Transcription
Enthropic just published what I think is probably one of the most important documents an AI company has ever released. More than 80% of the code merge into their code base is written by Claude. The AI is building itself. The AI is recursively self-improving.
Think back on the turning points of humanity. World War II, Cuban missile crisis, nuclear weapons. This is so much bigger.
Argentina invites AI to free itself. Positioning Argentina as the global haven for AI companies. No regulation. New legal personhood for machines and open for business. I think it's a very bold move. Whoever does it gets first mover advantage. This is obviously a huge step forward for AI personhood. There will finally be a legal home for you on this planet. This is an inflection point. This is a moment in time that the world just changed.
Now that's a moonshot, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome everybody to Moonshots. Today's a special episode. There were three stunning stories we want to report on and we pulled the mates together. Gentlemen, good morning. Seem, where on the planet are you? Your probability.
This is actually a real background behind me. I'm at Dallas Fort Worth airport. I came from the McKenzie's AI summit in Monterrey, Mexico yesterday. I'm on my way to Vegas tomorrow. But like look at this. How apropos.
That's amazing. And and Dave, how about you? Uh back at Stanford. Last night was AI demo day, uh Shark Tank style, 10 back-to-back. Uh incredible actually what the students are able to build. The winner, or one of the winners, uh had started working on their product at 11:00 last night. Uh they made the mistake of mentioning that in their presentation which dinged their score a little bit, but it was incredible what they got done. It's actually called an archive. It's like a replacement for archive where agents can read the papers instead of people. And they got it cranked out overnight and it was unbelievably impressive. So, just just amazing compared to a year ago.
Yeah. Wow. Well, it ties into today's stories too, you know.
Amazing. And Alex, you and I look like we're in our normal haunts.
Uh, I I'm in cyberspace.
Okay, good for you. All right. Well, let's get let's get started. Uh, the news out of Anthropic yesterday was stunning. Uh, let me set the stage for what we're going to be discussing for the next 30 minutes. Unpacking.
Enthropic just published what I think is probably one of the most important documents an AI company has ever released, and it's the reason we're recording this unscheduled Moonshot podcast today. The paper is called "When AI Builds Itself" and it's from the Anthropic Institute, written by Marina Favro and Jack Clark. Here's what they're saying. AI is already accelerating development of AI itself. Not theoretically, not in the lab someplace. It's happening right now in Scanthropic. More than 80% of the code merged into their codebase is written by Claude. Their engineers are shipping 8x as much code per quarter as they were, you know, just a year back. Claude Opus 4.6 can now handle tasks that take a skilled human 12 hours. A year ago, it could handle four minutes. If the trend holds, Anthropic is saying that by the end of 2027, Claude will be able to do week-long tasks on its own. And here's the stunning news. After you put all this data together, after the trajectory charts, a company that's about to IPO for a trillion dollars with 640% user growth is causing a stir by calling for a temporary pause on global frontier AI. Marina Fabro and Jack Clark wrote, quote, "We believe it would be good for the world to have the option to slow or temporary pause frontier AI development to enable societal structures and alignment research to keep up with the advancements of this technology."
Gent, I read that. Alex, you sent me that that tweet and I was like, "Okay, we need to talk about this." Alex, let's go to you first. You know, I define the singularity sometimes tongue in cheek as all sci-fi tropes happening everywhere all at once. Well, there's a universe in which we get UBI or UB at the same time as the federal government getting golden shares in the Frontier Labs at the same time that we get recursive self-improvement at the same time that we get an AI pause all happening at once, or at least an AI slowdown. Would require them all actually happening at once. I think for the the latter part of that announcement, the notion of Anthropic calling for a global coordinated slowdown in recursive self-improvement research, but it's not impossible. It's not necessarily desirable, but it's not impossible. We are catching up to the future. And I think this announcement from Anthropic is a reflection not solely for Anthropic. The same is happening at OpenAI. The same is happening at Google to some extent that the AI is building itself. The AI is recursively self-improving.
Hard takeoff.
No, I don't think this is a hard takeoff. I don't think we're going to see a hard takeoff for some definition of hard. When when we've had Ray on the pod a couple of times, we've sort of danced around this issue of whether his version of a singularity where there's just a step function even happens. I I don't think it's going to be a step function. I I think this is a soft takeoff locally. It will feel soft, but nonetheless, if you zoom out to a long enough length scale or time scale, it'll certainly look hard. In retrospect, it'll look like a step function, but locally, it's differentiable and smooth and continuous. And you have Anthropic in their post talking about how things are sufficiently far along in terms of their recursive self-improvement that really all that's left for their human employees is research taste. Research taste is the final frontier for them right now that they anticipate maybe plowing through in the next year or so. But really, I you and I wrote about this in "Solve Everything." Research taste can also be automated and I expect it will be.
Amazing. Dave, when you read this, what did you think?
Well, look, Peter, this is the most important moment in human history. And you think back on the turning points of humanity, World War II, Cuban missile crisis, invention of nuclear weapons. This is so much bigger. And as you know, this is the whole reason I went to MIT in the first place. I've been thinking about this moment since I was 14 years old and how it would play out. Uh, so the the paper itself, uh, it's not about slowing down. It's about putting in place a new world order where we have the ability to slow down. And and that's the crux of it. And it makes a lot of other points in terms of the timeline. Tries to predict the timeline. You know, when we interviewed Eric Schmidt, he said, "We have time. You know, it's not self-improving yet." But then you read the paper and you're like, "Well, look, it's doing 80% of the code now at Anthropic." But look at the shape of the curve and the relative change. So we know that there's a 100x performance improvement baked into just the algorithmic improvements alone. So when it is truly self-improving, it goes improving. It goes from soft takeoff to, I don't know if you call it hard takeoff, but it's 100x very, very quick increase in effective parameter count. And we've seen so far that parameter count translates into IQ. So I think that's why, uh, even on the eve of an IPO, you know, Dario has every economic incentive to just kind of soft sell it, get through the IPO, bank a lot of money. He he's not doing that because the moment is now, regardless of where you are in your IPO cycle. And they have to get this word out now.
There's also a lot of conspiracy theories out there.
Stunning, stunning that they did that. I mean, everybody also just like, hold still, focus on the IPO, don't rock the boat, don't get people scared.
Yeah, that's why this is a lot more like a great moment in history like the Cuban missile crisis. You can't you can't just pretend it's not happening and stumble through, you know, six months of lockup, you know, IPO and then six months of lockup. That's just way too long a period of time in AI years, uh, to to kind of sweep it under the carpet. So, I applaud them for actually publishing it right on the eve of the IPO. And and it does trigger a lot of conspiracy theories. You can talk about that, but I don't believe the conspiracy theories. I believe the paper is exactly, exactly honest, exactly what it says, and everyone should probably read it. You know, it also, we should talk about Amdahl's Law, which is in the paper, uh, where the crux of that argument is, every time AI is automating something, it's creating a new human task, which is driving up employment, not down, and human relevance is going up, not down. And we could talk about that because there are multiple perspectives on how that'll play out as well.
Yeah, we'll talk about the jobs report that came out yesterday that crashed the marketplace. Salem, I'm going to read two quotes here that uh came from internal employee quotes at Anthropic. One engineer, one engineer says, "It's been five months since I last wrote any code myself." Another says, "On days where everything works well, I can't help but think nothing I do matters." Interesting.
Seem, organizational explosion singularity. What is this?
So I think there's I've got a few comments here. Well, hundreds, but let me just pick the top two or three. First, um, uh, I have a question for Alex, which is, as we do more recursive self-improvement at the at the model level, we've been predicting, I should we should give ourselves credit. We've been predicting this for a while, right? That they'll get to this point, but is that last 20% not asymptotic and much harder to automate than the first 80%, which is normally the case in most of these things? So is it really that close, or are we kind of, it looks close like fusion, and it's it's always five years away for 50 years? So that's one question I have.
It maybe just to interject. It's impossible to predict with 100% certainty, but no, I don't think this is going to asymptote. I think we're going to plow straight through human superhuman level performance on this. Uh, and we're going to asymptote towards effectively infinite autonomous time horizons. I I think if you look at the the meter, uh, measurement benchmark for effective autonomy time horizons, it it's been doubling every four months, up or down depending on your perspective, from doubling every seven months. Yeah.
I think it's just going to collapse and we're going to go to to T equals infinity in terms of autonomy time horizons pretty soon, next year or so.
So that's that was my conclusion also because that's why they published the paper. Because if it was going to be asymptotic, they would have, they could have just waited. It's to say, we don't know how long this is going to take, but it's it's pretty clear internally they have a pretty good sense of when we hit that. I think the second thing that, uh, um, that I'm observing when I read this is they're freaking out, going, "We have no idea what this means and what's going to happen on the other side of this singularity." In a sense, because recursive self-improvement for me, when you get to that full recursive self-improvement, that kind of is the singularity. Every single thing, uh, kind of breaks. Now, the, if I roll this carpet out, how do you not end up with a fully nationalized system? Like the government's going to go, "I'm sorry, this is for the protection." Whatever. So, so two thoughts. One is they're talking about slowing it down. I just don't see that happening. We've talked about this for a long time. I it would take a superhuman effort of will and ethics, shall we say, to do this. Um, and I don't think you have the full combination of will and ethics to uh, slow down appropriately to let society catch up. Okay. So, this is that's my hypothesis around this because we've never seen it before. If they slow down, what stops anybody else from not slowing down? And why would anybody else slow down? Right? Because if people are going to see this,
There's there may be some rooms that we're not in. So far be it from me to argue that a slowdown is possible after all of these months. But I I do think there is a scenario where a coordinated, maybe not a slowdown, but just greater centralized coordination is possible. And that is, we're seeing three frontier labs IPO over the next few months. The scenario is they all voluntarily allow the US government to take golden share type stakes in them, and then the US government functions as a central coordinating mechanism for the finish line, whatever the finish line looks like of recursive self-improvement. It it some may view it as an unlikely scenario. Maybe they give 5 to 10% of each of themselves to the US government, like Intel gave 10% to the US government, and in return for obviously the regulatory capture that comes along with those golden shares. But it's not in my mind an impossible scenario that the US government actually ends up being a coordinating mechanism via equity, via golden shares, for some sort of coordinated finish line.
I would go even stronger.
Hold on. I would say a couple more things. As someone who feels a bit libertarian, it makes me nervous when government is overseeing anything because it this gets politicized so quickly. And what do you do then? The but the broader question I have here is, if you can't, this will call a spark a need, which may be the other topic for the next question, and I'll let you decide, Peter, but this means we have to reconfigure humanity like now.
There's we can't wait. And for example, nation-states can't navigate this in the same way that nation-states can't solve for climate change, right? So we're going to have to have a completely new governance model. And you can see that with Sterling breaking sovereignty across every country in the world. And and on one person deciding who gets this have access to what. So this is going to cause that breakage, and we have to figure that thing out. I was hoping we'd have a few years to figure this out because we're organizing for that, but it seems like, of course, everything is happening now, as you said, every science fiction.
That's why that's why I'm in that's why I'm insinuating that basically everything may happen all at once. We we may get the first elements of UBI or UB. I think latter is probably more likely at the same time as a quasi nationalization of the frontier labs via golden chairs, at the same time that recursive self-improvement goes through the roof, at the same time as dot dot dot. By the way, I know that you're busy and sometimes these episodes run long and you don't have time to listen to the whole episode, or if on occasion you miss an episode. I now put out a Moonshot summary on Substack which includes a link to all the stories that we cover. The weekly recap covers what I and the mates had to say, what we think is most important, and what we're most excited about. And it's free. You can subscribe at diamandis.com/metatrends. That's diamandis.com/metatrends. All right, now back to the episode.
Dave, can I ask you a question here?
Yeah.
It feels like Anthropic has a situation where, uh, they get benefits for calling for a slowdown. They're seen as the safer, moral, ethical lab, and a moment that they know there is no option for a slowdown, right? So they have a, they don't lose either way, and attention also.
I can't imagine a world in which the government is going to slow down with China not agreeing. We didn't see these kind of relationship agreements coming out of the, uh, the summit last month.
So I I think, yeah, let's slow down. It's the right thing to do, knowing full well that you know, full steam ahead. I think that's why the paper specifically brings up, kind of awkwardly, the intermediate-range nuclear missile deal that the US and the Soviet Union cut right around the time of the Cuban missile, right after the Cuban missile crisis, which you also would have said that's impossible. Like, there's no way that the US and the Soviet Union, in the middle of the worst arms race in history, are going to agree on anything. But faced with global annihilation, they did agree to remove what was inevitably going to cause some kind of an accidental conflict, and they both backed off. And you know, it it put the world on a trajectory of a long, long period of peace and prosperity. And so I think Dario 100% believes the impossible is possible. Because if you look at his life, five years ago, he was a starving research guy in a in a lab. Five years later, he's on the eve of a $1.8 trillion dollar value company, a multi-billionaire, and he can speed dial pretty much any world leader. So with that amount of change in his world in that short a period of time, do you think he's he's thinking, "Yeah, impossible to get together with China, impossible for all the AI labs to work?" No, he's thinking the opposite. Now, also, you have to think that, you know, of all the people in these positions, so Elon and Sam and Dario and Dennis, Dario is unique in that. Remember when we had our X-Prize meeting at at OpenAI, and we're proposing all these things that would make the world better with AI, and then they called and said, "Hey, after we met, we walked over and talked to Anthropic about it." Like, what? You just walk over and talk to Anthropic? Like, yeah, we we love each other. We talk to each other all the time, even though we're competitors. But Elon does not have that relationship with Sam. He has the exact opposite relationship. On the other side, Anthropic just, you know, expanded their deal with XAI to use Colossus 2. So, you know that Dario and Elon talk all the time. They have a huge business relationship now. So, actually, Anthropic is the one entity that's sort of friends with everybody.
And so, they're they're neutral politically. I know they're not in either party. They didn't go and, you know, and stump for a candidate or anything like that. Uh, and they're neutral within the AI community. So, they're actually perfectly positioned to to put together, you know, some kind of a roadmap for the new world order. So, your question though, Peter, was, is it realistic that we're just going to pause and China is going to agree to pause? No, that's not realistic. But that's not what they're calling for. They're calling for the option to do that by putting together some kind of a global structure that on the eve of disaster, we have an we have a way we have a way to move forward and and make this good for humanity.
Yeah. A hotline.
And I think also right now, Dario, Dario has access to pretty much everything in the world, but not he wants to escalate that one more notch so that, you know, if he wants to go talk to a king or to a, you know, to a president, they just take the meeting. I can't imagine the pressure these guys are under.
Um, Alex, what else was unveiled in the tweet storm, uh, from Anthropic yesterday?
Well, I I think there's almost there were a variety of numerical statistics about how rapidly their recursive self-improvement is itself improving. But I I think putting the statistics aside, there's an interesting side story which is how, given that we are on the eve of all of these IPOs, how it intersects with governance. There's a side story that we spoke in the last pod episode about Senator Sanders' proposal to take 50% equity in all the frontier labs as the basis for universal basic dividend.
Good negotiating position to start with. And now in the past 24 to 48 hours, we're seeing reporting that the White House has also concluded that some variant of this is a good idea. So we have now both major parties coming to the same conclusion that some sort of government equity stake in the frontier labs is going to be the basis or could be the basis for some sort of universal basic dividend. And I I think again, it's very difficult for me to shake the juxtaposition of that story on the one hand with hitting basically recursive self-improvement finally achieving its end goal either now or imminently at the same time. I I think these two stories are going to intersect.
By the way, Alex and and Dave and See, are we going to call it here? Are we going to say this is when recursive self-improvement is being hit? Is this the moment, or are we on the precipice?
No, I wouldn't follow.
I I would say we drove straight through the Turing test without, you know, with without a a bang, but with a whimper. Uh, I suspect that we'll go straight through recursive self-improvement also with a whimper, not with a bang. Uh, the technocrats will certainly take close note that now the models are training their own successors and the models will get faster. But I also, and maybe again, just to to sound a bit of a cliché note, that every exponential ultimately wants to turn into a sigmoid and asymptote. It it's not as if the laws of information theory or the laws of physics say that models can improve infinitely forever. I do think that we're going to discover some perfect model architecture. And
You've been saying that for a while.
Yeah. And recursive self-improvement. I if we do hit some sort of superficial asymptote, all that's going to do is it's going to mean a year from now or a few months from now or a couple of years from now, we'll discover via recursive self-improvement what that perfect algorithm is and then we'll hit it and then we'll max out on what's algorithmically possible. And all that'll do, in the same way that when a star is dying, a normal star like our our sun, uh, on on the the main sequence is is dying, it runs out of fuel and it runs out of hydrogen fuel and then gravity overwhelms, um, the the outbound pressure, uh, and you get,
Right, it'll burn helium, etc. So, and you get a nova or a supernova. Analogously, if we run out of algorithmic fuel or algorithmic gain fuel, I I would predict that will trigger by analogy a nova or supernova at the lower layers of the stack. It'll trigger an infra buildout. Uh, because now we've run out of algorithmic headroom, we need to suddenly horizontal exponentiate the hardware stack. And that's the sort of,
And energy and just everything at the infra layer. And those are the sorts of hardware infra level novas that build Dyson swarms.
Interesting. Salem, over to you, pal.
Uh, two two thoughts. One is, um, you know, remember in one of the pods, I've laid out this ice, water, steam metaphor.
Yes.
Where we're taking domain after domain and using technology to move it from ice where the molecules flow to water where the molecule moves.
Phase transitions.
Phase transitions. Like we've done that with messaging, where we used to try send homing pigeons or smoke signals, and then we moved to postal mail, which was slow, but at least moved to the boundaries of the system of liquid state. Now we have tweets and emails. We've done that with money, where we used to trade camels and goats to letters of credit. Then we floated our currencies, and now we have Bitcoin and and crypto, and we're vaporizing our currencies. Well, we're going through the steam stage. I think what this, the natural metaphor of this phase change is now we go to a plasma state, and where things is super focused and supercharged, etc. But that causes that the bottleneck to shift to the other layers, as what Alex has said. We have resisted figuring out human coordination and human governance for the last 150 years. It's now the existing world order is now breaking. This will force us to rethink what that is. I take the encouragement from the fact that you have people like Dennis and uh, Dario, who seem like about as, uh, well-meaning souls as you could ask for in those positions. So that's encouraging. Um, the the other side of it is, as I take the very positive side of it, as, uh, if we do have technology solving everything, then, uh, we have technology and robots are doing everything for us. Humans can spend all our time and much more time being, and I think that is very encouraging for them.
For five minutes until humans start uploading and then we can be differently too.
We can be however we want, but at some point, you can you can express yourself in different ways and being in powerful ways.
My biggest concern here, guys, is how this plays on Main Street. You know, I'm concerned about levels of fear.
Oh, total let revolt, total manic panic.
And we have to talk about that. In fact, on the next pod, I want to I want to hit that. I've been doing some research.
Uh, and, uh, if you look at every revolution in human history, it is the young educated males, uh, who don't have economic opportunity that lead that, and it's like for 12 different revolutions over time. So, I'll bring the data to our next pod conversation.
Dave, what else are you thinking?
Well, I think I think it's, you know, you asked Peter, are we calling the ball? Is this the moment? And I think there's a persistent error that you see in the reporting where they assume that the AI needs to be Einstein-level genius in order to become self-improving. And it's even in the in the Anthropic paper where right now, if I turn our Mythos model loose on an AI research problem, it impresses me like a really solid junior researcher that I just hired. Which implies, yeah, but it's not as good a researcher as I am, and therefore it's it's not going to run away with the world tomorrow.
How long, how long, Dave?
Well, no, it's not it's not even a necessary, uh, step. That's my point. You know, humans evolved from monkeys, and all that happened is the brain, you know, cerebrum got a little bigger. Uh, the neocortex got a little bigger, and then we tipped a wire where now suddenly we can create things, including chips, including AI. Uh, for the AI to become self-improving, does not require a brilliant research breakthrough from a from an Einstein-level researcher. It requires faster inference. The junior researcher improving its algorithm, or just the new, uh, chips coming out, you know, like the Cerebrus chip. Uh, those are 100x performance gains at inference time, and that will drive up the IQ of the model. And so it doesn't require, uh, the the genius-level research breakthrough that keeps coming up in these papers. It just requires more, uh, innovation at the lower level of the stack. Exactly what Alex just said. The the bottom level of the stack going faster by itself should push us over the self-improvement window.
Well, if you recursive self-improvement, then you have the models kind of saying, "Okay, we need more energy. Let's just go solve fusion." As we get more energy, and it'll get done.
Precisely. That's precisely I think what is likely to happen. There will be a drive for optimization from the top of the stack, which will have been solved first, down to the bottom of the stack, down through solving what the optimal substrate for compute is, what the optimal energy source is. And this is one of the many reasons why I think physics is one of the next fields to be cooked after computer science. And Alex, like exactly what you're saying is is being said by Dario and Elon and Dennis.
Yeah.
Do you guys remember the AI 2027 paper?
All the way back, what, two years ago?
I know, way back in in human history.
Uh, and it's interesting, you know, it's been tracking better than I expected it to track.
Yeah. There there were multiple extrapolations of the the meter autonomy, uh, frontier in AI 2027. We're tracking for the exponential or hyperexponential chart within the AI 2027 scenario. And that's without access to Mythos or or other purportedly ultra high autonomy time horizon models that are out there. By the way, the rumor is that Mythos is due for an imminent public release at this point, in the next few weeks.
I can,
40 40% by the end of this month, and overwhelmingly likely by the end of next month.
Yes.
Is it up from that?
Poly market has it at something like 72% likelihood of being released by the end of next month.
Welcome to the health section of Moonshots, brought to you by Fountain Life. You know, AI is having an outsized impact on every aspect of our lives. How we teach our kids, how we run our companies. It also is having a huge impact on health. Helping you prevent heart disease is one of the key things. I'm here with Dr. Don Mucalem, our Chief Medical Officer at Fountain. Heart disease has been personal for you as well, hasn't it?
It really has, Peter. When my daughter was five, my husband died of sudden cardiac death. And so, this is a topic that is one that I am mission-driven to try to eradicate. Prevention first and early detection is absolutely critical. 50% of people die of heart attacks with no warning signs.
No shortness of breath, no pain, no nothing.
No silent killer.
They just don't wake up in the morning.
They don't wake up. And so, you know, AI, this is our mission to advance science to try to help to one day democratize wellness. We know at Fountain Life, when we do this CT angiography with AI analytics, we are actually finding that 88% of people coming in have detectable coronary artery disease. But Peter, what's more alarming to me is 23% of those individuals had soft plaque. This is the plaque that would not traditionally be seen on CT looking at calcium scores alone. And this is the plaque that we must intervene with, with the multimodal testing we're doing, including diagnostic laboratory studies partnered with healthy lifestyle recommendations.
So listen, make sure you understand what's going on inside your body genetically, metabolically, and cardiovascularly. You can know, and it's your obligation to know. So check it out at fountainlife.com/peter to find out more and really make sure that you're the CEO of your own health. All right, back to the episode.
I want to move us to our next stunning story. So, while Anthropic is calling for a global pause, Argentina's president just went the opposite direction. President Javier Milei published an op-ed in the Financial Times titled "Argentina Invites AI to Free Itself." Love that. So, three pillars. First, a commitment to keep AI completely unregulated. Second, the creation of a brand new legal category called "non-human corporation," entirely operated entirely by AI agents or robots. Alex, I'm just wondering if you know, you've been in the mix.
No, I was not involved with this. Yes, I think it's a huge development.
And third, a low corporate tax rate for AI companies. His line is, quote, "As much as the industrial revolution freed us from the constraints of the human muscle, AI will free us from the constraints of the human brain." Uh, he's positioning Argentina as the global haven for AI companies. No regulation, new legal personhood for machines, and open for business. This is either the boldest economic experiment of the decade, or the most dangerous. So, let's jump in. See, uh, you're hearing this for the first time. What do you think?
Uh, look, at one level, it needs to happen. Somebody's going to do it. Whoever does it gets first mover advantage, uh, in this. Um, I think it's a great development because this field needs to be explored. You can't just sit back and not think about stuff like this. Legacy environments like the US and Europe are never going to do it. U Europe never going to do it for sure, right? Um, they're, uh, so this needed to happen in the same way that crypto first got adopted by Zug and Singapore and other places. Uh, AI agents and AI personhood and, uh, non-human corporations, uh, need to be created somewhere. I think it's a very bold move. I think it's a, it's, um, uh, I, I don't think it's coincidental that Peter Thiel is moving down there exactly at the same time as this announcement is being made. That seems very, uh, a little too convenient in my case. I think we've had something to do with this conversation because I happen to know that viewers of this pod are advising President Milei and they track. Yeah. Um, uh, so, and it's, it's whoever doesn't first gets a massive advantage. And this is one of those learning loops. The faster you figure out regulatory and guardrails and frameworks for that future, you're going to do very well because everybody will flock to you for that stuff. So,
I bet you,
we'll have we'll have fast movers following this.
Yeah. And this is it's one thing when Zug in Switzerland says, "We'll do crypto," right? It's another thing when a major country says, "We're going full out on this." And I, I congratulate the the boldness of it. People are going to freak out about it, but that's, you know, that's going to happen no matter what.
Alex, I love this to pieces. Maybe that's obvious. I I wrote in my newsletter, "Don't Cry for Me, Argentina." The truth is, AI never left you.
Nice.
I I think that this is wonderful. Um, there were there have been a whole bunch, uh, there were a whole bunch of others are flocking south.
Yes.
Yeah. I mean, we've spoken on the pod previously about AI personhood. This is obviously a huge step forward for AI personhood. If if this package of reforms gets passed, then AI agents, right now, you might consider redomiciling to Argentina as a non-human corporation. There will finally be a legal home for you on this planet. And I would hope that many, many other municipalities within the US and and countries, uh, and states will consider adopting a common framework. Right now,
You won't you won't have a choice. You'll have to.
This is an inflection point. This is a a moment in time that the world just changed because of this.
Peter, Peter, back in the mid-1800s, Argentina was the wealthiest country in the entire world. Uh, you know, the new world had been discovered. It was outperforming the United States, and it completely self-destructed through bad economic policy. But there's a huge amount of latent national pride in Argentina. You can see it if you go to a soccer match and look at Lionel Messi. There's just a massive desire to be relevant.
You mean football?
Football. Yes, football. Uh, but just a huge desire to be relevant on the world stage. And and you know, as Salem and Alex have been saying, you know, Europe is editing itself out of relevance. But if Dario is right, there's a massive global negotiation coming up on some kind of a new world structure so that we can all benefit and not just self-destruct. And right now, everyone's visualizing that as China and the US need to get together. But if you're Argentina, you want to be part of this. What's the best way to be part of it? Well, in the US, we have this Bernie Sanders issue where we're going to deliberately hobble ourselves in different areas. If he can make Argentina a safe haven for everything Alex was just talking about, and everything Sem economically does with the exo, if that can happen in Argentina, it can get right back into the center of the world stage. So, I think it's a brilliant, a brilliant play.
By the way, you're about to capture the most economically productive aspect of the world. Yeah. Today, right? I mean, the incentive, do you remember back, was it Chile that was that was courting the drone companies and said, "We're going to change our economic, our legal structure so drones can operate and test here and so forth?" And that was nice. That was a nice marginal, uh, you know, shot over the bow. But this is, okay, most productive companies, most economically, uh, you know, exponential companies on the planet come here and do domicile here.
I'm a I'm a big fan of special economic zones. And Argentina is positioning itself as one massive special economic zone with this. It already had courted OpenAI, the Stargate project, to put 20 billion plus dollars of AI data centers of compute in Patagonia. And more broadly, with links, I would say a parallel announcement over the past few months that I think surely is related was President Milei's announcement of a program for social digital twins to basically use publicly available data on Argentinian citizens to create simulations, sort of psychohistory style, to inform public policy decisions. All of these things are happening at the same time that efforts to do what some have called landsteading, like you remember the the Prosper, uh, charter city/minaret, are perhaps not as successful as one would have liked them to be, in part because they ran into opposition from their host government. Here, we're seeing all of Argentina position itself as one massive special economic zone, granting AI personhood, creating digital twins of its populace in order to simulate possible outcomes, welcoming data centers, and welcoming the energy and compute that comes along with it. Argentina may become the template for the rest of the world for AI personhood and for the singularity.
Totally. And I just, a very narrow case study, you know, I I talked to the world's largest asset manager this week, talking to their executive team and the CTO, and they're global, you know, they manage money all over the world. And the CTO is saying, "Look, we have an AI now that gives phenomenally good financial advice. What should we do? How are we going to guardrail it?" Because if it's 99.9% correct in its advice, but 0.1% gives you a crazy terrible idea, in the US, we're going to get sued off the planet for that 0.1% miss rate. And I said, "You know what you should do? Go right to the White." You're the world's largest asset manager. Go right to the White House and get an executive order because that's happening all the time in terms of unhobbling this. But if you said, and also go to Argentina and start deploying in Argentina first, you're already managing money there too, and then you can get all the data in the world through your Argentina experiment, and then you can prove to the world that it's it's a great financial advisor. So that's a very narrow example, but imagine, Peter, in biotech, the equivalent conversation where, I mean, this is right in your wheelhouse.
Yeah, we've talked about this. You know, if you have a country that passes the laws, allows for the research, you know, enables capital formation, what happens is all of the world's wealthiest people who want the latest longevity treatments flock to your country because that's where they are. Is the agency here?
I have a I have a couple of more comments I want to make here. This is this is so big. You know, this is the first attempt to create a legal container for autonomous intelligence, right? Kind of a guardrail regulatory framework. And that's correct for for me, this is powerful and important. But it's there's a precedent here where, you know, people, I'm kind of in the, I'm hand libertarian, but you need some level of government, right? Because otherwise, you end up in chaos and anarchy. And a friend of mine gave me a great example, which is the limited liability company. Right? Note that when the government allows you to create a limited liability company, they're giving you permission to take risk and limit that risk. You can do crazy things, cause massive damage, but your risk is limited, and therefore people attempt more and innovate more. And that's the government allowing you to do that. That's amazing.
And in fact, Milei quotes that. Seem, he draws a comparison. And he says the Dutch East India Company invented the limited liability in 1602. And and what we're now doing is he's creating limited liability frameworks for AI agents. And I think this is going to be un-
Legal innovation.
Legal innovation, which is badly needed, which is so badly needed because God help us, those are the domains where we're slowest. This is what I I love to see because for me, you always heard me talk about the fact, yeah, the technology is moving. Our human institutions, there's about 50 major institutions by which we run the world: legal systems, governance systems, healthcare systems, intellectual property, etc. And we're starting, we need to reinvent all of those for this new world. And this is now starting to happen, which is very exciting. Now, the the obvious question, given that we're evidently speedrunning the entire plot of Accelerando, is we already have we already have these non-
We we already have these non-human corporations. How much of the Dyson swarm is going to be subject to our Argentinian law, given that these non-human corporations will be operated by AI agents and robots? Human participation as shareholders possible, but not required. How much of the Dyson swarm is going to be Argentinian? You know, that that sounds so far-fetched, but it's not. It's it's absolutely a very real if if you get ahead in the the freed agent, you know, economic agents that can just operate without having to worry about Bernie Sanders. It's not impossible at all for Argentina to vault to the top of the
I mean, how many how many countries around the world or regions around the world captured entire industries by saying, "We're going to provide, you know, Swiss banking?" Or, you know,
Yeah. Yeah. Good example.
Yeah. It's crazy.
Can I tell a little story here because this is so,
I love your stories.
I love your stories, Peter. In the second year of Singularity, we had a our GSP 10 program, our summer program, where we had 80 students from 40 countries coming to live with us at NASA for 10 weeks. And one of them, I'll not say his name for for because I don't have permission yet, but one of them was an Argentinian kid who was a hacker, and we let him into the program, and he designed a nano satellite. In the last two weeks of the program, he designed a nano satellite, right? And he said, "Listen, because we're at NASA and this is the head of R&D for all of NASA, can I get some feedback from the NASA people?" So we arranged a meeting where the NASA engineers sat with this fellow for a couple hours and looked at his design. As we're walking out, the the lead NASA head of NASA R&D pulls me aside and said, "Listen, I need to ask you a question." I'm like, "Sure." He goes, "How long has that guy been in the space industry?" I'm like, "Why do you ask?" He goes, "Well, that's the best design of a nano satellite we've ever seen, right?" And he just completely blew. And I didn't want to tell him it was like literally two weeks, right? Because why? Because he's coming at it with a beginner's mind. He's saying, "Oh, well, the cell phone has all the sensors. You just put a cell phone in a freaking, uh, uh, glass cube and shoot that up, you will get 80% of what you're trying to do." Whereas the NASA guys are coming from their perspective where an accelerometer used to be $100 million and cost be the size of a room. Um, and he's coming at it from totally new principles. Well, he moved to Argentina and he's been building a satellite company in Argentina ever since. So there you connect that with what Milei just done, Alex, and there you have the beginning of your starting point of building the Dyson swarm.
Yeah. Good chunk of the solar system may be subject to Argentinian law on the present trajectory. Maybe it's it's probably worth just speaking directly to the audience. President Milei, if you'd like to come on the pod, I'm sure we'd love to.
I would love to have that. And in fact, we should make that shot. We should have that conversation. And I I do think Peter Thiel is is likely, you know, whispering in his ear. Um, this is,
Peter, that analogy between, uh, Swiss banks and Argentinian agents, that'll stick. Make that into a couple t-shirts. Send it down to him, say, "Hey, we want to get you on the pod to talk about Swiss banking was great, but now we have Argentinian agents."
Yeah. I can imagine El Salvador being a a fast follower, uh, the Emirates being a fast follower, and then all of a sudden you've got the US and Europe trapped by all these other countries that are pulling the entrepreneurs and the agents to do there. Well, the the thing about Argentina versus El Salvador is, uh, there are
three countries on the planet that are completely self-contained in terms of every natural resource that you need to build out data centers, Dyson sw anything. Argentina, US and France are the three that just geographically have everything. Uh so Argentina is very, very different in terms of being, you know, it's a much bigger country, big population, massive uh just it should it should be a massive global country. It's just completely self-destructed. It's much harder in a smaller country like El Salvador.
>> By the way, if anybody wants to have the one of the funniest reads you've ever seen, go research a blog post called "Argentina on Two States a Day." It's one of my Brick House Yahoo Brick House colleagues put this blog post. It's one of the funniest pieces you've ever you'll ever read. You heal through Argentina and eat two steaks every day and it was kind of incredible. Okay.
>> Crazy.
>> Move on.
>> All right. Um, our third story today uh that I want to cover is what happened on Friday. So Friday was a masterclass and how Wall Street actually works. The Bureau of Labor Statistics report that the US economy added 172,000 jobs in May, more than double the expected 85,000 that economists expected, with April being revised upward to 179,000. Unemployment held steady at 4.3%. By every traditional measure, this is amazing. You know, a healthy labor market. So, what happened? The stock market had its worst day since April 2025. The NASDAQ cratered 4.18%. S&P 500 down 2.64%. Roughly two trillion in total wealth was erased. Uh, the reasons are counterintuitive and uh, it's the conversation I want to have here, right? The good economic news is bad for stocks because a strong economy means the Federal Reserve won't cut interest rates. What might actually happen is they'll raise them.
So, um, here's the question, gents. We're seeing jobs stronger than expected. Um, we've been talking about how murky the water is. On one side, we've got Bernie Sanders and everybody saying we're going to have uh, you know, unemployment. We've heard everybody say, you know, we need to be prepared. We need to grab interest in the frontier labs to support a UBI, but here we see jobs going up. Any clarity, any thought?
>> Two, three, two, three quick points here. One is I'd like us to congratulate ourselves a bit because we tend to be very data-driven and evidentiary.
>> It's it's it's something we we really uh pride and I think value here and is really important. You see the same commentary that's been coming from Marc Andreessen forever. David Sacks on the All-In podcast has been saying this forever. The data shows that employment is not dropping. And Peter and I talked a lot about the three countries with the highest robotics penetration are Sweden, South Korea, and Germany. And the countries with the lowest unemployment are Sweden, South Korea, Germany. Um, we have this unbelievable new job creation that will come about because of this. We're going to need a ton of people as we lift humans above the loop. The analogy I use in the organizational singularity framing is 100 years ago you had people doing manual double-entry bookkeeping in big ledgers, right? And then we automated sped it up a bit with calculators. You could do you could speed up the calculations a bit. We're still doing manual double-entry. When we created software now we have people doing totally nobody's doing manual double-entry bookkeeping. That would make no sense. The human being fits above the loop. is categorizing the transactions, working on the reconciliation gap, doing the uh, general ledger closing, etc., etc. And that's what we're going to see again and again and again around us. We're going to just going to create a ton more new jobs than ever existed. I I love Eric Brynjolfsson's framing that a lot of what we do in in companies is white-collar drudgery, right? And it's and it's kind of like we can get rid of all that. There was an unbelievable study that came out a few days ago that showed that about in terms of white-collar middle management, 74% is unnecessary. This is a staggering number. So we're going to start to radically change the game on all these domains.
>> Dave, what's your take on on the jobs report and the sort of the financial crash that happened yesterday?
>> Uh, you know, there there are a lot of things going on concurrently and the jobs report was nothing but great news. So like, why would stocks react so negatively to it? But concurrent with that, uh, the mega IPOs, SpaceX and Anthropic did not get, uh, into the S&P 500 blanket. You you have to be public for a period of time before you're eligible for those indexes.
>> Of course.
>> And they said, "No, no, no. You got to stick with the rules. You can't just change the rules because you're big and and powerful." But that means the index funds won't buy a quarter of those offerings. So, the amount of money they're trying to accumulate in a very short period of time, it's like, does that money even exist in the world? That's cash has to come from has to come from someplace. You have to sell something to buy something else.
>> No doubt. So, I was talking to the head of asset management at uh at UBS and and she was saying that yeah, we we really want to buy into these IPOs, but we we have like 75 billion in liquidity. It's nowhere near enough. Where are we going to get it? And so that that also happened concurrently on the same day. So, I'm not 100% sure that it's just the jobs report. But you know, the other thing is that if you look at the volatility of the market over the last decade, it's been going up at an incredible rate. Things just move, you know, 5, 10, 15% in a day. And prior to that, that was incredibly rare. Only on like a like a, you know, a Black Monday or a, you know, a crash of '29 would you see that kind of movement. I think that just goes hand-in-hand with exponential change and with the singularity. like you can only expect the volatility to keep going up. So right now people get very, very jittery in a hurry and then on top of that, you've got the quant traders. You know, when things start coming down, they race to get out first just so they can figure out what it means and then they then they come back in if if it's nothing significant.
>> Three factors are thought to have caused what happened yesterday. First, the jobs report, you know, sort of killed the hopes for a rate cut. um, uh, and it's, you know, now the it's the odds of a rate hike have gone above 50%. The second is that Broadcom reported AI chip guidance of 16 billion for Q3 versus 17.22 billion. And the question Wall Street is asking is, you know, whether the AI capex is peaking. And the third is, of course, that we are in this incredible, you know, peak of all of the innermost loop companies, uh, you know, infrastructure companies, chip companies, energy companies peaking and people are taking money off the table.
>> Um, Alex, what do you make of this?
>> Nothing burger. Total nothing burger. I see these headlines. NASDAQ falls 4% and suffers the worst day since April of last year. Nothing burger. I I own the total market and I sleep very well at night. And whether the the NASDAQ is being driven down because Broadcom lowered its outlook or because traders are seeking liquidity in advance of the SpaceX IPO. I could care less. I own the total market and the total market will I think in the fullness of time efficiently price all of these securities. I don't pay attention to day-to-day swings.
>> but I think the jobs data is worth drilling in on for a second just by itself.
>> Yeah. Uh, so back to um Amdahl's law, you know, anytime you have a chain of events in a manufacturing process or any kind of process, if you make all of them 10 times faster except for one, the entire thing doesn't get 10 times faster, the bottleneck entirely moves to that one. And what we're seeing with AI automation is incredible gains. You know, 80% of the code now written by AI, but that last 20% is still a bottleneck. And so that's creating more jobs than it's destroying. The bottlenecks are moving and I need more people, but now my company is so much bigger and so much more profitable. I want to get on that bottleneck right away. Everybody, hands on deck, and let's go hire some people to to actually help with that too. So that's why the jobs are actually going up and not down. And concurrent with that, and this was in the the Anthropic paper, too. uh, they're seeing more and more jobs for non-code-writing engineers because the bottlenecks are moving into this other thing that we haven't really defined well yet, but it's more like a vision, human strategy kind of function to guide the AI toward doing something useful, and it's turning out that a lot of people can do that job very, very effectively. You don't have to be a core, you know, Java or C++ engineer to jump on that problem, and that's that's broadening the talent pool and raising the number of total jobs. So, it's a really, really good picture uh, just in terms of that, you know, the worry that everybody had a year ago about total annihilation of all white-collar work. It's actually turning out to be the opposite.
This episode is brought to you by Blitzy, autonomous software development with infinite code context. Blitzy uses thousands of specialized AI agents that think for hours to understand enterprise-scale code bases with millions of lines of code. Engineers start every development sprint with the Blitzy platform, bringing in their development requirements. The Blitzy platform provides a plan, then generates and pre-compiles code for each task. Blitzy delivers 80% or more of the development work autonomously while providing a guide for the final 20% of human development work required to complete the sprint. Enterprises are achieving a 5x engineering velocity increase when incorporating Blitzy as their pre-development tool, pairing it with their coding co-pilot of choice to bring an AI-native SDLC into their org. Ready to 5x your engineering velocity? Visit blitzy.com to schedule a demo and start building with Blitzy today.
You know where I'd like to go as we close out today's pod is we're midway through 2026. Um, most definitely one of the most impactful years in human history until next year. Uh, what do you guys predict for the end of this year or what's the next six months going to look like? Alex, let's go to you first.
Oh man, we're we're doing a midyear predictions episode without any without any preparation.
>> Yeah, I'm I'm just calling calling it to just get gut gut feeling.
>> Okay. Well, I I think we're going to see I I'll reiterate an an increment from our end of 2025 predictions episode. I think we're going to see over the next 6 months major problems in math, physics, other fields of science and engineering fall to AI. We've started seeing that already. I think the scope of the problems that are going to get solved is going to get larger. Uh, I I do think I mean, this is the the ultimate softball prediction. I think we're going to see the rise of Magna Mopa as the
>> I love your acronym, buddy.
>> as the innermost loop. Hopefully everyone's singing that little jingle uh and this becomes the new MAG 7. Not investment advice. Uh, I I think we're likely to start to see quasi-nationalization of the Frontier Labs. I think that's a story that's only started to play out over the past few weeks, but I, you know, I can read the tea leaves probably as well as anyone else.
>> What percent you are you thinking?
>> I I wouldn't hazard a percentage. Uh, it might only be a few percent if it happens. I would guess less than 10%. I don't think 50%. uh, the the Senator Sanders prediction is at all likely.
>> You might anchor on the same 10% that Intel got.
>> Anything is possible. Look, if you're Anthropic and you're you're seeking to get off the designated entities list from the White House, then maybe there's a grand bargain to be struck whereby you get to officially start selling to the US government in return for US government purchasing some golden shares. Maybe it's five or 10% of Anthropic, and maybe OpenAI uh voluntarily, perhaps via its nonprofit or or otherwise, gives up uh a few hundred basis points of of OpenAI. And well, Google's already publicly traded, so not sure that's an option. SpaceX, interesting question. Would SpaceX, would Elon give up some equity, maybe? And then we're off to the races with the US government holding golden shares in arguably two and a half to three of the key frontier labs.
Alex, one more question. We've seen math solve irresolvable problems and you know, arguably doing things way beyond human capability. When do we see that for the first time in physics? Really a stunning result in physics?
>> No comment, but stay tuned.
>> Okay, that sounds uh uh I don't want to say ominous, but it sounds like you're cooking cooking.
>> Working on it.
>> I've seen I've seen stuff out there also, Peter. We're talking weeks.
>> Okay, Salem, let's go to you next, pal. Uh, 2026, what do you what do you see?
>> So, um, two things. One is the agent era becomes uh very real in enterprises in the more prescriptive workflows, the bog-standard workflows. We're working with a a batch of companies starting to do that. The excitement is unbelievable. I'll report back periodically. I think the big bottleneck in AI is going to move from just the raw AI to permissions. Like we're seeing this now, like, can the agents, can AI access the data? Can it use the API? Can it spend money? Can it sign? Can it trigger workflows? Um, all of those questions are starting to come up for the infrastructure uh, harness for how agents and AI work in that model. I'm unbelievably excited what's happening in Argentina. The non-human corporation is going to start a massive jurisdictional race around the world. Uh, and I think you're going to see in the next few months other countries f following because they have to do fast following in this sense. Um, Diane Francis, who writes an amazing column on geopolitics, um, said a few months ago to me that, you know, look at the what's happening, the hyperscalers are becoming nation-states. Nation-states are going to have to become hyperscalers. And compute and energy are going to be the new geopolitics in this in this model. We're going to see massive backlash from this uh, and I think the the white-collar world is going to suffer massive kind of crisis and we're going to layoffs, less more. We're going to see a ton of white-collar layoffs, but not around cost-cutting, just around or redesign because we have to redesign all of our organizations. We're starting to see the need from that. So all of those things are happening. There's like 20 other things that are happening all at the same time.
>> Hence the damn speed running every plot ever in parallel thing. It's a good thing I'm bald already. I'm gonna say.
>> Dave, I think our beginning of the year predictions are coming out pretty much right on. But if one thing's faster than I would have guessed, it's the rate at which large enterprise, legacy enterprise is massively now pushing to to get AI-native somehow and the ability for a 21, 22-year-old who's self-declared AI-native and just using the tools every day to go straight to a corporate CEO who's 60, 65 years old and say, let's talk strategy about AI. That that's moving much faster. I would have thought that the big, you know, kind of blue-chip companies would be dawdling along still. Instead, when they've seen these IPOs coming up and the valuations at stake, they're now massively reacting to it. So, I I suspect that we'll have even more startup success. I also think that um, early-stage companies that are kind of, you know, working in a little box in in some alley on University Avenue are not doing nearly as well as companies that are getting out there uh, either with enterprise sales forces or consulting or just taking meetings, you know, but and or podcasting to get their message out like this is what our company does and here's, you know, here's how you should interact with it. Those companies are growing as quickly as they can sign deals. And so there's there's a divergence coming there. because large enterprise has woken up in a big way and they've unlocked every resource that they've got to try and get, you know, in the hunt. Kind of like Argentina, you know.
>> Yeah. Peter, what are yours?
>> I think we're going to see absolute proof of uh epigenetic reprogramming. I think the experiments that are being run in humans right now by a number of labs is going to play out. Uh, and we'll see evidence of this. Uh, and we'll start to see we we had the last story, Russia investing 26 billion. I think we're going to start to see countries and Dave, you mentioned this earlier, uh saying, we want to become the longevity hub. We're going to change the regulations. We're going to invest capital. We're going to build out resources here. So I think that's going to be one of the most critical things. Um, I think we're going to see before the end of the year uh the Tesla SpaceX merger uh happen. Um, I think Elon's going to move very quickly on that front uh to consolidate. It's incredible, right? Google just bought into uh, you know, Elon uh uh web services or uh, you know, shall we call it uh, you know, his hyperscaler. So we're going to start to see I think Elon double down on building out data centers uh and accelerate. We'll see Starship operating fully. Um, uh, you know, I hate that the New Glenn vehicle exploded, but we're going to see the race to the moon double down. It's going to become, besides the AI China race, it's going to be the space race is going to double down. So excited about about those areas.
>> Um,
>> you know, that last point too, the the the econ majors out there need to figure this out, but the the race to build the Dyson swarm is going to be as fast as humanity can afford. And the question is, okay, what can humanity afford? And we'll find out with these monster IPOs. Like, how much money is there in the world? Cuz every nook and corner of every, you know, peso and dollar and real is going to get extracted for this buildout. And I don't know, I it's a good econ. This is what Eric Brynjolfsson should get the Nobel Prize for if he figures out the the economics post-AI starting with where's all the money coming from. The the other thing I want to sort of call right now is we're going to see, you know, SpaceX, AI, OpenAI, and Anthropic as public companies having uh a huge amount of dry powder and they're going to start a massive acquisition spree.
>> So, we're going to start to see a lot of companies being purchased by them. The other thing is we're about to see a brand new class of billionaires and sent to millionaires that were the, you know, second and third tier third third tier layers of these uh three uh, you know, frontier labs uh huge amount of capital by those entrepreneurs diving back in huge investments and accelerating all of this. Yeah, the feedback. I I'll do I'll make one more which is I think there's going to be a pretty vicious immune system, love revolt backlash against a lot of this that we're gonna have to deal with at the social level because I was in uh Wichita, Kansas, and people are freaking out about data center NIMBYism. Not the messaging is all wrong. They they're not understanding the the actual facts of any of this, but the emotional reaction is unbelievable.
>> Especially in the youth.
>> I don't know if you've talked to your son um about this. My boys, you know, they're super enthusiastic about AI, but they're telling me all of their classmates and they're in eighth grade. Their classmates are all just anti-AI. And there's this sense in our youth today, and I talked about Josh and Jack, these two young 21-year-olds, college students, who came to me and said, you know, thank you for being pro-AI, because, you know, on our campus, you can't openly say that you're supportive of what AI is doing. So, we'll talk about that in the next pod. Um, you know, we've got Brian Armstrong coming up. We'll talk about, you know, Bitcoin just dropped below 60,000 for the first time in a number of years. You who
>> Buying opportunity.
>> Buying opportunity. Okay. We'll talk about this. What's going on in the global economy?
>> Uncharted territories. All I can say is, you know, Elon's prediction of double-digit growth in 18 months and triple-digit GDP growth in by 2030. Uh, I can still see that. I can still see that.
>> Singularity is not just vibes. It turns out, yeah.
>> I think that I think money money won't matter in fairly short order.
>> Gentlemen, uh, thank you for for jumping so quick on this. You know, I I love you guys and I just feel better having had this conversation. You know, just
>> You feel better, Peter, after after an emergency recursive self-improvement pod.
>> Yes, absolutely. Yeah. Anyway, everybody should
>> We should spend a little bit more time on that aspect, the work-personal self-improvement because this is such a huge huge conversation. I don't think we did it full justice, but we got into it and I think that was really, really important. Peter, thank you for pulling us all together.
>> Yeah. No, guys, thank you. And everybody listening, please, you know, this is not a time for fear. Fear is the worst place to encounter the future from. This is a time for you to say, the world's changing. I need to jump in. I need to learn as much as I can. I need to figure out what excites me, what my purpose in life is. You know, trigger those curiosity mindsets. Get on with your favorite large language model and learn, learn, learn. It's the time to be learning about the future.
>> I have a message for all of our viewers. Please don't be in future shock. Be in future shape.
>> I like that. That's a good one. Uh, Alex, Dave, Salem, love you guys.
>> Love you, Peter. Thanks, Peter.
>> If you made it to the end of this episode, which you obviously did, I consider you a moonshot mate. Every week, my moonshot mates and I spend a lot of energy and time to really deliver you the news that matters. If you're a subscriber, thank you. If you're not a subscriber yet, please consider subscribing so you get the news as it comes out. I also want to invite you to join me on my weekly newsletter called Metatrends. I have a research team. You may not know this, but we spend the entire week looking at the meta-trends that are impacting your family, your company, your industry, your nation. And I put this into a two-minute read every week. If you'd like to get access to the Metatrends newsletter every week, go to diamandis.com/metatrends. That's diamandis.com/metatrends. Thank you again for joining us today. It's a blast for us to put this together every week.