Pivot - TikTok’s Testimony, and Google’s Bard Release

Episode Date: March 24, 2023

Scott and Kara* dissect TikTok CEO Shou Chew’s testimony in the House as the app fends of a potential U.S. ban. And in A.I. news, Google released its chat bot, Bard, to the general public. Plus, President Trump is still a free man, the Fed has raised interest rates yet again, and Ford’s EV business is in the red. Then, a listener question about getting paid in stock. *See what we did there? You can listen to Kara’s interview with OpenAI CEO Sam Altman here. For a deeper dive on the implications of the potential Trump indictment, check out Stay Tuned from friend of the show, Preet Bharara. Send us your questions! Call 855-51-PIVOT or go to nymag.com/pivot. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Support for Pivot comes from Virgin Atlantic. Too many of us are so focused on getting to our destination that we forgot to embrace the journey. Well, when you fly Virgin Atlantic, that memorable trip begins right from the moment you check in. On board, you'll find everything you need to relax, recharge, or carry on working. Buy flat, private suites, fast Wi-Fi, hours of entertainment, delicious dining, and warm, welcoming service that's designed around you. delicious dining and warm, welcoming service that's designed around you. Check out virginatlantic.com for your next trip to London data, and a matching engine that helps you find quality candidates fast. Listeners of this show can get a $75 sponsored job credit to get your jobs more visibility at Indeed.com slash podcast.

Just go to Indeed.com slash podcast right now and say you heard about Indeed on this podcast. Indeed.com slash podcast. Terms and conditions apply. Need to hire? You need Indeed. Hi, everyone. This is Pivot from New York Magazine and the Vox Media Podcast Network. I'm Carol Swisher.

And I'm Scott Galloway. So where are you now, Scott? Where in the world is Scott Galloway? I'm in the City of Angels. I'm in Los Angeles. Oh, your favorite place, your old stomping ground. My favorite hotel, Beverly Hills Hotel, one very fancy. I receive people. People like to come here. Oh, really? Do you have a suite? I have what's called the Michael Jackson suite. And that is, it has a, seriously, it has a secret entry and exit way. Why? I wonder why they call it the Michael Jackson suite. Why do you need a secret entrance and exit? I don't understand.

Whenever I get here, I'm one of these total douchebags that looks at the fire map. And if I don't have a big room, I call and I start negotiating for a bigger room. Oh, I see. Okay. Yeah. So they put me in the Michael Jackson room. Oh, I see. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. They put me in the Michael Jackson suite. Oh, my God. Oh, my God. You know, we're not that far from each other. We're only 350 miles away.

I'm in San Francisco. Well, I did feel a little extra warmth this morning, Kara. I should come down there, but I don't have time. But I love Los Angeles. Well, you know I should come down. You know I'm here. Why? You didn't say, Scott, why are you here?

No interest in my life. Oh, why are you there? Two words. First, Bill. Second, Mar. Yeah. I don't want. Well, you know I should come down. You know I'm here. Why? You didn't say, Scott, why are you here? No interest in my life. Oh, why are you there? Two words. First, Bill. Second, Mar. Yeah. I don't want to brag, though. I don't want to brag.

I won't say I'll be on it in a month, but okay, sure. That's great. That's literally the first thing they said to me, by the way. It's like, oh, this is such good news. Finally, we got Karen. I'm like, oh, great. I'm good. That's something.

I'm so happy for all of them. You got to be rare, Scott. You can't be chomping at the bit for those Bill Maher people. No, they're a very nice staff. I don't agree with Bill all the time, but he's certainly an interesting show. Oh, really? I see. I only respect people I agree with all the time.

Oh, okay. All right. But what are you going to talk? Oh, TikTok. Oh, come on. This is your little time to run around and scream. Oh, no. This is totally my wheelhouse.

We're talking about failing our men. We're talking about his population decline, good or bad. We're actually doing almost everything but TikTok. Oh, you've got to talk about TikTok. But here's the thing. They send you these topics, and then Bill just starts talking about whatever he wants to talk about. Whatever he wants. Yeah, it's usually, you know, a grievement about culture wars.

That guy's a gangster. I love him. He's good. I love him. I don't love him. But anyway. You've got to admit, that show is more culturally relevant than ever. I see clips of him talking about, we need to be a United States.

He really does tap into something pretty, I constantly see his stuff everywhere. And people just, the writers there are amazing. Some people like what he's done. Some people don't. It's good. It's good. Whatever. That means he's saying something, right? Well, maybe. Yeah. I mean, yeah. It's just, it's an interesting time for a show like that. And it's, listen, you go on that long, a lot of people can't, you know, a lot of people have fallen by the wayside and he has and he keeps going. Well, it's further proof that, you know, there's both opportunity and an existential or

threat to the species of people called moderates. I don't think you're a moderate sometimes, but that's okay. We're not going to debate that. You think I'm too far left? No, I just think that you bang on that culture war drum a little too long. There's other really issues in this country that are much, it's just this whole woke thing is exhausting. Oh, no, I'm all about culture wars. That's a perfect description.

No, but you know the woke thing and you can't say what you want. I would like – just like people – the Republicans – You mean the state of America? No, but it's not. Most regular people are worried about the price of gas. We're not going to go into this. I just think this – And you're one with the regular folk.

No. No, but I have many more relatives than you do. This climate bill is going to, you're not taking my lawnmower. Yeah, you're very much the regular person. No, you're not going to. You're just a down-home lesbian in San Francisco finishing your book. You try to do this whenever I make the point that people go bang on about woke. It's not what people are concerned about.

You don't have to be of that group to understand that this is bullshit. Like, this is what you do. You always have to point out, I am an elite, which you are even more an elite, when you want to disagree with me. You never make an actual argument. You just have to say, oh, you'd know. Yeah, I would know. I can talk to people. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Let's unpack that. You never make an actual argument. How soon after saying that did you realize that's not true? No, it's not true. You go, listen, let me just say, whenever I point out that this woke stuff is exhausting and most people have bigger concerns than that, you always say, oh, you're an elite lesbian. That is what you go to every single time. And so I don't really think that's okay. So it makes me unable to hear people or read or understand. Let me actually make an argument, which you accuse me of never doing, that we on the left shoot ourselves in the foot because we wanted the impression that the Americans have elected us to be the police for cultural issues. And as a result, we turn off moderates and people with weird, dangerous ideas get elected. So we have adopted a strategy that has not worked. Yes, but I think it's that they have adjusted that over time. And I think the Republicans gone further right. And you can watch it through everything they're doing around this Trump arrest. It's nothing to do with anything else. I think many on the left have adjusted this. I think

many have said, yeah, you're right, and stuff like that. I don't think they're doubling down on it, that's for sure. But I do think the Republicans are doubling down on crazy. And so, okay. I mean, this is something, look, Biden's moved much closer to the center recently. And obviously, you know, he's got his progressive wing, but he's moved. I mean, there's lots of columnists who've written about this issue. And so that's what happens.

I think the woke thing is not nearly as important as the crazy. And it's a problem, but it's not what's happening in states across the country around trans things. Well, one is naive and one is mean. It's beyond mean. It's something else. It's trying to legislate all kinds of things that we shouldn't be legislating. But, you know, like I'm looking at these things like there's a really good piece and we'll get let's get to what we're actually going to talk about. But there's a great piece about what's going on in Iowa and the and the governor there, who I think everyone focuses on Carrie Lake.

Kim Reynolds is very savvy and is really playing into and passing all kinds of legislation that's really anti-trans, not just anti-trans, it just goes on and on and on. And so I think this is actual legislation in action versus telling someone they don't like when you don't use they, them. I don't know. I just find there's a big difference. Yeah, but then the question becomes, well, how is that happening and how do we best combat it? How do we be more thoughtful? And the thing that always shocks me is we're always in a state of outrage over what are justifiably upsetting things, and yet we always seem to figure out a way to let it happen. And my attitude is, why are these ridiculous mean laws that are ineffectual and just inflame people, why do they always seem to get traction?

And we seem to get outplayed on the left. How come McConnell's always able to outsmart everybody? Voting. I think voting is one. I think people don't vote. I think people just sit around and don't vote. Now, they did in Kansas, right? They did around the abortion thing. And so, the numbers, when you look at the numbers, the group that's very much liked is get out and vote, and then the others just don't. And then they're like, oh, and then they have to clean it up. And that's the ultimate thing when you look at those numbers. Anyway, we should not argue politically anymore today.

I hope you have a great time on Bill Maher. So someone's struggling with their last chapter. That's how I'm going to say. Today, Mr. Chu goes to Washington. TikTok CEO gets an earful on Capitol Hill. Also, Google enters the AI race at last, and we'll take a listener question on getting paid in stock. All right, but first, President Trump is still a free man. It looks like he was incorrect about being arrested

on Tuesday. As we tape on Thursday, the grand jury weighing whether or not Trump will be indicted in this Jeremy Daniels case was unexpectedly given a day off on Wednesday. As a reminder, Trump told followers he would be arrested on Tuesday and call for protest. There were about five people in front of Trump Tower, by the way. It's going well for him. This weekend, Trump will hold a rally in Waco, Texas, on the 30th anniversary of the siege of the Branch Davidian compound. His lawyer has been ordered to turn over documents in the classified document case. It might be impactful. Apparently there are tapes. He's just an ongoing exhausting wart on the ass of society.

What do you think? Well, again, a president is supposed to deescalate. And what happened in Waco is so upsetting. And there's probably so many people whose daughter or grandkid was perished in that thing. And then you have a guy coming down there to remind you of it for his own political purposes. A very anti-government protest, by the way, but go ahead. What was happening in Waco.

You know what I mean? It was like sort of this idea, the government coming in and taking our guns. It was a version of that. God, I forgot about just how horrible that was. And that trigger, that feeling of there's no good from this, are emotions that are part of the fabric that is Donald Trump over and over. Over and over. It is. It's been ongoing.

What happened at Waco has been ongoing. But it brings me back. There were several different events. That was one, the Heaven's Gate cult members. Remember when that was? That was 97. Was that the one with the black Nikes? These are very dark parts of the US is really fucked up on so many levels. We'll see. And, of course, they'll probably elect the candidate. They'll probably make him the candidate.

I tried to sign up or register for tickets. I figure that's my contribution. You know, you can get tickets online. Oh, really? Yeah. Interesting. Like, you know, we're doing that whole, you know, no one will show up thing. Oh, yeah.

Well, we'll see. The teens, I think, tried that, and it worked in one place. You know, he'll have a group of people that go see him all the time. It's like that's what he's going for is the diehards and an emphasis on die. Anyway, another thing, the markets react to the Fed's latest interest rate hike, matching last month's hike of a quarter point. Fed Chairman Jerome Powell, who is tiptoeing, it sounds like, said the process of getting inflation back down to 2% has a long way to go and is likely to be bumpy, you think, Mr. Powell? The S&P 500 is up 1% since the news and the ongoing bank uncertainty

continues with First Republic down 50% in the last five days. The stocks of these banks don't matter, but it's the nervousness of spooking people, I think. So is this the right move? They had to not, they couldn't not do it, correct? Yeah, this was the Goldilocks raise. And that is, I thought, okay, you have this banking crisis that in some part was due to what was a historic increase in interest rates. Interest rates or the Fed funds is the highest it's been since 2007, but we haven't raised rates 475 bps since 1979 within like a 12 or 14-month period. So I thought, oh, because of the potential contagion of banking, he's going to tap the brakes and not do a rate hike. Ed Elson, my analyst at Prop G said, actually, he probably will raise, and he got it exactly right. He said a quarter of a point because Powell doesn't want to spook the markets by giving them the impression he spooked.

He still wants to show that, look, folks, inflation is still the monster in the room. And the other one that's in the, maybe comes out, maybe doesn't. That's not my biggest concern. And it was kind of, it was sort of like trying to say, we're still fighting inflation, but we're also cognizant of what's happening in the banking sector. Yeah, it's 100%. I think your analyst was spot on about that. And we'll see where he goes from here, but inflation is the biggest problem. But, you know, banks, inflation is a long-term pain and a bank run is terrifying to people, I think, in a lot of ways. I mean, there's just some really frightening things here. There are so many people out there, especially younger people who have done taking some action

to try and prepare either buying supplies or thinking about their go route, whatever it might be, preparing for doomsday. Yeah. They're watching The Last of Us too much, I guess. That's right. And there's also when the most famous, well-resourced, and quite frankly, the impression most intelligent people in the world are all hardcore like go bag people, it doesn't create a sense. It's like, if these people are worried, shouldn't I be? And it creates, and also their actions. Think about what they do with their professional lives.

We need to figure out a way to inhabit another planet. I want to take you into another universe. It's very nihilistic. Yeah, yeah. Well, it's like assuming all hell will break loose. There is that assumption here, 100%. Yeah, I think it's frightening and disappointing. Do you have a go-bag

plan, Scott? I doubt it. I think these go-bags and these bunkers will have the same effectiveness as if a nuclear flash goes off and all our kids duck and cover. Yeah, yeah. We were told that all we needed to do in case of nuclear attack from those Ruskies was duck

and cover as soon as we saw the flash of light and we would be just fine. Well, guess what? You guys duck and see how that works for you. I know. If shit gets really real, because they're going to find you. I told you what my plan was when they all had their plans. And they're like, what's your plan? I said, I'm going to find you, beat you up, take your things.

That's my plan. Like, what do you think my plan is? I'm going to steal your shit. Because I know you'll be well-themed. Yeah, I agree. I think there's no getting out of it. No one's getting out of this life alive. Well, why wouldn't we take all of this money and genius and try and figure out how to make this place more habitable?

Yeah, well, just in case, Scott. Just in case. Have those gold doubloons that you put on a belt and carry around. I do like the idea of rough cut gems and things stuck up my ass. Let's go. Let's go.

No, let's not have it. We should have a place we go, but then we'll be stuck together. It's like a Twilight Zone episode. You and I in a bunker. Okay. Would that be like, I'm trying to think, would that be 10 minutes or 10 hours before we say, you know, I really like you, but let's kill each other.

I would kill you, be dead. Who do you think would win that one? Oh my God. You'd go weeks. I'd be minutes. I would eat you. I would eat you. I would, I'd be like.

I would yellow jacket this motherfucker. I'm like, look, it's been good. If you run into my kids again, tell them I love them. What do you get? We need to plan what we're going to do with my body. I would immediately start planning. I'm going to cook it for dinner. What are you talking about? No, I'm not getting, I am not getting caught in a bunker with anyone named Kara Swisher. That yellow jacket, the situation. Anyway, last thing, Ford's EV business lost over $2 billion in 2022. Not a surprise. The loss was offset by $10 billion in profits from the automaker's internal combustion and fleet business. Maybe just the beginning, the company expects the loss of $3 billion for its EV unit in 2023.

They got to spend the money. I don't know what to say. This is what Elon did with Tesla. in 2023. They got to spend the money. I don't know what to say. This is what Elon did with Tesla. You got to spend the money to get to this new business. It's the way it is. That's the way. And it is the new business. It's really fascinating. It's sort of, I feel like everything comes back to the streaming wars. In almost every business, how the streaming wars is laid out. If you really understand it, you can kind of predict almost any market where there's an excess of capital or excitement. And there's enormous justified excitement around EVs. And the innovators' dilemma kicked in hard here.

And that, as they said, similar to how a lot of people didn't take Netflix serious for a long time, all the automakers looked at the actual gross size of the EV market, looked at how expensive it was, looked at the fact that their shareholder base wouldn't tolerate the type of investment required to be competitive in EVs, all of the things that were present with Netflix versus traditional linear TV. And then finally, all of a sudden, this is like Netflix or the streaming market in, I don't know, call it 2017, 18. They're all like, we have no choice. We've got to go all in here. And just similar to Netflix, anyone, I don't care if you're Disney with Unparalleled Library or Hulu, any of these guys, you had to make uncomfortable, staggering, irrational investments. And there's just no way, these things are super expensive. They'll get to scale. The exciting thing is there will be a Moore's Law here. They will come down. The government's helping with the Infrastructure Act to bring down prices. But everybody is going all in, and it's super expensive. And for the time being, you know, and the same thing will happen. What's happening in streaming now? Consolidation will probably happen in three to five years. I don't think, I'm not sure Tesla will be an end. Well, actually, it's too big to be acquired, but some of these guys will have to get rolled up. Polestar, Lucid. This is money well spent. They have to spend this. They have to spend this. There's no choice because this is where the market's going. It's where everybody's going. It's where the states are going. They can't pull this back. So this is the loss they need to have. So that's the way it goes. And they should have done it earlier the way Tesla did. He put, you know, he created the manufacturing stack and that's why he's way ahead for now. Okay, let's get to our first big story.

TikTok CEO Shou Chu testified before an overwhelmingly hostile House committee on Thursday as his company hopes to fend off a potential U.S. ban of the app. Good show show, but it's not going to work. GOP Representative Kathy Morris came out blazing in her opening remarks. Let's listen. We do not trust TikTok will ever embrace American values, values for freedom, human rights, and innovation. TikTok has repeatedly chosen the path for more control, more surveillance and more manipulation. Your platform should be banned. I expect today you'll say anything to avoid this outcome. Mr. Chu, for his part, largely dodged complicated questions, but fired back with comparisons to American tech giants. I don't think ownership is the issue here.

With a lot of respect, American social companies don't have a good track record with data privacy and user security. I mean, look at Facebook and Cambridge Analytica. Just one example. Representatives accused TikTok of being lax with safety and cozy with the Chinese Communist Party, but they occasionally took the opportunity to ask Chu

probing questions like, does TikTok access the home Wi-Fi network? Chu also pointed out that his network doesn't accept political ads and claimed that it doesn't sell data to brokers, but he didn't rule out doing so in the future. I mean, what do you think here? It was kind of cooked, don't you think, the whole thing? Yeah, I mean, the House Energy Committee here, they chose violence, but they chose it before he showed up. Yeah, we knew this was going to be ugly. I actually found it very cathartic and relaxing to watch this panel because it was the first time I could think of in a long, long time. You would see the representative from some very conservative place in Georgia echo the comments of his

colleague from, you know, a Democrat from Maine. I mean, there is more bipartisan agreement here than on the Russian invasion of Ukraine and how to respond to it. Yeah, absolutely. So it's just, it's shocking to me, the 180, or how just much this is the narrative here, has changed. What did the CCP do today? They came out with the mother of all stupid comments and said, we will not tolerate or agree to a spin, which by virtue of them saying that says, we're in charge of this platform. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So it was, they basically, they poured honey on this guy and sent him hunting for bears.

Yeah, I know. This guy, I feel bad because he was sort of like, he's in the middle of the squeeze here, and he's getting squeezed. I mean, he's absolutely correct about U.S. companies. Come on. Like, they're not the Chinese Communist Party, but they're really bad. And of course, none of our representatives have ever dealt with that. That they can't deal with. But when it comes to a Chinese company, they're doing to this company what they should have been doing to all these companies for years. But they aren't. But they aren't. But they aren't because it's good for, you know, to shake the American flag for everybody. And, you know, which is fine. Look, does the ban look more or less likely after this hearing? What is your take after this? More, to me. I'm going to say more. I think you've been right on this. And I'm going to pick up the

flag of talking about how awesome we are. When we said seven or eight months ago this thing should be banned, we recalled a lot of names. And this thing is absolutely going to be banned. It's already happening. I think we're serving as a beacon. I think you're going to see more Western nations find their backbone around banning this thing. And I do believe that there's so much money here that they will, on the eve of the banning, decide to spin it. We'll see. There are those considerations. Honestly, I still don't think that she, appearance with Putin, helped matters any. He looks like he's against the U.S. And so it's very easy to do this. You know, it's not, it wasn't a good showing.

All these people are dying in Ukraine. He looks like an opportunist. And it seems like Senator Warner was like, oh, let's get through with the ban. Let's go. Let's stop. Stop this nonsense, which, you know, he's usually pretty reasonable. But I mean, if a ban comes, it's going to be, I mean, everyone's going to pay a price. It's a great service.

My urologist is on TikTok. It's called Dick Doc. That's good. It's that should be banned. I'll tell you, I have a ban on that crap. Ban on dad jokes. That's pushed them over the edge. It's a ban is coming.

That's ban Scott Galloway. That's my feeling. Anyway, Chu had a unique proposal for federal oversight of TikTok. He said the company has formed a subsidiary called USDS to manage US user data. In prepared remarks, Chu wrote that, quote, USDS employees would report to an independent board of directors who would be approved by a fiduciary duty to the federal government. Oh, that's a little scary. To be clear, he framed the it's an idea, something that could happen, not exactly something that will happen. The CEO also reiterated claims that user data is safely stored on Oracle servers and that the Chinese government has never requested user data. OK, sure. How do you think TikTok's critics respond to this proposed U.S. government approved board? That makes me nervous. U.S. government-approved, but go ahead, go for it.

I think his argument has the nuance that people aren't going to investigate. They're not going to try and figure out, well, what would a board do or not do? I also think it's like one of these, okay, you want us to have a Facebook oversight board, but our impression is these boards don't really have a lot of teeth. Yeah. Facebook oversight board, but our impression is these boards don't really have a lot of teeth. And what do we do? I mean, it's all about incentives. It's not even about supervision here because the supervision is near impossible. How do you- Yeah, there's an easier solution, by the way, rather than this, I don't know what this is, another turducken, right? And you believe that easier solution is a spin-off. That's it. Why are we trying to do this? Like, oh my God, so many First Amendment things here. It's like, who gets on it?

What do they do? Is it like a blue ribbon panel? It's just... How do they track data? How do they... What? How about spinning it off? How about that?

That might work. That's exactly right. If the U.S. successfully forces a sale, it'll be problematic for U.S. tech companies abroad, except there aren't any in China, so I'm not sure

what they're going to do to us. Like what? Like Apple. Yeah, well, how are they going to reciprocate? What are not sure what they're gonna do to us. Like what? Like Apple. Apple would be like. Yeah, well, how are they gonna reciprocate? What are they gonna do? Stop making iPhones?

Kick Google out? Kick Matt out? Oh, did that. Did that. Did Twitter? Oh, did that. It's Apple and Tesla actually are the two companies. They are the two big, I just don't think that,

they're so important to their economy. It's just, it's a very difficult situation for the Chinese. And you know, they'll find other ways to, like meeting with Putin, for example, to reciprocate. There was a really good article in the information about who owns it and who's done different things. A lot of U.S. companies, some have left, some have sold off. Everybody sees a payday here in some fashion. And so, to me, that's what everyone should be focusing on instead of this argument is there's a payday here.

This is a product everybody loves. what everyone should be focusing on instead of this argument is there's a payday here. This is a product everybody loves. And every day they don't settle this is a bad day for TikTok because they aren't focusing on their product and what they're doing. Their executives are here testifying in front of Congress. And the ban, I don't think the US wants this either because a ban is very hard to do. You know, people will find their way around it. It'll be a big mess. And then in the end, this very good product will be decimated, which is, you know, Facebook's probably doing a little jig over in Mountain View nearby me right now. There's just got to be, there's 300 billion reasons to figure this out. And that is agreed to the spin.

It's just, I mean, there's some really, isn't Sequoia and General Atlantic Partners in here? There's a whole bunch of people. I forget, but there are quite a few American companies in here, investors in here. And has always been. It's always been the case. And of course, you know, the issue is, are the Chinese going to let this happen from a, you're not pushing us around kind of, that's really the focus, right? It has a decent geopolitical overlay here. And that is, we say we're going to ban it, and unless you spin it, and they say, we're not spinning it, you know, have at it.

That will further the chill, right? That will be seen, correctly or incorrectly, that'll be seen as an offensive move furthering the distance. I think Americans, in my opinion, correctly say, look, at its base level, we're doing to one of your firms what you've done to every media firm for the last 30 years in China. So you don't really have a leg to stand on from an equivalent standpoint or whatever trade policy. from, you know, an equivalent standpoint or whatever, a trade policy. But if they say, no, this isn't, you know, we're shutting it down. You try and keep us out of the U.S. It's going to be, it'll, again, take the temperature down in a bad way, you know, make the frosting worse, whatever it is, increase the chill. So, it's got geopolitical overlay here.

I hope, it seems like everybody wins in a spin because look at it this way, 300 billion, say that the Chinese government or Chinese economy registers 10 or 20% of that just in terms of taxation or incremental wealth creation for Chinese shareholders. I mean, you know, they can build an aircraft carrier with that money. There's real money. This is so much money that there's actual governmental reason to hold on to it. Yeah, they don't have a lot to attack. I mean, they have very limited options. Apple and Tesla, they have had bad publicity and consumer anger. But, you know, these are important companies, and they'll relocate to India and Vietnam, which they've already going in that

direction. It could really hurt the Chinese economy. They could do things like raid them and scrutinize them and this and that, but they have not let us in there. We have let them in here and we have a lot more ability to fuck with them in that regard. There are other places it could play out. I think this is one that the U.S. has correctly assessed they could win. People just don't believe them. The government, this is just such a good political issue. And right now with him standing next to Vladimir Putin, that's not going to help him. Right? Like he's standing and like yucking it up with that murder. You know, we're catastrophizing the banking thing, the contagion. And the most dangerous thing that happened, hands down, in the last month or three months is that meeting between Xi and Putin. I mean, it's truly frightening. That's kind of the real,

if you want to be worried about something, folks, that's, you know, that's got pretty poor and broad implications across the entire West. I wouldn't say it's unrelated to this. Like, it's the show of power. These are all these shows of power that she is doing. You know, people, even though everyone's like, well, she's running your thing, everyone in power is always a little bit not in power. You know what I mean? There's always a threat to them. And so, to me, when he did that, I was like, hi, I wonder what trouble you have at home going on that you have to be.

He's really shown his muscle a lot. And so, it always makes me, okay, why does he need to show his muscle so much? It's a really interesting thing. Also, one of the things, they add revenue in the US, by the way, let's go back to money, because I think that's the most important thing here. Ad revenue is expected to reach 6.83 billion this year, up from 780 million in 2020. Oh my God, like the money. Tenfold. Tenfold. Just crazy.

And, of course, these ad firms are like, well, you know, in this Project Texas that TikTok is doing to protect. Just nobody believes it. By the way, meanwhile, our homegrown businesses are doing stuff like this at the same time. But they have this China thing is just too much. They're going to ban it. They thought we wouldn't. We will. And that's where they are. So they got to next move China. I would just love to see all the meta lobbyists who are like, we love big government and think government intervention is warranted here. I mean, they're literally like, they've had to go from reverse to forward so fast around government intervention. Well, speaking of, Scott, let's go on a quick break.

When we come back, we'll talk about BARD AI and take a listener mail question about bonuses. Fox Creative. This is advertiser content from Zelle. When you picture an online scammer, what do you see? For the longest time, we have these images of somebody sitting crouched over their computer with a hoodie on, just kind of typing away in the middle of the night. And honestly, that's not what it is anymore. That's Ian Mitchell, a banker turned fraud fighter.

These days, online scams look more like crime syndicates than individual con artists. And they're making bank. Last year, scammers made off with more than $10 billion. It's mind-blowing to see the kind of infrastructure that's been built to facilitate scamming at scale. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of scam centers all around the world. These are very savvy business people. These are organized criminal rings. And so once we understand the magnitude of this problem, we can protect people better. One challenge that fraud fighters like Ian face is that scam victims sometimes feel too ashamed to discuss what happened to them. But Ian says

one of our best defenses is simple. We need to talk to each other. We need to have those awkward conversations around what do you do if you have text messages you don't recognize? What do you do if you start getting asked to send information that's more sensitive? Even my own father fell victim to a, thank goodness, a smaller dollar scam, but he fell victim. And we have these conversations all the time. So we are all at risk, and we all need to work together to protect each other. Learn more about how to protect yourself at vox.com slash zelle. And when using digital payment platforms, remember to only send money to people you know and trust. Thumbtack presents the ins and outs of caring for your home.

Out. Uncertainty. Self-doubt. Stressing about not knowing where to start. In. Plans and guides that make it easy to get home projects done. Out. Word art. Sorry, we have laugh lovers. In. Knowing what to do, when to do it, and who to hire. Start caring for your home with confidence. Download Thumbtack today. Scott, we're back with our second big story. We're going to talk about Google's new product called BARD. Google released its new AI chatbot BARD to the general public this week.

So far, it's only available to some users in the US and UK. Google says the bot is, quote, an experiment and frames it as a companion to Google Search, not a replacement, although that's precisely what it is. I'm sorry, Google, but you have to upgrade your search, and that's this. CEO Sundar Pichai told employees in a letter that, quote, things will go wrong with the bot. Meanwhile, AI ethicists are taking issue with the, quote, experimental label, and one says the company is trying to offload accountability if things do go wrong, and they certainly probably will. One of them that did go wrong is someone asked Bard who should prevail, the Justice Department or Google, in antitrust lawsuits,

and it sided with the Justice Department. And I think the Justice Department will probably have to call Bard as a witness when they're going forward. So, what's happening here? What do you That's funny. sands are the plates of power, I think it's important that we are out front. And part of that is to encourage companies to experiment and face the market. We just need to be thoughtful about what is actually going on and watch it very closely and work with the right parties to, you know, not only encourage them, but also to ensure we have the regulation in the teeth to make sure this thing doesn't get out ahead of us in a very bad way, as we did with the Internet. But I'm for launch things. Let's, i.e., American business in America, get really good at this. Because I worry.

The genie's out of the bottle here. Yeah. And I don't think you can stop technology. technology. And I think a certain amount of breaking some glass is worth it here for American companies and industry to become the number one, have more domain expertise. That's the argument they're making. I do buy that argument. Some people think this is an arms race that's going too fast and the move fast and break things mantra. Some people think it should be in-house longer. OpenAI, for example,

which is the leader here, shut down chat GPT this week after a bug let users see other people's chat titles. It came back online, but users couldn't see their own chat histories. BARD is going to roll out with some limits they put in place. It won't give medical advice. It capped a few responses per session. Microsoft had similar limits. Let's listen to, I did an interview this week. I did two AI-focused, one with Reid Hoffman earlier in the week, and then who was on the board of OpenAI. He's now off it because he's working on his own project, AI project, with one of the DeepMind founders. But I spoke with OpenAI's Sam Altman for my other podcast, The Joe Rogan Experience. I talked about risk and competition.

That's good. On with Kara Swisher, actually. It's not Call Me Daddy. No, it's not Call Me Daddy. That's yours. So I asked him about it. Let's listen to what Sam had to say. What do you think the most viable threat to open AI is? Honestly, I mean, I try to pay some attention to what's happening with all these other things.

It's going to be an unbelievably competitive space. I think this is the first new technological platform in a long period of time. The thing I worry about the most is not any of those because I think we can, you know, there's room for a lot of people. And also I think we'll just continue to offer the best product. The thing I worry about the most is that we're somehow missing a better approach and that this idea,

like everyone's chasing us right now on large language models, kind of trained in the same way. I don't worry about them. I worry about the person that has some very different idea about how to make a more useful system. That was an interesting answer. Of course, he's worried about the guy in the garage. That was what he was essentially saying, that they may not be doing it the right way if everyone's trying to copy what OpenAI is doing, which is what it seems like, correct? I will actually listen to that interview because there are a few people who are more important right now than Sam Allman. And it's not for the reason you think. People think, well,

he's going to shape the future of AI. I actually think the reason he is probably the most important person in terms of where he will be right now versus in a year is that he's going to be positioned as the next tech icon. He's going to run in the same altitude as a Bill Gates or an Elon Musk or even maybe a Steve Jobs. And these individuals, their views on work, on culture, on society, on government, on politics, carry an enormous amount of weight in the public. And I'm just very curious to understand him. I hope that he's, quite frankly, a kind person who's more patriotic than some of these other people who get a ton of influence.

Because this is what's going to happen. He's going to be positioned as our next Jesus because he understands technology and is doing these amazing things and creating a ton of shareholder value. And every young man across the globe is going to model his behavior. Yeah. Well, I have good news for you. I'm just very curious. I have good news. He's a good guy. Well, I know him as a good guy. Well, that's actually very encouraging.

I've known him since he did Looped, which was a company that failed. It was a social network that had location in its heart. And then he went to Y Combinator. Very thoughtful, And then he went to Y Combinator. Very thoughtful, very willing to say no to people, including Elon. They had a back and forth about OpenAI. Elon didn't like the Microsoft deal, but he has an answer to it. So he's got a backbone. I've never had anything but thoughtful discussions with him.

That's encouraging. He's quite quiet. He doesn't want a lot of attention paid to him necessarily, although a lot of attention is. You know, of course, he's got an eagle like everybody else, you know, here. But he's very thoughtful about the safety of this. I don't know if he's right. I think he has the possibility to get run over by more venal people. I think that's one of the things I worry about. I think he may not be able to be at the front as these people put so much stuff into it. Obviously, Elon's going to do something. Reid Hoffman is.

I'd rather have Reid Hoffman doing it than Elon. Some of his answers surprised me in a positive way, actually. He is of the feeling that the stakes are low now, and this is when we should do it. He also understands there's liability attached here. It's not protected by Section 230 that there will be liability. He believes that there should be liability, depending on what's made out of this technology, because you don't know the companies that are going to come out of it, right? He doesn't defocus on the negative. He doesn't love talking about all the negative things, I think, like a lot of people, but he doesn't defocus that he's aware of it.

He also likes to focus on the positive, like Bill Gates, and I think he talked about this, Sam talked about this too, said, hey, I could serve a doctor to the world's poorest people. This will be in the phone. It will tell you things and help you along with all kinds of very minor things that often turn major. He issued a letter this week, Gates, outlining his hopes for tech. He said AI may be able to address inequality. But Gates wrote, market forces won't naturally produce AI products and services to help the poorest. The opposite is more likely. He's correct. There's a lot of possibility here for tutors. I think Sam talked about tutors on the phone, that the phone becomes less a time stock than a time helper, right, if that makes sense.

So, you know, there could be a lot for good here. But just an example, one of the things you said about BARD, that it won't be giving medical advice. I would like to see it in a controlled places you'd rather be than a teaching hospital in the United States. Our healthcare, like everything else in America, has slowly but surely been more and more increasingly optimized for the top decile of income earners. And for those top 10%, there's nothing like it. I mean, the procedure you had done, there was nowhere in the world you would rather have it done. But as we have optimized for the top 10%, slowly but surely, the outcomes and the consumer satisfaction for the bottom 90% have been, okay, healthcare in the United States can be described as expensive but bad.

I'm paying a lot, indirectly or directly, and I don't have the same outcomes as other nations. And as always, it makes sense when you first hear, oh, it's not going to get medical advice. Well, you know who doesn't want to get, want to give them medical advice? The medical industrial complex, the pharmaceutical industry, the health, the health insurance market, because here's the thing, if we finally get good at distributing preventive healthcare out to the masses, and maybe they have less diabetes and become less valuable to the, to the pharmaceutical industrial complex.

Maybe we figure out ways that they can, in a low-cost way, handle things and identify them and not end up in the emergency room. So you can bet the healthcare industry is nodding and going, yes, you should absolutely make sure that our existing arcane, Absolutely make sure that our existing arcane, administratively, financially burdensome method maintains the disbursement of medical advice could be an enormous unlock for people who are too intimidated. You know, that was the idea behind phones in your hands. But this is different because it really does tell you and it does reason. And so one of the things that's important here is, here's the positive story. Okay, AI's in these phones, they can tutor, they can give medical advice, really good medical advice in a real way versus searching on Google. Searching on Google is, 10 years ago, I said, I don't understand why typing into a box is the way we think is the top of technology. It was so

Neanderthal to me. And so this is like, okay, here's what you're looking for. This is why it's so attractive. It's search on steroids, really. And it's search that makes sense. It's search that's easy to understand. Same thing will happen with medicine, learning, and things like that. I think the worries are, it's going to track you, but they're already tracking you. So that's already happening. That it has much more information and control over you because it's not just a box. It's your friend. It's like AI will tell you what to do and where to go and will track you and know what you're asked about and have a relationship with you in a much more significant way. But these people are not getting everybody, not just more people. Everyone's getting bad information from these phones.

And so how can we make it better? How can we bring it? I think those are very laudable things. And I think Gates is right to say, you know, what's going to turn out to be, it's going to be like sex bot AIs. It's going to be what do rich people need? Like, you know what I mean? Like that's what the companies that are being formed will look for how to make money. And we did, Sam and I did talk about that. How do you make money at this? Well, he and I talked, and this is something I think you'll find interesting, about how the real original sin of the internet is moving to advertising before subscriptions,

as you've talked about. And that this is an opportunity to make subscriptions work, right? Subscriptions or not advertising-based technologies. And there may be advertising here, there certainly could be, but that subscriptions are, I think they have 100 million users, not all pay subscriptions, obviously, but they're doing very well with the subscriptions. And maybe there's ways for all kinds of creative companies to come up with this, that you pay a little bit,

micropayments or whatever, as you use these things. And so I think we can all agree that there can be a better business plan here that doesn't lead to bad outcomes that the internet has. This is the key decision that is hopeful so far, and that is the majority of AI. So, for example, Adobe just released their design or image generator. And the difference there, the market's already evolving, is it's IP-friendly. It's only feeding images into the machine model that it either has copyright on or don't have a copyright. Whereas you're seeing the other guys, the image or design engines are being sued because Getty Images says you have clearly used our images without paying

us. And so it's kind of a pretty smart move that Adobe has these assets and has said, okay, we're going to be IP clean if you use our stuff. But the key decision here that's really hopeful, and it's very basic, and that is the person whose fingers are typing the query into chat GPT, that is your end consumer. You have a vested interest in adding value to that person's life and work and getting a monetary compensation from them as opposed to just getting in exchange for an amazing service your attention, and we then turn you into the product. That's right, yeah. attention, and we then turn you into the product. That is the primary distinction here that so far the AI business model is pursuing, and it's very hopeful and should avoid a lot of the real noxious emissions that have come out of the internet. It just depends on who's making it, right? This is like the internet. Now, who's on top of that, right? And who makes things? And so,

how do they do businesses? Liability is going to be a big issue here, which is good, right? There'll be liability if you make bad things. And Sam was talking about, I was like, well, who should have the liability? He goes, probably the last person who touched it that created the problem, right? That's who, you know, the one who's offering a service that has problems. That's where he would put it, obviously not on his stuff. But that was interesting. There's liability too. It could be a

subscription-based and not advertising-based. That's great. And then the last thing is that, you know, so we've got liability and we've got incentives not to take your stuff. And I think what the government has to do is, where's the privacy elements to watch very careful around copyright? This week, the Writers Guild of America proposed a rule that allows screenwriters to use AI as long as they don't have to share credit or residuals with the technology. That it's used as a tool and not a weapon is every possibility that when it could be a weapon has to be shut down pretty quickly, and people should pay for it. The problem, I think, Sam did say, is they don't know what their people are going to make with this stuff, right? That's the issue. And right now, Stanford, just a bunch of Stanford researchers or people there did a version of this that cost $600. And so, you know, it's like cloning technology, like who knows what some bad person's going to do over the last time it happened, but it was in China, actually. or the last time it happened bad,

it was in China actually. But there has to be an idea that you want to make good stuff here. And then those who cross that have costs for crossing that line. So we'll see. It could be magical thinking. Yeah, it'll be interesting to see what kind of regulatory body they come up with,

whether it'll be a division of an existing regulatory body or something different. There might be a separate one for this. Yeah, I think which would probably make sense. But I was at the Adobe conference yesterday in Vegas, and I just literally lost my train of thought. I'm in the bunker with you. I'm about to go hunt. You're eating. I'm about to go hunt a mutated deer to feed all of us. And you scream, take your fucking culture

wars with you and see if that brings back a deer, you bunker bitch. And I'm like, that's it. All right. This is the day. I will put another topic. One of the things that was the most interesting thing he said, I think of the entire interview. Hello, edibles. Who took edibles last night? All right. I'm sorry. Go ahead. the most interesting thing he said, I think, of the entire interview. Hello, Edibles. Who took Edibles last night? All right. I'm sorry. Go ahead. The most interesting thing he said, and I think you will have a comment on this, was this was the reason they, I said, why did, you know, Elon was complaining that they went from a nonprofit to a profit. He said, we couldn't get money. We couldn't get people to give us money to do it as a nonprofit. The only way to do this was to have this capped profit model that they have with their investors, which is interesting. But I said, well, who would have given you the money? He goes, well, in the old days, the government. This should have been a government thing. This should have been like the space program, like everything else that was the government, like the internet. It should have been a government program, but that's not happening now. And so we have these publicly important tools that private tech companies for profit are innovating. And so that to me was really an

interesting exchange. I think he does think the government probably should have been the one to do this, but it ain't happening in this world, except in China, except in other countries that want to use it for more nefarious means. Yeah. So, the question that was presented to me at this conference was, what should we be investing in to take advantage of AI? And I said, I don't have any feel for the pure plays. And it seems highly speculative. And the mania has, you know, we're already sort of in, if we're not in peak hype cycle, we're in strong hype cycle. And I said, I don't, you know, I don't have a feel for, you know, someone said, if you could invest in ChatGPT right now, would you?

And I'm like, at $29 billion, I don't know. But what I think a better investment strategy is just trying to figure out what companies across every sector seem to be really serious about this and show initial signs of experimenting with it and leveraging it. Because even if it doesn't have any tangible impact, if you can be the beauty company that's doing cool stuff with AI, it'll do wonders for your brand. Similar to how like early digital innovation, whether it was that tangible or effective or not, was like the ultimate branding strategy about 15 years ago. But there will be, there will be substance. I think education, health, anything, writing,

it could, like everything, just like the internet, it's everything. And so we'll see where it goes. It's like crypto. Crypto. No, it doesn't. It's going to solve everything. It's not going to solve everything. But this is actually very creative and much more democratic. Crypto is just, I don't see, the people I see involved here are quality people.

So hopefully they will stay that way. That's very encouraging. And it's not the ones I find more distasteful. Sam Altman is – listen to the interview. I'd love to know what you think. Yeah. Okay, Scott, let's pivot. And listen to the Reid Hoffman one, too, because he was deeply involved in OpenAI, too.

Okay, Scott, let's pivot to a listener question. You've got – I can't believe I'm going to be a mailman. You've got mail. This question comes from email. I'll read it. Hi, Kara and Scott. Have you noticed they always go Kara and Scott?

Just making a note of that. Yeah. Yeah. Well, what I love is whenever they introduce us, including on the show notes, right? Kara Swisher and Scott Gowey, which is not alphabetic. I mean, it's literally like, I am such the bottom here. Yeah. Anyways.

No, I'm just saying. I'm just noticing people write to us, just pointing it out. Anyway, hi, Cara and Scott. I work for a publicly traded internet company, and they recently announced they're changing their annual bonus program from cash to stock. I don't have a problem with this, but I'm wondering, what are the general reasons why a company would make this type of change? Oh, this is a good Scott Galloway question. But I'm also curious if that implies anything about a company's current financial situation and how the board might view our outlook going forward. Love the show.

Listen to every episode. Thanks, Dom. Scott, answer this question. I have no idea. Tell me. Tell me. I'd like to know. Well, it's a non-cash charge.

It's dilutive to shareholders because they have to issue new shares, but it doesn't immediately hit their treasury. But the primary reason I think they probably do it is they're hoping a lot of employees don't sell the stock and feel more of a vested interest in the success of the company. I mean, one of the basics of management is that you want people to act like owners. You want people proofing the document beyond their hours. You want them thinking about the business. You really want them emotionally invested in the success of the company. You want them to act like owners. And the bottom line is the only way to make someone act like an owner is to make them an owner. And the way you make them an owner is by giving them shares in the company. So it's more of a cultural attempt to align interests. Even if it's a de minimis amount, it works.

If it's not like, you know, a lot of them are very small. One of the things we've done at every company I've started is we've given equity to every full-time employee because even if it's, what seems like a little to us is actually a lot to most people, or not a lot to most people, but a lot to some people. And it's meaningful to say, okay, I have five, 10 grand worth of stock here. And if things work out, it's meaningful to me. And they feel a sense of, just at the end of the day, a sense of ownership. They don't feel riskier. You're not worried about them feeling like cash is cash. They can take it and buy a car or whatever. Well, they can sell the stock. It's up to them. And I like stock that doesn't have restrictions. Usually, awards like options have vesting periods,

but options essentially is a tax-efficient way to give away equity. But more companies are doing RSUs. That way, if the stock goes down a little bit, they still have something. But giving away equity is a kind of a best practice. When I was growing my companies, I just didn't have the money to pay people market. We were bootstrapping them. We were starting strategy firms. We needed really qualified, intelligent people. We had a lot of options in the marketplace, great certification. And I used to say, okay, this is my model. I pay you 10 to 20% below market, but I'm going to give you triple the equity you would get at anywhere else at this size of company. And when someone owns, I mean, that's your weapon as a small company. You say to people, okay, I used to bring in our top 10 or 12 people, and I realize this isn't aspirational, but I generally believe the top 10% of employees add 120% of the value and the rest are minus 20%, but you can't figure out who it is.

You identify those people. You bring them in. You sit them down and go, okay, you own 1.5% of this company. These are our revenues. This is our plan over the next five years. These are the multiples on exits for companies like this. This means you, by the age of 29, are in line to make X dollars. Which is better than cash, which is better than just giving you-

It grows. The thing about equity is, say you get $100 every year for four years, but you're given $400 in equity. You might pay tax on it then, but then if you hold onto it, it grows tax deferred. You don't get taxed on it every year. It's very difficult to get economically secure with current income. Current cash. Give me the bad thing. Does it imply that they don't have money to give you or that this is just a better way of them to manage their cash? I doubt it. I mean, I've been in situations, this is a publicly traded company, so they can look at the financials and make their own snapshot decision around the financial of the company. It's a best practice. I have done what you're talking. I have done, I've been in situations where I'm like, okay, these are consultants, we've had a great year. We did, you know, 10 million in top line, 2 million in EBITDA, but we're investing aggressively, opening our European office, and I bring senior management in and I'll say, you are going to get $150,000 bonus.

You can have that bonus, or I'll give you a quarter of a million dollars in stock to save me the cash. Do you want to go kind of all in on this? And you know what? The majority of people who join a firm like that say, yeah, I'm in. Or, you know, depending on their personal or their own personal financial situation, it is very difficult. You always want to figure out a forced savings, a means of forced saving, whether it's a mortgage or 401k or things that you've just taken out of your check right away. Or you want some sort of equity participation that grows in a tax-deferred way. Because as humans, this is what we always do. We always raise our spending to the level of our current income. You have to have a lot of discipline not to do that. Your little holiday bonus is gone on something stupid. So I like this, but you don't want to... The only piece of advice I would say is if the stock gets ever, say, more than 30%, 40% of your net worth, which is a good problem, diversify. Diversify, yeah.

Diversify. Yeah, don't hold on to it. People at Lehman Brothers, the smartest people in the world in 2008, and these are some of the smartest people in the world, there were hundreds of them, partners who had their entire net worth in Lehman stock, and they'd lost it overnight. And they'd been there 20, 30 years. Yep. Yep. That happened at lots of companies I've written about. And you really should diversify. That's the smartest thing. It's not an insult to your company to do that. It's just smart planning. Anyway,

that's a great answer. That was a very good question, too. Thanks, Dom. We really appreciate it. If you've got a question of your own you'd like answered, send it our way. Go to nymag.com slash pivot to submit a question for the show, or call 855-51-PIVOT. All right, Scott, one more quick break. We'll be back for your prediction. Okay, Scott, let's hear a prediction. A prediction. Yeah, I'm boring here. I'm going to just pimp my show.

I'm in Bill Maher tomorrow night. So my prediction is it's going to be an outstanding show. I'm with the... Yeah. You've done great. You know, without taking off your shirt, you've done excellent on those shows every time. Well, I just had an idea for tomorrow night. Honey, I'm going to find the mutated deer. No, let me just tell you something. You do really well on that show.

And people are always like, who is this Scott Galloway fellow you've been hooking up with? Like they really do. I discovered his ass. I discovered his ass. I discovered his ass. I don't say that, but you do really well. He's my bunker mate. He's my bunker mate.

For a short time. David Sedaris is the, I forget the main guest. What? Really? Oh my God, I love him. He's good, isn't he? Yeah, I never met him.

I just, I've been to so many of his concerts. I mean, he has concerts where he just reads and they're hysterical. I wrote, I love his book, Me Talk Pretty One Day. I remember it having an impact on me as a young person. And then I'm with- They are wonderful. I'm with Annie Lowry.

I don't know if you know Annie. Oh, she's wonderful. She's an amazing writer. And she's written all kinds of amazing stuff on topics. And she's just, she's terrific. I always get freaked out. They're going to pair me with some crazy conservative Rand Coulter. Oh, that's for me.

That's what they're going to be saving for me. I get nervous. So I immediately looked up her stuff and I'm like, it's not going to be a very exciting panel. I mean, I'm going to say like, I'll let you know when I disagree with something. Well, I'm sorry to tell you, but she's just like me, a liberal. Like, I think she is. I think she's pretty liberal. Well, you know, you've got me figured out.

I'm somewhere between Ted Cruz and Marjorie Taylor Greene. I'm just so conservative. Yeah. Yeah. She writes about money and inequity and the future of working and all kinds of things. Yeah, I know. She's very talented. She had a book in 2018 called Give People Money. It was about- Yeah, she's a big UBI person. UBI. Yeah, UBI was interesting. That was a great book. I think I had her on one of my podcasts. And she's just, she's really terrific and a beautiful writer. So that'll be fun. Oh, good.

She has much more throughput than I do. I'll tell you that. She'll be able to shut you down if you say anything bad. So we'll see. But who gets you radioactive free water out in the wild? I would literally, you would decide I would be so useless. You'd be like, okay, we've decided that we're going to eat you. Scott, I'm going to eat you.

That is what's happening. No, I mean, actually eat me. You'd figure out, okay, he's got to have some utility. Let's kill him and eat him. I literally just said, I'm going to yellow jacket you, which is one of the most popular shows right now. It's about a group of girls that are cannibals, essentially. And then what happens?

Oh my God. Yeah, exactly. A group of girls that are cannibals? Yeah, you got to watch that show. Is it on Cinemax? No, it's on like Paramount. You don't even get that joke. Oh, I get that. I get it. It's a dirty joke. I get it. But let me just say, you better start to watch that show and see because it's going to be what's happening to you at some point in the future. We end up with Bunker together. Anyway, I'm excited. Mr. Man. Mr. Man. That's what's going to happen to you. No. I'm dead. You're so dead.

Yeah, that's what's going to happen to you. You're going to be tasty. I'm going to put you a little Chianti and some fava beans. Yeah, Louie's going to season me. Yeah, Louie's going to cook you up. He'll make it delicious. Anyhow, Scott, good luck for the short life that you have left to live. Thank you. Thanks very much. And good luck on Bill Maher. You're going to be great. I'm sure you're going to be great. Thank you.

Okay, that's the show. We'll be back on Tuesday with more Pivot. Scott, read us out. Today's show was produced by Lara Naiman, Evan Engel, and Taylor Griffin. Ernie Intertide engineered this episode. Thanks also to Drew Burrows and Neil Silverio. Make sure you subscribe to the show wherever you listen to podcasts. Thanks for listening to Pivot from New York Magazine and Vox Media. We'll be back next week for another breakdown of all things tech and business. He does go foraging, and he's funny and tells dad jokes. Nah, let's eat them.