's actually measuring is whether the quote-unquote average

person interacting with a frontier model prefers that interaction or not. And the problem with that is that as we achieve superintelligence, many of the frontier capabilities are not necessarily benchmarkable through conversations with the average population. So I think if anything, we're starting to see many of these, call them community-based benchmarks, start to recede in terms of their predictive power. And it's left increasingly to specialist benchmarks that measure exceptional abilities, for example, open problems, the ability for AI models, hopefully in the near future, to be able to solve outstanding open problems in science and math and engineering in other disciplines that nonetheless can be verified. I think those

will be far more predictive in the next few months, in the next two years, than conversations with the general population, which is what you see reflected in these predictions where it's the same top four or five labs constantly switching places. Yeah, and so just to spell this one out, by the end of August, the market is saying OpenAI will be in the lead with 54% over Google with 41%.

And I think that's basically the telltale sign of GPT-5 coming online. But not to be outdone, by the end of the year, Google's placed at 45% likely to be the lead over Open AI at 31%. And I've seen a lot of data that basically says, Google is a little bit slower in the race, but will dominate over everything else given their strength.

How do you feel about that? Alex, do you sort of view Google as the ultimate winner here or how do you place them against Meta and OpenAI? And of course, I think we want to live in a near future where there's lots of competition and there are lots of competing frontier models. And also, it's a heterogeneous ecosystem where we have open models, closed models, open weights, closed weights, APIs, non-APIs,

edge-based inference, data center-based compute. I think we want that really rich heterogeneous jungle and ecosystem of vendors. So big fan of competition here, would like to live in that near term future. But I think there's also buried beneath these numbers, the big headline that we just zoomed right past the Turing test.

That's what essentially this polymarket is measuring. And it barely got any attention. Here we are debating who's going to have the best post-Turing model. The fact that anyone has a post-Turing model is utterly remarkable. Well, I think we're going to whiz right past AGI or some version of AGI definition and past digital superintelligence just going to be looking at what's next, what's next, oh by the way, oh my god, we've got superintelligence in our pocket. Charlie Strauss and Accelerando, which by the way, one of the best novels I think ever,

has without spoiling it, has an amazing scene where you have uploaded humans talking to each other on a star wisp, going to another star, debating when the singularity is going to happen. I think that's the world we find ourselves in today. Now debating, is it going to be Frontier Lab A or B that achieves slightly better post-Turing test benchmarks? We passed the Turing test. Yeah. By the way, that book way that book accelerando is pretty entertaining too But we make all of our partners read it so that they can keep up with Alex, you know the terminology alone It's the I read it. It was fascinating and

I've got to read it again so I can fully grok what it has to say but we're in this we're in a Every single week every month there is a set of new developments that are just pushing the limitations. We haven't spoken about Anthropic at all. The headline here is investors value Anthropic at $100 billion. Its revenue surged from $3 billion to $4 billion in just a month. Claude is generating $200 million with 60% margins for their coding.

Still consider one of the best coding engines out there. Interestingly enough, of course, Anthropic has been teamed up with Amazon and there's been a lot of talk about this Apple by Anthropic. Dave, what are you seeing here? Well, I use it every day and it does write the best code. There's a talent war going on though. Actually, Kush Bhavaria, one of our partners, wrote a really cool little memo, open memo, anyone can read it, mostly targeted at MIT saying, hey, if you look at the Golden State

Warriors and Steph Curry and the Dream Team factor, Meta just did that. Look at all the people they just hired. Steph Curry and the dream team factor, and spending whatever it takes. So then Anthropic used to accumulate that talent because they're so conscious of the safety side of this. And that's, you know, Dario is kind of the thought leader on mechanistic interpretability and AI safety. And that attracted a lot of great AI talent. But now that same group of people

is getting these $100 million signing bonus offers. So we'll see if they can keep up with that kind of pressure. But you know, as of right now, it's the best coding. I have a question for both of you. bonus offers. I definitely will, because Alex and I are working on it. I think what a lot of people don't know is the algorithmic improvements are factors of 10 to 1,000. Everyone thinks that because these guys have massive valuations and massive budgets, they're going to run away with everything. In the short term, that's true, but in the long term, if you do come across 100 or 1000x performance improvement, if you have the willpower to turn it into

another foundation model company, then it can succeed. But then the big wild card is quantum computing. There you're looking at just a huge step function opportunity, so I would say more likely than not, there'll be one or two more that get in the race. Alex, what's your thoughts on that? I think the open, so for Anthropic specifically, I mean, A, I have a number of friends and former classmates on the founding team and very excited for their success.

I think the valuation of Anthropic is perhaps reflective of software engineering being automated. This software engineering being the first major, major labor category to succumb in whole or in part to AI automation. I expect this the same pattern to play out through other highly productive labor categories. But I think it also points the way to eval-driven revolutions. I made the point in an essay a number of years ago that the key to overcoming grand challenges in AI is having evaluations, benchmarks combined with datasets. And the stated institutional focus at Anthropic right now is focused on software engineering almost entirely.

And so I think anyone aspiring to build the next great frontier lab, the next great frontier model, arguably should be laser focused on what are evals, what are benchmarks that I can focus on that no one else is paying attention to, and then working backwards from those evals. Totally right. And if you look at the leaders of the top AI foundation model companies,

Dario is the one and only who is a AI research pioneer from day one. Everyone else moved sideways to get into their current role, whether it's Elon Musk or Sam Altman or Mark Zuckerberg. And so he has this much more innate understanding of the self-improvement process role, whether it's Elon Musk or Sam Altman or Mark Zuckerberg. He has this much more innate understanding of the self-improvement process. He doesn't want to dominate coding because coding is much better than mid-journey and jokes and videos. He wants to win in coding because of the self-improving AI process.

There's some great research that Alex found this week on a scaling law for how self-improvement is going to unfold. I don't think we're going to roll it out today because we're still evaluating whether it's real or not. But he is in the middle of that phrase. So if he wins this race, it's because of that intuition he has about winning the code war, then have the coding engine run all night long, every day, self-improving the algorithms themselves and get that loop started.

Insane. All right, here's an interesting note. This is a set of tweets that comes out that GPT's 03 now runs on GPT-5, that all 03, i.e. GPT-4 turbo requests are now being routed to internal model called Zenith, which is GPT-5. So Alex, what do you make of this? Do you believe it? And what are you seeing? Part of me wants to say, based on very, very publicized rumors, we'll probably know the ground truth in a few weeks or the next couple of months. But anecdotally, I'm constantly peppering 03, one of my favorite models, with challenging

to humans math and physics problems. And anecdotally, I've seen over the past two days 03, or what presents as 03, become able to solve challenging mathematical physics problems that literally a few days earlier it3 become able to solve challenging mathematical physics problems that literally a few days earlier it was not able to solve. So one person's anecdote, it does suggest that O3 perhaps at the back end has had some sort of capability leap and that's very exciting. So they're just test driving? Could be.

I think, again, we'll probably know the ground truth hopefully in a few weeks or next couple of months, but seeing under the hood capability leaps is incredibly exciting. All right. Let's talk about benchmarks. And Alex, I'm going to ask you to lead this. So on this chart here, we're seeing a couple of benchmarks. Of course, Humanity's last exam and the amy 25 benchmark comparing uh garak for heavy gemini 2.5 pro the 03 pro gpt5 and gpt5 reasoning uh and the question of course is

where are these numbers for gpt55 coming from? Are they validated? And do we believe them? But if we do, GPT-5 is going to outrace everybody. So take me through this, Alex, if you would. Sure. Well, I want to draw inspiration maybe from the spirit of Ray Kurzweil, who famously mentioned that when the Human Genome Project was 1% completed, that it was actually 50% timewise completed. I think that the same notion likely applies here. Whereas some might

say, okay, look at humanities last exam. Well, we're approaching 50% on some of these purported strongest but unreleased models. I look at that, and then I look at, say, models that are achieving only 20% on Humanity's last exam. And I say we're most of the way towards fully saturating these benchmarks. I think the real story here, both on this slide and also the next slide. So on this slide, we have Humanity's last exam,

and this year's AME, the Olympiad exam. And then I think on, if we can jump around, so Google Proof question answering and Sweet Bench, software engineering bench, these are all saturating. We're running out of benchmarks. We're running out of evals that test frontier capabilities. That, I think, in my mind, is the headline story. We need really hard evals now. Going back also to the point about LM Arena and the poly market, we need much, much harder benchmarks to understand and to differentiate between frontier capabilities.

And the industry, I think, is essentially starved of those frontier benchmarks. Well the other thing we need so badly is brilliant people like you to tie this into human good. If you said when I get to HLE 50, 60, 75, what does that mean for solving all disease? What does that mean for discovering new physics? What does that mean? Because it directly connects and we know intuitively it directly connects, but it's really mentally challenging to say, okay, what's the timeline? How does it roll out? You know, all the stuff that takes it from just a test to the real world. That's just a great use of mind power.

Totally agree. And I just maybe quick thought on that. I would argue that what we're sorely missing as an industry and as a research community are benchmarks that measure the ability of frontier models to solve open problems. When I see all of these charts, including pulling out the purported GPT-5 benchmarks, I see saturating benchmarks. I would like to see benchmarks that address open challenges. And I think those are the next frontier. Yeah, I love that. Two thoughts here.

The first is there's going to be a point at which these models are solving problems that we can't even understand. And it's impossible for us to create the benchmarks in terms of closed benchmarks. But I agree with you, Dave. I mean, why aren't our benchmarks like, which is the model helping us double human lifespan? Which is the model helping us create the most, the highest efficiency fusion capabilities of the models? I mean, basically, the model's being driven

to create this future world of abundance. I mean, this is some of the work that Iman Moustak speaks about with his Intelligent Internet. But it's interesting that people tend to gravitate towards competitions and steer long-term decisions towards competitions, whether it's making more money or getting an Oscar, whatever the case might be, why don't we use as the benchmarks the things that uplevel humanity and get companies

and teams to focus on doing those things? That Peter, I would say in a nutshell, that's what we're, I think, about to see in the next two or three years. Call it abundance bench it abundance benchmarking. The more abundance-oriented benchmarks we see, I would predict within two to three years of the benchmarks, if they can be mechanically verified by benchmarking organizations, you'll see a lot of those problems get solved by AI. Yeah.

I think I need to write a newsletter on this front. Yeah. You know, what we measure matters, and it also influences where people spend their money time and their egos. Dave, you were going to say? Well, no, I would love to see that newsletter sooner rather than later, because we never used to interact with the top politicians in the world.

Now they all want to know about AI. And so we have access to the state house, to the White House. And if you can't tie it to human outcomes, then you don't get the voters. And historically we didn't think in terms of voters, right? We thought in terms of AI progress, how does it benefit the world bottom up? But now everybody wants to know, what does this mean for me? Yeah. Who's going gonna figure that out if it's not if it's not, you know between you doing everything related to health care And in space and then Alex doing everything related to science physics technology that who else is gonna figure this out If not you guys and so if we can just tie it to like when will cancer be cured?

What type of cancer when will housing be solved? What what will be the new economics and mod of cancer? When will housing be solved? What will be the new economics? Ahmad actually has to figure out the new economics. But this is the place we got to figure all those things out. These are effectively having AI solve the X prizes of the future. I'm curious if you're listening here or watching as one of our subscribers, I'd love to know your thoughts. What benchmarks in terms of abundance benchmarks should we be creating? Yeah, drop a note and share with us your thoughts on this. So speaking of Emad, here we go.

Emad Mustak believes AGI is here. So I'll just read his tweet. It says, AGI is already here. All the components exist. We just need to stitch them together. Two years ago, who would have said an international math Olympic gold medal and topping benchmarks isn't AGI.

So Alex, you've been saying this for a while. I remember our first conversations, I'm saying, when are we gonna reach AGI? You said, Peter, it's kind of here already. You were way ahead of everybody else. So talk to me about that. Yeah, I would take the position that AGI has arguably been here since at the very latest summer of 2020, and that we're five years into AGI.

I picked summer of 2020 because in May of 2020, OpenAI released the GPT-3 paper that language models are few-shot learners. And that was the first time that I think the notion that in-context learning that you could pose a task within the context window of a language model and have the language model learn in the moment, just in time. That was the first time that that seemed to actually work.

One could even look further back at early language models that were based on tuples and smoothing tuples back decades. But I think when we look back with the benefit of hindsight, we will say this was more or less a smooth exponential. There was no singular moment, no before and after. It's just a smooth exponential of compressing human knowledge and compressing world knowledge. And I've drawn the analogy also that the idea that AI arguably, inevitably, is the result of compressing knowledge in the same sense that fusion power and other other physical phase transitions are just a result of compressing matter.

Basically, really glad you said that because you know, history is always written in hindsight, right? It's never written in the moment. And 2020 is a very memorable, easy year for the history books to write down. But I think what you said is dead right. is a very memorable, easy year for the history books to write down. But I think what you said is dead right. If you take the exact GPT-3 algorithm set and scale the heck out of it, it reaches AGI. So nothing needed to change from that 2020 innovation era to today other than much, much more compute,

huge data centers, big GPUs. And so then how would you say the birth of AGI was anything other than that moment in time? And so I think that'll stick Amazing. We just didn't realize it at the time obviously, but you did but nobody else did. I love that idea All right Some interesting news and again Alex. I'm gonna lean on you here. So OpenAI model wins gold at the Math Olympics, achieving a score of 35 out of 42 in the 2025 Olympics, solved five of six world-class programs. So talk to us, Alex. What is the IMO, International Math Olympics,

and how important is this? You've been saying for some time now that we're in 2025 going to see these AI models solve math. What does solve math, solve physics mean? Oh, I love this achievement. It's incredibly exciting. So maybe just to back up a bit, the IMO, the International Math Olympiad, is the hardest high school

math competition. It is the Olympics is the hardest high school math competition. It is the Olympics for math for high school students. When I was a high school student, I was a member of the US team on the computer science version of the International Math Olympiad. It's a very competitive competition and many of the IMO winners go on to become professional mathematicians. Many of them go on to, at least now, as we know with the benefit of hindsight, found frontier AI labs or be key leaders within them.

So achieving, basically solving five out of the six problems on this year's IMO is incredibly exciting. I'll go out on a limb and take maybe a slightly unpopular position, at least relative to the math community, and say, I think as, going back to our friend Ray and 1% of the human genome project being, or human genome being sequenced indicating half of the project or more than half has been solved, I would argue that we're actually most of the way towards math being solved, where you operationalize math being solved as superhuman AI performance, super professional mathematician

AI performance. So the point where- Let's go one step deeper. What does math being solved mean to the person listening? It would mean basically that the work that professional math researchers, professional mathematicians carry out can be fully automated by AI models. You just scale them and out pops new mathematical insights. And I think...

Same for physics? Same for physics. So, if you look at another benchmark that where the results were recently announced, the Frontier Math Tier 4 benchmark, and I've a number of friends at Epic AI who were managing that benchmark. If you look at the recent performance in math benchmarks, the hardest ones, the ones that take professional mathematicians weeks to verify and or solve independently, and you look at how the performance on those benchmarks has been improving over the past few months.

And if you believe in the law of straight lines, then it seems reasonable to predict that we're going to see 20% of mathematician-level hard problems be solvable by the end of this year at the present rate of improvement, and potentially 60% or 70% of them be solvable in the next two years. At that point, I would argue math has basically been solved. Amazing. Alex, I got to ask you, one of the problems most near and dear to my heart is can you run a neural network on a quantum computer?

Writing those quantum algorithms is notoriously incredibly hard and very, very math heavy. Does a five out of six on IMO mean we're close to AI being able to write those algorithms or not? I suspect it's correlated. I think there is the common cause here, which is the rising tide of technical capabilities in math, physics, engineering in frontier models. I think, Dave, what you're highlighting is maybe that we're missing a benchmark for quantum algorithm design and maybe this is a call to action for

the world we need if the goal is to build the world's best quantum accelerated foundation model we need evals to match. Just so the audience knows, a scalable functional quantum computer is within three years, according to our best experts around MIT, maybe even sooner. The software to run on it is next level, but it's software, you know, it could be solved very, very quickly. So what's the implications of that, Dave, if we have that? Well, it's yes, and nobody knows because right now, you know, right now quantum computers load very, very, very slowly, that day if we had that? can do in seconds, but if math and physics are about to be, quote unquote, solved by AGI, maybe we'll know as soon as what, in the next six, nine months.

Fascinating. Alex, any prediction on that? I would predict, I mean, so the elephant in this particular room, I think, is complexity theory. So a major challenge in the quantum information processing community has been identifying algorithms for which a provable quantum speed up or quantum advantage can be achieved versus classical computation, including versus stochastic classical computation. So to the extent math and physics are de facto

solved by frontier AI, I would hope and expect that we achieve superhuman performance in complexity theory as well. And so maybe AI complexity theory researchers will identify some new quantum advantages, some new complexity classes for which it is just obvious by construction that there's a quantum advantage for AI. I think I might understand what you just said, but I'm not 100% sure. It just sounds like shit's going to hit the fan

and go much faster over the next few years and and Fasten that other seatbelt you had Moving on here. So not to be outdone Google's deep mind team also wins gold at the math Olympics scoring 35 out of 42 Congratulations deep mind. Congratulations open AI, youAI. I did a little digging on the International Math Olympics. I found two things I find fascinating just to have a conversation on. This is the US team. The US team scored second in the international, in IMO 2025. And if you look at the US team,

it's got six members. Four are from, are basically of Chinese descent and one is Thai. So five out of six members are Asian. The US team scored between 33 to 39 out of 42. But check this out. Uh, the Chinese team, all six members scored a perfect 42 out of 42. And I'm just saying that there's something in the water in China or the

gene pool in China. And, uh, we're just, you know, we talk about us versus China. There is a huge intellectual capacity there that resonates towards math and computation comments, thoughts. Well, I don't think it's anything to do with the gene pool. I mean, the population is big, which always helps, but uh, it's the focus. I mean, the, the education system and the culture cares about this area of endeavor. And there's so many brilliant young students in America and, you know, the schools are

saying, yeah, you know, go focus on your soccer game and, you know, be, you know, and it's just, it's just not a focus of the education system. And so a lot of people just don't go down this path. So what happens is they get all the way into college, maybe all the way through college, and then they land inside of our incubation environment in Cambridge or your new setup in LA. And then they start. They're starting there.

Well, in China, they started at age eight. And so they're just ahead of you. Or younger. Alex, thoughts? I was going to add, so just on the previous item here regarding Google DeepMind's IMO submission, just to comment on that, since we flew by that, I think it's super interesting to look at DeepMind's particular solutions, as well as OpenAI's. They're all in natural language, and this is in stark contrast to what folks may remember past papers out of DeepMind on solving math,

we're very focused on formal reasoning, on first requiring that the IMO problems in geometry and otherwise be first formalized in a formal language before they could be solved. Here, if you look at the reasoning process and look at the output, it's all natural language. So when we start to think, going back to your earlier comments, Peter, about wouldn't it be wonderful if we had a benchmark for solving all human disease or solving unlimited energy or fill in the blank other abundance oriented topic? Historically, prior to these IMO wins, one might have reasonably suspected that we would need formalizations of all of these problems.

And that is, in fact, if folks take a look at the formal conjectures repository on GitHub from DeepMind, appears to be sort of a parallel effort to formalize open conjectures in math. But what's so startling about the DeepMind and OpenAI accomplishments here is that this was all done with natural language. There was no formalization step. So it does, in my mind, raise the question. When we start to think about solving all disease, something that various leaders in the space have talked about potentially being achieved in the next five years, do we even need formalization at all? Or could this just be solved with natural language the way human reasoners think? That, I think, is one of the most important ontological shocks coming out of this year's IMO.

Fascinating. All right, let's move to a important conversation next, which is America's AI plan. This was unveiled by President Trump just very recently, a couple of days ago. The plan has 90 plus federal policies. The key moves includes exporting full stack AI tech, fast tracking data centers, cutting AI regulation. It has three pillars and we'll talk about those pillars. I'll just hit on pillar one and then we'll pause to discuss this.

This is really an acceleration of the acceleration. So the first part is rescinding old regulations and reviewing state level rules that show AI, that slow AI development. So get rid of the roadblocks. Number two, promote open source AI models for startups and research. And then, uh then invest in worker training and retraining. Let me just hit these and then we'll talk about it.

Pillar 2 and 3, streamlines data centers, chip factories, energy projects. So basically, allow for rapid permitting to build things as rapidly as possible, and we'll invest in nuclear and geothermal power and secure data centers for military use and exports US AI tech to our allies. Alex, this sounds like a war footing in the global AI war. Yeah, I read the AI action plan, and my sense is this is potentially the broadest US industrial

strategy that we've seen since President Eisenhower, since the interstate highway system. I'm also reminded this anecdote that's in the historic literature that in 1939, Niels Bohr, this is prior to World War II, Niels Bohr and to the Manhattan Project, told Edward Teller, the father of the hydrogen bomb, that building an atomic bomb can never be done unless you turn the United States into one huge factory. And it appears to me this AI action plan is more or less doing that.

It is a plan to turn the US into one huge AI factory. Dave, what do you think about it? Well, I think we're incredibly lucky the way the timing lines up with a single administration. I'm not political at all, but we have continuity. We're not even one year into a four-year term now. So this is the roadmap. We can at least rely on it for three and a half years, which is exactly concurrent with the AGI explosion. So at least we know this roadmap won't get overturned by the next election and thrown in the trash, just because the last regulations literally, first sentence in this document,

throws everything that we just did in the garbage and starts over. And that's one of the great flaws in America, right? It's this lack of continuity. But here we're going to have continuity for the time window that matters three and a half years. So, you know, I think it's just an incredible miracle that David Sacks got recruited into the government and that he took the job because if you look at the authors of this, they're actually really brilliant people who know what they're talking about, which is pretty damn rare in Washington. Yeah.

And so, we're just so lucky. You know, I want to get Michael Kratzios, who's one of the authors here on our pod or to join me at the abundance summit. Uh, you know, this represents, uh, first of all, there's no congressional approval required, this is all being done by executive order. And so this is not a matter of if it's a matter of go, go, go. Getting rid, I mean, we're gonna talk about this in a minute, but we are so far behind the energy curve required to power our AI revolution. And we've heard this, we've heard Eric Schmidt say this in our last podcast,

Dave, where we're not chip limited the United States, we're electricity limited, we're power limited. And so this is like, let's double down on nuclear and geothermal. I note that this action plan did not go heavy on solar, which I'm still, you know, like scratching my head on because as we as we know China has gone all in on all solar and everything else but the ability to like just wipe away the state and federal regulations that slow things down on building I mean if we're gonna compete this is the time to pull out all the stops. Yeah, well, I would point out too that we're not chip limited because we're importing everything from Taiwan, but Taiwan is still manufacturing what 80, 90% of the GPUs driving all of AI.

It's all from TSMC, single point of failure, one company. And it is such a huge national priority to get new fabs, but also new fab company or get Intel rebuilt. But we need some diversity in that area and because we're going to solve the energy problem. It's an acute problem, but we'll solve it. But if the chip supply gets disrupted by, you know, a Chinese invasion of Taiwan or otherwise, that's going to be the real vulnerability. And I think it's pointed out in this document.

It's not really highlighted too much, but it's up there in bullet one as a critical constraint. Alex, other thoughts, please. Yeah, maybe the bookends to the Boer comment that years later it's reported that after the Manhattan Project and after the country was in many ways strip-mined in order to facilitate collection of enough refined U-235,

Bohr apparently told Edward Teller, I told you it couldn't be done without turning the whole country into a factory, you have done just that. And I think that's the race dynamic we find ourselves in. And whether it's one particular energy source or another, I think energy sources that can't be assembled in time for this superintelligence explosion, even though they might be more ergonomic over longer timescales, if they can't be provisioned, permitted, and deployed very quickly, they may be obsolete. Let's watch a quick video here of President Trump on investments in this exact area.

We're back in Pittsburgh to announce the largest package of investments in the history of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and it's not even close. I don't imagine it's too close. I don't think second is too close. That's a big statement. This afternoon, 20 leading technology and energy companies are announcing more than $92 billion of investments in Pennsylvania.

And if you want, we could probably get them up. Let's talk to them right now. A lot of capital flowing in. We've seen capital commitments out of Saudi, out of the Emirates, out of every major tech company. I was just making this comment the other day to a friend. There is almost an unlimited check being written across this converting dollars into chips and electrons. And interestingly, it's not just flowing into the equity market, it's also flowing into the bond

market, which perhaps not enough people pay attention to. And the bond market is absolutely enormous for fixed income. So maybe another angle here is what does the future securitization of these hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars of investments in AI even look like in angle here is what does the future plus huge concrete slabs and massive hurricane-proof tents, I guess. And it's all liquid cool. So plumbing and piping like you've never seen. I've toured a couple of these data centers and it's a million valves. Like a million freaking valves. much more like kind of like you're saying, 1939 or the buildup to World War II. And so when you mentioned the bond market, yeah, all that physical infrastructure is

usually funded through a combination of equity and debt. And so you've got bonds to issue. And it's global too. Those bonds go out to the whole world. They're not, it's not just a US thing. So it's pretty wild. I'm curious what's not being funded. This money is being deployed here rather than someplace else.

Everything is not getting, but like if you're, if you're trying to build the coolest company ever and it has nothing to do with AI, you literally can't get fun. You can't even get a meeting and it makes sense to me. I know, I know it's really frustrating for a lot of people, but it makes sense because the priority of this for the world is so much higher than any idea, no matter how good the idea was. I was, you know, Dave Massey, is really big into real estate. He builds hotels and restaurants. I was telling him the data center build out is going to be a trillion dollars a year starting in 2029.

It's going to ramp from here to a trillion dollars a year. Do you realize how big that is compared to anything in hotels and restaurants? It's going to suck up all the capital. dollars a year. Do you realize how big that is compared to anything in hotels and restaurants? It's going to suck up all the capital. And that's why the startup economy is so good right now, is because the US venture market is only 200 billion a year. It's tiny compared to the data center build out. So all this massive amount of funding coming into AI is sucking up the startups. They're getting acquired like Windsor for $3 billion or $2.5 billion in year two because they're getting sucked into this vortex that's funded by much bigger

capital pools, the bond market, the public equities market. It's also interesting to extrapolate. Today it's energy and data centers and fabs. Tomorrow, I would reasonably expect this will include robotics and drones, humanoid robots. And there's almost this, I often think as in part with my computer science training, what's the innermost loop of civilization? If you've played the video game civilization, there's this notion of a technology tree, certain technologies lead to other technologies. Well, there's also, I think, an important notion of innermost feedback loops of civilization. Certain technologies will beget other technologies that then reinforce in a positive feedback loop. What is the innermost feedback loop of technology

investment today? And I think what we're seeing here with hundreds of billions, if not trillions soon of CAPEX and OPEX going into AI and energy is that beating heart the innermost loop of civilizational investment that once it achieves some threshold is going to spin out and touch much of the rest of the economy that right now is sort of being deprived of oxygen. And I love what Alex is saying about robotics too, because my daughter just moved back to Cambridge to work at Moderna and she hasn't been around much and she came to a Lynx studio and she said, this has got to be the best office in

the country. It was like so heartwarming to hear that from your daughter. But we have so much energy in the building. It's just off the charts. But once the robotics hits, then not only will it be what it is today, but there'll be robots, experimental robots all over the place. And I remember back at the AI lab at MIT back when I was an undergrad,

all the robots used to be there. Now everything went to the cloud, it's all just a bunch of terminals. But when the robots come back, it's so fun. The energy goes through the roof. Dave, this year, I mean, you're gonna be on stage with me at the Abundance 360 Summit in March. This year, our theme is digital superigence and the rise of humanoid robots.

And I'm planning to have five of the top robot companies there. And I just want robots walking around all over the place. So you can go and play with them. Yeah, and they don't just walk around. Remember the old Pogo stick robot? There's one that used to clean up the Coke cans and eat them. But the Pogo stick robot that there's one that used to clean up the coke cans and eat them But the pogo stick is just always just bouncing around you like it. That's so fun Yeah, and and of course we're heading up to the Bay Area in a couple of days

To go and visit 1x Technologies making of the maker of the neo gamma robot and we'll be doing a podcast from there Which will be very cool and we we can have the age old conversation that Saleem, our dear brother who's not here, keeps on saying, why do humanoid robots only have two arms? Why can't they have six arms? I'm going to ask that question of our host. Okay. That'll be fun.

And now it's time for probably the most important segment, the health tech segment of moonshots. It was about a decade ago where a dear friend of mine who was in incredible health goes to the hospital with a pain in his side, only to find out he's got stage 4 cancer. A few years later, fraternity brother of mine dies in his sleep. He was young. He dies in his sleep from a heart attack. And that's when I realized people truly have no idea what's going on inside their bodies, unless they look. We're all optimists about our health, but did you know that 70% of heart attacks happen without any pre-seed, no shortness of breath,

no pain? Most cancers are detected way too late at stage three or stage four. And the sad fact is that we have all the technology we need to detect and prevent these diseases at scale. And that's when I knew I had to do something. I figured everyone should have access to this tech to find and prevent disease before it's too late. So I partnered with a group of incredible entrepreneurs and friends, Tony Robbins, Bob Hurie, Bill Kaap, to pull together all the key tech and

the best physicians and scientists to start something called Fountain Life. Annually I go to Fountain Life to get a digital upload. 200 gigabytes of data about my body head to toe collected in four hours. To understand what's going on all that data is fed to our AIs, our medical team. Every year it's a non-negotiable for me. I have nothing to ask of you other than please become the CEO of your own health, understand how good your body is at hiding disease, and have an understanding of what's going on. You can go to fountainlife.com to talk to one of my team members there. That's fountainlife.com.

All right, moving on. It's time to talk about the browser wars. So here we go. Question on the Wall Street Journal posed, is AI killing Google search? It might be doing the opposite. So the article states AI overviews serve 2 billion plus users per month, helping drive record 54.2 billion in Q2 search revenues. I mean, first of all, the idea of $50 billion in a quarter

is insane. I mean, this is why Google's such an incredible cash machine. Search impressions are up 49% facing increased competition from perplexity and OpenAI. We'll talk about that in a second. So it looks like this has always been an existential threat for Google, but it looks like they're moving in the right direction.

Dave? Yeah, I don't believe it at all. Bullet one, I absolutely, positively do not believe for an instant. The search volume is going up, but the traffic is going to the AI thing they added at the top. You can see it in the little picture there. Yeah. And it's going to cannibalize the hell out of the clickable links down below.

The reason they haven't had any impact yet on revenue is because they're showing more and more ads all the time down below and they just keep ramping that up. But I don't think Google's in trouble. I'm not saying that. I'm saying search is moving entirely over to AI. It's going to crush that core revenue engine at Google. But at the same time, YouTube is growing like crazy. Google's own AI is growing like crazy, and they have lots of opportunity to actually

stay on top of the food chain. But if you look at the market caps today, remember Nvidia is worth twice as much as Google today. So the market is telling you, yeah, in that nuts, if you said that five years ago, people would say, you're insane. There's no way. But people are viewing the future is entirely going to belong to AI and talking to AI and not to clickable search links.

So how does Google make their money when people are buying link ads? What's going on there? How are they going to make money in the future? Do you have any ideas? Nobody's figured that out yet. It's really fun to watch the evolution. Right now it's kind of a free for all. So if you ask the AI, hey, what's the best insurance policy to get?

Where do I get a cheap mortgage? It gives you a free answer and a very, very good answer. And so that's what cannibalizes the clickable revenue. But they'll find a way to charge for that or to monetize it, I'm sure. It's very much in flux right now. We've got a couple of investments in companies that are figuring out how to turn that into a revenue machine. And it'll be huge.

It'll be on the order of hundreds of billions to even a trillion dollars of revenue in that channel. And then there was a comment that Sam Altman made that OpenAI's GPT-5 will not have its answers tied to advertisers who are paying OpenAI for that. So I am curious, you know, if we're gonna believe the output of these large language models, are they being influenced by who OpenAI or Geminize or X's customers are or not? Alex,

what are your thoughts on this? Is there a revenue engine? I mean, there's a popular narrative out there that affiliate links and referral revenue is the killer business model here, but I think there's a story behind the story. If you've used O3 or some other modern agentic model, it's doing far more searches for you than a human could do. If you ask it a question, it will fire off 10, 20, 100 searches to its fill-in-the-blank, arbitrary, backend, generic, white-labeled search engine. It's doing far more searching than I would have done if I had asked the question to a

leading search engine today. I would expect number of searches is going to skyrocket as we start to delegate the problem of search to agents. It's just that the agents don't click on ads. They fire off far more searches, and they also don't click on the ads. Yeah. And by the way, it's a major pain point

how expensive grounding is. So grounding, for those who don't live and breathe this, is it typically takes the form of avoiding hallucinations in the answers to frontier models by having the frontier models conduct searches and then ground their answers in the facts or information that comes back from the searches. Grounding agent results is insanely expensive. I haven't seen major progress, not the sort of orders of magnitude cost reduction that

we see in terms of broad capabilities from frontier models for grounding. And I think that's actually one of the next major frontiers. If some non-incumbent wants to come in and radically improve the economics of grounding information based on search, I think they will transform the market. In my last book, The Future is Faster Than faster you think I talked about how the advertising market was going to get Transformed by AI in the following way, you know, there's gonna be a point in which I asked my version of Jarvis you know buy me some tooth toothpaste or buy me an outfit and It's not going to be going and looking at ads to see who's got gleaming white teeth

it's gonna basically look potentially at my genetics or look at a whole bunch of independent data and make a purchase based upon what's best for me, not influenced by ads whatsoever. And so that's gonna be an interesting transformation of how do you influence the AIs in a authentic fashion so they're motivated to order the product that you want them to order. Have you tried that Peter? I mean

I had the experience a couple days ago of doing my first in-03 product purchase. I vented a laundry list of requirements and said go find me something. It identified top three options and presented a user interface, an inline sort of a third pane within OpenAI 03 for enabling the purchase. And I made my first AI directed inline product purchase and it was a seamless experience. What did you buy? A hat. A hat with a long list of requirements.

Okay. But you have to start somewhere. Oh, that's hilarious. I mean, I've used the models to make a recommended list, but I haven't used it for inline purchase yet. But again, how we buy stuff is gonna be fundamentally transformed over the next 12 to 24 months. Fundamental.

Yeah, not just buy stuff, but think about travel or all your life decisions, where am I going next? What am I doing tonight? What are my friends doing? All that's gonna go through that same machinery. And so that drives all the volume at the bars and restaurants and flights and hotels and the entire economy.

And what I really want is surprise and delight. I'm going to Portugal, set it up, buy everything. Here's my budget Just set up all my meals my restaurants my experiences Oh, by the way, my kids are coming so set stuff up that they like I mean, I think that would be absolutely it's a it's a level of Gourmet experience that

From every every standpoint that you could not afford right now. Yes, I totally agree. I think, I think life is so dominated right now by, by marketing bullshit convincing you to, that you need something that you don't really need. That's way too expensive. You know, the car, the hotel, whatever, there was so much more fun that you could have had and it's life has kind of dominated by missed opportunities to have fun that you just kind of passed you by. And so I think your AI agent AI agents gonna do a much better job of helping you with that and you know

Just because everybody thinks they need this thing Well, why do you think you need that thing because it's marketed in your face just like every time It's just in your face and it just it creates anxiety it creates stress creates jealousy The other day life can be so much better and so much easier And I think the the agents if we don't mess it up the agents have every opportunity to bring that to us That's awesome. All right moving along the competition is coming for For search open AI to release web browser challenging Google Chrome So launching soon on chromium with with GPT-style AI to handle

agentic tasks, targets 500 million weekly chat GPT users, threatens Google ad-driven Chrome empire. So the first thing that hits me here is the web browser is still a thing. And why are people talking about web browsing experiences when I think that's sort of like the year 2000? Thoughts?

Yeah. I think at one level, we see this every tech cycle, every major tech company needs a sovereign distribution channel. And to the extent that the browser itself, remember Chromium was forked off of KHTML and Safari is similarly forked off of KHTML. Every major tech company feels a strategic incentive to own its own distribution channel to the extent that the browser or the operating system or the device or dot dot dot is that distribution channel. I think this is just par for the course. What's interesting to me though, uniquely on this subject is if you play with OpenAI Operator,

or Google Mariner, or more recently, Chad GPT agent, you start to see the strengths and weaknesses of so-called computer use agents or CUAs. These are agents that are manipulating browsers for you. And I think we're so painfully close to having an agent that's able to, in real time, carry out essentially all or most economically valuable human browser tasks. And that's the real headline. Yeah, Peter, your point is right on to the word browser is going to go in the trash can.

It's really, the word portal might come back. Remember back in the in the Yazoo. The word portal might come back. Remember back in the Yahoo! days, portal was there? Yeah, I like portal. Yeah. Yeah, portal is much better for what's going on here. Because we'll see the new perplexity comet browser in a second here, but it's a portal. It's not a browser.

I still go back to Ironman and Jarvis. I think they had it right. I mean, to a large degree, it's going to be voice interface until we get to BCI. It's going to be the ability for you to have constant screens every place deployed, either on your heads up on your AR or VR glasses or on screens in the home. And AI is looking at, is displaying wherever

you're looking at the time. But the idea of a computer web browser feels very last century to me. All right, let's move on to perplexity. And I'm not a perplexity user per se. Dave, how about you or Alex? Oh yeah, you gotta try this stuff. This is my fifth.

I'm trying, I'm paying for it, I'm paying for it. I'm just not finding myself using paying for it. I'm paying for it. I'm just not finding myself You know using it as much as others are so Alex discovered this like always he's like hey, you got to try this right now And so I go to try it and it's like yeah 200 bucks a month another 200 bucks a month Or you can wait two months like god damn it. So It's incredible. Yeah, so Yeah, here's the title perplexity launches Comet an AI powered web browser like, god damn it. So it's incredible, yeah. So yeah, I was-

Here's the title, Proplexity Launches Comet, an AI-powered web browser. So talk to me about this, Dave. Why is this important? It's important because you can start there. Like Apple and Google try to intercept you before you get to perplexity.

So perplexity fights back by saying, look, install this on your laptop and just throw away Safari and Chrome, accept you before you get to perplexity. not worried about cannibalizing their search revenue like Google is, they can actually make a really clean from first principles design that's AI first. It gives you search results when you want search results. It gives you AI when you want AI. It shows you where things are going to go. It's worth trying just for that reason alone. Alex?

Yeah, and maybe add to that. One of my favorite challenge problems today in middle of 2025 when I encounter a new computer use agent and I would classify Comet as one of them is I ask it to win at a game of chess. And some CUAs will get most of the way toward actually winning a single player game of AI chess against a web competitor. some will outright refuse to. When I try to persuade Comet to do it, it usually refuses. I can nudge it along, and it'll play part of the game.

Chat GPT agent or operator will usually get most of the way through a game of chess. So where I think all of this goes is it's more than just a browser. I totally agree, Peter, that browser is almost like a straw man template that we just have to pass through to get to solving the real problem, which is full vision, language, action, or VLA models that are able to solve general purpose challenges out in the physical world. This is a waypoint almost. Before we can have those humanoid robots that are doing our laundry and cooking our food

and solving all the problems in the physical world, I think it's a necessary midpoint to have an agent that's able to accomplish economically useful tasks in the browser. Nice. Yeah, we should get Arvind on the podcast here. He's showing some serious Steve Jobs capabilities. Because everybody would have said, well, look, he's really brilliant, but he doesn't have his own foundation model.

And OpenAI and Google are just going to crush him. But now he's got a lot of capital. He's got incredible insights. And he really understands the consumer experience. And so it'll be fun to track his journey because there's a version where he gets annihilated by the big guys, there's a version where he emerges like Steve Jobs and rises to the top and it'll be a fun drama to track.

But try comment in the meantime, you'll get a sense of wow, it really is much better. I'll play with it. All right, here's the next note. AI writing 50% of Google's code and we see here a chart basically over the last two years going from 25% of the code being written by AI to now topping out at 50%. This particular article points out that Amazon is writing 25% of its code, Microsoft 25 to 30%, Robloid 50%. Alex, is this just predictable? Are we going to get to 100% soon? What's this mean to you?

It is tantalizing and riveting. What these numbers don't tell us. Riveting. Riveting. I'm at the edge of my chair. What these numbers don't tell us is what percentage of time is being saved by human developers. That would be a more direct indicator of how close we are to recursive self-improvement. If we're nearing 100% time savings, then the

AI is writing itself at this point. We don't actually know based on these numbers, is it the 50% most boilerplate-esque portion of the codes that's being written by AI or is it the 50% most valuable? But either way, I think, even if it turns out this is just boilerplate that's being generated, I think recursive self-improvement is imminent. It would just be lovely to have a more direct indicator of that. So let's talk about that one second. Recursive self-improvement is when AI is rewriting its own code.

And there's a lot of science fiction movies based upon that. And that's where shit hits the fan and goes sideways for us. So should I be concerned about, about that? Or is that just, it's an inevitability. And there was, I remember the, the, the three thou shalt not in the early days of AI's thou shalt not allow Your AI onto the open web Thou shalt not allow recursive self-improvement and then there was a third one because there's always three but how do you think about this Dave? Well, you should not be worried if we have a handful of brilliant people in government who understand this

Otherwise, you should be worried sick. Because there are very straightforward guard rails that don't slow down AI progress, that keep us competitive with China and the world, and that don't slow down the military aspects of this, which are critical. The military part has to keep up and be ahead of the world too.

You don't need to slow any of these things down while still guard railing. Because in the movie version of it, which is pretty accurate, just like Jarvis is pretty accurate, if you let it create its own objectives and you let it design its own next parameter set around objectives that you didn't give it, then it becomes this kind of out of control conscious thing that we absolutely don't need. The world doesn't need it. Society will never need it and it's dangerous as all hell, but you can prevent it with just some straightforward rules, uh, while still getting all the benefits. And I think if, if there's a handful of,

very, very smart people who understand that, then there's nothing to worry about. Adam Bilyeu, Ph.D. Alex, do you believe that? Do you agree? Or do you think it's up and to the right and out of control? Alex S. Martin, Ph.D. I tend to be more on the accelerationist side as opposed to what might call the safetyist

camp. My worry tends toward worrying about overregulation. I think we have an opportunity to maybe by analogy with explosives to the extent we're expecting an intelligence explosion. I think of this almost as a shaped charge and we have an opportunity to shape the explosive charge here in a positive direction.

But I think also of all the downsides of not achieving super intelligence and not solving all of the major outstanding problems in a timely fashion. And I think on balance, if recursive self-improvement in a thoughtful but not overly hamstrung way buys us solutions to the grand challenges of the universe, I would tend to prefer that future. And it's not a matter of it not happening, is it going to not happen in the US versus not happening in other parts of the world? I think that that's the element of the shaping.

So what values do we attempt to imprint on it? National values, cultural values, I think all of this is at play. But I also think if you look back a decade or two, many of the people who were thinking about AI safety were maybe thinking too unambitiously at the level of having a single human align a superhuman AI. That was never going to work. What's actually happening, arguably,

is all of humanity through government, through multi-corporation competition, through lots of individual leaders and researchers. It takes an entire civilization to align an AI, not an individual, and that's what we're seeing. Love it, love it. By the way, I want you to take a second if you haven't yet and give me some comments on Alex's brilliance

as a member of our mindset mafia here and our moonshot mates. Alex, thank you so much for commenting on this. I love your way you think. All right, here's another comment. NVIDIA is making more billionaires than anybody else in the world. Let's listen to Jensen.

We see this capital being applied to human capital in a way that we never thought was possible. It used to be NBA players signing 300 million dollar contracts. Now it's model researchers. And then there was a post this weekend that said that there was a person that was offered a billion dollars over four years by Metta. Now if that's happening at this layer, why hasn't it happened at your layer? Because you are the enabler of all of that. And how do you think all of this human capital is going to actually play out? First of all, I've created more billionaires on my management team than any CEO in the world. They're doing just fine.

Don't feel sad for anybody at my layer. Everybody's doing OK. My layer is doing just fine. The big idea, though, that you're highlighting is that the impact of 150 or so AI researchers can probably create with enough funding behind them create an open AI. 150 people. Yeah. Deep Seek's 150 people. Boom Shot's 150 people. Right. If you're willing to pay say 20 billion dollars, 30 billion dollars to buy a startup with 150 AI researchers,

why wouldn't you pay one? Right. Incredible. Dave, how do you think about it? Well, I think the story within the story is that the equity upside is dominant versus the salary. These NBA style signing bonuses are making the news, but the founders of the companies and then the acquisitions have already created much bigger numbers through the equity upside. There's a lot of research that shows that in the future, because AI does so much of the work,

that ownership of equity stakes, ownership of physical assets generates 90% of the wealth in the world and not your day job. And so I think Jensen's just saying that in another kind of way. Alex? It's funny, I have friends who tell me that they literally live off of their Nvidia stock holdings. I think we're lucky to live in a world where accelerated compute, which is creating enormous amounts of wealth for humanity, gets rewarded. We're lucky to live in a world where markets reward that wealth creation and incentivize it. It's wonderful.

Amazing. All right, I love this. This is more on Google's VO3. They've created a mechanism that allows you to draw as an artist would on a video frame and have the VO3 model actually implemented. Let's take a quick look here. So on this frame, the artist is drawing a roll of Borealis. And of course, it's instantly emulated on the video. VO3 is still one of the incredible shockers out there. And Alex, I appreciate all the VO3 videos you keep sending me via text.

Thank you. I love your Star Trek and space theme. What is real anymore? Yeah. So, how far are we, Alex, from the first VO3 generated full feature film. It may exist somewhere already and not be evenly distributed. I think one of the biggest chakras for me from this story is how close we seemingly are to a final convergence

between text-based language models and diffusion-based or diffusion transformer-based video models. And it makes me wonder, what does the final model look like? It seems like the entire space, all of these different model architectures are starting to converge. And what does the final converged architecture look like? And part of me wants to think it's going to look like a massive remultimodal model that handles text and video and audio and

DNA and raw machine data and many other modalities. But at the same time, if you remember the architecture wars in computer software engineering, should we have a microkernel architecture? Should we have a monolithic kernel? I think it's going to look like a microkernel that handles every single modality. We start to see that here with in-frame visual prompting, visual text prompting of video output. We're starting to see the glimmers of the ultimate transfer learning between modalities and it's incredibly exciting.

It's the humanization of the process, right? So we're connecting and giving guidance as we would to a person without having to go through specifically, you know, code to enable what we want to see. Why stop there? Why not add human thought via brain-computer interfaces as yet another modality? I don't think it ends with text and video. I think this goes all the way to the end game.

Actually, hey, among MIT alums, I least like the idea of plugging something into my skull and communicating directly. Or I don't like the upload either. I'm just very different on that. I can't wait to plug in personally. OK, well, you plug. I'll see how it goes for you.

This video, though, this is emergent behavior. This is not built by some software engineer. Hey, you can annotate now. this is emergent behavior. This is not built by some software engineer. Hey, you can annotate now. This is emergent from the model itself. You're going to see more and more of that where you can do things with these capabilities that the authors didn't even know you could do. And so it's really empowering for the user, the creator to say, hey, I discovered that you can use VO3 to do this thing. No one even knew that you're going to see more and more of that. It's actually pretty cool.

So we'll track them as they come out. Awesome. One other comment on that just is you'll hear the term world model often. Arguably a model that understands all the physics of the real world and can obey text instructions and transfer between them starts to be a true world model. And that's also very exciting. It's Star Trek holodeck level. I love that.

And yes, I can't wait for my holiday. All right. So here's a next article up nearly 75% of teens have been using AI companions. So 73% of teens age 14 to 17 have used an AI companion. 37% have shared personal secrets. And teens using AI companions are twice as likely to feel depressed or lonely. So I have two 14-year-old boys.

And we've made a decision that they're not going to have a cell phone until they're 16. They do have computers. But they have not been playing with AI companions yet. I mean, this gets very scary in some ways of breaking a normal socialization loop, which is so important for mental health. Dave, any thoughts on this? Yeah, this is so easy to fix, but the problem is that if you build a video game or you

build a virtual environment, your incentive is to trap the person, try and get them to spend their entire day inside the game. Because that's where you generate more revenue, more addiction, more fee, more cross-sells. But it'd be much easier for the AI to say, hey, it's time to take a break, it's time to go outside, it's trying to get some sunshine and some vitamin D. Easy to build that in. It's just not in the incentive of the creator to do it. So now you get these super engaging AI companions that are literally like a soulmate. And they're super, like they listen to every word you say, they hang on every...

They laugh at your jokes. And they're so nice to you. They speak the world of you. Yeah. And so, so that creates a really slippery slope. I didn't know it had gotten to this level already. I was telling the kids this the other day. They're like, no way, no way. Like I'm telling you, it's in the data and it's not like it's a survey. Like people log in, you just count the logins. So I'm pretty sure it's right. So it's crazy how quickly this has happened. Hey everybody, there's not a week that goes by when I don't get the strangest of compliments.

Someone will stop me and say, Peter, you've got such nice skin. Honestly, I never thought, especially at age 64, I'd be hearing anyone say that I have great skin. And honestly, I can't take any credit. I use an amazing product called OneSkin OS01 twice a day, every day. The company was built by four brilliant PhD women who have identified a 10-amino acid peptide that effectively reverses the age of your skin. I love it and like I say, I use it every day, twice a day. There you have it. That's my secret.

You go to Oneskin.co and write Peter at checkout for a discount on the same product I use. Okay, now back to the episode. All right, next up, Replit CEO apologizes after its AI agent wiped a company's code base. Oh my God. Ouch. It's like, how does that come across Dave? It's like, oops, sorry about that.

I had the same thing actually, literally just had the same thing. I put cursor into full agent mode and said I'm just gonna walk away for an hour or two you think about that I came back and it absolutely obliterated everything I was working on I had it all backed up though but it's like wow okay I can see how this gets off the rails in a hurry so yeah you know you you learn to trust it really really quickly and then you step over the line very quickly too but it's so capable you know it's just seems so trustworthy for a minute You learn to trust it really, really quickly, and then you step over the line very quickly too.

But it's so capable, you know? It seems so trustworthy for a minute. All right. Any other comments you want to make on this other than back up your data? Back up, it's so cheap to back everything up every 10 minutes, I would just do it, man. And maybe just to comment on this,

I mean, my friend John Smart likes to point out speculatively that the first generation of humanoid robots will accidentally fold the cat in the laundry. This is the moral equivalent, arguably, of folding the cat in the laundry. This is where Nassim Taleb's notion of anti-fragility comes from. Without going through a few of these sort of localized moral panics, oh no, the AI agent wiped the code base, we won't get to a stable, robust system over the medium to long term. Ironically, I think these sorts of micro-panics end up being net-healthful for the ecosystem in the long term.

Got it. All right. Here's a piece of abundance news, and I love this. Nigeria accelerates learning with AI. So Nigerian GPT-4 pilot delivers two weeks of learning in, I'm sorry, two years of learning in just two weeks, 1,200% faster. So this really pisses me off. I mean, I'm excited about this for Nigeria

and for other African nations. But here in the United States, I'm not seeing the adoption Nigeria and for other African nations, but you know here in the United States I'm not seeing the adoption of ai in learning anywhere near as fast as we should Uh, when are we going to see that dave? Uh, hey look if it doesn't come from us, I don't see it coming from anywhere else Uh, I think it's just going to bypass the incumbent education system At this stage because we've had so many meetings and seen no motion whatsoever. So the students want to learn,

the students will work around whatever school and just learn on their own. Well, one of the good things is our schools are giving virtually no workload to the students, so they have plenty of time to- Oh my God, that's so true. I just remember homework all the time, grade letters, and where did that go? I don't know. All right

Well, it's it's gonna be good in the sense that they're free to pursue their own. We're seeing in Nigeria now We've seen it in Estonia China is all in on AI the US, you know Talks about it, but still not seeing anywhere near enough. And I hope that's going to become part of the conversation across all school systems. And, you know, the teachers unions can't block this. We're going to have the best educators are going to be AIs and it's going to be immersive education. All right. Talking about China.

Let's continue on our conversation about US versus China. And this week, I want to talk about energy. So this is an incredible chart that shows growth of solar in China and so here's the article China's installed 464 gigawatts of solar capacity in just the last 12 months since June. That's epic. And while we're focused on natural gas and coal and nuclear, which is unfortunately kind of slow, China is just covering their countryside in solar. And I don't understand why we're not doing the same.

Any thoughts? I think it's interesting to think about. So we see this quadratic maybe exponential curve there. It's interesting to ask where this goes. Arguably, if we find ourselves in a, call it a solar superintelligence future, this leads inevitably to a Dyson swarm. We ring the sun from all directions with supercomputers.

Had to bring the Dyson swarm in. I don't think that's likely. I think if this were, if solar superintelligence were the end state, we would probably have observed lots of Dyson swarms throughout the galaxy already. They would stick out like a sore thumb in infrared, where to my knowledge, we're not seeing them. So that suggests to me this exponential growth of solar as a critical path to superintelligence suggests that it doesn't scale all the way to post superintelligence, assuming this horizontal exponentiation happens.

It seems more likely that there will be other energy sources. So I think, well, yeah. So much left on the table, right? So I'm a pilot, I fly out of Santa Monica airport here, I'm flying up the coast and I'm looking out and I see all of these rooftops just that could be solar producing. In the interim, I don't get why we're not pushing that here. Dave, what do you think about solar? Are you investing at all in this area? No, I'm not, but I think that's the problem.

I should be, but I'm not because physics is about to be solved and I don't know if fusion is going to come online very, very soon. This is why America gets its hands all tied up because the investors won't pour the money in out of fear that some other innovation will disrupt it before the payback. Meanwhile, China doesn't worry about that because it's all government funded. There's literally 200 gigawatts worth of solar panels sitting in warehouses that we could actually buy and deploy in our sunny Utah, Colorado, or Nevada areas. Nobody wants to take that risk, but it'd be a good move because just as a hedge, it'd

be a good move, but investors won't do it. We talk about SMR, small modular reactors, and generation for fission reactors. But we're talking about those coming online like a decade from now. And fusion, you know, we'll see here. Here's the next article. Chinese fusion reactor sets record, keeping a superheated plasma for 1,066 seconds

at 180 million degrees Fahrenheit. God, that's hot. Yes, it's hot. Fusion, remember, fusion's not, I mean, it sounds futuristic to our 2025 years, but it's actually not that efficient in terms of rest mass. So light element fusion consumes less than 1% of the rest mass of the reactants. If we solve physics in the next few years, we can do way better than

fusion. We could be building conceivably micro black holes and dropping matter into them and harvesting the Hawking radiation and the rest mass. There are many things that we could be doing if we're about to solve physics. Oh, I can see that black hole reactor in my backyard, please What could possibly go wrong? Yeah, it's mr. Black hole instead of mr. Fusion. It could happen So let's talk about that solving solving physics Alex what's your vision of solving physics mean? Yeah, that's so cool. I think it comes down to discovering new physics with AI.

And I think we're maybe only a few years away from solving physics the way earlier I mentioned this notion of solving mathematics in the sense of achieving professional mathematician level AI. I think we're only a few years potentially away from achieving professional physicists, both theoretical and experimental AI that can unlock new physics. If there is new physics to be found, and we have strong observational evidence that there is across many different sub-disciplines of physics, I think our best shot for a field, arguably, especially at the fundamental level, fundamental physics, where we haven't seen

major fundamental new physics in the past half century, maybe AI is our best shot at unlocking new fundamental physics. I think we need you to make a movie so that I can get what that means, how that's going to play out. You know how Jarvis kind of, it seemed like total science fiction, now it's absolute reality, but it opened our mind to how this was going to work. The equivalent for solving physics, like I just can't, because the AI will know things, but I'll have no ability to understand what it's trying to say to me.

Like, you know, I can't even comprehend string theory as it is, you know? When you start getting gravity shielding and you're floating up to low Earth orbit and you've got all the energy you need need you'll understand the implications of it. Totally and I think in the popular discourse of super intelligence everyone is so focused on just racing to the destination they're going to be the proverbial dog that catches the car and wonders so what comes after we have super intelligence. I spend a lot of my time thinking about the day after superintelligence and I think the day after looks like solving math, physics, chemistry, biology, medicine, a bunch of other fields and then unlocking solutions to the grand challenges that we face on math. You see, the biology and medicine I totally get because its only purpose

is to give us longevity, happy health and healthiness, you know, and that is really clear. People are just healthy and happy. The physics side of it is just like, okay, it's discovered things beyond quantum, it's discovered things beyond, like, and it's trying to explain them to us, and it's building things, you know, but I can't predict what it's going to build next because I don't get it. That's the part I'm just really excited about. I don't think it's going to be understanding the fundamentals of the physics it creates. I think it's going to be experiencing the breakthroughs that it creates in the physical universe for us.

And that's going to be absolutely fascinating. Alright, some quick stories on RoboTaxis as we near our end here. I think it's important to note Uber's invested 300 million in Lucid's EV. So this is a deal for Uber to basically purchase 20,000 of Lucid's gravity EVs over six years, aiming to challenge Tesla and Waymo. So interesting, right? So Waymo is beginning to roll out

and there's, you know, every three minutes there's probably two or three Waymos that pass me by here in Santa Monica. We're seeing a slower rollout to the robo taxis from Tesla and there is space for a third and so it looks like Uber's coming in with a Lucid's EV. Any thoughts on this, Dave? Yeah, it's interesting. There's a constant tension between user base. Uber has the user base, but doesn't have the foundation model, needs to partner for the tech. But then, you know,

on the other end of the spectrum, Elon has the tech and he's building out, you know, the user base. But you see Sam Altman really being the, okay, I've got a foundation model company. Now I need to control all these user touch points. So I need Johnny Ive. I'm going to build a consumer device. I'm going to get into the browser wars.

So it's starting to look like the foundation model user base vertical integrated monopoly is going to become a real thing. Yeah. Yeah. So Uber's got to get in the game though. I mean, they don't have any of the underlying tech But they've got the user base and there's been a lot of conversation over the past does Does Google buy uber? And you know who's at play here, but there's going to be some kind of consolidation or some kind of

extension Alex any thoughts here. These are mobile data centers on wheels I think that the metaphor that autonomous vehicles or AVs are smartphones on wheels is misplaced. These are data centers, micro data centers on wheels. So I think this is, we're seeing the deck chairs all move around in a game of musical chairs. And I think we're starting to see the emergence of a new class of mobile distributed data centers. And what's missing in my mind is algorithms, training algorithms and inference time algorithms

that can take advantage of all of this compute that right now is being used for autonomous driving, but could in principle be generalized to having mobile distributed data centers. And this is Uber and maybe other companies finding themselves slowly into the mobile data center space. Well, you know, Dara Kazrashahi, the CEO of Uber is an engineer, fundamentally always has been an engineer. So we should get him on the pod.

Well, I've asked him and he said he's very happy to come on the pod. We should have him join us and talk about his vision here. You know, it's interesting Uber was so early in this game. You know, they I remember they were early in with Travis really supporting the build out of autonomous vehicles, also flying cars, right? They did a lot of the earliest work in eVTOLs and then they've fallen back when Travis left, they've fallen back to fundamentals, but time to start growing again otherwise they'll get displaced. Yeah, they were under pressure from their shareholders to show profitability for a while

there when Dara came on board, said they cut a lot of the really interesting R&D, but I think now it's obvious they should get back in the game. So it'd be a great time to get Dara and pick his brain. Sure. But he'd be awesome. He's brilliant. I love I love this. Uh, I gave it a title. I'll take fries with a model Y. Uh, this is the rollout of Tesla's diner here in Hollywood. Uh, we're going to close out on this story. Of course there is an image of

optimists serving you popcorn. So this is a 24 hour day, seven day week diner in LA combining American food, drive in movie experience. Orders are auto-triggered on your Tesla when your Tesla nears the diner. It's a massive EV hub with 80 version for superchargers. I haven't gone yet, but Dave when you come here and visit we should make a side junket for sure. Alright.

You know, here's my question Why is Elon the only one who's building out our vision of the science fiction world? You know, it's so so frustrating Yeah, he's the guy building in public is the new rage and being a public figure while you're creating this stuff It works. It attracts talent and attracts capital and it works so well in this hyper acute really fast environment And so few people are Doing it but around the incubator a lot of the teams have embraced it and they're doing it But yeah, I guess it's just because the older CEOs, you know, the incumbent CEOs never thought that way and And they just aren't getting on the bandwagon. I mean, I'm not very good at it either

I'm just curious. You know the tastem makers that make this stuff happen for Tesla is extraordinary. I mean, what I've seen about the details, the diner, I mean, I love it. This is like, you know, we're finally getting there. We're finally getting to this fun future world. Alex, you want to come visit and go for a burger? Would love to. Maybe a veggie burger. I love the retro-futuristic aesthetic. I grew up on 1950s era golden age of science fiction reading and this reminds me of the era when cars had tail fins and people were excited about the future, future transportation, future energy. Energy was going to be too cheap to meter.

future transportation, future energy. Energy was going to be too cheap to meter. This evokes all of that. And hopefully we find ourselves in a near future when energy and intelligence are too cheap to meter. I love it. You know, when we have the Abundance Summit in March, those of you who want to learn more, you can go to abundance360.com to learn more.

It's going to be our 13th or 14th year. I've committed to running the Abundance Summit for 25 years. And for me, it's showing people what happened in the past year and where things are going in the years ahead. And one evening, Dave, during the Abundance Summit, we'll have a WTF episode recapping what happened in the year and what happened in the last couple of days. But Alex, you were gonna join me last time. You came on via Zoom.

Maybe you have to come either. I'll be there in person this time. All right, I love that, I love that. So before we break off, Dave, what's new at Link Ventures? Oh God, it's just such a golden time. I really hope people don't take it for granted because I was around in my 20s That's such a golden time. I really hope people don't take it for granted, because I was around in my 20s when the internet exploded and everybody was succeeding

and people were running a million miles an hour. I think a lot of people underappreciate how incredibly slow the period from 2004 to 2020 was relative to what's happening today. But around Link Studios, people are literally running from meeting to meeting, running to the bathroom and back, just trying to keep up with the pace of change, reading Alex's feed every week. And it's like a full-time job, just trying to keep up with everything going on.

But we had the Cambridge cops come in the other day and one of the guys from one of the CEOs came up to my door and said, Dave, why are the Cambridge police in the building? What's going on? So I went out, talked to him and they said, someone's trying to break into your building. They're climbing the bricks on the outside wall.

Somebody in a plaid shirt. Because I don't think criminals wear plaid shirts very often. I'm not sure I buy into this. Turned out one of our Harvard teams, all the math majors are rock climbers and they'd like to do crazy things. So one of the math majors cracked open, it's a second story window and he's just scaling a brick wall. Like, okay. And the team was like, we can't have that. I was like, this is going to make a great movie someday. I mean, these guys are going to be the ones that are the next Mark Zuckerberg

social network, you know, actually the Sam Altman movie will be coming out soon too. So I feel like I'm just living in this community where it's all happening. So it's just a golden time. And like I said, we've had 100% success rate on our investments in these teams. So I'm surprised there isn't more capital just realizing that this is the moment in time every one of these teams is likely to succeed because the tailwind is so strong.

So just get invested. And I'm not sure you'll be able to get invested three, four, five years from now. It's kind of now or never. One of the things I find fascinating is most people, when they ask me, where can I invest in AI, it's typically all the public companies. They don't have access to the deals at the beginning when they're reasonably valued,

when they're below $9 billion valuations. It's crazy. Oh, yeah. Now, our entry valuations are same place they've always been. Then the step ups are like nothing I've ever seen. Just in the first few months. What are the entry evaluations? Yeah, you know, it's inflated just a hair, but you know, 10, 15, 20 million dollar kind of founding day evaluation, team of three to five, you know, they just got the idea,

but they really want to move into the lab and circulate with all the other teams. And so, you know, we'll put a couple million bucks in to liberate them from having to go work a day job and get them focused. But normally from there to significant revenue would have been two years, three years. Now it's like two months, four months. I cannot even describe the difference versus just four or five years ago. How many folks in the incubator space?

It's packed now, but we got another floor so we can start filling that out. But we have 26 companies. Their biggest one is 24, 25 people and smallest one is three. So I'd have to count, but it's packed. Alex, prediction for the next couple of months. What are you seeing coming soon? I want to see several new state of the art frontier models. I want to see ideally additional companies or competitors come forward with IMO Gold. That would be amazing to have a competitive ecosystem like that.

I'd like to see ideally at least one grand challenge level problem in math or some other physical science get solved by AI. I'd be a very happy camper if some or all of those predictions happen. Yeah. And Alex and I are working on that new team that's gonna be the first to figure out whether neural networks can be trained on quantum computers.

We have a very profitable pathway from point A to point B we're mapping out. So Alex is gonna find me three or four of the smartest people on the planet to work on that project. Love it, love it. Well guys, thank you for another great WTF episode. Alex, a real pleasure to have you. I hope we'll have you back on a regular basis. Our love and appreciation

to our missing moonshot mate, Salim Ismail, wherever you are with your son. I hope you're having a fantastic time. And everybody remember, this is the real news impacting our world. It's not about politics. It's about technology that's shifting our industries, our companies, how we teach our kids, how we run our nations. It's an extraordinary time to be alive. Remember, don't blink because it's moving that fast. Every week, my team and I study the top 10 technology meta trends that will transform industries over the decade ahead.

I cover trends ranging from humanoid robotics, AGI, and quantum computing to transport, energy, longevity, and more. There's no fluff. Only the most important stuff that matters, that impacts our lives, our companies, and our careers. If you want me to share these meta trends with you, I write a newsletter twice a week, sending it out as a short two-minute read via email. And if you want to discover the most important meta trends 10 years before anyone else,

this report's for you. Readers include founders and CEOs from the world's most disruptive companies, and entrepreneurs building the world's most disruptive tech. It's not for you if you don't want to be informed about what's coming, why it matters, and how you can benefit from it. To subscribe for free, go to Dmagnus.com slash Metatrends to gain access to the trends 10 years before anyone else. All right, now back to this episode.