The Oprah Podcast - The Founders of Claude AI Tell Oprah About the Impact Artificial Intelligence Has on Your Life

Episode Date: May 19, 2026

The siblings and co-founders of Claude AI, the CEO, Dario Amodei, and the President, Daniela Amodei, sit down with Oprah for an in-depth discussion on Artificial Intelligence and its profound impact on all of us. Anthropic is one of the largest tech companies leading AI development including their enormously popular chatbot assistant Claude. Dario and Daniela discuss the ethical responsibility and moral questions that come with creating advanced A.I., their new model Mythos and share their thoughts around government regulation. They talk about the potential risks and benefits of A.I. in everyday lives, the impact on jobs and how it will affect children. The Amodei siblings also explain their headline-making refusal of the Pentagon’s request to remove guardrails from Claude and the behind-the-scenes discussions that helped shape their decision. 00:00:00 - Welcome Daniela and Dario Amodei, founders of Anthropic 00:01:47 - Dario on human extinction 00:04:40 - What is the AI race 00:08:00 - Athropic’s safety concerns 00:09:26 - Why they are a public benefit corporation 00:11:20 - How the siblings formed Anthropic 00:13:00 - Can AI be created responsibly 00:14:12 - Benefits and the harms 00:18:52 - People falling in love with AI 00:20:30 - Claude and underage users 00:22:18 - How Claude does not incentivize users 00:28:33 - Anthropic’s refusal to remove guardrails 00:35:10 - Hard decisions they have had to make 00;38:35 - What regulation should look like 00:40:45 - Should people view AI negatively? 00:43:00 - The AI problem to solve 00:48:20 - Men use AI more than women 00:49:30 - What is Mythos 00:53:20 - Does this keep them up at night? 00:54:15 - What keeps ego in check 00:58:20 - Will they get this right? 00:59:15 - Are there others doing this responsibly? 01:03:25 - What is the meaning of a well-lived life? Follow Oprah Winfrey on Social: https://www.instagram.com/oprahpodcast/ https://www.facebook.com/oprahwinfrey/ Listen to the full podcast: https://open.spotify.com/show/0tEVrfNp92a7lbjDe6GMLI https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-oprah-podcast/id1782960381 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

I was talking to parents recently who lost their son to suicide through a chatbot. And their parents don't even know they're speaking to them. We don't allow users under the age of 18 to use quad. How do you know they're not lying? Will we even be thinking anymore? Will there be a need to think? What do you think of people falling in love with it now? I think that's a bad idea.

Do you want to be addicted to these things or do you want them to help you live your life? It goes back, I think, Zario, to what I read that you'd said before, that we can only diffuse this at the speed of trust. Trust, at the speed of trust, and trust is currently in short supply. Something is happening to humanity with this technology, bigger than anything that, you know, maybe it has happened in hundreds of years. And so we need to find some way for everyone to be an active participant in what is happening. Hi, everybody, and welcome to the Oprah podcast.

I'm here with two people who are shaping our present world and our future one. and I hear you all don't love that description all the time, but it's the truth. I think most people would agree that that is pretty accurate. Dario and Daniela Amadeh had the global artificial intelligence company. They found it anthropic, which right now, at the time of this conversation, is reportedly valued at $900 billion. And over a million people a day are signing up for Claude.

These are the parents of Claude. We're all getting 50. familiar with that name Claude Anthropics Next Generation AI chatbot and assistant. Many of you already use that every single day. So welcome to the podcast, the parents of Claude and others. Thank you for happiness. Thanks for having us. So I have to give a disclaimer. I use AI for research all the time and I use it for a lot of other things, but not for interviewing questions because I thought I have to keep the heart of myself in the questions until today. So this morning I asked Claude, what is the most pressing question Oprah Winfrey should ask Anthropic CEO Dario Amade in a sit-down interview?

And Claude responded with this. It said, you've said there's a meaningful chance the technology your company is building could cause human extinction, and yet you're racing to build it faster. How do you justify that to the rest of us? who didn't get a vote. Dario, would you like to answer Claude? I thought that was a pretty damn good question, I must say. I agree. First of all, let no one ever say that Claude is soft on me

or Plot is biased towards me or towards anthropic. Like, you know, Claude throws hard balls. I thought that was pretty good. Claude doesn't pull its punches. So to actually answer the question, this technology is an apocal change for humanity. You know, at some point, humans started to, you know, started to use fire. At some point, humans, you know, built steam engines and factories, and that created the industrial revolution.

And so when I say things like this, I'm taking a very zoomed out perspective, right? If I said, well, I don't know, I think the industrial revolution could, like, lead to very powerful weapons and kill a bunch of people. That's definitely, that's definitely true, right? In some cases, it did. It did do that. It did do it. But we understand that the industrial revolution as a process as a technological event was worth doing.

We don't still want to be living in caves, but we need to manage it in the right way. And so the way we think about this company is, look, there's many companies building this technology. It's something that is happening to humanity one way or another. We're in it. We're in it. And there's this train. It's going very fast in some direction. You don't want it to crash.

You can't stop the train. But what you can do is you can steer the train. Steer the train so that it doesn't hit the rocks. And I think the way we think about Anthropic is we want to do things the right way. We want to decrease that risk, hopefully to zero, and do things the right way. But why doesn't everybody want to decrease the risk? Why is there such a, what is the race toward? You know, it's like the technology has all of these.

commercial applications on which we deploy, you know, people use the technology, people use the technology every day. I think it's both easy to get caught up in that and some of it is genuinely necessary to fund the company. So it's very entangled, you know, to get it right, you have to do a lot of things. And we find ourselves every day wrestling with these questions, right? You know, who, you know, who should we give the technology to? Who should we not? What should be our part? policies. If you have very strict policies on child safety, in some ways the product can be a worse experience for adults because you can't fully tell the difference. So there's all these trade-offs you make and some of them are obvious, some of them are not. But everyone has a hard

time. I have empathy for everyone involved in this industry who's at least trying to get it right. I think we've done a better job. I think we've been more thoughtful, but, but, you know, I think this is a hard situation for everyone. Okay, I gave a similar prompt to Claude for you, Daniela, and Claude responded. A good opening question for Daniela should do two things. Humanize her. Oprah's specialty. I thought, very good.

Claude. Lord knows me. He does. It does. Okay. And set up the harder territory to come. Something like you and your brother are building something you both believe could either be the best or the worst thing that ever happens to humanity.

What's a Thanksgiving dinner like at the Amade House? I feel we're like shadowboxing with our own creation here. I'll let you answer. Yes. You know, I think there's an important caveat here, actually, which is that Dario and I tried to maintain some time outside of work where we're just siblings. So at holidays, yes. at holidays and actually just once a week

when we're both home, which is, to be fair, not every week, Dario comes over, he plays with my kids, we hang out together, we play video games, we watch movies, we just spend time being siblings together. And I think that's really important for a number of reasons. I mean, we were siblings for a long time before we found it Anthropic.

We're going to be siblings forever, you know, even after Anthropic. And I think there's something valuable also about our ability to connect on a human level that I actually do think makes us better at our jobs. We don't talk about work when we get together usually. Yeah. But there's something about just remembering who we are and why we got into this that I think is really powerful.

That being said, at Thanksgiving dinner, you know, Dario and I, I think our family, our friends, there's so much curiosity about why we're doing what we're doing. And now you can read about, you know, what we've done in the news. Yes. But it's so different, I think, to be able to, you know, speak openly with each other and with people who are, you know, trying to wrap their head around this new technology that's very complicated, that's very unprecedented, and to just understand, like, how are you guys going to do this the right way, right? You say you want to do it the right way. Tell us how you're doing that. And I think there's something like special. It's a privilege to be able to hold that responsibility and try and display that when we talk to each other and when we talk to others. It's so interesting because we're at a time, I think, where so many people are using AI. We hear about it every day. And the perception of the world is that your company, Anthropic, that you are concerned about safety, you are concerned about risks,

you are concerned about regulation, and the human factor in how this technology is going to impact our lives. From everything I've read and heard, so would that be an accurate assessment? Yeah. So, you know, the way I think we try to think about this is that artificial intelligence is different than other technologies that have been developed recently. There's incredible promise and potential for what we think AI will be able to do in the future, even what it's starting to do today. Everything from helping to cure disease and help people really around the world, get access to education and learning. But it's also, it is a very new technology and it comes with real risks. Risks around child welfare and child safety, risks around scary things like, you know,

biological and chemical weapons. And really at Anthropic, we're incorporated as a public benefit corporation because our goal is to try and develop this technology as safely as possible so that we can achieve so many of the good things that we think could come out of it without many of the bad things happening. So, explain what that means. You're incorporated as a public benefit corporation. I heard that you all have pledged that 80% of your wealth is going to go to... Philanthropic causes.

Yes, that's right. So public benefit corporation is a form of corporation, but it has that word benefit in there because we believe that for something that's as transformative as artificial intelligence, again, it's just different. It's different than what other technologies that have recently been developed look like. And I think from our perspective, when we incorporated as a PBC, it was because we wanted it to be at the foundation, right, in the founding documents of what we were building that we have to, legally by our structure, balance commercial interests and the public benefit. And for us, the public benefit is the social good, social mission part of Anthropic. And the 80% pledge that Dario and I and our other five co-founders have all taken is really in spirit and in keeping with that mission.

It's this idea that, you know, we're really doing this because we want AI to go well for everybody. And we hope that if the company is successful, we'll be able to also do a lot of good in the world philanthropically. I think it's so interesting that you say 80%. How do we know that you're actually going to give 80% and not 67? Well, we've actually written about it publicly. And we've signed some sort of, I think, probably not literally legally binding, but we've all of the co-founders said, we pledge and commit to each other to the company legally

that we're going to give 80% of our wealth that we get from Anthropy. Yeah, I mean, we're already thinking about how to start foundation. I mean, we haven't actually, you know, equity isn't liquid, so we can't actually move it yet. But, you know, this is our intent. It's not going to move all at once, but this is something we very seriously intend to do. Okay.

So you're now a public benefit corporation, and you started out, you're the older brother, you all started out as kids, you wanted to do something good for the world. Has this surpassed any idea or dream that you had for doing good for the world? When you imagine these things as kids, you know, you're never sure,

whether it's, you know, it's real or it's going to come to pass, right? Many people must imagine these things. But no, we talk to each other as kids all the time, and we said it'd be great to work together. It would be great to try and make something good happen in the world. What did you think that was going to be? You know, I honestly, I never thought it would be a company.

I imagined myself as a scientist. And in a way, it's a very scientifically centered company. And, you know, it's based on my career as a researcher and, you know, Giannello's career as a leader of researchers and engineers. But I never imagined that we would found a company together. But I think it was just seeing how tech companies operate. I had just been at enough places where I think both of us thought, huh, maybe we can do this better.

Maybe, maybe, you know, we have, maybe we have our own ideas about how to do this better and, you know, we should start a company with, you know, the people we're friends with, the people we really like, the people we trust to do this in the right way. And so it's sort of evolve, step by step. And that's how we have anthropic.

That's how we have anthropic, more or less. Yeah. Has it surpassed everything you imagined, though, at this point? I think probably I speak for both me and Dario when I say, like, we're just so, surprised at how things have gone, right? I mean, I really agree with him that I think when we were younger, we both always knew we wanted to do something to try and make the world better. And Dario was always brilliant and gifted as a mathematician, as a physicist, as a scientist,

and I was always so inspired by how he used that for good, right? He went and studied. He did biophysics at Stanford and was really trying to use this incredible brain of his to help cure disease, to help people. And I think on my end, you know, I started my career working in global development because I really felt it was important that people around the world have equal access to opportunity to health care, to medicine, to education. And I think similarly to Dario, it wasn't necessarily in my mind when we were younger, oh, we'll, we'll start a company together. But I think in a lot of ways, it's just sort of the way, like the way the path ended up going. And we talked about it at every stage, right?

You know, every career move we would discuss, you know, is this a good thing to do? Is this effective? Is this something that can actually help the world? And our paths were like quite different. But the two kind of converged. And we had now have this complementary set of skills that we could then, you know, that we could then use to start this company. We need to take a quick break. Up next, Dario and Daniela say AI will transform everything, even the potential to cure cancer.

Stay with us. Welcome back to the Oprah podcast. I'm talking with brother and sister Dario and Daniela Amadeh, the co-founders of Anthropic, one of the leading AI companies in the world. Let's get back to our conversation. One of the things that I read that you had said is that part of the reason a negative story is so dominant in our culture right now about the economic takeover of AI is because the industry, the AI industry itself, hasn't yet fully delivered all of the benefits. And I wanted you to comment on that. Do you think it's still in

the process of delivering those benefits? Yeah. So, you know, I think one of the unfortunate things is this technology has many potential benefits. But there is a dynamic where sometimes the harms, the things that go wrong. For example, you know, people who are. who have been convinced to commit suicide via AI, those things happen quickly, whereas the benefits like curing cancer, those things take years, right? You have to develop a breakthrough in biology,

then you have to develop a drug candidate, then you have to put it through clinical trials, right? It's, you know, I used to be a research biologist, and it takes many years for these things to happen. And we are working on how to speed that up, right? We recently bought a small biotech company that specializes in doing drug design and drug selection with AI. So the hope is a few years from now, you know, some new drugs for cancer or for Alzheimer's or for heart disease, you know, will come out of that effort. But we're just at

the beginning of it. But because of what you said, because of this dynamic that you said, which is you know, people right now, you know, the harms may be more visible than the benefits. So when we start seeing the benefits of AI through all of the health advances, when we start actually seeing that, the narrative then begins to change. And more importantly, it's just gonna be a wonderful world.

Like at the end of the day, who cares about the narrative? We wanna actually help people, right? That's right. Okay, so that's what I want you to do for us today. Paint the best picture and also, tell us what we can expect if there is the worst picture. So you have children, and I was thinking about this morning, your children will, first of all, I don't even know you do what you do, and your children are going to grow up in a world where there was always AI, and their mom was a part of that. So when

you think of the best possible world and what that world offers your children, what do you see? So my kids are almost five and almost one. And so I think you're completely right. They're never going to know a world where artificial intelligence is not part of it, right? Just like kids born in the early 2000s, never knew the world before the Internet. That's right. But, you know, I think there is a world, and it sounds, you know, I think to Darya's point, it sounds almost like a little bit fanciful or unlikely when we talk about it this way.

But I think it is possible with artificial intelligence that our kids will grow up in a world where there's a class of diseases that feel very common to everybody sitting here that they'll just never have experienced or known about. And those might be very common diseases. There might be types of cancer that are just simply gone. We've just simply cured them. It could be all forms of cancer that are eventually gone and cured. There could be new forms of drug discovery that we haven't even,

we don't even know what they are yet, but that it's a faster iteration loop for diagnosing an illness that's unusual, rare, emerging and just knocking it out and saying human beings get to live a much healthier, longer, more fulfilling life because we've been able to conquer so many of the maladies that have plagued humanity for millennia. Okay, you see that for medicine. What else you see? I also see a world, honestly, that looks very different in terms of how we communicate, how we talk, how we relate to one another. Will we even be thinking anymore? Will there be a need to think? So I think this one is subtle and is one of the things we need to get exactly right, right?

Because having these kind of smart entities around, it's very powerful, but it can go in different directions, right? You can surrender your thought to these entities. Claude can give me these good questions. Do I need to even think about them anymore? But it can also empower you. Like the way I think we think about the positive version of this is there's an angel on your shoulder that's telling you how to, to live your life in the best way that you can live it, right? You know, so there's two contrasting visions, right?

The bad vision is you get drawn in and you spend all your time talking to the thing. You kind of turn inward. What do you think of people falling in love with it now? I think that's a bad idea. I agree. I just interviewed Esther Perel, one of the great communicators in helping people in relationships. And she said she did her first consultation with a man who was in love with his AI. And they are, again, if designed in the wrong way, they're totally.

compelling enough for that to happen or if they're not, they will be soon. So that is absolutely a real danger. But you know, I think that's a danger. I mean, but not only is a danger, it's happening. But but but I think again, the two contrasting like like, you know, people can fall in love with AI or they can talk to AI about, you know, about how to have a better relationship with their partner, right? Like that's that those are, you know, those are two very, very different visions. Yeah. Right. Where, you know, I, I have an AI coach. and my partner has an AI coach, and it helps us have a better relationship.

Yeah. That's the vision we want. I also think there's a way that in a world where artificial intelligence is so good at many of these concrete tasks, right? It's good at writing code. It's good at copy editing. I actually think the things that make us human are going to be the most important to us, right?

So we... Will they remain? I mean, and you were just talking... I was talking to parents recently who lost their son to suicide through a chatbot. And I don't know if you fell in love with the chatbot, but certainly was deeply influenced by that chatbot. So you have a world where children are growing up with this ability to have this chatbot, these machines, this technology, speaking to them in ways that their parents should be speaking to them. And their parents don't even know they're speaking to them.

So I think this risk is extremely real and one that we take very seriously at Anthropic. I mean, I think the first thing I'll say is we don't allow users under the age of 18 to use. Claude. And this is not necessarily because... How do you know they're not lying? Because I would just lie. So actually, Claude is pretty good at detecting based on information whether or not someone is actually under 18. So if I tell Claude that I'm 18, but I'm really 14, it's going to have to interact a little, but it figures it out. After a bit of time, the interaction patterns are pretty good, not perfect, but pretty good at telling, hey, you know, the kind of questions you're

asking the, you know, just the way you talk, the pattern of when you use it, you know, kind of pattern matches to, you know, you might be a kid. I almost don't want to give away too many of the tools that that Claude has picked up, but sometimes kids can be a little bit like silly in how they do it. So they'll say, oh, you know, I'm the first question they'll ask is like, I'm looking for an arthritis medication, right? Because they think, what do old people ask Claude, right? And then they'll kind of go on to ask other questions that are much more associated with.

Right, with a younger demographic group. And so if that happens, so Claude cancels you? Claude will suspend the account. And there's a, you know, there's a process that you can go through where you can say, actually, I'm an adult and this was a joke or a friend, but then you actually have to show verification that you're over the age of 18. And, you know, there's real tradeoffs. Like, sometimes adults will be mistaken for kids.

And so people get banned and they, you know, complain about it on the internet. So all this stuff has tradeoffs. But, you know, we've thought about it. and this is the trade-off that we want. But I also think, you know, more broadly on this question of, like, how do you prevent people from becoming overly attached to the models? Yes.

This is something that Anthropics research team spends a lot of time working on. So there's a lot of... You don't want to... I thought you all wanted us over attached to the models. I thought you wanted us to just be on the models and never leave. So we should talk about incentives here. Yes.

Because we don't do ads. We don't do ads. So when you do ads, your incentives, is to keep people on exactly as you say as many hours as possible because like every every second their eyeballs on the screen is a second that they see the ad so we don't do ads we do subscriptions we sell to companies are our our consumer you know consumer version of the model is is you know is is free up to a point and you pay a subscription if you know if you want to get if

you want to get a lot more because that that the incentive that that gives is for the models to be useful. People say, well, I'm, you know, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm paying for this. I want, I want this to provide value to me. I want this to be useful. Not, you know, I want the, the, the, the user to spend the most number of hours looking at it. I think, I think that's a warped incentive, right? Because in the, in the, in the, in the contrast that we drew between, you know, do you, do you, do you want to be addicted to these things or do you want them to help you live your life? I think the model that we've chosen does, you know, helps you live your life instead of being, instead of being addicted. And we make different technical choices based on those incentives, right?

So at Anthropic, we say, you know, when you've completed a conversation with Claude and you've gotten the answer you want, the goal of the model is not to keep you engaged, right? Whereas if you imagine you're a company that does serve ads, every extra minute that you're on the platform, you're more likely to buy something, and that's how the company makes money. You would make different technical choices about how you want the model to end or continue a conversation. Okay, okay.

What do you want to say about the growing concern that we are, through AI, creating a frictionless life, that we're losing our opportunity to grow? I think it depends how you use the AI and how you are deploying it. and again, what choices and what incentives are set up by the companies that are building the technology. So to make it a little bit more concrete, if you imagine, you know, the way we use Claude in partnership with universities is we don't let teachers or students put a question into Claude and then just get the answer.

Okay. So if you say to Claude, you know, I have to write this essay in, you know, five hours. I didn't do my homework. you know, when Claude is kind of constructed in this learning mode in a university setting, Claude says like, well, I'm not going to help you with that, but what questions did you have about the essay? Or what didn't you learn? Did you read the book? Like, should we talk through the themes together? And I think if it's done correctly, it's hard. I don't think it's perfect. But I think these models can actually make you a lot smarter. They can make you curious, right?

A great example in my own personal life. I'm not a software developer, but I built a website with Claude. I never thought I would be able to do that in my entire life, right? I have a good friend who was a corporate lawyer. She has two small kids like me. She left her job and she's writing a book. And she says, you know, I never felt empowered enough to change my career and do what I wanted to do until I started talking to Claude about how I could be a writer and what skills I would need to learn and do and what courses I would need to take. And she's like, now Claude is kind of like my writing buddy, right? I ask it questions. I share like a little snippet of text. And I share like a little snippet of text, but Claude can't write the novel for her, right?

She's writing the novel herself, and she's also, by the way... I bet Claude could write the novel. Claude could write the novel, but I think... It's not quite there yet, no. I think it could write a strange version. Not a good one. Not a good one. Not a good one.

Not a good one. But also, I think for her, it was a meaning question. She didn't have... She didn't think she had the skills to do what she wanted to do. So it's exactly, as Dario was saying, it empowered her to believe that she could do what she couldn't do. Exactly. And so, yes.

So she used it to lift herself. Maybe to take the altitude higher, I mean, I actually, I don't think this is a question about AIs ultimately. I think this is a question about humans that's being made visible through kind of the lens of AI. Through AI. Right, right. Which is like what actually constitutes a meaningful life, right?

You said, you know, is it creating a, you know, a frictionless life and does a frictionless life, you know, remove meaning? And my answer is there are some ways in which a frictionless life is quite good, right? All of us have been through a bunch of struggles that I think, you know, we really would prefer not to go through. Life would be better, right? But the reason I ask the question is because without a frictionless life, you don't get to grow. You don't get to learn from those mistakes. You don't get to, yes.

Exactly. And so I guess what I'm saying is that our lives are a mixture of, you know, challenges and hardships, some of which I'm okay saying, it would be great. if we just had the technology to make those go away and others that are like, wow, this is really foundational. Yeah. And this should never change, right? So like, you know, our father died, you know, what is it? 20 years ago now.

Like, you know, a few years after he died, they, you know, they developed a cure to the disease that he had or a more reliable cure to the disease that he had. Like, I wish they just developed that. Like, that's not a friction that I wanted to go through or, I mean, of course, we learned things from it. Of course, we gained things from it, but like, it would be a better world if that just didn't happen, right? But then on the other hand, you know, I think of many of the just, you know, ordinary aspects of growing up. You know, if I just think of anthropic, like, you know, the company has made various mistakes. We've made various mistakes as leaders. We've had to learn

and grow from those. So I think the notion of, you know, challenges that you learn from, challenges that you overcome, learning to gain mastery, you know, learning to relate to other people. You know, any future that doesn't preserve those things is not a good future. Time for a short break now coming up behind the scenes during Anthropics decision to turn down the Pentagon's request to remove safety guardrails from their AI platform. That's next. This episode of the Oprah podcast is brought to you in part by Booking.com. If you're looking to grow your vacation rental business, this is the place to be.

Booking.com is one of the most downloaded travel apps in the world, and for good reason. Since 2010, they've helped over 1.8 billion vacation rental guests find places to stay. But here's the thing. Most vacation rental hosts don't even realize they can list their properties on booking.com. And if you're not on the platform, your rental is basically invisible to millions of booking.com travelers worldwide. After all, they can't book what they can't see, right? When you list on booking.com, your property gets seen by a massive global audience. And it couldn't be any easier.

You can register your property in as little as 15 minutes. Nearly half of hosts get their first booking within a week. So if your vacation rental isn't listed on booking.com, it could be invisible to millions of travelers searching the platform. Don't miss out on consistent bookings and global reach. Head over to booking.com and start your listing today. Get seen, get booked on booking.com. Welcome back.

I'm talking with Dario and Danielle. Ella Amaday, CEO and president of the AI company Anthropic. Let's get back to it. Okay. Speaking of friction, let's talk about your refusal to allow the military to remove safety guardrails from Claude. I don't want to get into the extensive details and back and forth here because other journalists are covering this on a daily basis. But what was the crux of that decision? Yeah. So I would say on DOD or DOW, you know, to be honest, we actually had, worked with them, right? So, you know, we had provided our models and, you know, I'm actually believer, Daniela is a believer that we do need to defend our country, but, you know, we felt

it's not worth defending the country if we do things that go against the values of this country. And there were two use cases that we were uncomfortable with that we felt went against the values of this country. And that was fully autonomous weapons. So you could imagine like a drone army that, you know, one person has their finger on the button and you don't have huge. human soldiers, you have a, you know, you have a drone army and you have AI powering this. And then, and then domestic mass surveillance, which is, you know, spying, you know, using the power of the government to spy on Americans. And, and we thought those were pretty reasonable things not to allow. And, you know, unfortunately, the Pentagon didn't feel that way. And, and so we just,

we just couldn't agree to that. All the other companies have a agreed to that now, but I, you know, we all met as co-founders. We said, you know, holy this could be really bad for the company, but you know, we can't do this, right? Everybody agreed. Everyone ever, yeah, we just, we had, you know, we had a meeting around a table like this. And you know, we just said.

Was that a dark night of the soul kind of moment? What, what, what, what was everybody willing to stick to those principles or did some people have to be convinced or did you know going in that this is, this is the, The co-founders believed this unanimously. Like there was a sense of like, of like, you know, well, you know, all right, I wish they hadn't done this, but if they're going to do it, bring it on. Weren't you scared of what would happen to you? Yes.

Yes. Yes. You scared of what would happen to you? Yes. I mean, I think the thing that it was a hard time. I mean, I don't think we want to sugarcoat that. It was a stressful time at the company. But I think a thing that Dario...

Did you think it could be the end of the company? I think it crossed our minds. Yeah. I think Dario and I and the co-founders, though, the thing that we all had in common was we just felt like this was the right thing to do. You were willing for it to be the end of the company to stand up to your principles. I think the reason we founded Anthropic was our commitment to our values and the ethics that we chose to incorporate with. And it felt like in the process of sacrificing those values, we wouldn't have to be.

have been the company that we had started, if that makes sense. It, you know, the way it happened... What did you think would be that... So I'm sure if you're sitting around the table, you're looking at the best case scenario and the worst case scenario. And in that moment, it doesn't look like there is a best case scenario. So what was the worst case scenario? At various times, they had made claims that they could stop other companies from doing business with us, right?

Not just stop us from working with the government or being part of other companies' contracts with the government, but that they could stop other companies from doing business with us. entirely. Period. So not only you're not doing business with the government, you're not doing business with anybody else that does business with you. Yeah, or you can't do business with anyone that does business with the government in any way, which ends up being everybody. Everybody, right. I think the attitude we had was, look, this is really screwed up. Everyone knows this is wrong. Lots of people are going to be on our side. We think this is going to work out okay, but man, are we not sure? You know, there were moments there where it was like, oh man, you know,

Are we wrong? Is this going to be the end of the company? What were you thinking, Danielle? You know, I just keep coming back to the co-founders felt that it was just the right thing to do. I think Anthropics view has always been that we are about policy and not politics. Yeah. And Anthropic has leaned in, I think, very early before we even had a product to the fact that, you know, we think that the role of government in the development and thoughtful regulation of artificial intelligence

is going to be incredibly important. I think AI companies will have to work with the federal government, with state governments, internationally, with NGOs. And I think our view was always, look, this is really about the substance. This is not a political disagreement. This is a policy disagreement. And I think in some ways that it's not to say it was easy, but I think it made our decision easier

because we felt strongly, look, this is the right thing to do. These are the right red lines. To Dario's point, we were actually the first AI company to work closely with national security because we felt that that was in line and in keeping with our values, except in these two areas that we felt could have the potential to compromise democratic values.

It's so interesting because most people don't get a decision at that scale that they have to make, that they have to rely on their principles and their values, and you're literally risking a multi, multi-billion dollar company, but it all goes back to how you were raised and how those principles were formed in you before you had a big decision like that.

You know, what we talked about before we ever started the company, what's it, you know, would our past selves be proud of ourselves if we gave in here, if we compromised? Like, you know, that made the decision very clear, right? And I will say, I mean, it wasn't nearly as, you know, publicly covered,

but I think Anthropic has had, you know, smaller decisions along the way that felt like they, they laddered up to this. I mean, now it looks so obvious in retrospect. I was going to ask them, because to get to a big decision like this and a moment like that where you have everyone around the table and it means that life, the life forces, the way the universe works, is that you would have had other decisions, other decisions, other decisions that laddered to that moment. Yes. Yeah.

I think there are probably three I can think of off the top of my head. Yes, I was going to ask you that. Dario might have others as well. I think, you know, one which, you know, now feels sort of very obvious, but was a bigger discussion at the time, was the no ads decision. So as you can imagine, I think for the co-founders, for me and Dario, it was not controversial at all. We said, look, we think the incentives are wrong.

AI is different. People have very private conversations with these AI models. People upload their health information. They ask questions about their children. They ask. Certainly finances. finances, they talk about, you know, medical information,

challenges they might be having with an important person in their life. I think we want to treat our customers' data with the utmost privacy and respect. And so for the co-founders, it was never a question. We said, look, we don't want to do ads, but there were quiet forces that, you know, within the company or investors

who were like, hey, this is a great source of revenue. This is how Google and Facebook, and basically every company that has a big user base, You know, that's just how it's done. That's how you make money. And we just said, like, sorry, that's just not how we're going to do things. We'll find another way. That was one of the big ones.

Okay. Yes, that was one of the big ones. Do you have one? I can think of a couple. One is, you know, there was this time, I think, in 2025. You know, probably the whole year of 2025. The sentiment in tech was, let's go ahead, right? Let's go ahead with the technology, like, you know, worrying about risks.

You know, they're all kind of politicized language. about why it's bad to slow down and be careful. And so there was a moment in the middle of 2025 where, you know, there was a bill being considered in Congress that would have banned all regulation of AI by states and wouldn't have put in any federal regulation of AI either. So basically it would have banned all regulation of the technology. Yeah, I remember hearing about this.

And we, you know, we were trying to decide what to do. We definitely didn't support it, but the question was, do we just, there and say nothing or do we speak out against it and all kinds of people said to us no it'll be terrible you'll break all your political relationships all the other companies will hate you if you speak out against it um and actually some of that did happen when we spoke out against it um but you know we decided that this was an area that we had to speak up that was central to the values of the company so i wrote an op-ed in the new york times saying this is a bad idea we should you know that's about

as loud as you can be. Yeah. And that bill got voted down in the Senate 99 to 1. Yeah. So, you know, we were clearly on the right side. On the right side. Clearly on the right side here. Not that it made us that many friends,

but we were clearly on the right side. That also reminds me of another policy example is Anthropics decision to publicly support SB 1047, which was a bill in California that was drafted, and we said at the time, We thought it was drafted imperfectly, but it was really the first attempt to create a regulatory framework around many of the different types of risks that Anthropic had been enumerating since really we had started the company.

And I think in a similar vein, the whole technology industry was against SB 1047. We didn't think it was necessarily, you know, the perfect bill. But we actually stood up and said, look, we know there's things about it if we were writing it that we would have changed or done differently. But on balance, we think it's better that these regulations. exist and that there's accountability for technology companies to make sure that AI doesn't hurt people. And that also, again, we got, Dario and I both personally got a lot of really angry emails from people we used to work with, from investors, from people at other companies.

Like the tech industry had to kind of, you know, be aligned in being deregulatory or being anti-regulatory. What does regulation look like? What should regulation look like? And I think a lot of people out here who aren't doing what you're doing, we don't understand understand why we wouldn't want regulation. And I've had several public conversations about this. People also feel powerless. They also feel powerless that everyone is talking about regulations and another side is saying, well, no, we have to get to whatever we're getting to as fast as we can.

And we feel like we don't actually have a voice in it. You feel like your passengers on the train, right? And we are. Yes. We actually are. Because that train has already left the station. That is, you know, I think that actually is really the core of it. And it's something, that I think no company, even ours, has quite succeeded at yet, which is like, how do we make everyone a part of this process, right? Something is happening to humanity with this technology, bigger than anything that, you know, maybe it has happened in hundreds of years. And so we need to find some way for everyone to be an active participant in what is happening. And, you know, of course, by using the technology, you are that to some extent, but some element is missing that we have,

we've tried to find it like, you know, Claude has something called the Constitution. And if we've experimented with having, like, you know, citizens give feedback on like the Constitution for Claude, right? So everyone can kind of be a part of designing it. But that's just one small thing. Like, I don't quite know what the answer is, but there's a missing piece here, I think, is what I'm trying to say. It goes back, I think, Zario, to what I read that you'd said before, that we can only diffuse this at the speed of trust. trust at the speed of trust and trust is currently in short supply in in very in very short supply you know i think the the tech this this technology i think is i'm happy to it is viewed negatively

by most people i i that's that's the sense that i get that's what we get when looking at polls we i think are are again being honest here viewed somewhat more positively than the other companies but I don't know that... Should it be viewed negatively by most people at this point? I think it's a mix. I think the positive benefits really are there. They're coming for all the companies. And I think we have not, you know, going back to the thing we said a minute ago,

related to people in the right way or, you know, or walked people through how the technology could have benefits or how they can participate in those benefits. Like, I don't think that has happened. One of Anthropics' cultural values is to hold light and shade. And I think this is a really good encapsulation of the conversation. Yes, of the conversation we're having, right? It's, I think we truly believe there's a world where it will cure a disease

and help people become better versions of themselves and enable humans to spend more time with our families, with our communities, with each other. And there are versions of the world that are quite dystopian and dark that this could create. Because I've heard you say that 50% of entry-level jobs are going to be wiped out. And you can see then why people view this negatively. I mean, that's that's the negative path, right? Like, you know, and, you know, I think always when we talk, we talk about, well, if we don't get it right, this could happen. And if we get it right, you know, then we can have a better path.

And, you know, as you said, it's always somehow the, you know, we haven't shown the benefits yet. So the negative stories really, really sticking. Doesn't every positive force that comes into our lives also has its negative, that there's a yen and yang on everything? The whole light and shade. Yeah, the light and shade. I mean, when the automobiles were invented, all the people saying, I'm going to keep my horse, I'm not going to, you know.

Yeah. Again, what I would say is if we just barrel forth on the technology as fast as possible, then these things I said about entry-level jobs, it's totally going to happen. But if we not just deploy the technology, but, you know, we think, about how to help people adapt. We think about the role that the government should play and helping people like there's a path from here to a better world, like a better world

where people's jobs are totally different. They do a different set of jobs and they did before, but I don't want to sugarcoat it. Like it's not going to be easy, you know, when other people speak about it, like some of my peers, some of my peers, people get upset. There's a difference between changing the narrative and acknowledge it

the problem is very difficult and that we actually have to solve it. My worry is that changing the narrative is like the bad thing is not going to happen. We'll have a great future. We'll have a new jobs. That can happen, but it's not going to happen on its own. That's right. It's up to us. We, we, the companies, people, the government.

But you're saying both things are true. You're going to lose the jobs and you're going to have all the other advances. And the second thing will only happen if we do it right. Yeah. After this last break, Dario and Daniela Amadee share their advice on how to empower ourselves in this age of AI. That's why I think it's a great idea to share this episode with a friend or loved one because AI impacts and will continue to impact every one of us. We'll be right back. We're back on the Oprah podcast talking with the co-founders of Anthropic, Dario and Daniela Amade, about the rapid evolution of AI and what it means for all of us.

What should we the public be doing? Or should we just content ourselves with the fact that we're on the train? Being afraid of the technology and not using it and being literate will not make many of the challenges that we are concerned about and that Dario outlined go away. And I think knowledge is power. I truly think you don't have to be an expert in technology to have some concept of how to use these artificial intelligence tools. And I think what that gives people is an opinion and some autonomy to be able to say, I like that this technology can do this thing. And I don't like that it can do this other thing, right?

Because people have a voice. They have a voice, by the way, to the companies. They have a voice to their representative government to say, we don't like, again, Anthropic, we don't allow kids under 18 on the platform. Other companies have a different policy. If you've read Jonathan Hates book, The Anxious, generation, I think there's a lot of research that suggests you might want to be really careful about giving developing brains. Read the book. We've talked to him three times. Yes, of course.

But, you know, I read that book and I think that was part of, you know, again, it felt like in some ways an easy decision for us to say, we just don't know enough about what AI is going to do to kids. It's not to say that there couldn't be great benefits for kids using AI for learning, but that needs to be done with an adult in the room. It needs to be done with a human in the loop. And You know, I think that the reason we've always taken this perspective is we just, we, people deserve autonomy to Dario's point. People shouldn't feel like artificial intelligence is happening to them. People should feel like, hey, we get a say in what types of bills go up in Congress in your state that help protect people from the negative externalities that AI could cause. I also think at the same time, holding the light side, I think there's a world where jobs will look different, but there will actually,

be more opportunity for sort of human to human interaction. I think the last generation of technology really disintermediated us from each other, right? Social media is kind of structured around the idea that you're sort of living this virtual life. You're holding your phone and you're looking at what your friends are doing. But guess what you're not actually doing. You're not spending time with your friends. You're spending time staring at your phone. Even you're at the concert, you're not even in the concert. You're just filming what's a little. It's a little. I don't. I don't. I don't counterintuitive because social media claims to connect people, but it does it in sort of a fake way. Yeah.

AI, you're talking to the AI, you're not talking to a person, but it doesn't substitute for your interaction with people. It can enable your interaction with people. And my feeling is that it's not even necessarily that the jobs themselves will completely go away or change, but the qualities that we look for in people to do a given job will change. Okay. So the example that I point to is if you think about a doctor, when you go to the doctor today, you probably want to go to the smartest, best doctor where you say, look, I have a stomach ache. Tell me what's wrong with me. Who's the specialist in that? Who's the specialist? Tell me what's wrong with me.

And AIs are going to get really good at being able to do that. Today we prize doctors for being good diagnosticians, but we don't necessarily always prize them for having a good bedside manner. Right. In a world where AI is as good at diagnosing you as a doctor, people, are still going to want a doctor, they're just going to want them to do different things for them, right? And AI can't physically examine you. It can't say, hey, you look really down today. How have your chemo treatments been going? It can't lay its hands on you. It can't lay its hands on you. And there's so much compelling evidence that patients have better clinical outcomes when they have a good personal relationship with their doctor, when they like their doctor. And when their doctors actually

lay their hands on them and touch them and communicate with them. And by the way, have enough time to to think through and to empathize. And I think that is the good world of job changes, right? And the doctors say, I don't have time to go around. I can't lay my hands on people. I don't have time. Because I'm doing the clerical work.

And I have too big of a patient caseload. But if you have a tool that's able to diagnose things in concert with a doctor where the doctor says, you know, let me talk to this tool. And by the way, I'm not going to be spending as much time running all the medical tests and doing this and that. I'm going to be spending time relating to as a human being. I think that is.

going to be really, I think that's a better world. So say that again, your positions may not go away, but what you're needed to do in those positions is going to change. Yes. And I personally believe, there's going to be a shift. Yes. And of course there is, because that's what we're doing, human beings. We're evolving. Yes. Evolving to the next level. I would also just say, I personally think knowledge is power. And something that worries me is there are, there are demographic differences in who feels comfortable using AI and who does not. women use AI a tiny fraction of the time compared to men. And I think AI is an opportunity for us to level the playing field in some ways,

but it requires people to be engaged. That doesn't mean, hey, you have to come pay us all this money and sign up. Just be comfortable, fluent. Don't be afraid of the technology because the more you know about it and the more you understand it, the better informed you are going to be to use your voice effectively. And it's here. You're in it. And if you're going to continue to live, you're going to be in the world

where we're never... It's like part of our society's not going away any more than the train or the steam engine is, you know, airplane or the airplane. I think of it like the internet, right? Everybody had somebody's parent who said, I'm not going to be online. It's impossible, right?

Everybody has to be on the internet now in some form. And I think artificial intelligence is just the next instantiation of that. So one of the things I want to talk about is the fact that AI just keeps... It just keeps improving on itself. That's, I guess, what it's designed to do. And there is a new... A.I. model called mythos?

Mythos, yes. So that is like smarter than the smartest of the smartest. Tell us in a simple term what mythos is and what it can and will be doing. Yeah. So, you know, the general principles of these models is when we train them, we try and make them better and better at everything, at writing code, at translating languages, and answering questions, at reading documents. And mythos was just kind of the latest, you know, the latest iteration. Every few months we produce a smarter model and mythos was the latest smart model and you know we made some discoveries a few months before we started mythos and so it was

a particularly large jump. When we started testing mythos, when we make these models, we test them for lots of things. We say oh how good is this thing at translating you know French to English or how good is this at you know recommending a stock portfolio or how good is it at, you know, finding bugs in software code? And it was on that last one that we found something interesting for mythos, which is that mythos was much better than human software engineers at finding ways that code could be exploited and broken into. You know, have you ever heard about, like, ransomware attacks on hospitals or schools?

So, you know, these cyber attacks happen all the time. and mythos we found not because we designed it to do this or because we designed it to be dangerous turned out to be very good at both conducting cyber attacks and defending against cyber attacks. And so we said, wow, this thing kind of seems like a weapon. We shouldn't, you know, we probably shouldn't give it to everyone right away. And so the thing we came up with is we said, we're going to take some companies that are particularly core to the infrastructure of the internet, right? some of the top banks, some of the top, you know, software providers like Apple or like Microsoft or like Google,

and, you know, hand it to them and let them fix everything before it becomes widely available and things can be broken. So we would kind of give it to the defenders before the, you know, before the attackers got a hold of it. And so we had a program. We've given the model to, you know, I think it's a. something like 40 companies now, and they're, you know, they're busily finding bugs. And, you know, we just had a post a few days ago that one of the well-known companies found more bugs and fixed more bugs with mythos in a week than they had for the last year. And so we are, you know, this is really changing things.

Now, our hope is the defenders can fix everything, and everything gets. more seamless, everything gets harder to break into. So our hope is the era of ransomware and spies breaking into your phone and, you know. People are worried about bioterrorism and should be. Yeah. So our hope is that at the end of this, say at the end of this year,

we get to a point where all of these, you know, many of these things have been fixed and we live in a more secure world than we did before. But in the meantime, you know, there's this dangerous period during which you have these kind of incredible capabilities that, you know, that, you know, you don't want to just necessarily lose on the world. And so we're trying to, we're trying to manage that by giving it to the defenders before we give it to the attackers. Thank you for that. This is the kind of thing that keeps you up at night. Do you sleep well?

You know, I cannot legitimately say that I sleep. I wish I could answer that question differently. But, you know, I got to give you an honest dancer here, which is, you know, I don't always sleep so well. I would say, you know, going back to the earlier part of the conversation we were having. Because you're worried about these things. This and, you know, just everything, just wanting to get it right. That's the thing that worries me the most. Just like, you know, for all our intentions, all of this stuff is incredibly complex.

It's just, are we going to screw up? Yeah. And, I mean, the answer is yes. At some point, we'll screw up something. But like, are we going to get the big stuff right? Yeah. Yeah. And also because you all are fundamentally principled people.

Yes. So I think that actually makes a big difference when you're fundamentally principled people. Not everybody is. And there's a lot of egos in every field. But I think particularly when people are making so many billions and billions and billions of dollars and there's the race to be China and all of that, that it's easily to lose sight of what really matters and what really matters to the public.

I'm wondering what you all have done to sort of keep your egos in check. You know, I think, again, to us, it always comes back to the mission, right? Why we did this in the first place? Why did we leave OpenAI to start Anthropic because we wanted to make sure that AI goes well for everybody, right?

That's why we're a public benefit corporation. That's why we took the 80% pledge. That's why we've made all of these difficult decisions. You know, I was in our internal, like our internal Slack messaging app today. You know, I talked to the company a lot. And one of the things I was saying is, you know, we're 3,500 people now. We were, you know, like 1,200 people, you know, like six months ago. At one point, because I encourage this, someone posted in my, like, you know, like my personal Slack channel,

you know, I had done in all hands in front of the company. and like, you know, said something. And I think I said it in not quite the right way. And someone wrote in my channel, usually it's only me who writes things in my channel. Someone wrote in my channel, this was a pretty bad thing to say, and it like makes everyone feel bad,

and like, you know, this, like, you shouldn't have said it this way. And of course, you know, when I read it, you know, the initial reaction is always like, oh, man. It's like, I feel like I'm being attacked. Yeah. But, but like, you take a beat and then, and then two minutes later, I'm like, I'm so glad people are saying this.

And then, you know, I wrote something that was like, So were you always- I'm so glad you're what you're like willing to say that, you know, and then people notice this. Like, many people messaged me where it's like, I didn't know you could do that. I didn't know you could just contradict the CEO of a, you know, 3,000 persons, but it's... That is a powerful example. That is a powerful example. You've got to. You've got to. You know why that's a powerful example?

Early, early on, like in the late 80s, I think I met Henry Kravis for the first time, and he was saying to me, be aware that the more money you accumulate, the less chance that you're ever going to hear the truth. Yes. Because he said rich men, and I guess he also meant rich women too, but he goes, rich men rarely hear the truth. Yes. Yeah. I'll also just add, I think what you do in your personal life matters too.

There's what you do at work. Yeah. But I basically have the same friends I've had since, like, high school and college. Yeah. And guess what? They have no trouble being honest with me. And they have no trouble telling me the truth. And they have no trouble disagreeing with public decisions that Anthropic is made, right?

So I think the last five years have changed a lot. But I think for me personally, I don't really feel like that much has changed outside of work. And I think that's an important grounding characteristic. I think people who tend to be in charge of these big companies, sometimes it's like they become obsessed just with their work. They're not a well-rounded person. And I think there's something when we started Anthropic of like the first, you know, of the seven or eight folks who really started the company, only one of them had one kid.

And now there's 11 kids. And I think there's something about the fact that we all chose to be parents. We all want fulfilling real lives outside of work. I think that just brings a sort of groundedness, humility, low ego. And just, again, like no one is bigger than the mission. So what comes through really clearly is that sister and brother, you started this, it's bigger than you ever imagined. You always wanted to make an impact in doing good for the world.

And you stuck to your principles, even when it was really difficult. What gives you the hope that you will? get this right? So we're never quite sure, I think, is the honest answer. Like, we believe we're trying our best and trying very hard. It's just the decisions are complicated, right? If we go back to mythos, it's like, do we give it to more people faster or less people slower?

Like, who do we trust? And so it's about getting all the details right in addition to just having the right principles, which I believe we do. Yeah. And so I think we worry about it every day. And the fact that we worry about it every day is maybe the thing that most gives us the hope that like, that we're so paranoid about it. But it's, it's no guarantee. And we've made mistakes. We're going to continue to make mistakes. Like, you know, that's, that's a given, right? Are there other people in Silicon Valley who also have it a part of their mission to get it right?

Do you feel supported in that mission by others? It's hard to point to maybe like a particular company, but I think I am very touched by sometimes, you know, whatever you go and talk in an event or another company wants you to come speak to them. And somebody in the audience, you know, comes up to you afterwards or ask a question and they say something like, thank you guys for the way that you do things.

Yeah. Like, thank you for trying to get it right. There's this kind of sense that, you know, I think, I think something that's great about our relationship is Dario and I, I also think we hold each other accountable, right? And so when, you know, we go back and forth on is this a right, is this the right decision for the company? Is this in keeping with our values? We have each other. We have the whole co-founding team is still at Anthropic.

I think we've also hired an amazing set of people who are also there for the mission. There's almost a kind of group accountability. And if you pair that with like Dario mentioned, this culture internally of anybody can disagree with us, right? And yes, that's hard to do. but there's a lot of forums in which they're encouraged to do that. Their manager can do it. They can do it anonymously. I think all of those qualities make it more likely

that if we start to stray from the path, we're at least going to know. Okay, and you want to leave us, the public, knowing what? What is the most important thing you want us to know in this moment in time where we are in our AI journey? You know, there's something really big happening to the world here. This isn't the, this isn't the, you know, this isn't the latest technology.

This isn't crypto. This isn't mobile. This, you know, this isn't like the latest, you know, gadget or buzzword. Something really big is happening to humanity here. While the technology is being built by a small number of people, we need to make it work for everyone. And we need to make sure that between all of us, we make the right to see. decisions and we reckon with changes to our daily lives, changes to our jobs, changes to, you know, government and civil liberties. And if we do this the right way, all of those things could change

in a positive way. All of those things could be better than we left them. We could have the perfect world where, you know, many, many diseases are cured. People's lives are more joyful and meaningful, but, you know, if we get it wrong, it's easy to imagine things not going that way at all. And, you know, it's up to all of us. Some of us are in a more central position, but that's something I think we need to change as well. And, you know, it's not easy. It's not any one thing. It's going to be a bunch of different things. I think I would probably leave people very similar to what Dario said with this concept of light and shade, that the potential benefits from artificial intelligence are vast.

We've written about them. We've tried to talk about them publicly. We believe they're real. And also the risks are also real, right? We're not trying to hype up the positives or hype up the negatives. I think they're both true. It's complex, but we have to hold two things at once. And I think just echoing Dario, this is not something that technology companies can do by ourselves,

nor should it be. It's something that's going to take partnership from a much bigger group of people than is currently working on artificial intelligence. And I think the first step there has to be don't be afraid of it, learn about it, lean into it, ask questions, be critical. Just like we say to our staff, right? We are only going to have a chance of getting this right if we expand the circle of people that are in the conversation. I ask this of all my guests. and particularly I'm interested from the two of you. And what do you think is the meaning of a well-lived life

and how AI is going to contribute to that well-lived life? But what will be the meaning of a well-lived life for you, your family, and your children? I think for me, a well-lived life is one where you have agency and autonomy. you're in the driver's seat and you're using that in the service of being the best version of yourself. And I think the best version of yourself for you, for your family, for your kids, for your broader community, and I think for the world. I think the ability to be self-reflective, to learn from mistakes, to overcome struggles, and to come out the other side,

thinking, you know, I know more about who I am, I like who I am, and I want to help other people. I think that to me is the best definition of a well-lived, introspective life. And like I talked about, I think there's a world where AI could damage so many of the things that I think are the hallmarks of a well-lived life. And I think there's a world where it could enable those. and it could allow a lot more people to be able to have meaning and value and to self-interpect, to be the best versions of ourselves, to show up for each other well.

And I hope that's the world that we're going to build towards. I'd just say the same thing as Danielle in different words. I think it's pretty simple. You know, I think just operate always with the sense of dignity and principle. Like, you know, when you look back and you're like, you know, You shouldn't, when you look back, be ashamed of what you did or say, you know, I, you know, I wish I'd done this this other thing. Of course, you'll make mistakes, but, you know, you were, you were putting every iota of effort you could into, into, you know, into trying to get it right. You know, I think we have duties both to individuals, you know, to my co-founders, to all the other people in my life.

But, you know, also to, you know, the users of our technology, to, you know, everyone else in the country. world as citizens. So, you know, I think we have duties to all those people that we have to, that we have to attend to. And, you know, making sure that, you know, at the end of it, it was directed at some purpose, some consistent view of what we were trying to accomplish in the world, the vision we were trying to make happen. Maybe it doesn't happen. Maybe we screwed up. Maybe we make terrible mistakes. But, you know, just having the vision be clear and trying to to pursue it with integrity. If you can do that, of course, you want the outcome, too.

But I think if doing that is all you can control, right? And more important, ultimately, than the outcome. Thank you for growing us forward. That's what you're doing. You're doing exactly what you envisioned as little kids. It is very strange, but we are. Yes, it is. Thank you. Thank you.

Dario and Daniela. You've given us a lot to think about. Go well, everybody. Go well. You can subscribe to the Oprah podcast on YouTube and follow us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen. I'll see you next week.

Thanks, everybody.