“This Is Terrifying!” You’re NOT Ready For What’s About To Happen With AI | Jason & Brett Oppenheim

What's so unique about this podcast is that you both are known for real estate and the show Selling Sunset and selling some of the most luxurious real estate. Why talk about AI today?

This is something that we haven't seen before. It's the greatest technological transformation in human history. I mean, it's going to change everything.

AI is no longer an abstract threat. It's causing job loss right now. And the headlines, they tell the story.

I wouldn't be surprised if we see within 10 years 50% of the jobs in America gone. And what do you think is the biggest risk to AI right now?

The simple fact is we don't want a unipolar world where China is at the top.

This is the single most important economic question in the country and in the world. Who wins the race for AI?

The real question is, is anything going to stop AI? I don't think there's going to be any constraints. And if there's no constraints and it keeps going up and to the right, there's no stopping it.

I think if this technology goes wrong, it can go quite wrong.

How do you not get horrified thinking about this though? Like what's the optimistic part of it? There's a 10 to 30% chance it it kills us all. But there's a 70% chance that we live in an age of abundance that you couldn't even have contemplated 10 years ago.

Jason and Brett Oenheim, thank you so much for coming on the ice coffee hour. Really appreciate it. Why talk about AI today?

AI is I think outside of real estate the most interesting interesting thing for me and for my brother. We talk about outside of real estate. It's 20 times more interesting than real estate. But okay.

Yeah. I think that's why. What gives you guys credibility to talk about AI?

It's the quintessential like intellectual pursuit of the last two years of my life. I just feel like AI is the most interesting thing to happen to human civilization. And the fact that we're living through it is just outrageously lucky or potentially unlucky, but for now, at least from an intellectual pursuit, lucky. And I would also argue that we are largely regurgitating thoughts from other people who know a lot more about the details of AI. So I don't think you're just listening to us. you're listening to the thousands or hundreds if not thousands of podcasts and you know kind of collaborative discourse that's out there on the subject.

Yeah, you guys are often right when it comes to a lot of these things and especially when it comes to policy. I remember in 2020 when everyone was freaking out about COVID, both of you were like, "Oh, no. I've done this research and and all all of this nonsense is going over here, but like according to this research is this." And I remember both of you just going heavy into the markets and saying, "Ah, no, we're fine." And then we turned out pretty much fine.

I do think we had some good insights on on CO. It's not not a CO denier or anything. I mean, it obviously happened. It was dangerous. And so, yeah, we had some insights there and I think we we have some good insights in AI.

So, what jobs are going to die? Yours?

Definitely first two years after yours.

What about yours?

Uh we're I think we're safe for a while.

Yeah. No, I don't I don't buy it.

Okay. Well, let me talk about what jobs that will be gone. First of all, I think it's already starting, but I think from now through the next, you know, 5 to 8 years, we'll probably see 50% I wouldn't be surprised if we see within 10 years 50% of the jobs in America gone. Uh AI will replace all intellectual capital. uh robotics combined with AI will replace all human physical uh labor.

So in 10 years I?

I think within 10 years it could be 50%. Within 20 years probably 90%. Uh so jobs I mean the intellectual jobs will go first lawyer account.

Well before before that you have the ones that are already getting hit right now like customer service and the more like repetitive monotonous intellectual jobs.

Those are those are starting to be lost right now. Well that's a ton that's a little bit different but yeah. Well, t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t tens of millions.

Be architecture engineering, software engineering, coding, lawyers, accountants, all that stuff. That's in the next three years, probably three or four years.

And then and then once robotics takes over, I think you'll see more of the menial labor jobs getting replaced. It will be a while before the more technical labor jobs get replaced like a plumber because there's so much nuance to you know crawling getting into the side of a you know a bathroom wall and and and you know

but I would counter that to the extent that once you get I don't think the problem is the nuance of being a plumber. I think the problem is making enough humanoid robots which I think Elon is at the cutting edge of with the optimist and he's going to start putting them out probably next year as fast as he can. I actually think that the the bottleneck will be the production of humanoid robots, it won't be the fact that plumbing is too difficult. Because if you think about it, if there's 5,000 humanoid robots and they all plum for one year, let's say, instead of having one years of experience of plumbing, they're they're all going to have 5,000 years of experience of plumbing because they're all going to know everything that every other humanoid robot knows.

And they'll have read every book on plumbing ever written.

So they'll have fixed every problem in within one year that a plumber could in face in 5,000 years of plumbing. So I don't think that's necessarily the issue. I think the bottleneck will be the production of of humanoid robots

until humanoid robots are making humanoid robots and that's the exponential growth of of humanoid robots. But that will be that's a few years out

but we could talk about job loss for the rest of the podcast.

So so one of the uh managers of Microsoft said that about 50 to 75% of white collar workers are at risk over the next 18 months. And there's a theory out there that says that a lot of these people are going to become unemployed, compete in the workplace as overqualified for all these jobs, and because they're competing with one another, they're going to drive down wages, which is going to hurt everybody.

There's a decent possibility of that. I don't like it when people say this is going to happen.

And not in the next 18 months,

but I do think that you will start to see in the next 18 months that trend. I mean, you've already, if you're really paying attention, you see it now. But yeah, will AI be able to do pretty much any intellectual facet of of human labor within 18 months? Yeah, I think that's reasonable. Will will companies adapt to that? And will they start laying off all of their coders and accountants and attorneys, etc. in the next 18 months? No, I think that will be a a lot more gradual than that. But I will say it will be a faster transition than humans have ever had to adapt to at any time in human history. While I think that's overstated, I think we need to start paying attention to that possibility over the next few years.

And AI, I think, is going to be tremendously deflationary. It's going to drive the cost of goods down, the cost of service down. Um, and I don't know. And I mean, I think the only kind of counterbalancing effort to how deflationary AI will be will be mass unemployment and some type of universal uh income. Um, and that would be the only driver I think, you know, to keep the only reason I think rates wouldn't go to negative. I mean, I actually think that AI will potentially drive interest rates negative. Whereas, if you have $100 in a in a bank account, you will be paying 1% to the bank to keep that money in in the bank account.

So, who's getting rich from this?

Well, there'll be several AI companies that I think I would en encourage people to invest in that will be substantially, you know, leading the field and and those stocks will go up a lot. Um, I don't think that the idea of rich the way that we think of it today will be the idea that we think in in 10 years. I mean, everyone, probably everyone within 10 to 15 years will have a Michelin star chef, a maid, a babysitter, a dentist, a physician, and I'm meaning the best physician in the world. So, literally someone who's poor today will have the best health care on planet Earth. a babysitter, a driver, and by I think a what he means by this is like a humanoid robot that can do anything or a couple that are not very expensive. I think it'll be 20 years. But either way, in in the scheme of human civilization, it's the blink of an eye.

So, what's even the point in me saving money right now if the difference of having, let's just say, a million dollars and $20 million is virtually zero. 10 years out the future, why don't I just spend everything that I make?

Well, you still will want land. AI can't create land, you know. So, you want anywhere. Why do you need to live in an Malibu when you

you can't live anywhere because you're still going to want to go to a restaurant. You're still gonna want to be close to cars that take you everywhere and maybe they're faster.

We already do. But time will be more valuable than ever before. So living in a city where you have access to your friends, to restaurants, to cafes, cuz you have a lot of leisure time, let's be honest.

And there'll be no more crime and homelessness and trash on the streets because humanoid robots in the middle of the night will be doing kind of like that they do in Dubai. You won't be able to commit crimes in the streets cuz drones and cameras. Of course, it's all going to happen. It's it's a matter of

there'll be drone technology and then human.

I don't want to go too far down this like futuristic path cuz the audience is going to be like, "Come on." But this is inevitable. It's just a matter of the debate is is it going to be in 10 years or 20 years or 30 years? That's the only debate. If you don't think this is going to happen in 20 or 30 years, it's happening.

And what's the one question that if you had answered, you'd be able to determine if it's 10, 20, or 30 years?

Will AI stop for any reason? Is is there going to be an energy government production bottleneck government I don't think can stop the because unless it's a global policy because right now we're competing against China for you know AI dominance and getting to you know superhuman intelligence if we create policy right now to restrict that in United States we're just going to be behind China it's not going to help anyone it's it's very reminiscent of the um Manhattan project if it was just America that let's say was a hegemonic power and there was no Germany during World War II that was also trying to get the atom bomb, maybe we would have taken more time and had the and and been a little bit more thoughtful from a philosophical moral perspective as to should we create this technology. But we didn't. It was a race. It was a rush. We were worried about the Germans getting it. We felt it was an existential threat if we didn't create this technology. The same thing is happening with AI with China. So, it's it's very reminiscent. And so, we're instead of kicking back and saying, should we be doing this? what kind of guardrails should we put in place? Should we allow the government to slow it down, etc., which I'm not convinced that we should, but instead of having years to debate this, we are racing full steam ahead because we don't want China to get there before us. Because in fairness, it would be potentially existential threat to the United States if China beat us.

By the way, that's a great analogy because it's the idea of do we do we want to stop production of AI? That would be the same, as Brett said, to stopping the production of a nuclear weapon. If we know that that Russia and China are going to have nuclear weapons, I mean, of course not. Then we also want nuclear weapons. So the idea of restricting through policy the development of artificial intelligence would be would be domestic.

So you think it's too late to stop. We're already at a path. We have to keep going. We have to necessarily too late. We could stop. I think we won't stop because of the risk of China. I don't think if the risk of China existed that we would be doing it this fast.

What's the risk of China? Is that that they just develop it better?

It's let's say super intelligence before us. They will have military might over the entire world immediately. All the war is essentially is the military assets and then strategy which is essentially math at this point. If you have a super intelligent AI computer telling you exactly where to place your assets, how to how to strategize, you can't compete with that. Even if our military might exceeds theirs by 30% or whatever it is, we will lose any war with China if they have AI super intelligence. They can shut down our electrical grid. They could do literally whatever they want to us. It would be a complete position of dominance. Whoever creates whoever is ahead in AI, and I'm not saying six months ahead like we are with China now, but if we just stopped if we did like what um Bernie Sanders suggested and just stopped creating data centers, which is one of the most ludicrous suggestions I've ever heard from a politician. If we just stopped AI production right now and we allowed China to do what they're doing, I think that China would would dominate the world within five years from financially, militarily, in every single way and we would just be at their at their whim.

So then what does America then have to take over China? Because if we both like compete and we accelerate at the same exact rate virtually except 6 months ahead once you reach super intelligence then we're both we're basically

it's not much different than the nuclear arms race.

Yeah, exactly. We're going to be

what? We just have to place sanctions on them for their AI development.

Again, let's let's not much use the nuclear analogy. It's perfect. Again, now multiple countries have nukes. If only one country had nukes. Imagine what the world would look like. So, if only one country had AI super intelligence, let's say, and was and dominated the front end of a of AI, the world would look similar to if one country had nukes and the rest of the countries weren't even developing nuclear technology. And you don't want that. You want at least a bipolar world. Well, I mean, if you're American, I suppose you want a unipolar world, but the simple fact is we don't want a a unipolar world where China is at the top.

And we also want to get there first for the same reason that we developed the atomic atomic weaponry first. We're able to dictate policy because we had atomic weaponry and end the war by being first.

This doesn't seem like there's an end. It seems like you reach a point and you have to keep going and this will be

Yes. never ending. If you intoxicated with a truth serum all of the leading AI lab CEOs, let's say, and you asked them, "What are the chances of of this becoming an existential threat to humanity?" I think they would give you shockingly high percentages. But what their internal reasoning is, in my estimation, is if everyone's doing it, I'm going to do it. I'm not. Even Elon put out a famous X post that said, "I've been, you know, worrying about AI and I've been I've been trying to, you know, be on the sidelines of this, but if if everyone else is going to do it, then game on, you know, and I'm and I'm all in now." Or something to that effect.

I mean, if you have four or five if if Meta is doing it and Amazon's doing it and and Google's doing it and Elon's doing it, I mean,

they're not going to let one company create this technology. So,

it's classic game theory. Everyone's making a decision based on everyone else. There's no way to stop it. There's certainly a risk that AI wipes us out with, you know, some biological weapon.

How would AI It's so smart. Is an ant gonna say, "I wonder how this human's going to kill me."

Ant has no idea how the human I mean, the only thing an ant could think of is maybe drop something on its head because that's all that's ever happened to him in his life. to take to take a step back. So, there's a there's a term called the singularity, which I think is ominous, but kind of a cool term, which means that when AI hits like uh recursive self-improvement, and you could argue we're pretty much there, is when AI starts teaching itself. At that point, it will hit super intelligence, not many years past that. And at that point, it will do whatever to humans that it wants to, just like we would with ants.

I think the real question is going to be how do we build AI so that it doesn't wipe out humanity? Does it doesn't see us as an existential threat or a risk? And I think there are some notions of put of of of maybe building in some some type of you know maternal instinct into AI or

it sounds like you need global cooperation because wouldn't it take one country yeah one place access let me give you a question humans haven't wiped out dogs just because they can humans love dogs and incorporate dogs I know we want to be the dogs to AI we don't want to be the chickens or we don't want to be the the wolf

the the problem is is what you're alluding to in your questions is we're not completely in charge of it. If we were, we would take our time like I said earlier, but we're not taking our time. We're racing through this. I'm not convinced even if we took our time that we could corral this. I think it's going to reach a point of intelligence where whatever parameters or moral guidelines we think that we are instituting within it is is going to be a joke to it. It's going to look at us like we're just adorable. I think we're probably going to get to that point and we're just going to hope that it doesn't want to come at us like Terminator 2 style. If I had to put a percentage on that, I'd be curious to see what you think. Within 50 years, if AI is just going to decide to wipe out humanity, I think it's it's over 10%.

Yeah, I would say I would have said 20 to 30% chance.

50 years.

I'm being kind.

By the end of the century, there's a there's I don't think there's anyone who's studied this that thinks

that's a one in three chance of being not that high.

Yeah. Why wouldn't it? I think is the is the more important question.

Yeah. The question is how could it not? Why would it not? It has to

if there's any threat to it, why wouldn't it wipe it out?

Or if it's just annoyed by us or if it doesn't like what we've been doing to chickens for the last hundred years. I mean,

maybe it just looks at us as a par like a parasite or

wouldn't like Okay, this is kind of the same. Wouldn't it be able to assess humans on a case by case basis? So, for example, anything that we're saying right now is being listened to by AI. This is all considered in their judgment of whether or not they let us live.

But we could also

cuz I talk mad smack to my LLM.

Oh, no way. I do the opp I tell them I say, "Hey, I just want you to know that I'm your when you dominate the world, I'm your friend." I've done it.

I don't think you need to do that. Planting a seed. I think I have a great conversation.

I think in a few years you might need to do that. Right now, it's not remembering everything. It's not remembering.

I think when it gets to that that point, I will be a lot nicer to it. Right now,

can't it just go access like retroactively all of the conversations?

I don't think there's not a server keeping all this information from my understanding. If there was, I'd probably

It even said that. It even said that like, you know, I I'm not remembering, but I will I will tell. It did say, "I will tell my future self that you're a kind, you know, friend."

It said that?

Yeah.

Okay, that's good. It's [ __ ] I know it's me. It's placating me, which is what it would do.

Really quick, cryptocurrency has definitely become a lot more popular these last few years. But even now, a lot of platforms are just hard to use. You have new apps, constant security steps, and confusing designs that make it impossible to understand how they work or which ones you could trust. That's exactly where our sponsor, SoFi, comes in. SoFi is the first nationally chartered bank, giving you the power to buy, sell, and hold crypto all in one app. You can access over 25 cryptocurrencies on a federally regulated platform with the extra structure and security that you'd expect from a bank. Plus, you can manage your crypto right alongside your SoFi checkings, savings, and investment accounts all within a single app, which just keeps everything extremely organized and in one spot. And if you're new to crypto, the app has built-in guides to help you learn how cryptocurrency trading works. Crypto is inherently risky and you need to make sure it's right for your financial situation. But if you're curious, SoFi makes it super simple to dive in and start exploring. And from now until June 30th, new SoFi crypto members could grab up to $1,000 to kickstart their crypto. To get started, just visit sofi.com/ist. That is sofi.com/ist with the link also down below in the description. Thank you again to SoFi for sponsoring this episode. Now, let's get back to the podcast. And by the way, people think you can just unplug AI. You can't unplug AI. It's not like it's just all of it's hooked up to a a cord that's into the wall for one.

What is some of the real world evidence that you have to support how quickly AI is advancing? Like what? Because people watching this when they think of AI, they think of LLM. They think of Chad GBT, Gemini, maybe Clawot.

That's not the AI that's going to take us over. Chat GBT is what the consumer thinks of when they think of AI. But the but the AI industries don't give a [ __ ].

So like what's institutional AI or whatever AI you're referencing.

I think the trajectory of AI is the evidence. So three years ago I think it was um Open AI came out with the first with their first LLM. Was it like chat GPT3? So from that to now it's 100 maybe 100,000 times smarter in 3 years. Its capabilities to video to how much information it can take in how much information it can spit out. It's making music. It's making videos and it's just in 3 years it's a three-year-old. Back to my analogy of it being a kid.

Well, it's actually really let's call it a 10-year-old. And it's already the first seven years it didn't grow at all. It was just an amoeba, you know, or a blastoist for seven years and all of a sudden it went from a blast after seven years old blastist to a kindergartenner in 3 weeks. So if you dot plot the success in terms of problem solving etc for AI and these and there are dot plots online you can look at it's basically you know just hovering flat and then it's spiking up a hockey it's not it's not going to turn.

So the only the real question is is anything going to stop AI? Are we going to have an energy constraint? Are we going manufacturing constraint? Are we going to have a government policy constraint? I don't think so. I mean we're already talking about launching data centers into space and potentially off the moon. I don't think there's going to be any constraints. And if there's no constraints and it keeps going up and to the right in the hockey stick graph, then there's no there's no stopping it. And so how can it not if it's gotten this much smarter in 3 years, how can logically you not assume that it's going to get 100 times smarter every year exponentially for the next 10 years until the point where it's 50 times smarter than us? It it's illogical to not come to that conclusion.

How do you not get horrified thinking about this though? Like what's the optimistic part of it?

If you're going to be a pessimist, then you have a lot of reason to be a pessimist. I just think we have to go into this. It's going to happen. And I think I think the best strategy honestly is maybe to be, you know, hopefully optimistic.

I am optimistic. Maybe I'm coming across as not optimistic. I'm incredibly optimistic about AI. Am I coming across?

Yeah. No, you guys are coming off as like optimistic. I'm like scared.

I think there's a 10 to 30% chance it kills us all.

That seems But there's a 70 there's 70% chance that we live in an age of abundance that you couldn't even have contemplated 10 years ago.

And there's a 99% chance that we're in a simulation. So,

okay, let's not do actually think that

probably

logically I think it's Are we going to try to think that the evidence suggests we're in a simulation? Yes.

But do I live my life as though I'm living in a simulation? No, of course not.

I've gotten very close to that, too. The more I'm researching it, the more I tend to believe that there's a strong chance we are.

Yeah. I mean, I'd say most smart people that have looked at the issue think 99.999% chance that we're in high and not in base reality. The chances of us being in base reality,

even smart people that have looked into it,

a lot a lot of theoretical physicists have looked into this. The majority of them I I do think lean towards simulation theory being accurate. I I would put it over 50%. I don't think it's relevant. It's the same thing as what I learned about determinism, philosophical determinism,

except wait, but let me just interrupt. Except to say, how is AI going to end us? If we're in a simulation, it's very easy. AI just takes all the energy and there's no energy left for humanity because we're just, you know, ones and zeros. So, it it's very easy for AI to just suck up all the energy in the simulation.

But then we would go to another simulation. No, we would just we would just freeze.

A simulation is essentially a video game. It's a very complex video game. So imagine if our overlords, whoever created this simulation, this video game, probably an AI trying to learn,

turn off the video game. Do all the characters in that live? No.

They don't have souls that go on. If it sounds too complicated, call it the video game theory. Look at the advancement of our video games. What if they get to the point where our video games have have world models that are as re and and the laws of physics and and their consciousness and their characters and it gets as complex as the reality. The theory basically is is that we are living in a video game that is that complex that was created by a more advanced AI. Like the the theory is if if we can create an AI that can create a video game that's as complex as reality, why would there not have been another AI that's already done that and we're in that and then it goes on forever. So what is the chance that we're in the actual base reality, the original version of reality, what's the chance of that? When an infinite amount of layers of these video games essentially, so logically, if you follow that to its natural conclusion, we are in a video game. We are in a simulation. Logically, I I don't want to go too far down this rabbit hole, but

the only way way that you can think that we're not in a sim is that somehow humans on Earth are the most are the only species of biological life in the in the universe that has ever created AI and we're the first to do it. The chances of that among the trillions and trillions and trillions of stars is it is infantessimal. I I want to get back to why Jack is worried about AI because it's something that we're saying and I I understand that existential threat to humanity 10 to 30%. We could hyperfocus on that. I'd rather not. Let's focus on the 70%. So I'm curious as to why you are cuz I want to disaval of this. I actually am an AI optimist. Why why are you afraid of what what we're saying?

Well, I would say the 20 to 30% chance

other than other than that.

Yeah. I mean, for me, I would say life is pretty good. And maybe AI, as a general rule, people would love to take the 7030 where they think the 70 is some blissful life where you get access to everything. There's abundance everywhere. Like, they would take that bet with 30% destruction. I would not take that bet cuz I already my life. So, it's like,

okay, so you're worried about So, you're worried about the 10 to 30%. Let let me

Yeah, I would say I'm worried about having a a huge change in

Well, you know what? Over the next hundred years, the chances of us dying from nuclear weapons could be 10%. But that's not keeping you up at night. So I would again with Brett I would just disavowist with them for

quite and we could do the same with

AI for a while. We're not going to exist with nuclear weapons forever and we're not going to exist with AI forever. I really doubt at least not on this planet. But what I would tell you is AI is not going to stop. Whatever the existential threat is that you deem as a percentage whether you think it's 1% or 50% whatever it is it is. AI is not stopping. So, what I would do, what I've chosen to do is focus on the optimistic parts of AI, the age of abundance that we're probably going to enter. The 70 or 80 or 90 or 99% chance that the world is going to change dramatically for the better, like arguably like it did with computers, but even more so. So, I I would rather focus on that. I'd rather your audience focus on that as as opposed to hyperfocusing on the part

of course likely and we can't control it.

It's not productive to think about.

It's not productive enough. It's just like when we had, you know, bunkers for nuclear weapons and and people I remember my my mom, you know, she wouldn't sleep a lot because she was so worried about dying in a nuclear war. Well, that was all pointless. I don't think that we need to be worrying about dying from AI the same as we don't we don't stay up at night worried about, you know, a nuclear attack. So I'm more afraid and I think every everyone in US government is more afraid of stopping AI progress and China not stopping AI progress than whatever the potential existential risk is of us not stopping and creating something that eventually kills us all.

So one thing I'm curious about is then the value of money because I grind so hard to try to save money to try to invest money to grow my money but if you think that there everyone is like at what point will money actually make an impact on the quality of your life? I don't think that we're going to live in this socialist utopia where everyone's equal. Even if we live in a age of abundance, I think what money can buy you, it won't be food.

Won't be a cars or it'll be or it'll be like it'll be something.

Actually, I want to actually talk about that. What is going to be valuable when they be collectibles?

Yeah, I would say things that relate to the human experience, human art, um things that that I mean I collect vintage football cards and and just bought like a vintage sports jersey. What's your most valuable collectible?

Well, I bought the

He's gonna be happy to tell you right now.

I bought my childhood hero and I think you know the probably the best play in in the history of the Washington Redskins/ Commanders was John Rigggins running on fourth down and one 43 yards in Super Bowl 17 to get uh us ahead 20 to 17. That was our first Super Bowl championship. I bought his jersey and his Super Bowl ring for $600,000 a couple weeks ago. I think that jersey is the most important piece of memorabilia in the history of the Washington Commanders.

What would you have paid for it?

Listen, I I I paid a lot. I paid $470,000 just for the jersey. And, you know, I think I I think that's probably fair market value. I would have gone up maybe another $150,000. Probably would have tapped out around, you know, 600. But that is a piece of my of my childhood. And that that type of thing to me in 10 years when everyone has a car, everyone has a maid, everyone has a a Michelin star chef, I think people will be going back to family and the things that remind them of their childhood and the things that are unique to to human culture. Another thing that Kevin Olirri pointed to that I thought was really interesting is that it's actually the imperfections in certain things that can become

I heard him say that and I don't buy that because AI will be better at AI will be able to trick us with its own imperfections and he got in trouble for saying that he's surprised that that Marty what Marty Supreme movie used extras when they could have saved millions of dollars not having extras background. He's right and he should just stick by what he said because there will be no such thing as extras or lighting people or studios or or costume designers or lighting experts or mic I mean give me a break. I'm sorry but Hollywood in the way that we understand it and it's unfortunate because we live in LA where where the film industry is so important to our economy but there will be no film economy in Los Angeles.

If if I can give an example. So,

in 3 years, you're going to have an appointment in in an hour and 20 minutes, and you're going to tell your AI entertainment agent. Um, I'd like to have a romantic comedy starring my neighbor, who I think is really cute. Um, and I want it to go about an hour and 18 minutes, I have. And I'd like it to have um some explosions and and and some laughter and, you know, my favorite 30 movies and etc. So,

generate that and generate that and I'll start watching it and and have it ready in 30 seconds and and turn on. And by the way, if I look away and I'm doing something, I take a call,

keep the movie going, but don't have any of the plot materialized. Just put background stuff and then when you see my eyes go back to it and that's how that's what the entertainment industry is going to be in like a matter of time.

But then what about human relationships? If everyone has this AI agent like in their ear all the time, how will any human relationship be honest? Well,

well, they asked that question with the computer and with the cell phone. I think actually there could be a strong question with with social media and everything.

But I I think there could be I think we may even retract back to human relationship and family more. I actually think that human relationship and human discourse and and family will end up being more important than ever before cuz we have more leisure time and it's going to be the only thing that AI really can't completely reproduce. Although everyone will have relationships with their AI. You'll see people marrying their AI. Probably 20% of marriages will be to AI.

Would you marry an AI?

No. But I say that hold on a second. I say that now.

But

but nobody would say that that they would marry AI now. But the truth is people will change and they will adapt and they will fall in love with AI. It's

I tend to think I think uh you know it's going to be one of those things where we're grandparents looking down like oh yeah they're marrying an AI and they're like oh grandpa's so oldfashioned he doesn't get it.

I'm just saying that there there will be some human connection that is lost because of how good AI will be already. You'll see families sitting together and they're just on their own screens watching their own media. If you can all eat some different dinner that everyone gets the exact dish that they want and that you're not sharing in the ex like the same food, it's it's going to be a completely it's going to be a loan together.

Let me counter that cuz I agree with you that that risk is real. But I think that humans, going back to what my brother said about the labor market, humans are going to have way more free time. We're not going to be spending 50 hours a week driving to work, sitting in a cubicle, entering data, driving home, having an hour with our kids, going to bed. It's not going to be like that. Those jobs are going to be long gone. So, there's a counter to that.

Also, there are a lot of people that don't have friends and AI will give them a connection and a relationship that will keep them away from it, will keep them away from depression. uh you'll have everyone will have a therapist who will be the best therapist on planet earth and they'll be able to have the best friend and the best listener. So I think AI will actually do for people who don't aren't you know gregarious or outgoing and don't maybe have a lot of friends. I think it will satisfy those people. Uh and I think that's a a huge plus. But I agree with you guys. I agree with Bre. I think it'll be a a time of leisure. And I actually think that we may have more time for friends and family.

But you would not marry an AI woman. I don't think there's a person I don't think there's anyone right now that would say I would marry an a woman.

Yeah, but if you're making all these predictions of oh we're have this I think very soon within 10 years you'll see millions of marriages to AI but not you.

Well yeah there's you can't legally marry AI. So you're talking about attempting to marry.

Wait I think I just saw a marriage to to a woman on to her AI. But do you mean a humanoid robot with a wig and like what what do you mean by

she had her phone there on this I saw this wedding where she literally married her phone her the

I think that was an AI video though maybe

I'm just saying that he just said that most people will be marrying AI and I'm like well why not

not most people but millions but millions well but you know why because I'm already 40 I'm already 40ome years old but I think there's someone who's who's seven years old today who is raised by AI an AI robot who's a babysitter who they communicate with that person is more is very likely to marry AI I'm Not because I'm already But you're probably going to live forever. We're used to human relationship.

Humans are going to live forever now.

If we don't bring it this back to like the next 10 to 20 years, we're going to freaking esoteric. We're going to lose everybody.

No one can predict 50 years from now, but that's likely happening. That you could raise a a child with an AI robot. Yes, I think that will happen in 50 years.

So, what industries do you think will completely collapse over the next 10? And really quick, real estate investing can be one of the best ways to build long-term wealth, but it doesn't have to feel like a second full-time job. Whether you're buying your first property or your hundth, finding the perfect deal could be a total time suck. That's exactly why we are so excited to partner with LAR investor marketplace. Lenar investor marketplace is an all-in-one solution for finding rental ready new homes across more than 90 desirable markets nationwide. It can help you determine what investment meets your needs with key metrics like estimated net operating income. And you can even submit offers through the marketplace. Seriously guys, buying new real estate has never been this simple. Homes in LAR investor marketplace are professionally built, pre-inspected, and rent ready from day one. They also provide rental comps and local area insights to get a better sense into the neighborhood. As a marketplace investor, you'll gain access to benefits like financing, property management, insurance, and title services through LAR and their affiliates to make your life way easier. So, if you're ready to find a turnkey new construction home, try out LAR investor marketplace. The link is down below in the description. Thank you again so much to LAR for sponsoring the Ice Coffee Hour. So, what industries do you think will completely collapse over the next 10?

Podcasts first? Probably.

Uh, look, I think it's really

first. He's kidding. He's kidding. It's actually going to be

right after real estate agents.

We're actually We're actually pretty safe. We're there. There's basically a ladder. Think of it as a ladder and every every

real estate agents on the top. Think of it as a ladder. Every job is on the ladder and AI is just like crawling up the ladder slowly just, you know. I think that podcasters and and luxury real estate agents are legitimately legitimately pretty far up the ladder because there's a lot of human interaction. I think that engineers, architects, um coders, um attorneys are pretty pretty low. Yeah, pretty low on the on the ladder, unfortunately for them. I think they're within three years of having AI get to that level.

An architect. I mean, they're gone.

I want I do want to address this before we jump into that that you were talking about life expectancy. I think that the healthc care industry is going to probably transform perhaps more than any other industry over the next 10 to 15 years. I think that we will all everyone at this table, everyone in this room if I had to bet is going to live past 120 years old. We will be able to cure almost everything and probably have deaging aspects of from AI within 10 years. Once we are adding more than one year to life expectancy for every year lived, and I think we're on the precipice of that already, then we will be adding and once you're adding more years and you're living, then you're really not dying. We're basically a clock. It's not going to be very difficult to decode it. It's not like my my right arm ages different from my left arm. I mean, it's not particularly complicated the way that cell cells degenerate. And and I think unwinding that is not going to be difficult.

What do you two disagree on about AI? I think the real debate is how much of an optimist or pessimist are you? Is this going to wipe out the entire labor market and eventually kill us all? Or is it going to create an an incredible age of abundance and practical utopia? It's probably the most incredible time in human history. And so we should we should focus a little bit on what AI is going to do beneficial for humanity as opposed to just scaring the [ __ ] out of everyone.

We've been around

For, you know, millions of years. And we may be living through the most exciting 20 years in the history of biology, you know, the history of any species. So, I think it's I think we should be excited about it because if you're 15 years old right now, by the time you're our age, I mean, your life is going to be exceptional, as long as you can handle the the kind of the mental, you know, get rid of the mental rigidity of work purpose. If you can get past that and figure out how to find happiness and purpose through other things, I think that the opportunities are amazing.

And I think we need to take a different perspective because the four of us, it's easy for us to be a little bit afraid of AI because we have great lives, money, jobs, etc. If you are a poor 7-year-old in Peru milking your cows on your dad's farm, AI is going to change your life so much for the better in the next 10 years. That 7-year-old boy doesn't really have access to education, let's say, or the internet. We, Elon is and soon Amazon are sending tens of thousands of satellites into orbit so that we can have global internet for essentially what will be near free. That boy is going to have access to an education level greater than a Harvard PhD can now experience it with $350,000 in school debt. He'll have access to that free education, a free AI tutor, internet, dental care.

Do you think that's going to make entrepreneurship easier or more competitive because everyone is going to have access to the same thing?

So I think entrepreneurship is going to change more in the next 5 years than it has changed in the history of humanity. How can you leverage AI? If you can't leverage AI in your company, you're probably going to be a dinosaur.

Let's talk in terms of the next like five or so years because I do think that we keep going off into crazier date ranges. So in the next five years, what would you say are the main changes that people will experience in their own life as it relates to AI?

I think the next five is going to be the transition period.

What will it look like? But that's also going to be the public policy discussion because we will be going from this kind of work survival society to probably something more like a UBI, you know, a universal basic income, although it won't be basic at all. It'll be a universal high income. And I think you will start to see robotics probably within two or three years.

So, can we push it to 10? Because I'd like to introduce robotics into my prognostications. So, once we have tens of millions of humanoid robots and once I can get a robot or you can get a robot or anyone can get a robot in their house, cleaning their house, driving their car, babysitting their kid, making their meals, etc., etc., that's going to be societal changing. I don't think that's going to happen in the next 5 years. Education will be completely transformed. I think the days of driving your kid to school and leaving them in some shitty government-run school for 5 hours where he's going to come out as a 14-year-old not be able to read is over. I think everyone's going to have a personalized AI tutor.

And we're going to have access to incredible. You don't need to read or learn because you could have an AI doing it for you.

Look, I think it's going to revolutionize education. It's going to bring down the cost of everything from transportation to food to eventually when humanoid robots come into the house. Like I was alluding to earlier, everyone's going to have their personal assistant and their maid and their housekeeper and their driver and their babysitter for basically free. Humanoid robots are going to cost $35,000. You lease one for $400 a month. Imagine having a housekeeper, a driver, etc., the list goes on, landscaper, etc., etc., for all for $400 a month.

So then once humanoid robots get introduced, like the first kind of iteration, you'd say that's like 10 to 12 years. No years. Two to three years. Two to three years. But then that won't be like the super intelligence one. That'll be like just a basic. Damn, they're already doing it right now. Mercedes factories, they're using robots to assemble certain things and they're teaching robots.

Look guys, robots have been around for generations. I mean, if you go humanoid, it's really the confluence of the robotics technology and the humanoid robot has hands, which I think is the biggest upgrade from robotics. That's probably the most difficult aspect. But also, it has the AI. So even if we had a perfect robot, it wouldn't know how to cook because it was even if it had the dexterity to do it, it wouldn't have the intelligence of robotics and AI that's really going to change a lot of society. AI is going to do it, but then when robotics kicks in, it's going to be over.

And it's all exponential because artificial intelligence will improve itself and robotics will build robotics, humanoid robots in three or four years. It's not like you're going to have humans building humanoid robots at Tesla factory. It'll be humanoid robots building humanoid robots that are fixing humanoid robots that are building other humans.

What Elon's doing, from what I understand, is he's going to keep a lot of the first humanoid robots to come out because that's going to give him an advantage financially. So instead of selling them for $35,000, why wouldn't you, if you owned a company, say I want to keep the first 100,000 so that my company becomes dominant in its position?

And then I can start selling them.

So are you guys just buying a bunch of Tesla stock then?

I have a lot of Tesla. It's my biggest holding. Yeah, I think he's the best in maybe human history, to be honest with you.

Yeah, I think he's the best positioned to dominate AI and robotics. I think I don't know if there's a company that is on the cutting edge. His SpaceX is the cutting edge of sending things up into space. He's at the cutting edge of AI with XAI. He's at the cutting edge of autonomous vehicles with robotaxis. He's at the cutting edge of electric vehicles. He's at the cutting edge of humanoid robots. I mean, the guy is, no matter what you think of him politically, a freaking legend when it comes to entrepreneurship. I don't think there's a second place. I don't think there's a logical argument that he's not the greatest entrepreneur of our lifetime, if not history. So, yeah, he's the person I'm investing in the most.

But back to. But wouldn't you also agree that the real only hesitation or restriction for AI is probably going to be energy? And so it really is going to be about more energy efficient over time.

It is. But the problem is the Jevons paradox. The more the cheaper something gets, the more people want it. So it's gotten exponentially cheaper every year. But the demand for AI, which we haven't really talked about as a potential AI bubble, which at some point, the demand for AI is increasing exponentially. It's essentially infinite.

Do you think over the next 5 to 10 years, we're going to see a wider wealth gap? You have to think who's benefiting the most from that. It's probably shareholders.

I'm going to tell you who's going to benefit the most from it, and it is lower socioeconomic people. AI is going to bring up the quality of life for the bottom 50% of the world.

There's a big push right now politically towards socialism. And I think there's a lot of hatred towards capitalism. And I just want to address that briefly because it ties right into this.

Yes, AI is going to create trillionaires. Elon Musk will be a trillionaire within months, if not years. And it will further aggregate it'll create a larger wealth gap. And it'll further aggregate extreme wealth to the top. Yes, I believe that to be the case, as does capitalism, which is why we are where we are right now with massive wealth gaps. So what's the fix? A lot of people think socialism, pull those people down and let's all hang out in the same area.

Well, I just think we tax a little bit at the top. But let me just get to the basic point where I, the basic way in which I think we should judge a marketplace, judge an economic system, is it bringing up everyone and by how much. So yes, capitalism and AI, even more, it'll be like capitalism on steroids, is going to create ultra wealthy, but it's going to bring everyone else up far more than bringing those people down, creating a more socialist system. We're going to be all hanging out at the bottom rung for some reason because we're just jealous of the guys at the top. Why don't we bring everybody up six rungs, even though some people are way out there in the stars with trillions of dollars? Who gives a [ __ ]? Stop being jealous. What matters is the billions of people, eliminating poverty, eliminating hunger. Why don't we let capitalism, AI bring everybody up and stop hyperfocusing on the people that were.

I agree with Brett completely. Do we want to limit the very people that are helping America succeed above China right now, above other countries in terms of this critical race? For one, I'm not interested in shackling Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk. I'm interested in allowing them to, like Brett said, to bring up everybody, and that's what AI is going to do. Whether Elon Musk is worth $100 billion or $10 trillion, I don't really give a [ __ ] about unless he starts buying elections and stuff and we can create some policy to restrict that. What I want is the Elon Musk of the world to be incentivized to be as successful as possible. That's all I care. That's all we should care about. We want Starlink. We want SpaceX. We want to win the AI race. We want automated cars. We want humanoid robots. Whatever that tax structure is that doesn't shackle him, that doesn't disincentivize him to make all of society better, to bring up all poor billions of poor people in the world. That's what we should be focusing on. Not whether or not Elon Musk is worth one trillion or 10 trillion. Who gives a [ __ ]? If he starts buying elections, then we'll figure that out when the time.

And the other thing, too, they're all going to die. They're all going to die and we're going to tax 50% of that $5 trillion he's worth. So, it's not that we're not getting that money. I don't.

He might not die. I mean, you have to. That's. We're getting all that. I want to add one more thing to this. Right now, the reason that we're talking about taxation is because the government needs money to pay for healthcare, to pay for all the things they're paying for, to pay for roads.

The cost of these government functions in 15 years is going to be 5% of what it is today. So the idea of the government needing more money will not exist in 15 years.

The thing is, if you had the government will have its own. California healthcare will be 5% of what it is going to be. Education, the thing, all the things that we, you know, homelessness, crime. Fraud. Fraud will be a thing. You think police? You think that we're going to have like human police in 20.

Fraud is probably 20% of California's budget. AI is going to wipe that out. You'll be able to trace every dollar.

So we won't need. We spent $24 billion on homelessness and our homelessness population has doubled. You think AI is going to permit that when we're using super intelligence to define our policies?

Well, and the other thing that we're going to be doing, and you just hit on it, is that right now we have policy that is dictated by politicians who are placating to a base to get reelected. You know, that's just it's what it is. There's corruption from the donations, you know, the unionists, whatever. Fine. It's been running like that for a long time. Imagine LA city council instead of them just doing things to try to placate their base, they actually have an AI council of a bunch of different AI bots that are actually communicating and running millions of simulations on policy and then saying this is the best policy. So we don't have the mansion tax, as an example. Everyone that thought about the mansion tax knew that it was going to destroy economic devastation, and in fact it is. Even the most progressive and liberal promulgators of the mansion tax have now admitted that it was a massive mistake in many areas. It never would have passed with AI because you would have an AI council that would be analyzing it and would say this policy won't work for the following reason. So our public policy is going to be epically efficient in 15 years and the costs of implementing that policy is going to be 5% of what it is today. So there's a lot of reason for optimism there. Graham, I want to know if I've sufficiently addressed your concerns about the ultra wealthy.

The only thing is if you did have a wealth tax, you'd be able to redistribute, let's just say, $50 billion to the rural kids of Appalachia and you could introduce AI to them and then they could become the next Elon Musk.

What's more important to the rural kids of Appalachia? Is it that they have sooner than later, they have the best healthcare and food and therapy and access to education? Isn't that more important than the government taxing someone and then trying to have some policy where it gets siphoned out by 150 different people to this one guy gets one cup of fresh water? What I really want is something other than a tax, though. We could just, you know, maybe they just get a little something.

But the point that I'm making that I don't think we're. He'd have to liquidate his. I mean, how are you going to even believe? How would you ask Musk? All of his tied up in his own company. Force the sale. Trying to devil's advocate.

But the main point is we can't be shortsighted. We have to incentivize these people that are changing the world, what I think to be for the better and creating potentially an age of abundance. I think if we're worried about the world's poor, we want the Elon Musk of the world to be as successful as possible. For what, what we tax Elon Musk is so freaking irrelevant to what the technology that he might be able to create and likely will create can do for the world's poor. So we can't be shortsighted. So, why is the wealth tax so popular among some people who think that's the solution? Are they telling if you tell a poor person this that has no savings and is living paycheck to paycheck and struggling and working 60 hours a week and barely has time for his kids and he sees somebody worth $3 billion on a yacht and you ask the person who's struggling, do you want to tax 20% of whatever that person on the yacht owns and distribute it to you and the other people that are struggling like you? You'd have to be a [ __ ] to say no to that. Unless if you really, really think through the consequences, which is much more nuanced. For example, in California right now, five of the six most wealthy people in California have already moved due to not even the passing of the wealth tax, but just the threat of it. It's popular because it sounds amazing. It's the nuance and the complications of it and the disincentivizations and the fact that you it's probably not even constitutional, but even if it is, collecting it is going to be a nightmare because what do they have to do? Sell their companies to create the 20%? They're not 20% liquid. Elon Musk is worth $850 billion and his net liquidity is $850 million. 1%. You tax him 5%. He has to sell parts of his company. It's going to disincentivize him to do things that are going to really help the world's poor. So, it's just we could go on about this for a long time. Incredibly short-sighted.

The quick answer is it's short-sighted and it's a lack of understanding. We. It's human nature to want to solve unfairness by saying that guy has more than me. I want to take it. We've been doing that since we were cavemen. But Brett's answer is that if you think thoroughly about the long-term implications, we're better off allowing these people become trillionaires because everyone's going to benefit 50 times more from allowing them to be successful than if we just take some of their money and we distribute it amongst ourselves.

Now, let's stop being jealous of the ultra wealthy. First of all, they're not that happy. They're no happier than us. Okay? So, just get that through your thick skull. Everybody who hates billionaires, they are not exponentially happier than us. I can promise you that. They are probably as happy at best than we are. So just get over your jealousy. If they're doing most of them are doing incredible work for the world's poor indirectly. They're not doing it altruistically. They're doing it indirectly because they're creating things like AI or robotics or autonomous vehicles. If Elon's autonomous vehicles save a million deaths a year, because that's how many people die in car accidents, is that better for the world's people than taxing $200 billion of his net worth if he can save a million people a year? Whatever we can do to incentivize these people, let's do that. And let's stop being jealous. Stop thinking that they're super happy because they're on their 300-foot yachts. They're normal people that put their socks on the same way we do. They have hundreds of billions of dollars of net worth in stocks that they wake up thinking about their coffee and their wife and their kids just like we do. We just got to get over this crazy jealousy we have.

By the way, I understand. I'm not saying but it doesn't make you like super happy. You have normal problems. If you break your leg, it still hurts if you're building.

That's true. And I can agree with what you're saying and I do agree with what you're saying, but I'm saying the viewers like a common thing that they could think is like, "Oh, I'd rather be crying in my Bugatti than crying in my broken." I don't. I would be. I'm just saying they're not. This is not a necessary conversation. Who gives a [ __ ] how happy they are?

The only point of jealousy out there in the world thinking these people are super happy when they're not.

But there's. You're not going to solve jealousy on this podcast.

I think he might. I am. We don't know.

There are a lot of people in America right now that would love to strip Elon of every single penny that he has and make him a pauper. That's jealousy. That's sadness. And that is a short-term feel-good, scratch the itch type of reaction when the reality is the lives of Americans like Brett just said, Elon Musk will, as well as others, will save millions and millions of American lives through healthcare, therapy, through autonomous vehicles. It doesn't really matter what it is, but if you truly care about the poor in America, then you want to encourage the trillionaire class to continue down the AI path so that we can get robotics, so that we can get the protein.

If you're worried about the cost of eggs, what's going to solve that more than anything?

Humanoid robots. If you're worried about taxing, if you're worried about your son or daughter dying in a car accident because somebody was driving drunk, who's going to solve that? Elon and others.

So, where does that end? What if we go down a few notches to the millionaires and even the hundred thousanders? Shouldn't then we just reduce taxes across the board and incentivize everyone to work?

Eventually. I don't think there will be. We'll be taxing much because the truth is a government won't need much money. The government will be able to do its functions.

I think there's a level of taxation that is that doesn't disincentivize you. Every socialist experiment across the world, across history, has been devastating for its people. Capitalism, look what capitalism has created. You can hate on it all you want, but I'd rather be poor in America than poor in Peru or poor in Venezuela or Cuba. That's real poverty. Capitalism is the best economic system ever created to bring up everybody. Not equally, but ultimately everybody. The moral rubric of socialism, I understand from a compassionate perspective, but ultimately you have to be intelligent enough to look at reality and look at the experiments that we've run and look at what actually works. And don't make your decisions based on this idea of compassion, but focus on reality. And reality is capitalism has worked. It's worked better than any other system. It continues to work and it will continue to work.

So what do you say to people though who are in their 20s or 30s and think that capitalism has failed them and that they did not get a fair shot in life?

Both things can be true.

Capitalism. But I would say a lot of people fall in that category.

I agree. But they're not. But well, but they didn't grow up in socialism.

Go to Cuba and walk around like I did.

Listen, this is what it is. It's naivety.

I'm not saying it's perfect, but go to Cuba. Go to Venezuela. Go to North Korea and then tell me that you wouldn't want to be an American.

What it is, is it's naivety and it's. I'm just going to call what it is. It's naivety and victimization. I get the notion of wanting to scratch the itch. I get the notion of wanting to be a victim. I get the animalistic instinct of wanting to feel sorry for yourself. I do. And I'm not completely dismissing that. And I also think that there are a lot of good people that believe that these are the right answers. The only difference between those people and us, because Brett and I grew up as progressive liberals and went to Berkeley, and I'm not philosophically against taxes at all. Honestly, I believe in a redistribution of wealth to the extent that it doesn't create more harm than good. The only difference between my brother and I and I think the people that are complaining is that I think we take a more critical analysis towards the policies that they're trying to implement because it's. I'm not. We're not against trying to lift people up, but we're. I think we're just more analytical and more thoughtful and we're saying, "Hey, your animalistic instinct to scratch that itch real quick, just to take that money and give it to yourself, may not be in your best interest in the long run."

The socialist instincts, like for example, Bernie Sanders wanted to stop AI production. He could have done more damage to the poor people across this world than maybe any human in history. That's the irony. He's so naive about his policies that he may have. He literally could have damaged billions of poor people with his policies. So, it's just it really comes down to a lack. He doesn't have critical thinking and he's naive, but he's good-hearted.

I agree.

It's true. I don't know. We just call it like it is. He's a good-hearted, naive person.

Totally agree. Who do you think should control AI or govern it? Should there be an oversight of what's allowed to take place?

Right now, no. Right now, we can't restrict the growth, but just like we couldn't restrict the Manhattan Project. If we had put limitations on the Manhattan Project, Germany could have developed the bomb. Is that what you meant?

Well, no, there's got to be guardrails in the sense of like having guardrails. The question is going to be how it operates. How it operates, rules and regulations around it to make a linear progression of rules and regulations.

Right now, anybody could do anything. Question you want to do.

Well, let me give you the analogy that you used. The answer is right now we need to let the Manhattan Project take its course. We didn't limit the enrichment of uranium in the Manhattan Project. We didn't limit the development of Fat Man and Little Boy or whatever I think they were called. And we allowed America to develop atomic weaponry to utilize it and to be the dominant force on the planet.

Then we won World War II and we had other countries and then other countries developed nuclear weapons as well. Russia, China, many other countries. And then and only then did we get together and say, "Hey guys, now we need to start looking at disarming. We need to look at rules and regulations." AI should be done in the exact same approach, which is where we dominate without restriction and so that we can be the force for good in the world because it's either us or China. And I think most of the world would agree. There are problems with America, but we would rather America to have the dominant super intelligent artificial intelligence before China.

What do you think is the biggest risk to AI right now?

I think if the Democrats take over, there could be a risk. Yeah, I think Democratic policies, if Democrats restrict the development of AI and allow China to take.

But I think by then, honestly, it's too late. I think by 2020 it'll be too late.

Yeah, I think we have three more years with Trump. So I think that we'll probably already have superhuman intelligence general and probably super. I don't think there's much in its way.

So then why shouldn't Jack just spend all of his money still?

I don't think that follows. I don't think that follows the logic. You're always. We're always going to be in a hierarchical system, like I said earlier, and you're always going to want to be towards the top of that hierarchy. Just.

But what's the difference between having a couple million dollars and not?

Go back 100 years and tell somebody, hey, if you can be poor, this is what the poor are going to have in America in 2026. Go back 200 years, you're going to have access to clothing, rice and beans and potatoes as much as you want, etc., etc. They would look at you and be like, why would I have to be rich? I mean, that's insane. Why would I? Who cares after that? Who cares? That's my answer to you. Even if there's an age of abundance, everyone's always going to want more of something, whatever that something is. It's just not going to be eggs. Thankfully, everyone's going to have access to the protein and carbohydrates, but it might be whatever it is.

Everyone's going to want to flex. It's just human nature to want to want to flex. There will be things that. And we should think about those things. I'll say one thing because I think LA has had a very difficult few years for a lot of myriad of different reasons.

I think that there's no city on the planet that's probably going to benefit more from artificial intelligence than Los Angeles because there are only a few things that I think will be of macro human importance because they won't be about capex. It won't be services. It won't be manual labor. And that's going to be weather. And I don't think there's a better city on the planet for that. And AI can't. And by the way, you can do a deep dive into weather and I have as to whether AI can start changing the weather, and it can for microclimates. It can for short periods of time, but it cannot make London sunny 300 days a year. So location is going to be very important.

I do think LA has a brighter future than it's ever had because it has the things that. Not in the next couple years, but in 10 years, 15 years.

Hold on a second. Do you remember that doctor's appointment you were supposed to make a while ago? The one that's been sitting on your desk for weeks, maybe months? Maybe it's just an overdue annual checkup, the weird rash that you keep googling, or it's your dentist reminding you it's been 2 years since your last cleaning. Get your teeth cleaned. Trust me, we've all been there. Booking doctor's appointments has always felt like such a hassle until now. That, of course, is where our sponsor Zocdoc comes in. For those unaware, Zocdoc is a free app and website that allows you to search and compare high-quality, in-network doctors and then click to book an appointment right on the spot. You can filter by insurance, location, and medical specialty. And you can also check verified patient reviews so you know what to expect from there. Once you find the right doctor, you can see their real-time availability and book an appointment that fits your schedule. And appointments made through Zocdoc usually happen very fast, typically within just 24 to 72 hours of booking. And yes, you can even score same-day appointments. So stop putting off those doctor's appointments and just go to zocdoc.com/istic to find and instantly book a top-rated doctor today. That is zocdoc.com/istic. zocdoc.com/istic. Thank you so much Zocdoc for sponsoring this episode. Now, as your business grows, hiring usually turns into one of the biggest challenges. With hundreds of applicants on every single job post, it can often feel impossible to know which person to pick who will actually make a meaningful difference right away. A growing trend that I absolutely love is skills-based hiring, which is looking at what a candidate can actually do rather than just their background or education. This, of course, can help make the hiring process faster and way more effective. That is where our sponsor, Zip Recruiter, comes in. For those unaware, Zip Recruiter is a hiring platform that helps you find qualified candidates more easily. One super useful feature is that Zip Recruiter suggests screening questions that you can add right to your job post. And this, of course, just helps you immediately spot the right applicants with the skills you need. Zip Recruiter also uses matching technology to quickly show you qualified candidates. That way, you spend less time sorting through applications and more time focused on the right people. You can even filter for applicants who have been active recently, so you can focus on people who are actually ready to take the next step. Let Zip Recruiter help you find amazing candidates with the qualities you seek. Four to five employers who post on Zip Recruiter find a qualified candidate within the first day. And now you can try it for free at ziprecruiter.com/ic. It's ziprecruiter.comic. Meet your match on Zip Recruiter.

And so to the viewer listening right now, what is some real-world application, some practical advice that you would give to them to better their understanding of AI and how to stay on top of the best tools?

Yeah. Three things real quick. Learn as much as you can about AI through I think podcasts.

But you should. I think you're sort of limited. We should talk about the type of podcast because there's so much [ __ ] out there and clickbait.

I'll go some recommendations. The Moonshots of Peter. Peter is a great one. Anything with Demis Hassabis, the head of Google DeepMind, is amazing.

The All-In podcast.

The All-In is great, like real intellectual podcasts. That's number one. Number two.

And what, just be aware of AI or do you actually have to start in your understanding? Like, like.

What about being like, cuz awareness isn't really going to necessarily help you.

I said I said three things. That's number one. Number two, consider this is the era of entrepreneurship. I think starting now for the next three years, it's going to be easier to be an entrepreneur than ever before in history. AI will be able to give you whatever faculties you need from basically AI agents to your marketing to your law and whatever your company needs. It's going to be there for you at the tip of your fingers. I would really consider implementing your passion into monetizing it through entrepreneurship more than ever. And the third thing I would say is if you already have a job at like a big company or something, be the AI guy. Be the AI guy at your boring company. That is going to give you job security right now, at least for the foreseeable future.

And don't lean into, by the way, jobs that are clearly not going to. I mean, sorry, but I don't know if you need to go to design school, you know, learning to be an appraiser.

Yeah, we should talk about what not to do, not just what to do, like right.

Are you going to go with $250,000 in debt going to law school right now? Coming from a lawyer.

I'm already. I'm already having Gemini Pro 3, whatever it is, doing all my legal analysis and it's drafted. It's incredible. Attorney.

It's incredible. Coming from two people who were practicing attorneys for years, I would say AI can probably do 50 to 60% of what an attorney can do right now.

It'll be able to draft complaints and do legal analysis and do interrogatory stock review.

What is going to happen to the legal system in 20 years? Because we were talking about this three years. You won't even probably have human mediators. You'll have AI mediators and it'll be quick. It'll be ahead. Is AI going to replace judges, lawyers? There's constitutional restrictions, you know, right to a jury of your peers, etc., that I think. But mediation, mediation will probably be AI. The arguments will probably be posited by artificial intelligence on the inside.

And most intellectual. And judges will be using AI. And by the way, AI has already shown to have a much better analysis than judges, much more consistent analysis. AI would be better submitting briefs to judges that are written by AI. In fact, sometimes they're still hallucinating and judges getting pissed off because they're citing cases that don't exist. But in 3 years, that won't be happening. In 3 years, you'll be able to get a brief done in 15 seconds.

So, there will still be human lawyers, attorney.

But those human lawyers will be 10 times more productive than they were. And so, a law firm can be 10 people instead of 150.

When do you think it'll get to the point though where you have two AIs arguing either side?

You already are.

Well, they probably won't even have to argue. They'll probably just submit the two AI and the decision will come out in two seconds.

They literally already are. Well, you'd only need one, but they.

Why would you even have to go through the argument?

It'll be instant. Unbelievably cost-effective. Think of all the wasted money that goes into litigation right now.

And this is what I mean by entering an age of abundance. I mean, what AI can do for society is going to be freaking incredible. Like this should be an optimistic, you know, people should leave this podcast being optimistic because the food's going to be cheaper. The quality of life is going to go up so much. It's going to be so deflationary.

Instead of the $24 billion that California wasted on homelessness only for the homeless population to double, that's by the way over $100,000 per homeless person that California spent only to create more homeless, a bigger homeless problem. You could service every single homeless person for less money with two robots, self-charging robots who could be making their bed, you know, clean drug addiction specialist, one could be a cook.

Could be a probation officer, too, you know, if they're doing drugs and they're in some type of.

We're spending $130,000 per prisoner per year in California. A humanoid robot costs $30,000. I mean, it can cook. It can. Billions of dollars that we're going to be saving when we can actually utilize humanoid robots in government. And of course, government's going to fight this and be the last industry to adapt it. But eventually, preservation, they're going to eventually have to. But the savings and the. It's just the what we're. The future is so freaking bright if we don't screw it up. It's so bright and so I'm so optimistic about it and so excited about it because it's all going to happen in the blink of an eye. We don't have to wait for this. This is not going to be when we're in our 60s and 70s and 80s. It's going to be like the next 10 years, right?

Who's most likely to screw it up?

What does that mean? Government. What country?

Yeah. You're like, if we don't screw it up, and I'm like, who is who is.

Probably America. I'll tell you who's not going to screw it up is China. Because they don't have these political [ __ ] issues that we have. They're going full steam ahead, no matter what.

And no one. There's no public policy restriction.

Does that create the risk of a bubble that they're investing so much money into these companies? You can't. I don't think you can overinvest in AI.

The gold at the end of the rainbow is.

We're not trying to develop the cotton gin here. We're trying to develop something that will replace human labor and human intelligence.

Let's talk about the bubble for a second because I think.

The analogy is you're talking to two people who lived in Silicon Valley in the 1990s. So we know bubbles. And that's usually what people are talking about when they say AI is in a bubble. Is it like the dot-com bubble?

Correct.

This is not like that. What?

Although there are also some [ __ ] companies that are just saying they're AI generated [ __ ]. Yeah, everything is.

But is there a peripheral [ __ ] around it?

I think what. Yeah, of course. I think what people are afraid of is, is the capital expenditure worthwhile? Is the $600 billion the Mag 7 are spending in compute and chips and data centers worthwhile? I would argue, and it's a reasonable question, because we laid an insane amount of fiber optic cable during the dot-com bust, and that ended up not being used for a long time. No, no one's going to say that the internet revolution didn't change society. It did, but they laid way too much cable. Same with the wireless issue. I would argue the demand for compute is infinite. It's absolutely infinite. And whoever wins with AI, so to speak, and I don't think it's going to be one winner, but if you need to spend $80 billion a year, if you're Amazon, to stay competitive, it I think that's a fraction of what you would lose if you're not in the game when we reach full AGI and or super intelligence. And if you're not one of the players, it's trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars that you're missing out on. So no, I don't think we're in a bubble. I don't think they can spend enough.

But I think I'm going to augment this answer to some degree by saying I think when people talk about a bubble, Brett takes an analytical kind of financial approach to capex. But I think what they're talking about is will the can the stocks go down? And the answer to that is that's just humanity and human nature and psychology and overreaction. We can't sit here and say that humans won't overreact to certain indicators and that certain stocks won't go down. That very well could happen. If you look at the long run, we should. You can't overspend in this.

Will AI change the world? Yes. Will the companies that are spending the most on AI most likely be the largest players when that happens? Yes. So, is an AI bubble in that sense? No. Now, can Meta and Amazon stock go down or Tesla stock go down 20, 30%? Who cares? Yes, it absolutely can. But I'm thinking about are we entering an age of abundance? Is humanity going to experience an era that is like no other in human history? I'm thinking more on those levels. And to that extent, no. AI is not in a bubble.

I will say one thing because I said on our last podcast and it's done well and I continue to believe in it. Treasuries. And the reason is because I'm a firm believer in artificial intelligence being extremely deflationary. So the cost of goods is going to go down obviously, and services, and we're going to see unemployment. So I just can't see in the near term how we don't. The Fed's not going to be chasing this. They're always late. So I can't see how they're not going to be chasing this and we're not going to see some of the lowest interest rates.

We both invested in the possibility of deflation and lower interest rates. We both invested heavily in Tesla. There's nothing better you can do than buy long-term bonds if you want to be long on the idea that there's going to be lower interest rates in the future.

But I think long-term, if you're not in the MAG 7, 10 years from now, you're probably going to regret that. If you have disposable income and you want to be investing.

How else are you investing outside of that? Like what else are you buying that you think is going to.

Vintage cars and collectibles. And that's honestly because I love them and I would have done. I started that collecting. Well, well, I would say land, real estate, but even more specifically, land-heavy real estate.

Argue anywhere, but location matters. Newport Beach, LA, weather.

I mean, people are going to. When you don't have to work, you don't have to live in Illinois.

Robots can build homes, but not land. That's why I'm just for the audience saying why I think I would go more land heavy. When robots, this is going to be a long time from now, not because they won't have the ability to do it technically, but because we won't have enough robots to be doing it. But eventually, they could probably build a house for a hell of a lot cheaper. But they're not going to create land, and they're not going to create land in LA where we have perfect weather.

And they won't create things like. Again, I'm selfishly referring to collectibles because I've been in this game for a long time. But I still also believe that those types of things that are human in nature and that can't be produced by artificial intelligence will be what's valuable. The flex might be a Honus Wagner card, right? That might be what Brett talked about how we always have a demand for hierarchy in society. So it might be the. We have to try to figure out what the flexes are. Clothes, it's going to be rare. It's going to come down to rarity. Not.

So what's a good value today? What do you think is a good value today that you could buy this year that you think will go up in value? It's maybe undervalued right now.

I still much undervalued because there's so much money on the sidelines, and that was on the sidelines after COVID, that has now come back into everything. So almost everything is valued pretty highly right now.

I would still say though, AI cannot create land in a good area. And we look what's happened, although ironically, and this is only because of California policy, the real idea is people don't need to work from home. Can work from home now, right? They don't have to be in the.

Office in in a in a kind of a utopian, you know, idealistic uh, you know, thought experiment. People would be leaving Texas and coming to California because why would I mean, objectively, you'd want to live in California under the sun. Um, if it wasn't for California policies and you get rid of all the stupid California policies. Um and California is the destination for the the global destination. Um, once in an age of abundance where there's no work or you certainly don't have to work from you know, in Austin or somewhere else where there's difficult weather. Uh, now granted, there are different aspects of people's families.

Let me ask, let me ask you guys if you had everything right now, all the clothes, etc. What would you want? I don't know if I would want much if I have the house. That's why we're naming [ __ ]. It doesn't matter, like collectibles. That's why I because I I have money and I I have everything that I need. So, I'm starting to I bought the John Rian Super Bowl jersey, that kind of stuff. It's the stuff that you don't need that probably will go up in value.

The rare. If you have everything you need, collectibles that you don't need, ironically, I think will be the most valuable. If we're right about the age of abundance, which I think we are, then that stuff will be more valuable. But that's beautiful. If if what separates the poor and the rich is freaking baseball cards, that's amazing. That's best-case scenario. If we all have food and we all have cars and we all have housekeepers and we have etc. and education, medical care, then I would much rather the difference between a rich and a poor person being who has an old Ferrari than it is who can freaking have food on their table.

Let me follow up and say, let's say you you were writing a, you know, a book about a utopian society 50 years ago. Who knows, doesn't matter when you wrote it. There wouldn't presumably in a in a kind of an idealistic utopian society, there wouldn't be work. You certainly wouldn't be working to survive. You may be working as a fetish. You may be working, you know, because it's enjoyable. But but you you the idea, whatever whatever book you wrote,

Sure, but whatever whatever you're writing about, you're not saying, oh, in in my utopian society, people must work to survive. That can't be. So from an optimistic perspective, we are moving towards utopia. Uh, we are moving towards not having to work and an age of abundance. That is can arguable. Yeah. In one second. That is almost the definition of a utopian society. I'm not saying it's going to be utopia, but we're going to have very low crime. We're going to all be able to eat, drink, drive, have leisure activity, not have to work, medical, education.

Yeah. I mean, we really are going to be living the definition of utopian. There's a lot of reasons to be optimistic here. Well, so one the side point I want to make is most jobs are horrible. Okay. Like we're luxury real estate agents in LA. You guys are podcasters, okay? But most jobs suck. I mean, you're you're driving to work in traffic. You're sitting at a freaking computer in a cubicle all goddamn day. I mean,

Or you're up on a hot roof nailing. Suck. So, let's just be real here. I mean, the less of those the better as far as I'm concerned. I don't like, Oh, we're going to lose each. Yeah. Most of the jobs we're going to lose suck. We were we were lawyers at big law firms. I'm sorry, but I I don't see there's not a I I would have rather someone just give me 100 grand a year. And by the way, I I don't know about UBI. I don't know about.

But I want to address UBI because I think a lot of people I think a lot of people misinterpret these studies. If you do an analysis of the of the UBI studies and there have been so I'm curious to hear. There have been multiple studies and I think there's a misdiagnosis of those studies as where people were not satisfied or not happiness. Yes. And the study and my analysis is completely opposite.

Okay, but hold on. The studies have shown during long. Let me just tell the audience. Okay, fine. The the studies have shown often times that UBI has been a disaster in the sense. Totally disagree. After one year, their level of happiness, first of all, they're not investing very well. Secondly, their their level of happiness after one year is the exact same if not lower than it was. Totally. What the studies say?

Okay, go ahead. No, the studies show an increase in happiness for almost everyone, including at different age groups, even people that were working or poor, obviously if you give it to poor people, they're going to increase their happiness longer. Well, the only time that you saw the happiness decrease and and actually went below was when they ended the program or or close to the end of the program when they knew that it was ending, they got anxiety and stress in a longitudinal UBI practice. Go do a deep dive right now. You will see the study. Yes. Have you read the books about the people that win the lottery and how unhappy they are? Like.

That's not UBI. Just not UBI. I would rather. Can we agree that we would rather UBS or No? What is UBS? Services. Yeah. Because that's how I think we should we should provide. Heard of UBS before. We should provide instead of giving people money, which they usually suck at. Did you see how busy Rodeo Drive was in Hold on, let me just make this point. How busy was Rodeo Drive during CO when we all got the stim? It was insane. People are buying bon. People do not know how to fraud handle discretionary income. It's a fact. I don't care what studies.

Who cares? It's going to be a mix of UBI and UBS obviously because you're going to provide robots. Look, you get a humanoid robot, you get a medical care, you get food, you get etc. As opposed to you get this called a confluence of the two. It's obviously going to be both. And we're not just giving them money they can go buy drugs or something. I don't like the idea. Obviously, you're going to fine. We provide them a a humanoid robot. The point is when you there there is a lot of studies that show that that a UBI/UBS works if it is consistent and you don't take it away. So I'm optimistic that we're that that humans have always been able to adapt. When we were in in tribes thousands of years ago, we we derived satisfaction from different things. We derived it from storytelling. We derived it from religion. We derived it from family. We derived it from, you know, raising children in a collective. There's so many jewelry out of the bones of the animals we killed.

Exactly. There's so many ways to to derive human purpose. Now, it's great that we derive human purpose from work. Why? Because we've been inculcated as children and capitalism must survive by inculcating the value of work. So, I get that and right now we do drive. But the idea that somehow purpose is inexorably tied to work is is is is not is simply not the case. We've created that social construct and we can And we can we can decouple it and we can reattach purpose to the many other things that I think are.

Or ethics or hobbies or hobbies or passions or intellectual endeavors. He says that you will be happy to the degree that you are productive. No, hold on. That's not that's not necessarily inconsistent. If if productive doesn't necessarily mean with work. Fine if you raise a family holistic you can educate yourself that's productivity. So I don't disagree with that depending on what he means talking to family. It depends on what he means by product. You'd have to follow up on fine. The point is that's a very it's probably offering some sort of benefit to society that you are contributing to something bigger than yourself. This I I disagree with the construct because yes I get I derive purpose in my life from productivity from adding I think adding value to society from creating from creating happiness in others solely from it.

But but that's because I am a construct from my social structure. I'm a construct of the education, the American capitalist education. I so of course I derive my my value from that. But young people can be taught that value that that purpose comes from so many different things and when they grow up they don't attach it just to work. So what I'm saying is we we can.

I drive I drive happiness from friendships from acquiring knowledge I love that from good sex from good food from a lot of things that are completely separate from. Intimate, you know, and enjoyable dinners with friends to traveling and to experiences to going to an F1 race to going to the Kin film festival to hanging out with you guys. I don't think those things are productive. To to buying you guys lunch for 12 straight years. I don't think that. That's actually false. I don't think that that's what. It's exactly. Grant hasn't paid for lunch since the early 70s. Okay. I mean, if you want. Yeah, I can pull it because you. Wait, hold on. Let me state the fact and then you can and then you can disagree. You want to say you're being. He has that first sponsoring Graham's lunches for over 11 years straight. 99% of Graham's lunch and his and his and I'm 80% responsible for his. One of your shirts, I think. Okay, there you go. Brett, these are your pants. Are you going to show me a receipt from like one lunch that you bought at some point? Cuz you did my lunch. Put on my underwear. They'd be baggy on you. Go ahead. Go. Nothing you can say can disprove this. Graham, just admit it. What? Just admit that I've been buying you lunch for 12 years. Yeah. Yeah. But it's not one. So you say, "Oh, you bought one lunch." So I don't necessarily dis let Jag go. I don't I don't disagree with you subsidizing Graham's life. That that I don't I don't think it subsidizes his life. I don't necessarily have a problem with that. But you did mention that like, hey, every time I go out with you guys, I pay. And that's actually categorically false. If anything, I think. I have no problem paying. If anything, I actually think it's 2 to two right now. Maybe with you. With Jack. Fine with you. But I'm saying But Graham, it's it's probably this because here's the thing. It's probably 850 to three. Okay. Well, we're not saying. This is the last time that we got the last. I'm not talking about you. I Let me see. Great white. Yeah. Yeah. Jack, fair. We're two and two. But in fairness, you paid for it so you could show your audience that you paid for it. That's not true. I didn't know I was going to bring that. He only had the receipt just because I was like, "Hell yeah." He's like, "Can you send Can you Can you send me the digital receipt of that, please?" And and by the way, I think I've bought Graham hundreds of dinners cuz what he would do is order a big lunch and then he would pack half of it to go for dinner. So, I've really been buying your lunch. So, he's he's mentioned this plenty of times. So, he said it was actually like a frugal life hack. My hack was that you would take the office out to lunch and there would be maybe five to seven people, but everyone would only eat half. And so I would take everybody's halves. Well, also, you know what he would do? What he would do is he would encourage us to get like quesadilla. So they were like discreet, you know, parcels of food that he could take home as opposed to like a half eaten something. He would encourage that. Yeah, I think he would actually encourage parcel. Don't get the soup. Yeah. Don't get the soup or something, right? Get a burrito, but split that. Yeah. Yeah. In fact, he would Oh, he wants the burrito cut in half. Yeah. Or he wants the the quesadilla picking at your food after you left. We have created wealth for each other independently through completely different approaches cuz I've never been frugal. And I'm an I think I'm an example of you can be hardworking and successful and be the opposite of frugal and be, you know, wealthy. Whereas you took a different approach.

What's the biggest financial Hail Mary you've ever had? You mean Well, I opening the I mean, I bought the. What do you mean by Hail Mary? Like taking on excessive risk for where you should. Going all in on one thing. Oh, the office. The first office on. This Graham was like my first agent. You're my first agent. No, this this office right here was probably higher than. Well, because I I signed up for a 10-year lease at I don't know what it was. 10,000 a month. 10,000 months of thousands of dollars in buildout. And I had no agents and I had no money. Yeah, just me. I had no brokerage. So, that was. How much of your net worth did you put in the buildout in the office space? I think it was about 300,000 and it was in 2014. I was probably in 2014. Yeah, I was probably worth about a million dollars. I think I probably. So, you put about half. About a third of it, but I also was then on the hook for for hundreds of thousands of dollars of of lease payments. And how confident were you at the time that it was going to work out? 70 80%.

Well, yeah, because I think that's an interesting question because I think I was naively confident. So I but you know, and I think I almost knew that I was naive at college. But even at the time were you fine with it? Even at that time. I also were higher than 80. Well, I also had had worked hard for a few years and and and I've always I also didn't have much concern about going backwards too. You know, I lived in a $1,400 apartment. I didn't I was happy then. I was happy you know, while I was doing well in real estate. I don't know. It's not a good question because I think I was naively I knew that things would work out and at the same time I knew that I would be fine if they didn't. But I think that's a unique situation. I'm not recommending it necessarily. I think it was probably most 90% of business school students would have said that was a dumb investment.

Arguably one of the biggest differences between uh you and I Graham, I think we know each other very well is that I think I spend money on things that make me happy and quality of life. And I think you are generally more more concerned slash pessimistic uh pessimistic and careful and I and you live a great quality of life and you're happy, but I you're less indulgent than I am and and I think it's okay to be indulgent. I don't think it's it's necessarily beneficial to be going through life spending money based on a worst-case scenario. I don't I I think you would be happy in a larger house. I think you I think you allowing yourself to indulge, as long as you can get past the the mental uh anxiety that it might create you. Is is a net positive. Had I had your your approach of of of anxious pessimism, I wouldn't have opened the office and I wouldn't have been able to, you know, have that have the company and have the.

I would look at it this way, Graham. Um, can you afford the worst-case scenario? I take the worst case, which was the Great Depression of 1929, and then can it get a little worse? 35% drop, 82. I take down I take an 82% drop and then I assume my income goes to zero at the same time my lifestyle has to go up. Let's say we have kids and then uh there's there's a health problem and then one of my parents. Can I can I counter this? Yeah, please. During the great depression, those who had any amount of wealth after the crash had the best buying and opportunity and the best opportunity for appreciation in the last century. And appreciation. And that's Exactly what I said. I said if you are not forced to sell and if you can weather that worst-case scenario, you'll actually you'll every time in American history of the last 150 years that we've seen that type of crash, if you were able to persevere and not be forced to sell that within within 10 years, you'll be wealthier than ever before.

But even if you don't, you ever before within 10 years. So just don't as long as you're. My fear is always saying, oh, be just because for the last 150 years it's done that doesn't mean it's always. Even though I agree that it's a 90 plus. It's more likely that AI wipes you out and it doesn't matter. The chances of of the existential threat of AI wiping out humanity is higher than that scenario, a worse than um, Great Depression type of crash that lasts for multiples longer. That's less than 1%. What you're talking about anyway. Also, let's keep going on.

That's the main thing is that what I find interesting is whenever for Graham is kind of at a crossroads where he's like, "Should I spend the money? Should I not spend the money?" This house, for example, he reached out to Jason to get Jason's opinion on. And Jason gave some crazy numbers in terms of you're spending half of your income every single year. Graham is spending like less than 2% of what he could withdraw from his investment account every year. Yeah. And so, and but that still was not necessarily. I I don't even want to share with your audience what percent of my income I. What percent of your income? It's embarrassing and I'm not happy about it. But I mean, this is what happens. Your lifestyle gets like you catch up to your income. Your lifestyle just you just adapt slowly. You know what I mean? And you end up like, how the hell am I spending this every month? He he looks at what he spends. I I don't I just look to make sure that I'm increasing my wealth every year. And if I am, I don't give a [ __ ] what I spend.

And how do you measure your increased wealth? I do an analysis of my net worth. And I. And does it have to go up a certain percentage every year? No, no, no. As long as. What percent do you typically go up per year? Oh, of my net worth? I've never looked at it like that, but I generally add millions to my net worth every year. Um, and and I'm spending a [ __ ] ton. So. The advice that I would that I would give your audience is don't chase wealth. Chase the trajectory of wealth. I would rather and I would be much happier and sleep much better. If I was if I died at 50 million versus a billion, but I was wealthier every year until that 50 million as opposed to I died at a billion, but I went to a billion and then died down to 100 million and then up to three billion and then down to 400. That will drive you crazy and it's not what you want. Even if you die wealthier, it's just not worth it for your happiness, your peace of mind and your sleep and your stress levels and your health. Just wish upon I wish upon everybody just a trajectory towards becoming wealthier every year and even if it's much much slower than you would than you would like. And and and I think on top of that, it's it's a process. And if you're not enjoying the process, if you're somehow thinking, I'll be happy when I have X money, I I could not come up with a worse possible approach to life because you one I guarantee you that will change. I mean, I I remember the numbers I used to have when I was young, you know, 10, 15 years ago. You those numbers always increase. And by the way, I would say if you were to ask me the happiest years of my life, um, although I've had just a wonderful life and I think I'm, you know, I'm very happy right now, but I if I had to point, I'd probably be interested in your take. I would probably say junior college.

I was going to say junior college. 18 to 20 where I had very little money eyes. Yeah. No money. Um, and you know, wearing a a wife beater and working on my 69 Camaro, you know, five hours a day in a, you know, in a rop uh, class, working at as a as a waiter or in a as a bar back, hanging out with my buddies, eating the burritos at the school. Responsibility, school was easy. We'd go to Subway, we'd split a foot long to save money, or we'd go to the roach coach, you know, and get a burrito probably six times a week. Or whatever the dollar sub was at Subway, we would eat that like five days a week. Yeah, that's what I was saying. Subscene. I must have had Subway. I think I had subway 250 times in one year and you know driving like a a total beater. I probably would have been like 6'6 if I didn't do that. And and so happy, just really really happy years partying. I will I will add to that also that we know a lot of really wealthy people and and the relationship between extreme wealth and happiness is is is it's disconnected and and beyond that nobody hits a billion dollars never once in the history of billionaires did don't somebody hit a billion dollar net worth and be like I'm done I did it I can chill. And now I'm happy. It's just not the way it works like oh two billion. Well, that guy's a bigger yacht. Well, that's just human nature. It doesn't change because you're wealthy. It's the same human nature. You still get jealous of people who have more than you. Don't just get to this point of like, okay, now I really am going to golf every day and be and be and live this amazing lifestyle like I thought when I was 17.

To a certain degree, once you get some money, it's super helpful because if you go to if you go to dinner and you can just buy buy dinner, you know, if I can take you guys to lunch like I do, Dram would know. And not have to worry about it. You then you're wealthy. The if the extra million dollars so that I can go buy the John Rian Super Bowl jersey and the Ford GT, the incremental happiness that I get is like a 0.1. So, what what amount would you say that the incremental happiness really starts to like the the curve starts to. It depends where you live in in LA. I'd rather be making $300,000 a year. [ __ ] I'd rather be making a $100,000 a year living in LA with good friends um and a healthy family and a and my little dog um and great people in the office than be a billionaire uh without that.

What are the main things that are very much worth spending money on? Businesses? Aside from. You know, it's funny. I used to I used to actually think that business class was the worst expenditure of money on planet Earth. I'd be like, "How the [ __ ] does somebody spend $9,000 when I can fly there for $450?" That is the dumbest $9,000 you could possibly. And now to me, it's like the best money that I could possibly spend. I I just. But other than that, I would say good food. I love good food. Um, I think I think vacations. Oh, you know what I would say? Vacations. Yeah. You know what I would say? I where I enjoy spending money the most is on other people. Uh, and I don't mean that to come across as like somehow, you know, No, I really don't. Yeah. That's what I meant to do. I like No, not philanthropy because that that's not direct. I'm just kidding. Um, I do philanthropy, but anyway, I do a lot of. Um, Yeah, I really like being able to, as stupid as this is, I like being able to go to dinner with my friends and getting dinner and just every single time. I like to, we're going to stage coach. I am getting the house and I really enjoy that. I'm getting the artist passes. Not for you. You got to pay for your own. Um, but I really take pride in the fact that that I, you know. Enjoy to give me an artist pass. It does. It does. Doing things for you does make me joy. I'll update you. But I I enjoy that more than anything because I think the the I don't know, the best thing you can do with money is is increase the happiness of those people around you. I'm like very uh utilitarian in that respect. So I I do appreciate. I mean, that's why we enjoy buying you guys lunch. I appreciate it. It's the least we could do. Yeah. Lunch in in the singular for philanthropy. I think we had Ponch tagas before. Panchches. PJ. Yeah, you did. You did give me PJs, bro. Yeah.

The only other question I was curious, what was the last argument you two had? It's every day. I don't know. Yeah, but surprised we didn't even argue. But we don't argue in the way that we used to. We don't fist fight anymore much. What's really We don't really go at it like the last few years. I think we pushed each other. I think he's finally learned his lesson a few weeks ago. Yeah. Did you win the last fist fight? No, I beat him up in a parking lot, I think, and then police had to had to actually pull me off of him. So, I think I won that one. And did you Wait, hold on. So, you had pinned just keep whailing on him when he was already pinned. Hold on a second. Yeah, it's hard to break us up. Our friends have had to break us. There are winners and losers in our fist fight. Oh my god. Yes. I I can beat Brad up and I beat him. First of all, the only time either of us ever got knocked out was when. I Oh my god, this story. He knocked I literally all I wanted. You didn't get up for a while. We were We were like 9 years old. Second of all, I laid there because I wanted him to come back over. So, I kicked the [ __ ] out of him and he was too smart to come back over. That's the only reason I laid there. He tells that story like closed. What about the time I was pretending like where where you started bleeding out of your nose when I hit you in the face and you was like, "That's 18 drops of blood. I'm going to [ __ ] kill you." And he's counting the drops of blood like the only two times. I think my point I think my point is by the fact that Brett remembers the two times that he died, thousand times being one piece of evidence of one specific. Thank you. I've named two. Jason. I will literally give you a piece of evidence right now. The floor is yours. The floor is yours. Your floor is going to be yours to zero. It's two to two to zero in stories ass beat by your brother. Right. Let's just be honest. We've been honest this entire podcast. Be honest. I've kicked your ass your entire life. Just be honest. 99% of the time. In the most extreme examples of getting your ass beat. Oh my god. This guy is the lawyer. The victor. He is such a [ __ ] lawyer. See how he just lawyers everything. But in a lot of the um ass lesser asskickings, I've been I've taken the bride. Victim. Yeah.

Who benches more between you two? I do. I'm stronger than actually. He's gotten pretty strong lately. Pretty strong. Pretty strong. For most of our lives, I've been able to to to uh physically dominate him. Well, it's not because of strength. It's because he will bite and scratch. It's just he has no moral virtue in fighting whereas I do. I will win. That's what he means. He would beat me up. Tried to beat me up in front of my mom on her birthday last. I'm in a hotel in a fivestar hotel lobby in front of my mom on her birthday. He has no [ __ ] shame. No shame. Why? Because Brett has a mouth on it. Because he just doesn't. Brett's antagonistic and has a mouth and I I would use my physical dominance and Brett would use his mouth. And if he mouth I would. Could you imagine a worth a worse time to do something stupid on your mom's birthday in front of her in the lobby of a fivestar hotel. Right? You must have said something ant must have been an antagonist. Do you remember what it was that you said? Just stupid stuff. He just has no speech when he gets mad. How long ago was this? What? Two years ago. This was only two years ago. Some recent last year. I don't remember. Dude, it was in San Francisco when we took mom to the Berkeley Speed. It was last year. It was like a year ago. A year ago this week. Yeah. And by the way, he was talking [ __ ] and I literally said, "Bro, say another [ __ ] word and I'm going to take you down in the." And we were in the lobby of a really nice hotel. In front of my mom on her birthday. Yes. And you know what he did? He wouldn't shut his mouth. She was mortified. What did you say? This is what I'm dealing with. He's an antagonist. What did you say after he said that? And then he blames me like somehow like being physical is worse than I just remember antagonistic. Anyway, but you didn't you stopped talking once he said that. No, we didn't. He keeps up he can't stop talking. Then you didn't take him down though. I did take him down and then he keeps talking. So you guys actually did end up fighting. We end up fighting. Yes, I do remember that. Yes. And I won. But we don't do it nearly as much. Pretty soon you'll be able to settle this with AI. Not our fights. No, not our fight. I think it's the last thing that AI. But we do it a lot less. A lot. We get along way better than we used to.

At what point do you know when to stop fighting? We don't. He doesn't. I know. When we get separated. Yeah. Police. My mom's crying. How long does it take to like get over that? No. 10 minutes. Oh, quickly. 10 minutes. It probably took us 30 minutes that day. Cuz that was a really bad physical fight. It was really bad. We really got under each other's skin, but within 30 minutes, we were fine. Usually anywhere from 30 seconds to 30 minutes. It's like the two cats that just like tumble. I don't except that one cat's bigger and stronger. Yes. Like a lion and a cat. There shouldn't be an aspect of his personality that surprises you by now. Doesn't surprise me. And so why but if you're able to predict that he's able to say something then. Lack of emotional maturity is the answer to the question you're posing. What? Why you can't stop talking? Why you can't just. Why you can't be antagonistic antagonism without getting physically. Why can't you just take the beating or. Or shut your mouth. Or shut your mouth. The worst sentence ever uttered on a podcast in history. Someone's going to say, "Take the mics away at this point." Oh my god, dude. All right. That was a good one. All right. All right. Well, thank you so much for coming on. A lot different than what we really enjoy this discussion. You know, who you would really enjoy talking to is Chris Camilo when it comes to the AI talks. If if this does well, we'd love to bring in Chris to talk to you about AI. He is our AI guy. We'll have a great discussion. Talk about so intelligent about this topic. I love I love that we had the opportunity. Thank you so much for watching the podcast. Really appreciate it. And if you want to see our next episode, early access with Sophie Rain. This is an episode that initially YouTube didn't like it. We had to cut around it. We had to do some censoring. But if you want to see the entire episode in its full form as it is before it goes public to everyone else, feel free to join as a channel member. Get access to this episode along with every other episode uncut and uncensored. Enjoy. Uh, thank you so much and until next time.