The Prof G Pod with Scott Galloway - How Chips Rule the Modern World — with Chris Miller

Episode Date: April 6, 2023

Chris Miller, an Associate Professor of International History at Tufts University, and the author of “Chip War: The Fight for the World’s Most Critical Technology,” joins Scott to discuss how chips became the new oil, who the major players are, and how these tiny materials created the modern world. Plus, we learn more about China and Russia’s unique relationship.  Scott opens by discussing Twitter, Q1 2023 results, and why he does not think we should pause AI developments.  Algebra of Happiness: just book it.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Support for this show comes from Constant Contact. If you struggle just to get your customers to notice you, Constant Contact has what you need to grab their attention. Constant Contact's award-winning marketing platform offers all the automation, integration, and reporting tools that get your marketing running seamlessly, all backed by their expert live customer support. It's time to get going and growing with Constant Contact today.

Ready, set, grow. Go to ConstantContact.ca and start your free trial today. Go to ConstantContact.ca for your free trial. ConstantContact.ca Support for PropG comes from NerdWallet. Starting your slash learn more to over 400 credit cards. Head over to nerdwallet.com forward slash learn more to find smarter credit cards, savings accounts, mortgage rates, and more. NerdWallet. Finance smarter. NerdWallet Compare Incorporated.

NMLS 1617539. Episode 244. 244 is the country code belonging to angola a country located on the west coast of southern africa in 1944 the infamous d-day landings took place on june 6 marking a major turning point in world war ii and pfizer the maker viagra opened the first commercial plant for large-scale production of penicillin in brooklyn new y True story, I started a support group for men with erectile dysfunction, but no one came. Go, go, go!

Welcome to the 244th episode of The Prop G-Pod. In today's episode, we speak with Chris Miller, an associate professor of international history at Tufts University and the author of several books, including Chip War, the fight for the world's most critical technology.

We discussed with Chris exactly that, how chips became the new oil, who the major players are, and how these tiny materials created the modern world. Chips, all of a sudden, they are just huge.

We're not talking about Eric Estrada. My God, was he dreamy in that uniform. Okay, what's happening? More hoopla around Twitter. Legacy blue check holders were supposed to lose their checks over the weekend if they didn't sign up for the $8 a month subscription service or $1,000 a month for businesses. Yet, as we record this on Monday, April 3rd, nothing appears to be different on the platform.

Why? Why? It made no fucking sense. It's literally like, how do we figure out a way to destroy the value of something so we can charge for it? The whole point of the blue check was that you were who you said you were adding value to the rest of the network. And when anyone can buy your blue check, you've totally undermined or diminished the value making it just, in some, this makes no fucking sense. It's like charging admission to a pool, and then once people are

inside, paving over the pool. It just, I don't know what the right analogy is here, but this business strategy itself undermines or kills all the value that they're ultimately trying to charge for. By the way, I have no problem with subscription. I would like Twitter to go subscription. If they would elevate my content, if they would verify my identity such that they could age-gate certain content, such that they could provide the network with certainty that I was in fact who I said I was, such that I could have a means of ensuring or reducing the amount of vile comments or maybe just shutting off, and you can do that right now, but I'd like more people to adopt identification verification, I would pay for it. I think subscription is the way to go. I think the thing that has kind of screwed the internet into a certain extent in America is the ad-supported ecosystem. Advertising built the

internet. As a result, it turned into an attention-grabbing monster that will do anything to maintain your attention. And we all figured out that that goes to very dark places. So what happens to a site where one of the real value propositions is accurate news and then viewpoints when you don't know which of the 44 blue-checked New York Times accounts is providing with fact-checked information? So what else is going on at the shitshow better known as Twitter? The DojaCoin symbol replaced the Twitter bird on the desktop version of the homepage. And what do you know? The crypto token is up more than 20% during the time of our recording.

We're kind of in uncharted territory here. We have the president or former president that's been indicated. And we have an individual who spent $44 billion and has decided, and you can spend $44 billion. This is the ultimate sports team. When I was on the board of the New York Times, every billionaire Democrat in the United States called me and said, I'd be interested in financing the New York Times, which is Latin for they would wake up every morning, look in the mirror and say, hello, publisher, New York Times. Everybody wanted to own it. That was a wealthy Democrat. Wealthy Republicans like to buy football teams. This is the most expensive football team purchase at $44 billion, but it's worse than that. Imagine you're a 52-year-old

overweight guy with a hair transplant. That was uncalled for. That was uncalled for. That was both luxist and ageist, but anyways, I'm going with it. Imagine that guy buys the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and then decides he should be the quarterback. Do you think it's any accident that he has now the largest Twitter following, surpassing Barack Obama, that he's doing shit like putting DojaCoin on? I'd love to know what his DojaCoin holdings are after putting the symbol on the front page of Twitter. This is where we are in uncharted waters right now. We have an economy and the biggest platforms in this economy reward this type of behavior that just gets attention. It's not about adding value. It's about getting famous. And one way to get famous is to pose for the algorithms and the algorithms of controversy,

anger, and anxiety. And these guys have that in spades. Okay. So speaking of news involving Elon Musk, he, along with a thousand other tech leaders and researchers are calling for a pause on the development of powerful AI tools saying that they pose, open quote, profound risk to society and humanity. Oh my gosh, this is wild. And let me be clear, some of the people who I respect most in the world have signed this letter. And the general concern is that this technology is getting out in front of us so fast that we might get into a situation where we can't control it.

I don't understand this, quite frankly. I am someone who believes we can't control it. I don't understand this, quite frankly. I am someone who believes we should not pause it. But I want to recognize I am open to change here. I'm open to people smarter than me weighing in and saying, no, we should push pause. But the question is, and there's two questions, could it be bad for the world? Yeah, most technologies offer externalities, but is the risk of the externalities here so bad that we should press pause? And also, I think the bigger question is, how do we press pause? When you have a nuclear arms treaty, you can verify, you can do side inspections, you can register if someone is

testing a nuclear device. There's an earthquake and you know, okay, they're violating the treatment or you can have inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Authority, whatever it's called, show up and make sure that you're not producing uranium-enriched materials in that factory that has a big sign that says baby milk. How do you track, how do you monitor artificial intelligence? And to be fair, they're saying they want to stop the training on it. My view is that if we can't figure out a way to have a multilateral pause, which I don't think we can, do we want to give the Iranians, the North Koreans, the Russians, and the Chinese the opportunity to catch up to us? So my feeling is we have an arms race here. And just as Einstein registered there'd be some real downsides to society with splitting the atom, the even more frightening outcome of splitting the atom is what happened if Hitler figures out a way to split the atom first. So I think there's some real analogies to the past

year, specifically Oppenheimer and the Manhattan Project. But my view is, and again, I'm very open to being talked off this position, is that we want to establish regulatory bodies. We want to get very thoughtful people together. We want to monitor it. We want to put in place laws and regulations and supervision such that this thing doesn't get out of control. But it also offers incredible upside around preventive healthcare, around modeling proteins, around treatment of what had once been incurable diseases, treatments of things like obesity, managing people's diets, figuring out a way to extend and disperse preventive healthcare. I think there's a huge opportunity around AI. And for the downside, shouldn't we be able,

shouldn't the artificial intelligence or the large language models be able to figure out defense mechanisms as fast as we can figure out offensive mechanisms? It's probably not an apocalypse. I think the thing they're worried about is things like malware or phishing scams. You get a taste of where this could go and how it could be very, very ugly and damaging on an incremental level, or whether it's coming up with malware that might affect the power generation systems at hospitals. The mind goes a lot of places, both negative and positive. But until we can have a multilateral pause, I don't want to disarm unilaterally.

I want us to own this. I want us to become really good at it. Should we be more careful with it than we were with social media? Yeah. Should we be thoughtful about multilateral discussions around common cross-border protocols that ensure this thing doesn't get out of hand?

Absolutely. But in the meantime, in the meantime, I do not want to press a pause and let other bad actors catch up to us. Let me know what you think. I come at this

from a position of humility. I am not an expert on this. This has a lot of nuance to it and I am willing to evolve and change my position here. Okay, what else is happening? The first quarter of 2023 has officially wrapped

and some highlights include the NASDAQ had his best performance since Q2 of 2020 with a 17% gain. Well, champagne and cocaine for the dog. While the S&P 500 was only up 7.5%, 7.5% isn't bad considering its index's second consecutive quarter of growth. What's crazy about the S&P, though, is that Apple and Microsoft accounted for about half of the indexes gained during the month of March. Think about that. Half the gain of the S&P, two companies. The New York Times reported that the market cap of Apple and Microsoft combined would be the third largest sector of the S&P behind tech and healthcare, and larger than the

entire energy sector. Anyways, the best performing firm in the S&P 500, you guessed it, NVIDIA, which was up 90% for the quarter. Bloomberg reported that this was NVIDIA's biggest quarterly gain since 2001. Meta was also a clear winner in Q1 with a 76% jump. Who predicted? Who had Meta as one of their three stock picks for 2023? One guess, one guess only. Bloomberg noted that this was Meta's biggest quarter since 2013. The bottom line, these things just got oversold. The narrative was that the increase in interest rates took an especially harsh toll on growth companies. Makes sense. Greater interest rates means it costs more to finance your growth, and those future cash flows are worth less when you reverse engineer them back. So both the one-two punch of it's more expensive to fund

cash flows that are going to be worth less, the punching bag in the middle is the stock price, but it probably got overdone. Also, to be fair, the technology sector has become more agile. They've said, I know, let's take a hard look at our operation, our costs, specifically employees, and let's start laying off people. And not to diminish the pain this causes, but it's been the gift that keeps on giving for shareholders. Every time they announce a layoff, the stock's up 5%, 7%, 9%. And the reality is we have stuffed so many calories down the esophagus of these companies that there was fat everywhere.

If you have 40% margins, that means you can either increase top-line revenue by $2.50 or cut costs by $1 and you get the same net outcome. And what has tech decided to do? They've decided to cut costs by a dollar, and you get the same net outcome. And what has tech decided to do? They've decided to cut costs. You're going to see this across the entire growth economy. It's just getting started. Well, maybe that's not true, but probably an inning five or six of a nine-inning game. But the market loves it. These companies are coming back stronger. What was another one of my predictions at the end of 2022 for 2023? That Amazon, Meta, Alphabet would all see their revenue increases level off. They would all abate. But despite a revenue slowdown or a revenue growth slowdown, they would have their most profitable quarters in history towards the back half of this year. Why?

They're bringing their cost base down. Other quarterly highlights or lowlights, the KBW Bank Index, which accounts for the top 24 banks in the U.S., was down nearly 18%. Look for that to come back. I think that's been overdone. Different talk show. Bitcoin jumped more than 70% with major gains coming on the heels of the collapse of SVB. The price rose 40% in the two weeks following the banking crisis. I think this is bad. I think there are too many people that have invested interest in the decline of the U.S. banking system and are agents of chaos and constantly catastrophizing. They're kind of the ultimate short sellers, but they're basically going short the United States. Bitcoin was up 72% in Q1. Oh, my gosh.

The banking index was the biggest loser, down 18%. Wheat was off 13%. Brent crude was down 7%. It probably means inflation should start to come down. We are in a deflationary part of the cycle, I believe. And that is deflationary in the sense that I believe that inflation is going to continue to come down. The other big news, Virgin Orbit halted operations after failing to receive funding and cut 85% of its staff. The Financial Times reported that Virgin Orbit was burning through 50 million a quarter. Bottom line, bottom line, space is not impressed with brand.

And I realize I'm patting myself a lot on the back. I'm getting blisters on my back. I'm patting myself so hard. Let's give me a medal. Anyways, I was the original hater of the space industry. I think it makes no fucking sense. With the exception of one company, SpaceX, space hauling does make sense. There's a lot of people want to put satellites into the air

and SpaceX is doing it better than anyone. Everything else, Virgin Galactic, Virgin Orbital, this shit makes no sense. But wait, Scott, wasn't Virgin Orbital putting satellites into space? Yes, they were, but they were undercapitalized. Also, of all the billions of planets, there's only one that appears to have brought together all the factors such that it could support life. And the moment you get just a millimeter away on a cosmic level from that wonderful thing called Earth, shit gets real, as in materials start to break down, much less people being able to survive. Do you know how hard it is to keep astronauts alive in space? Really hard. That's why so many of them die. 11 of the 550 people that have gone into space have not returned. And to think that anyone gives a shit, specifically when I say anyone,

space gives a shit about brand or an incredibly charismatic founder. Guess what? Guess what? It doesn't. This company was undercapitalized and who's next? Virgin Galactic, which makes abso-fucking-lutely no sense. When Bob is immolated on the launch pad, that industry goes to zero, but it's not even going to get that far. This thing makes no sense. This company is undercapitalized. I have never seen a company more demand-constrained

and supply-constrained. What does that mean? Companies are one or the other. Okay, right now I could sell a lot of nuclear power plants. There are buyers for them, but they are supply-constrained. They are difficult to manufacture. They take decades sometimes. A chip plant costs $20 billion to produce. Most businesses are demand constrained. I could produce a lot of messenger bags. I could produce

a lot of Nikes, but you got to find people to buy them. Virgin Galactic is both supply constrained, putting people into space is really hard. Their supply of seats on a suborbital, semiorbital, whatever you want to call it, transport, is very hard, supply constrained. It's also demand constrained. There just aren't that many people who want to spend $400,000 to go for a 20-minute joyride near space and get their astronaut wings.

That market is pretty limited. This is a company, I've never seen a company more supply and demand constrained. Virgin Orbital is going to zero. Virgin Galactic is next. We'll be right back for our conversation with Chris Miller. The Capital Ideas Podcast now features a series hosted by Capital Group CEO, Mike Gitlin. Through the words and experiences of investment professionals, you'll discover what differentiates their investment approach, what learnings have shifted their career trajectories, and how do they find their next great idea?

Invest 30 minutes in an episode today. Subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Published by Capital Client Group, Inc. Hello, I'm Esther Perel, psychotherapist and host of the podcast, Where Should We Begin? Which delves into the multiple layers of relationships, mostly romantic. But in this special series, I focus on our relationships with our colleagues, business partners, and managers. Listen in as I talk to co-workers facing their own challenges with one another and get the real work done. Tune into Housework, a special series from Where, the fight for the world's most critical technology.

Chris, where does this podcast find you? I am right outside of Boston, Massachusetts. Good stuff. So you wrote this book, Chip War, The Fight for the World's Most Critical Technology. And you said in the book that we don't think about the chips, and yet they created the modern world. So let's start there. How did chips create the modern world?

Well, chips provide all of the computing power that we rely on in our smartphones and our PCs and data centers. And if you think of the modern economy today or the way we live our lives, we can't function without chips. They're in all the devices that we rely on, but they're buried deep inside. So we never actually see them and hardly ever think about them. So I've read a bunch of places that if you want to understand geopolitics and power over the last hundred years, you just need to track the flows of energy.

And now it seems like the likely replacement for oil is chips. If chips, in fact, become the new oil, well, first off, do you agree with that? And two, if that's in fact true, who leaks power and influence and who accretes it? Well, I think that analogy is largely correct.

Chips are as important today as oil was in the 20th century. But what's interesting is that their production is even more concentrated than oil. So we think of Saudi Arabia as a big producer of oil, but it produces 10 or 15% of the world's petroleum, whereas semiconductors are even more concentrated. So today, Taiwan produces 90% of the most advanced processor chips, the types of chips that are in phones, PCs, data centers. And there's just one company that has that extraordinary market share.

So there's actually more concentration, and therefore more influence that accrues to the producers of the most advanced chips. So 90% in Taiwan? I didn't realize it was that concentrated. therefore more influence that accrues to the producers of the most advanced chips. So 90% in Taiwan? I didn't realize it was that concentrated. For the most advanced processors, that's right. So it's hard to buy a smartphone without a chip from Taiwan inside, for example. I mean, just hearing that, so I immediately go to geopolitical concern, and that is if 90% of the world's oil output came from one region and it butted up against an increasingly powerful and hostile actor, doesn't that likely increase the likelihood of an invasion of Taiwan because it's worth the risk to get that 90%? Well, the challenge is that you

can't just take it over very easily. The chip making facilities are full of the most precise machinery humans have ever invented, all sorts of explosive chemicals. And more important than the machines are the minds of the engineers that actually operate them. So it's not something you could simply invade and take over. So you're not just capturing an oil field. That's right. It's a lot more complex than that. And the chips are made in Taiwan, but they're made using machines and chemicals and software that's sourced from the U.S. and Europe and Japan as well. And so you really need to control the entire supply chain in order to get access to the chips you want. And the problem China faces today is that all of the

key nodes in the production of chips, from the design to the manufacturing to the chemicals, they're largely produced in rivals of China, in Taiwan, in the U.S., in Japan. Do you think it was a good idea? My understanding is the Biden administration has taken pretty aggressive moves to inhibit the flow of some of the key components for making these advanced chips into China. Do you think that's a good idea or are we kind of backing them into a corner? Well, I think there's a risk that we're backing them into the corner, but the alternative doesn't look very attractive either. Before last year, last October, when they put these controls in place, China could access the most advanced chips, the type of chips used to train AI systems and data centers with relative ease. In theory, it was illegal to transfer these ships to military users in China, but in practice, it was impossible to police how they were used once they entered China.

And so the Biden administration judged that it was better off to take the risk that China would retaliate in order to cut them off from accessing these chips, without which it's practically impossible to train large numbers of AI systems efficiently. How did Taiwan get to this level of concentration? Was it a big national investment? Is it their education system? Is it just a brilliant move by them to double down on this one industry? How did we get to a point where they're controlling 90%

of the sweet-like crude, if you will, the best oil, so to speak? It's partly due to the Taiwanese government. They invested very heavily in semiconductors over the past several decades, and they actually put up a lot of the capital behind the firm TSMC, the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company

that produces these ultra-advanced chips. But it's also due to the fact that this company, when it was founded, had a really unique business model. Before this company was founded, almost all chips were designed and manufactured in-house by the same company. But TSMC doesn't design any chips. It only manufactures them. And so, it's been able to attract lots of customers, scale to a really unforeseeable degree, and in that process of scaling, reap great efficiencies and also learn to hone its manufacturing processes over the larger number of chips it produces. So,

the business model was really unique when it was founded and it's proven a real competitive advantage. So, one of the things I keep hearing about in terms of the Ukrainians' surprising and inspiring ability to repel this much larger invading force is that they just have a greater mastery of technology. Is this the war that's sort of where chips take over? You know, I think there's some truth to that. Certainly, the Ukrainians have been much more agile in their ability to take technology and deploy it in new ways where the Russians have been very slow to adapt. But I think what's striking is that the Ukrainians are doing so often using off-the-shelf technology. So if you look at the drones that they're deploying, for example, they're not ultra

advanced drones, they're simple drones that they're able to use in large numbers because they're simple and low cost. And so in some ways, it's a high-tech conflict, but in other ways, it's a conflict using accessible consumer technologies that are being deployed in new ways. But to your point, it's about the humans, right? These are, I mean, I had invested in several companies that had large programming centers in Ukraine. And I imagine, I heard this one story.

So I'm an investor in a company, and they had a small group of about 13 programmers over there. And Ukraine has a lot of tech talent. And then on the Monday after the invasion, 11 of the 13 were gone because they joined the Ukrainian army. And I imagine, okay, you have all this strong tech hub, this strong technologically sophisticated, adept, agile workforce flow into the armed forces. It strikes me that this might be the swing skill, if you will, in the war. Back to your notion around the reason that Taiwan makes these chips is not only they have the factories, but they have the human capital. Is this, again, a war won by, you know,

technical domain expertise? I think you could make that argument. I think if you compare it to the Russian army, where the bulk of the soldiers now have been conscripted in via forced mobilization, it's just a totally different army that Ukraine's fighting with, with lots of people who voluntarily signed up, people who are much more enthusiastic about being there and as a result are willing to take the initiative to a much greater degree. That I think is the key difference. It's the ability of low and mid-level soldiers and officers in the Ukrainian military to innovate, to try new things, and to see what works. And you see almost none of that on the Russian side. Speaking of wars or conflicts, you wrote regarding the Persian Gulf War that it was a pivotal moment

for the role of microchips in warfare. Say more? Well, the Gulf War in 1991 was the first war we saw in a really large-scale way the use of chips to guide munitions to hit a target with precision. Before that point, bombing from the air or long range rockets was a exercise in massive quantity because you had no idea what was going to hit its target. And since the Gulf War,

we've become used to the fact that bombs can hit their targets in most cases pretty accurately using at first laser guidance, now GPS guidance. And so the entire character of war has changed because you no longer need a thousand bombs to hit a single target. You can often do it with just one. And that's possible because of semiconductors, because of computing power, both in the weapons themselves, but also distributed across a battlefield. The satellites gathering signals intelligence, for example, the data centers processing what that means, the communications sending that to an individual weapon system.

There's semiconductors in almost every defense system today sensing, communicating and computing in a way that was impossible just a couple of decades ago. So talk to us, break down, give the kind of the cliff notes on the CHIPS Act and what you think is what you like or don't like about the legislation. Because of the concentration in where chips are manufactured, the U.S. decided via an act of Congress to try to bolster manufacturing in the U.S. And the key recognition was that chip making in the U.S. is more expensive, more expensive because of tax policy, because of labor costs, because of environmental regulation. So the goal has been to equalize the cost gap between producing in Asia and producing in the U.S. and therefore trying to attract more investment in the U.S. And I think it's an admirable goal, given the just extraordinary risks that we face, given the concentration of chipmaking in the Taiwan Straits, if China were to attack or try to blockade

the island. But it's going to be hard to pull off in a major way, because the enormous capacity that's been built up in East Asia is going to be hard to move, hard to change. And so we're already seeing some increases in investment in chipmaking in the US. But the reality is that it's going to be hard to move, hard to change. And so we're already seeing some increases in investment in chip making in the U.S., but the reality is that it's going to be a slow process, even though I think the CHIPS Act is working. It's working on the margin because the chip industry will take a decade to begin to see real shifts. And I'll just give you one example as to why that's true.

The CHIPS Act spends $39 billion for incentives for chipmaking. And that sounds like a lot of money, but a single new chipmaking facility costs $20 billion. And what is so hard about producing chips? Is it the intellectual property, the number of PhDs you need, the quality control of these factories? Where does that $20 billion go? So most of the $20 billion for a new chip making facility goes to buying the tools that are capable of manufacturing chips. So if you go to the Apple store, buy a new iPhone, the primary chip on the iPhone will have 15 billion tiny transistors carved into it, each one of which is smaller than the size of a virus. And so managing the manufacturing of these by the billions for each and every iPhone with

close to perfect accuracy, it's the hardest manufacturing humans have ever done. And there's just a couple of companies in California and the Netherlands and Japan that can produce the tools capable of manufacturing transistors at this scale. And the machines involved themselves cost often $100 million a piece. The most expensive of the tools that make chips cost $150 million, has hundreds of thousands of components, including the flattest mirrors ever invented, an explosion happening inside of it constantly

at 40 times hotter than the surface of the sun. I mean, this is really wild engineering in terms of what it takes to put these machines together. And that's why it's brutally expensive. So when I got out of business school, one of the premier jobs you could get was at this amazing firm that was building the future that was the brain inside everything. And that was Intel, right? Did Intel just kind of miss the boat here? Why has Intel not shared

in this exciting... If I look at Intel's five-year stock performance, it's almost been cut in half. And it feels as if they should be ground zero for this kind of innovation. They're in what most people think is the most innovative geography in the world. They have the capital, they have the brand. What happened? the present for a long time at a dominant market share in data centers too. And so for much of the past decade, the firm rested on its laurels, took advantage of the extraordinary profitability of its two existing business lines and failed to invest effectively in anything new. And so it famously missed the smartphone wave. Steve Jobs actually went to Intel before the first Apple was produced and asked if they wanted to produce chips for the first iPhones. And Intel said, no, it sounded like a low-volume product with low margins. And that was, of course, a horrible error in hindsight. And then Intel was also slow to pick

up on the shifts towards artificial intelligence and data centers and was slow to roll out chips that are necessary for running AI workloads. And so it's fallen behind in a number of key areas. Now, over the past two years, it's got a new CEO who's been trying to turn things around, catch up. Where do you think, when you look at specific companies or specific regions, geographies, sectors, industries, who do you think the winners and losers are based on how you see the sector shaping up? Well, one of the key changes underway right now is that selling chips to data centers is getting more and more important. And there's just a couple of firms that play a critical role

in supplying chips to data centers. And so if you look at the data centers that are training large AI systems, they're critically reliant on chips from just one company, NVIDIA, which is a US firm that designs chips, manufactures all their chips actually with TSMC in Taiwan. It's really hard to have AI systems that aren't trained on their chips. When you think of the AI revolution that's underway right now, we see the impact via chat GPT,

but underneath all of the training is our chips produced by just a couple of companies. Yeah. So it feels like NVIDIA sort of basically took, it's like what Lady Gaga did to Madonna, NVIDIA did to Intel. What if, and I'm going to go back to China, I apologize for hopping around, but would it be worth it for China just to invade Taiwan, even if TSMC went out of business or they couldn't recreate it, but just to stop the flow of these advanced chips to the Western world? Well, the problem that China faces is that they're more dependent on Taiwan than anyone else. China spends as much money each year importing chips as it spends importing oil. And most of those ships are imported from Taiwan. I just want to pause there. That's an amazing

stat. China spends as much importing chips as importing oil. That's right. And it has for most of the last decade. It really is the new oil. I mean, it is. That's amazing. And so they're equally chip dependent as energy independent. What is their domestic supply of chips? Is it anything? They've got a pretty big domestic industry for very low-end chips. But when it comes to anything remotely close to the cutting edge, they're dependent on importing from Taiwan, from Korea, from Japan, from the United States. We'll be right back.

What software do you use at work? The answer to that question is probably more complicated than you want it to be. The average U.S. company deploys more than 100 apps, and ideas about the work we do can be radically changed

by the tools we use to do it. So what is enterprise software anyway? What is productivity software? How will AI affect both? And how are these tools changing the way we use our computers to make stuff, communicate, and plan for the future? In this three-part special series, Decoder is surveying the IT landscape presented by AWS.

Check it out wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, it's Scott Galloway, and on our podcast, Pivot, we are bringing you a special series about the basics of artificial intelligence. We're answering all your questions. What should you use it for? What tools are right for you? And what privacy issues should you ultimately watch out for? And to help us out, we are joined by Kylie Robeson,

the senior AI reporter for The Verge, to give you a primer on how to integrate AI into your life. So tune into AI Basics, How and When to Use AI, a special series from Pivot sponsored by AWS, wherever you get your podcasts. I want to switch gears because when I was reading your bio, you're an expert on chips, but you're also an expert on Russia, or at least modern Russia. You've written two books about it, Putinomics, Power and Money in Resurgent Russia, The Struggle to Save the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, and The Collapse of the USSR. I would love to just get the cliff notes or broad brush what you think the situation is in Russia.

If you're forced to try and speculate around, given obviously there's a lot going on with Russia right now, what do you think Russia looks like in three or five years? How do you think, what is your prediction around Putin and Russia and its role in the world over the next few years? Well, Putin's only 71 years old. So I think the base case is that he's still in power in three years time or in five years time. He doesn't have anywhere to retire to. He can't do that safely. He's in good health by 80s, judging by the life expectancy tables. So he's not likely to die over the next three to five years, though it's possible. And it's hard to remove him, not impossible. There's a long history of palace coups in Russia, but it's difficult to see who could drive him out over the next couple of years. And so I think we have to operate under the assumption that he's still around for the foreseeable future.

This is just an area, I look at the war and I think this is going so poorly. And now a lot of the most powerful and wealthiest people in Russia can't park their yachts in St. Barts or wherever. I mean, is this, is the West, is Western media have a bias where they think things are worse over there for Putin

and for Russia than they actually are? Have these economic sanctions begun to take a toll on ordinary life? If all these boxes with young men in them being shipped back to Mother Russia, is that beginning to take an emotional toll? What is the state of play in Russia right now as it relates to their view of this war and how it's going? Well, the key to answering that question is to differentiate who matters and who doesn't in Russian politics. The oligarchs, they're fun to write about in newspapers because they've got big yachts and lots of girlfriends, but in reality, they don't play a big role in politics. They've been very aggressively pushed out of politics by Putin. And now if you're an oligarch, you've learned over

time that if you have political views and you say them out loud, you could end up in jail or you could fall out a window. And so it's very dangerous to do so. So they're interesting figures, but they're not political actors in a major way. And similarly, the Russian populace doesn't have very many mechanisms to express its views. And so if you're a typical Russian, protesting is highly dangerous. It's not likely to work anyway. And so most people have more or less withdrawn from politics, accepted that they can't change the situation, and are just going to cope with whatever comes. And so as a result, there's just a small number of people in the political elite that have a real vote or a voice in the process. And right now, they've all concluded that their best strategy for survival is to persist

with the war, keep their heads down, and see what comes next. And I think that's been their strategy since the war started. And it's been a successful survival strategy for all the Russian elite. It hasn't been good for the country, but it's been effective for them. It struck me that in the last couple of weeks, as America worries about transgender swimmers or their daughter marrying a Republican, that the thing we should be worried about was that meeting between Xi and Putin. Is there an Axis alliance forming?

There's certainly a much closer partnership than anyone could have imagined 10 years ago. The fact that Putin and Xi have met each other as much as they've met any other world leader, not just since the war started, but over the past decade, is really important. They've described each other as their best friends. They celebrated their birthdays together in recent years. But I think since the war, the relationship has shifted somewhat because Putin has no choice but to be friends with Xi. He's got no other friends. He's more reliant than ever on China, whereas China's in a good bargaining position. It knows that Russia's reliant. It's able to get cut price access to

all of Russia's raw materials. And so for China, this isn't a bad position to be in because Russia has very little room to bargain. When you talk about chips and you talk about oil and the kind of U.S.-Sino relations, you know, this really is probably the most important relationship, geopolitical relationship in the world. And people including Fareed Zakaria and some others will say that we have become so used to being the kind of unilateral superpower that there's some veracity to the notion that we've been too aggressive and that we have encouraged a lot of nations to try and find an alternative default currency, try and produce their own chips, that the rise of a hostile China, that we bear some blame for that. What are your thoughts? You know, I think we certainly bear some blame, but I guess if you look at the key turning points, I think most of the blame falls on the Chinese side. And if you ask, why is it that China annexed the South China Sea?

Or why is it that China regularly starts fights with India over their disputed border in the Himalayas? Or why is it that Xi has horrible relations with all of his neighbors except for Russia? It's not just the US that's in a position of having its worst relations with China in several decades. It's also Korea and Japan and India and Australia. And so if you look at China's foreign relations, we're actually not unique in having a pretty bad relationship. China's actually unique in having awful relations with almost all of its key trading partners. And I think that speaks to the fact that actually a lot of the key policy decisions that have led us to where we are were taken in Beijing rather than in Washington. And so from Russia to chips, what's next? Well, I'm still spending a lot of time looking at the impact of the chip war. I think that the question that people haven't really gotten their heads around yet is how this is going to

restructure the entire electronics industry. Right now, take Apple. They produce almost all their phones, PCs, tablets in China. That is going to change, I think, pretty dramatically over the coming years and decades as every assembler of smartphones, of PCs, of servers is looking to shift where they assemble their goods. And a lot of the globalization that we take for granted is actually electronic supply chains that crisscross the Asia-Pacific region, and that is beginning to be decoupled with really dramatic impacts for the world economy. Let's talk about consumer tech, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, and anyone else that you want to talk about. Who's best positioned or worst positioned given

the changing dynamic of the chip world? Well, I think if you had to pick out someone who is worst positioned, it would certainly be Apple. There's no company that's more exposed to intensifying U.S.-China tensions. Apple both has China as its second largest market, has almost all of its assembly in China, and all of Apple's critical chips are made in Taiwan. So at every level, Apple is exposed to increasing tensions between the U.S. and China. And finally, when I think about the ultimate front end for all this incredibly sophisticated computing power, it's AI. The thing that people are most excited about is AI.

What's your view on AI's impact on the economy and the larger society? It's interesting going back to the early days of the modern computing industry in the 40s, 50s, 60s, and looking at the predictions that were made then. Gordon Moore, who just passed away recently, predicted in 1965 that in the coming decades we would have personal computers and portable communications devices. And he was absolutely right, but it took decades to play out. And so when I look at how to think about the trajectory of AI, I think some of the more optimistic projections are likely to come true, but even revolutionary technologies take years or even decades to actually proliferate across the economy and across our lives. And so

I think we shouldn't expect transformative changes next year or the year after, even if it's really impactful, it'll be measured over a long time horizon. Chris Miller is an associate professor of international history at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and Gene Kirkpatrick visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. He's also the author of four books, including his latest, Chip War, the fight for the world's most critical technology. He joins us from just outside of Boston. Chris, we appreciate your time. Thanks for having me. Algebra of happiness, just book it. So three years ago, it feels like two years ago,

but it was probably three years ago. My oldest son, Alec, who is now 15, I'm not exaggerating, was this beautiful little innocent boy who used to, he just couldn't get enough of me. I mean, just couldn't get enough of me. And he would let me tickle him. And, I mean, just a boy, literally just a boy, just this adorable boy. The last three years, and it may even be the two years, have flown by for me. Starting a business, moving to London. It's just, it's been a blink. But in that blink, this little boy,

this little beautiful boy is now six feet tall and every response is monosyllabic. How was school today? Fine. What do you want to do today? Don't know. And he's turning into a lovely young man, but it's just a different person. That kid is gone. And I have a lot of regrets. Do I have a lot of regrets? Some regrets about fathering, but something I did right was whenever there was an opportunity to go somewhere with my kids, an opportunity to take a vacation, and I realize this is a point of privilege, but a lot of it is your decision. A lot of it is in your control. When I was younger and when they were really little, I always kind of found reasons to not do stuff with them or not go on vacations because I just wanted to put it off or think it through or make sure, do we really want to go to Lifesize Monopoly?

Do we really? Give me a day to decide or a little while. Let's talk about it next week, whether we want to go to visit their grandparents this weekend for lunch or do we want to make the effort to go to Universal Studios? Because I'm a fundamentally lazy person and don't like to commit to, God forbid, doing something I don't enjoy. And what I recognize as I get older is that these kids are ripping by. You do not get these years back. And so what I have done, what I have done six months ago, let's go to Japan. I've never been to Japan. Okay, let's go. Let's book it.

We want to go to ABBA, the 3D. There's some ABBA thing here in London. Okay, let's book it. You know, just book it. And I realize that some people don't have that economic flexibility, but it doesn't have to involve money, right? I'm thinking about joining a soccer league. Do you want to be an assistant coach? Yes. You got to be promiscuous. Be promiscuous with your

heart and your time when it comes to your kid because you'll wake up. I'm telling you, just wake up and he's six feet tall. And quite frankly, he's just not that into you. He loves you. And it's good that he's just not that into you because he's into his own thing as he should be. But I'm telling you, while you're in that magic zone, and I think, I don't know, I think babies are awful, quite frankly. I think kind of three is okay, passable, four starts to get fun. Four to 14 are the magic years. So during that decade, my brothers, any opportunity, it might not seem like fun. It may be expensive. It may be tough on you professionally or from a lifestyle standpoint, but trust me on this, just book it. This episode was produced by Caroline Shagrin. Jennifer Sanchez is our associate producer,

and Drew Burrows is our technical director. If you like what you heard, please follow, download, and subscribe. Thank you for listening to The Prof G Pod from the Vox Media Podcast Network. We will catch you on Saturday for No Mercy, No Malice, as read by George Hahn, and on Monday with our weekly market show. Support for the show comes from Alex Partners. Did you know that almost 90% of executives see potential for growth from digital disruption? With 37% seeing significant or extremely high positive impact on revenue growth. In Alex Partners' 2024 Digital Disruption Report, you can learn the best

path to turning that disruption into growth for your business. With a focus on clarity, direction, and effective implementation, Alex Partners provides essential support when decisive leadership is crucial. You can discover insights like these by reading Alex Partners' latest technology industry insights, available at www.alexpartners.com. That's www.alexpartners.com. In the face of disruption, businesses trust Alex Partners to get straight to the point and deliver results when it really matters. Support for this podcast comes from Klaviyo. You know that feeling when your favorite brand really gets you.

Deliver that feeling to your customers every time. Klaviyo turns your customer data into real-time connections across AI-powered email, SMS, and more, making every moment count. Over 100,000 brands trust Klaviyo's unified data and marketing platform to build smarter digital relationships with their customers during Black Friday, Cyber Monday, and beyond. Make every moment count with Klaviyo. Learn more at klaviyo.com slash BFCM.