Odd Lots - How Substack Creators Are Covering This Strange Markets Era

Episode Date: June 20, 2026

We closed out our New York live show on May 28 with a panel that featured three of our favorite Substackers: James van Geelen of Citrini Research, Sam Ro, founder of The TKer, and journalist Jasmine Sun. They've all been Odd Lots guests before, and we wanted to get them together to discuss how journalists and analysts are supposed to cover this incredibly strange and highly pressurized moment in markets. Not only has AI basically infected every corner of the world, the media included, but there's just so much news that it's sometimes hard to figure out what the focus should be. But James, Sam, and Jasmine have all found their own niches, and cover AI in a really unique way. This panel discussion debates how the media has covered fears over the AI bubble and the possibility of mass job loss, if people in Silicon Valley are scared about the future of society, if AI can really mimic a writer's voice and personality, and (if they can) how writers can hedge against that future. Read more:Amazon in Talks to Sell Custom AI Chips in Bid to Undercut NvidiaAI Company Dream Triples Value to $3 Billion in Funding Round Only http://Bloomberg.com subscribers can get the Odd Lots newsletter in their inbox each week, plus unlimited access to the site and app. Subscribe at  bloomberg.com/subscriptions/oddlots Subscribe to the Odd Lots NewsletterJoin the conversation: discord.gg/oddlotsSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Hi, I'm David Weston. Join me every week for the Wall Street Week podcast to hear stories of capitalism from around the world. From geopolitical tensions and central bank decisions to artificial intelligence, energy, and infrastructure. We sit down with the CEOs, economists, policymakers, and thought leaders whose decisions are shaping markets everywhere we find them. Subscribe to the Wall Street Week podcast on Apple, Spotify, or anywhere you listen. Bloomberg Audio Studios. Hello and welcome to another episode of the Odd Thoughts podcast. I'm Tracy Allaway. And I'm Joe Wisenthal. So Joe, we continue to publish some of the conversations from our recent live show in New York. And I hope people didn't mind. They didn't seem to. They seemed to enjoy it.

But we did do a little bit of media industry navel gazing. Totally. So as we've been talking about, if you listen to past episodes from the show, you know, the theme obviously had this big like sort of future of markets, future of trading theme. But, you know, I would say, and maybe this is like, I'm very biased here, but I would say that information, dissemination, collection, and I guess you say journalism, is an important part of markets, right? How people get information. He'd say journalism like that, huh, journalism. No, but, you know, like the thing, like, in the, if you think about, like, the, the floor and

the fauna of the market ecology, then the people who, like, report the news, digest the news, explain the news, highlight what news is relevant, what is not relevant. are important actors in that system. Absolutely. And in a period of so much change in uncertainty, the question of like, A, how you decide what's important, and B, how you convey that to an audience, these are really tough questions. Yeah. So I think there's two major challenges here.

One of them is what you just said, which is, like, how do you explain these huge technological shifts to people who may not, you know, they might be outside of the tech industry? How do you explain, like, an incremental improvement in a model to the average labor? person. And then secondly, the other big challenge is the media itself is caught in the crosshairs of the debate over whether AI is going to take all the jobs. Right. That's right. So any one of us who's in the business of trying to consume, figure out what's important and relay it is also thinking about, will AI do a better job than we do? And precisely that including writing newsletters are producing podcasts. That's right. So we had a trio of perfect guests for this particular discussion. All of them

have been on the show before. Yeah. We had James Van Geelan. He is, of course, the founder of Satrini Research and the author of the viral AI Jobs Doom scenario. As well as Jasmine's son, she writes a substack that's all about AI and the culture of Silicon Valley and tech, as well as Sam Rowe. He is the author of one of my favorite newsletters with the best name, The T-Ker.

So take a listen. Where do you even begin? I'll start with James because he's next to me. And I just want to know what his life is like right now. Do people like recognize you on the street and scream at you about AI job losses? I've gotten two credible death threats, but not on the street. Okay. I guess that's a plus?

Yeah. No, yeah. I mean, you know, better when it's not in person, right? But no, I've, luckily I've been very much an internet personality and not someone that does a lot of taped interviews like this. We appreciate you making your time. Thanks for inviting me, by the way. I assume like 95% of you know, but in case if you randomly don't, I assume you do. When was that February or something?

You wrote a post about a theoretical possibility of, you know, we're all going to lose our jobs, but anyway. So I could see why people were upset about that. Jasmine, you write about AI and you sort of like try to, when I read your writing, it's like bridging a gap, right, to some extent because there are people, most of them in San Francisco, often on a lot of drugs. or maybe they're in a cult or something like that. And there's like, these are like the people who are like going to influence the rest of our lives.

How do you think about the question of like what is actually important to communicate to a broader public? Yeah, I mean, it's really interesting because I think the vast majority of AI media coming out of Silicon Valley is by AI people for other AI people. And it serves that purpose really well, right? Like you got really in-depth podcasts. You got the Dorcasch podcast. You got this like whole ecosystem of substacks. One thing that I really notice and that I think most people who listen to. the comms coming out of the industry leaders will notice, is they're saying all these crazy things

without like, for a second thinking that like any normal person might hear them say it. And they're like, oh man, why don't these people like AI very much? It's like, I don't know. You've been telling them you're going to take all their jobs and kill everybody for the last several years. And like you're on the record saying this stuff. And so I think it's really interesting where it's not like crypto, where only a small fraction of sort of the broad public ever deeply engaged with it. AI is something that whether people want to or not is impacting their lives.

It's on their social fees. Their kids are using it. It's in their workplace. And so people have all these questions about the intersection of AI and politics, AI and affordability, AI and parenting and education. And the majority of, I think, AI media historically has not really focused on that. It's been more the business and technology communities. And so I'm sort of trying to say, like, okay, but what about the rest of us?

Sam, you write a newsletter and the tagline is basically, you know, stock markets usually go up over time. You've been very right for the past couple of years because they've certainly gone up. But are things starting to get uncomfortable for you when people are talking about AI bubbles and overvaluations? Oh, yeah. Things are always uncomfortable for me. I think that's sort of like one of the most important things about understanding this idea of stocks usually go up is the key word there is usually. Right. Like every way you cut the data historically in good times and bad times and bull markets and bear markets, you always. always have like these periods of volatility where, you know, stocks do go down. Like,

that's the catch here with stocks usually go up is that they go down a lot often. So, yeah, of course I'm nervous, especially when you're at peaks. I mean, of course, the data will also tell you that the, you know, 12-month returns after all-time highs, I can tend to be higher than when you're at lows. But yeah, of course I'm nervous. I mean, I think that's like very healthy for anybody in the investor class is even, no matter how optimistic you might be over the near term or long term, you have to be prepared for those big drawdowns because they do happen and they happen frequently. Jisman, you know, so James wrote his piece about, you know, the potential, at least, and it wasn't

a forecast, it was a prediction, but a scenario. We've also written others. Right. Right. But no one likes the idea of like mass job laws, but I've been reading some other stuff. And there's a lot of people who don't talk about AI job laws. They talk about AI will literally kill every single person in the world if the labs don't do a good job of aligning the models. How seriously do you think the public should take that specific element that if the models are misdesigned, they will destroy humanity as we know it?

Oh, man. Contentious question. Oh, God. They call this a P-Doom out in San Francisco. I won't give you a probability, I suppose. But without getting to the question of, like, will literally every single person die, I do think there is a very good reason to be concerned about misalignment and rogue AI. Because when you think about it, there's sometimes people say that safety and the safety of a model is maybe in tension with these goals, like acceleration and is the model really useful. And I think the thing that's really interesting is in the history of AI research, it's often the people who make the technical advances in these foundational models who end up the most concerned about misalignment. And that's because actually the product functionality of the models, their utility, is only as good as how controllable they are and how much they do what you expect. So when you say, hey, like AI agent, like go off and like make me a million dollars or whatever, like whether that model goes and does so in a law abiding and safe and nonviolent way, the safety

of the model, the alignment of the model is very correlated with whether it is economic, economically useful as well. So I think that it's important that we not hold them in total tension. And I think there are really good reasons to be concerned with whether these agents are doing the things that we expect them to do. Just going back to AI job losses, and I guess any of you can answer this question. And please, like, feel free to chime in on every question that we ask. But, you know, you also hear a lot of the big tech CEOs talk about being genuinely concerned about the future of society. once AI is developed and starts, like, taking people's jobs. Some people interpret that as AI CEOs basically talking their own book and being, you know,

like hyping up the capabilities of AI. And then you have some people who argue that, like, maybe they're genuinely concerned, not least because they're going to get, like, Molotov cocktails thrown at their houses and things like that. Where do you fall in that spectrum? Is this, like, a real concern when you talk to senior people in Silicon Valley? I do think that most of the people that I've spoken to who are worried about it are genuinely worried about it. Something that I'd add to it is pretty much unanimously throughout history when we've had any sort of technological leap forward.

It's been a positive thing. And I think that AI will mirror that. It's just the question is we've never had a technological kind of advancement this quickly. We go from having the industrial revolution and the mechanization of agriculture, and 95% of people used to work in agriculture, and then now I think it's 5% do. And I'm very happy to work in an air-conditioned office rather than in a field. I know you do some gardening. A little bit, yeah.

So maybe not. But the thing is that will happen, I think, believe very strongly it will happen with AI. It's just what happens in the interim? What happens if the models get so good and people kind of adopt them with the same approach and use them correctly over five years instead of 100? So I think speaking to some of the senior people, they would echo the fact that over the next 30 years, AI is going to be an immense force for good and going to make people's lives more comfortable.

They're just worried about the pace of the trend. Yeah, I think the transition is like super important because, as much as everyone likes this idea, like even on the corporate side or the shareholder side, like the promise of all this productivity that's unlocked by AI. And, you know, maybe some people are thinking quietly in terms of like, oh, this is going to replace all of our workforce. But, you know, the economy sort of stops working

when no one has jobs and no has income, right? It's like it's great that you have this huge profit margin, but you have no revenue because everyone's unemployed and they don't have any money. And, you know, those people aren't shopping, those people aren't buying, you know, washing machines and the washing machine manufacturer can't, you know, buy, you know, metal parts and suddenly we're digging up less copper and the whole economy shrinks because no one has jobs, then the whole point of this exercise

becomes sort of meaningless. So, which is why I think you're increasingly hearing from folks on this side, you know, talking about things like, you know, basic income and guarantee jobs and all these things. So it's, I think that's where, you know, the conversation sort of goes is, all right, let's make this assumption that we have all this productivity because of job loss. Well, that doesn't work. You know, people need to have money to go out and spend and buy these products that are being produced so efficiently. And I mean, it's worth noting that, like, for example, like people, politicians will point to say, retraining is the default.

We have never had a successful, large-scale rescilling program in the history of the United States. During, say, you know, the deindustrialization, you lost all these factory jobs. It wasn't that many jobs, and we created way more net jobs, say, in Silicon Valley. but the steelworkers did not learn to code, right? And so people are right to be concerned both morally and about the political backlash that could occur, even with relatively small numbers of net job loss. Pride Month, Toronto.

Pride is an opportunity for you to create your own space, to celebrate your existence. Iheart Radio is proud to be an official sponsor of Pride Toronto. festival and we won't stop celebrate pride turn up the love and listen to iHeart pride Canada your 24-7 radio stream and the only playlist you need for your Toronto Pride celebrations

pride is so great because it gives a whole bunch of people this visibility that they've never had before we have a ton to celebrate Toronto happy pride iHeart radio hi I'm Tom Keen inviting you to join me for the Bloomberg surveillance podcast it's about making you smarter every business day I'm Paul Sweeney we bring you complete cover of stocks, bonds, commodities, even crypto, all the information you need to excel in the markets. And I'm Alexis Christophores. Listen to us for essential conversations with the smartest names

and economics, finance, investment, and international relations. That's the Bloomberg's surveillance podcast. Subscribe today on Apple, Spotify, or anywhere you listen. Sam, like, I love your newsletter. I read it. I'm a paid subscriber, all that. I think I could train a model to write a newsletter that say stocks go up. I think I could like, believe or not, my, I'm pretty sure none of us can have.

My sister, my sister recently got into cloud coding and she did this project with herself and thought that, you know, I find this really interesting. And basically she created this app that was like a Sam robot that was informed by, you know,

stuff that I've published and like by, by violin and all this free stuff that's out there. And it's like, I was kind of offended, first of all. But yeah, it's a problem. Do you worry about it? Is it absolutely? So proprietor of a media company? You know, it's funny, it's like there was this time where you could go out and say,

well, you know, something that you can't really replace is, you know, the individual's voice, the personality or whatever. And it's like, I, you know, I run some of this stuff too and run these queries and say, like, well, how would Sam Rowe write this? And it's like, it sounds like me. And sometimes it actually, you know, uses the language. and comes up with the words faster than how I would. So it's like, you know, what I do has to be about something more

than just having the Samro voice, right? So to answer the question, like the problem and the challenge, and I, you know, James and Jasmine and I, we talked about this a little bit in the back is like, you know, where do you add that value? And it's like it can't be something that's like just sort of replicable or something that, you know, someone who might be interested in what you're reading or writing about

can put into a query and get back. Like, you know, the toughest part about my job and I think a lot of our jobs is being able to come up with those ideas and those angles that no one's asking for. And, you know, again, like, I write about the stock market usually going up, which, by the way, even before AI, it's kind of a ridiculous thing to be writing about because everyone who has money in their 401ks and IRAs, I've already been told this. They already know this. So it's like, why do I exist?

And, you know, it's a relatively small market of people who are reading what I'm writing about. But, yeah, I guess there's something about, and not to toot my own horn, it's, this is reader feedback that I'm getting. But I've been told that there's something about, whether it's the cadence or the timing of things I do write about or the way I frame it, that feels a little bit more human than the research or the analysis that, you know, the chief investment strategist or whatever is sending out to their financial advisor who's regurgitating it back to them. James, one of the things you've been doing that I don't think a bot can replicate just yet is sending actual human beings or a human being to the straight of hormones. Is that like the edge in media? Is it like first person experiments and data gathering? Yeah, I mean, you just have to look at this from, I'm pretty confident that investment

research won't exist in the same way that it does now. The internet kind of made it democratized, so to speak, the distribution. It was like only the banks had distribution. Now we have distribution and we can utilize that. But if we're just utilizing it to kind of do the same thing that the banks are doing, well, there is so much investment research that these models have been trained on. And as they get better, they will pretty much be able to do the same thing. So it becomes very much about doing something different. And I think that there's like two ways you can do that.

One, you can be right all the time. So hopefully, you know, fingers crossed. Well, you know, I think that one aspect is like when I came on, Aval. It was the only media that I did after that piece, which I was very happy. Thank you. I said, one of your questions, Joe, was like, why do you think this went so viral? And I think it's like, this is not like tooting my own horn. It's just sometimes you go on a hot streak.

And when we started, that was very much in like a year of just like 100% correct calls. And, you know, obviously I've had a bunch of wrong ones since then. But it was like a bunch of people were reading something. they would read it and they would say, well, if I hadn't read this piece, I wouldn't have bought NVIDIA in 2023 or I wouldn't have bought Eska-Hinex or something. So I've generated value from it. And then if you can add into that something that the model can't do with a query, they can't be out in the real world, then it's going on in the real world. If there's, you know, in five years, the robots come and then the models can go out in the real world, we'll have to find something

else that they can't do. Jesman, how do you think about this question of like what the human writer can still bring to the table? The one time you were on Adelots before was nothing about AI. You were talking about Chinese peptides consumption. No, but you did go to a peptide rate. No, this is what I'm saying. So like that is sort of your equivalent of sending an analyst to the straight of Burmuz.

We were talking about this. I'm going to be the San Francisco spy that James sends out. I guess I'm, I've docks myself already, but I can get away. But is that like, do you feel like that's a big, like, market that like being in it in some way, physically in it, is that is like what you can do, at least currently, that the AI can. Basically, I mean, I'm very bullish on secrets and I'm very bullish on gossip, right? And I mean, that's kind of what journalism is in the end. It's you have what is not in the training data.

Like, data is like one of the most valuable things. It's like chips data algorithms, right? And the data's out there in the world and they've scraped the entire internet. They've torn the covers off all these books. They're Mercor's like paying hundreds of dollars for these experts to like feed all their knowledge into the models. But the thing is the world's constantly changing. It's very dynamic.

there are parts of the world, parties, uh, straits that are unexplored by humans. And if you go and you are the first person to see that or you're the first person to be there at a critical moment in time, as news is happening, as news is breaking, that kind of actual reporting is like more valuable than ever. One way that I think about reporting is that you have this private knowledge that's maybe known in whisper networks in the, you know, in some party scene or whatever. Or you have tacit knowledge that nobody's really written down yet. And as a reporter, my job is to take the tacit or to take the private and to turn it into

public knowledge, like that particular task, I think, is extremely robust in the era of AI. Okay. So speaking of secrets and gossip and going out into the real world, you recently came back from a trip to China, where you were sort of comparing, I guess, how China is thinking and undertaking AI versus the U.S. What's your big takeaway? Yeah, I mean, China's one of those places where it's hard to get a sense of without going in person because it's so restricted what's on the public internet and we have these all-off internet's. One interesting thing is the way that I think about USAI research is it sort of had three eras of American AI. You had the academic era. Maybe you can call the boom kicking off

with ImageNet or AlphaGo. You had the commercial era, let's call it, kicked off with chat, TBT, the maybe geopolitical era that's sort of Pentagon and mythos drama. And China is weirdly still in the academic era more so. It's very collaborative, very pro-open source. The labs and the researchers themselves seem unconcerned pretty much with the sort of big philosophical and geopolitical questions. And there's sort of a division of labor where because the party and the government is so active in shaping exactly what AI's role in society ought to be, then the companies themselves have sort of abdicated that responsibility. And they're also much more focused on collaborating because they'd see collaboration as the only way to sort of maybe have a chance against the

U.S. frontier. Just to follow up on this a little bit, because so much of the American AI conversation is suffused with both the job loss question and then the even more sinister question of like, will the models turn against us? Is that dimension there as well, that's sort of the safety alignment part? Is that a big part of the Chinese AI culture? Not a lot. And I mean, we ask researchers that a lot of the top Chinese labs, how much they thought about safety and it was clear that it was less of a priority. One is that their compute constraint, right? So one open AI researcher is allocated more compute than like an entire Chinese lab oftentimes because of, the chip controls. And so when you're that constrained, you're probably not going to devote as

many, as much compute to safety and alignment. So that's one thing. The other thing I notice is just that China has a little bit of this more almost like, I call it like, it's not techno-optimism, which sometimes people confuse. It's more like techno-determinism or this pragmatic approach, which is that technology has always progressed, automation, like mechanization, like the industrial revolution, like technology has always progressed. It's overall made life better. There's no way to stop it. There's not really a culture of protest and resistance in China because of the political environment. And so as an individual or as a company, there's no point in being like, oh, we don't want this. We're going to regulate it. We're going to refuse it. Like it's like you

adopt or else you are going to fall off. You're going to get left behind. And so every individual is much more concerned with how can I adopt like open claw or whatever it is as fast as I can so that I get this job because if I don't do it, there's a million people behind me who are going take it instead. James, I know you're approaching the U.S. versus China AI question, I guess both from an investment perspective and also from a social economic perspective, per your doom scenario. Not thesis. Doom scenario. But like, where do you stand on this particular question? I think that it's very important that we continue to sell chips to China. I think that if you were to cut China completely off from chips or crack down on some of the smuggling,

It would, it's, there's like a Sun Zoo thing about you, like you build your enemy a golden bridge upon which to retreat. I think it's very similar here where we don't really want to encourage even more capacity for China to take the reins in AI. And if we can control certain aspects of the infrastructure stack, then the U.S. absolutely should. I think that the next thing that we'll see, and this is like a really, I think, kind of spicy take. If you were to look at the price action of the memory, complex. I think that we will see within the next like Chinese deep seek moment will not be about a model. It will be about hardware. That's a good take. So is it? Oh really? Oh, okay. Joe knows about takes. Clearly you don't own SK Hinex. I think, you know, everyone's kind of

piling into the bottleneck trade, so to speak. And I think there's kind of a new vintage of investors that are doing this bottleneck investing without the awareness that bottlenecks are made to be widened. And I think that what's going to happen if we continue to see this kind of meteoric rise in DRAM prices is that just like every other technological bottleneck, there will be a bunch of nerds in their basement that are very, very incentivized to fix this. And there's a, there are many ways that you can do that. One is, you know, you match flash bandwidth to DRAM. It's 100 times cheaper. like it's pot so and I think that with China CXMT is there like a micron S.K. Heiner, you know, and with the IPO happening this year, there will be a lot of capital that will.

I've been wondering about this because it's like the models are so like, why even store any photos or images or whatever in a big bank of memory data? The models could just recreate it on command. And so I've been wondering if like in the end like storage is not. going to be that big of a deal because the model is like, yeah, let's see that photo of like, you know, me at my son's birthday. And the model will just create it. And why did I need to save it to my iPhone? I think that the reason why it's interesting because if you look at like memory is like a key component of the GPU, right? But then why didn't, you know, Nvidia was rallying for a year and a half before memory started rallying, right? So why did that happen? Well, it's because of the advent of a gentic AI and having to remember.

Sam, I have a question for you, like, per the theme of your substack, generally speaking, stocks go up. Is the sub-theme just ignore everyone else on this stage because you're just going to get distracted and you're going to get freaked out and whatever? And that ultimately ignore all the odd lots episodes, ignore all the news, ignore the Dumers, because in the end, the only thing that can happen if you pay into the news is you do something stupid, then you miss the long run. No, no, I'm actually the complete opposite of the. that. Okay. And, you know, like I said before, like, you know, I'm always worried. Okay. And, and this is like sort of the message I try to, you know, communicate out to the world. Like, you know, I do a lot of things and communicate a lot of things that are kind of counterintuitive. Like, you know, I do check my 401K plan every single day, you know. I do,

you know, instead, you know, a lot of advisors and professionals and stuff will go on TV and say, you know, forget your, you know, 401K password. Or ignore politics or ignore what's going on Iran, you know, we have a long history of getting past all this stuff. I think that's all incredibly silly. I think you really do have to think about how bad things are at a given time. That way you sort of build up those memories when, you know, 10 years from now, when there is another war, you do remember how bad things were in the past and how, you know, markets evolved out of all that stuff. So, so, yeah, like, I think it's, you know, to ignore things makes you sort of more vulnerable to making mistakes. So it's like, yeah, be really conscious

of like where there are job losses, where there will be industries that fall apart, because all the lessons you learn today from all the bad things that happen, and when you lose your job and when your neighbors lose their job, and then, you know, a couple years from now, you know, maybe the market's higher, you know, 10 years from now, it's going to happen all over again and you're more robust when that stuff happens. So yeah, I think it's a complete mistake to ignore terrible things going on as someone who's optimistic in the long run. Good take. I have one last question for all three of you.

And it ties into something that Joe and I have experienced on the podcast, which is a lot of our episodes are starting to feel very surreal. You know, we're talking about like space elevators and data centers in space and companies with like trillions of dollars of market capitalization and lines that always seem to go up seemingly forever. Everything feels very sci-fi and surreal at the moment. What's the most surreal thing or like data point that you have seen or witnessed in person in recent months? The first thing that comes to mind, like I said before, like prompting, I think this was actually Gemini. I asked us to like, you know, how would I write this? Oh, yeah, yeah. And it came back and I remember thinking, gosh, not only would I have sounded like that, but it's actually using, you know, slightly, you know, words I would have run through a Thesaurus and actively chosen to fold into my writing.

that was really kind of scary. It really made me think about separating out exactly what is it that I'm offering to subscribers. So yeah, but being able to sort of see increasingly see yourself in these machines that are getting better at, you know, replicating human behavior. I think that probably for me there's like a quiet kind of robotics boom that's occurring outside of like people are kind of waiting until

the humanoid robot comes and folds their laundry and everything. But that's the dream. Yeah, for me, for sure. But the thing is, like, Amazon this year will employ twice as many robots as they do humans. You're starting to see in a lot of the earnings reports, like from Fanick, for example, that, like, factory automation is really experiencing a huge inflection that's not commensurate with other segments that are selling into factories. And I think if you just imagine like what level is robotics going to be at when it's fully like automated the factory, automated the warehouses by the time it actually comes into your home, that's kind of, that's like that's going to make things so much more surreal.

Just to be clear, Amazon is not employing the robot. Right. You just know that like when this happens, you will be on a podcast talking about robot rights. Yeah. I can already hear it. I mean, it's perfect that James says. that because I was going to talk about my trip to the unitary office in Hongzhou and being both face to face with the humanoys, which is an extremely surreal on County Valley experience.

They are good dancers. They are good fighters. They're incredibly mobile. The quadrupeds are they look like bug dogs. They're like climbing all over. And those are actively being deployed in factories for inspection and surveillance. We saw a 24-7 pharmacy that was in operation where a humanoid robot would take stuff off and drop it in a box and delivery drivers, Chinese delivery drivers were coming in and

out. It was fully in operation. And so China's pushing as fast as they can on the factory automation and the physical AI stuff. And when you see it, you just look at it and you're like, that's clearly where the future is headed. By the way, I always do the test when a new model, LLM comes out. I say like write 10 tweets in my voice. And there's still, I don't think it'd do it. But there was one from Claude and it said, the 10 year yield doesn't care about your feelings and frankly, it doesn't care about mine either. And I was like, you know what? It's not really a thing I would say, but that's kind of a good tweet. Anyway, thank you all so much,

James Jasmine and Sam for coming out on Offlaught Fly. That's a lot of fun. So that was our conversation with James Van Gielandh, of Satrini Research, Jasmine's son, the substack author,

and Sam Rowe, the editor of the newsletter TKR. I'm Tracy Allaway. You can follow me at Tracy Allaway. And I'm Joe Wisenthall. You can follow me at the stalwart. Follow our guest, James Van Geelan.

He's at Satrini. Sam Rowe at Sam Rowe and Jasmine's son. at Jasmine New Sun. Follow our producers, Carmen Rodriguez, at Carmen Armine, Dashel Bennett at Dashbot, Kale Brooks at Kail Brooks,

and Kevin Lazzano at Kevin Lloyd-Lazano. And for more Oddlots content, go to Bloomberg.com slash oddlots. We have a daily newsletter and all of our episodes. And you can chat about all these topics 24-7 in our Discord, discord.g.g slash oddlots.

And if you enjoy Oddlots, if you like it when we occasionally indulge ourselves in talking about the media, then please leave us a positive review on your favorite podcast platform. And remember, if you are a Bloomberg subscriber, you can listen to all of our episodes, absolutely add free. All you need to do is find the Bloomberg channel on Apple podcasts and follow the instructions there. Thanks for listening. I'm Tom Keene, inviting you to join me for the Bloomberg surveillance podcast. It's about making you smarter every business day.

I'm Paul Sweeney. We bring you complete coverage of stocks, bonds, commodities, even crypto, all the information you need to excel in the markets. And I'm Alex. is Christophers, listen to us for essential conversations with the smartest names in economics, finance, investment, and international relations. That's the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. Subscribe today on Apple, Spotify, or anywhere you listen.