Scott Galloway Calls AI Job Apocalypse Hype to Inflate Valuations

Scott Galloway称AI就业末日论是推高估值的炒作 科技高管夸大人工智能能力与岗位替代风险，主要为了证明企业巨额资本支出的合理性并募集风险投资。 Scott Galloway认为，关于AI摧毁就业的末日论断主要是科技公司CEO用来为其天文数字估值辩护的精巧营销策略，而非对当前宏观经济现实的反映。尽管自动化会压缩特定领域的人员编制并将劳动力推向熟练工种，但Galloway强调，掌握AI工具——而非被AI本身取代——才是真正的竞争分水岭。他警告称，更大的威胁来自投机性的AI基础设施泡沫、来自中国的潜在开源市场冲击，以及年轻人人际交往和抗挫受挫能力的弱化。归根结底，他指出叙事能力、社会资本与情绪韧性依然是技术无法替代的、不可化约的人类独特能力。 Scott Galloway 指出，科技高管大肆宣扬 AI 导致大规模失业的世界末日叙事，本质上是一种经过精心包装的融资策略，旨在支撑虚高的企业估值并吸引海量资本投资。 (2:45) 公众对 AI 和科技领袖的信任急剧下滑，目前仅有年收入超过 20 万美元的高收入群体对 AI 持净正面态度，因为他们主要从中享受到了投资组合增长与办公便利。 (2:45) 尽管存在失业恐慌，宏观就业指标仍表现稳健；真正的职场威胁并非人类被 AI 取代，而是未能掌握 AI 工具的从业者被精通 AI 的劳动力所替代。 (24:05) 随着技术能力逐渐同质化，叙事能力、人际信任与抗挫折韧性将成为最具不可替代性的核心技能；然而无摩擦的数字生活让年轻男性的抗挫折能力普遍下降。 (30:53) 科技高管的核心驱动力是利润最大化而非公众福祉，社会不应寄希望于科技领袖的道德自律，必须由民选政府设立严格的监管边界。 (39:57)

Scott Galloway argues that catastrophic AI narratives are primarily corporate fundraising tactics rather than immediate labor threats, warning that historic capital overinvestment risks a severe market correction while masking deep socioeconomic divides. Capex Overhang and the Jet Engine Fallacy (80:35) Galloway asserts that tech leaders exaggerate existential AI risks to justify massive capital expenditures and secure cheap capital. Drawing on historical parallels such as nineteenth-century railways, twentieth-century electric grids, and the late-1990s telecom buildout, he notes that whenever infrastructure capital expenditures exceed 2% to 3% of GDP, an economic correction typically follows. He cautions that roughly 40% of the S&P 500 index is now tethered to AI investment, leaving broader markets vulnerable if spending decelerates. Furthermore, Galloway introduces the 'jet engine fallacy' to challenge the assumption that revolutionary technologies guarantee shareholder returns. While commercial aviation transformed global commerce, the airline sector has historically operated near net break-even due to high capital intensity and commoditization. He suggests AI could face a similar trajectory, particularly if China pursues an 'AI dumping' strategy by flooding international markets with subsidized, high-performing open-weight models that undercut expensive American enterprise software. Labor Market Realities: Targeted Compression Over Apocalypse (9:00) Despite predictions of widespread technological unemployment, Galloway points to steady macroeconomic indicators, including an overall U.S. unemployment rate of approximately 4.5%. For the first time in decades, non-college graduates face lower unemployment rates than college graduates, driven by surging physical trade demand for electricians, plumbers, and welders needed to build data centers. Historical precedents also counter apocalyptic forecasts; for example, predictions that radiologists would be eliminated by image-recognition AI proved incorrect, and coder job postings have grown 11% year-over-year as LLM adoption expands. Rather than immediate mass obsolescence, labor disruption appears as targeted compression. Galloway identifies long-haul trucking—the largest employer of non-college-educated American men—and frontline customer service as vulnerable to automation within a decade. In white-collar sectors, routine tasks are being absorbed directly: Galloway reports reducing his own firm's outside corporate legal expenses by one-third by using models like Claude and ChatGPT for contract redlining instead of paying law firm associates billed at $500 an hour. Socioeconomic Stratification and the Elite Go-Bag Mentality (2:45) Public sentiment toward artificial intelligence reflects an acute class divide. Galloway observes that the only demographic maintaining a net-positive perception of AI consists of individuals earning over $200,000 annually, who benefit directly from expanding investment portfolios and software workplace conveniences. Conversely, middle- and lower-income households absorb negative externalities, such as soaring residential electricity costs driven by data center energy consumption, without holding equity in the technology platforms driving the boom. This economic divergence reinforces an elite retreat from shared societal infrastructure. Galloway estimates that roughly one in three billionaires maintains an escape plan involving private aviation to remote bunkers in places like New Zealand to ride out civil instability or geopolitical conflict. He characterizes these strategies as an expensive, nihilistic misallocation of resources, arguing that complete societal detachment blinds tech executives to the collateral damage of their products. Geopolitical Fragility and Maritime Supply Bottlenecks (66:16) Analyzing foreign policy developments in the Middle East, Galloway argues that U.S. military strikes against Iranian targets demonstrate tactical capability combined with strategic miscalculation. By escalating conflict without securing maritime traffic, the U.S. exposed the Strait of Hormuz to asymmetric disruption. Galloway emphasizes that the immediate threat to global commerce is not solely physical vessel destruction, but a severe maritime insurance crisis: commercial underwriters refuse to insure supertankers carrying payloads worth $160 million through an active combat theater. Because the Strait of Hormuz handles critical shares of global petroleum and raw fertilizer materials, prolonged shipping blockades threaten worldwide energy spikes and agricultural crises. Galloway warns that the gutting of professional diplomatic corps has weakened conflict de-escalation, leaving Western powers vulnerable to decentralized adversaries who successfully weaponize online information environments and low-cost AI propaganda. Enduring Human Capabilities and Rejection Tolerance (30:53) As artificial intelligence commoditizes technical and software skills, Galloway contends that foundational interpersonal capabilities become the ultimate commercial differentiator. Technical parity across generative models places a premium on narrative persuasion, executive storytelling, and genuine trust building, as exemplified by leaders who command market buy-in through compelling communication rather than technical execution alone. Concurrently, Steven Bartlett and Galloway highlight an erosion of rejection tolerance among young people, particularly young men insulated by frictionless digital interfaces. Galloway argues that navigating career development and entrepreneurship requires building emotional resilience against repeated loss, noting that his own trajectory involved numerous business liquidations and rejections. He advocates for stepping away from transactional metrics toward asymmetrical investments—such as deep personal relationships and parenthood—where dedication is given without expecting a measurable commercial return. Galloway's evaluation leaves open whether enterprise AI adoption can generate genuine corporate revenue rapidly enough to avert an infrastructure valuation crash, and whether democratic governments possess the institutional capacity to regulate tech concentration before public infrastructure further erodes.

Scott Galloway 在节目中指出，科技高管宣扬的“AI 导致毁灭性失业”论调本质上是抬高估值与募集廉价资本的叙事策略；当前高昂的 AI 基础设施投资若无法兑现巨额回报，或遭遇类似中国低价开源模型的冲击，可能引发严重的资本市场回调并加剧既有的阶层脱节。 末日叙事与融资策略背后的就业现实 (5:00) Galloway 认为，科技高管渲染工作岗位被完全摧毁的末日预言，往往是为了证明企业进行数万亿美元级资本支出的合理性，并在二级市场套现。现实就业数据并未显现崩塌迹象，例如美国失业率维持在 4.5% 左右，软件开发岗位招聘同比增长 11%，针对放射科医生等岗位的悲观预测也未成真。但他警示，如果青年失业率急剧飙升至 20%，历史上类似魏玛德国或 18 世纪法国的社会动荡便可能重演。尽管长途卡车司机和初级客服正面临真正的自动化替代风险，白领领域也能借助大语言模型削减高达三分之一的常规法律审查成本，但新技术整体上更偏向任务赋能与重组，而非立竿见影的岗位归零。 阶层撕裂与顶层群体的社会疏离 (2:45) 大众对 AI 的看法呈现出鲜明的阶层分化：年收入超过 20 万美元的高收入群体大多持正面态度，因为他们享受着投资组合上涨与工作便利；中低收入群体则主要承受着数据中心推高电费等实际负面代价，却缺乏分享行业红利的资本。Galloway 指出，前 0.1% 的超级富豪已经通过私人飞机、专属医疗和安保系统彻底脱离公共基础设施，不再与普通大众共享现实。这种脱离催生了一种虚无主义倾向：约三分之一的亿万富翁准备了逃往新西兰地堡等避难方案，将巨额资本用于个人退路而非改善现实社会环境，同时凭借集中的政治捐款施加着不成比例的政策影响力。 过度基建风险与中国数字倾销的情景假设 (80:35) 从历史周期来看，当国家基础设施资本支出占 GDP 比重超过 2% 到 3% 时，往往伴随着剧烈的金融回调，如同 19 世纪铁路狂潮和 1990 年代末互联网泡沫。Galloway 强调，颠覆性技术并不等同于股东的高额利润，商用航空改变了世界却在全行业历史上接近净盈亏平衡，AI 硬件与基础设施同样面临快速商品化的风险。更严峻的宏观隐患在于，若中国对全球市场实施类似 1980 至 1990 年代钢铁倾销的“AI 模型倾销”，向市场大量投放廉价高质量的开源权重模型，西方企业可能放弃与美企的高额授权合作。由于标普 500 指数中约 40% 与 AI 押注相关，一旦企业资本开支急刹车，可能直接诱发美国经济衰退。 地缘误判、霍尔木兹海峡与全球经济脆弱性 (66:16) 在谈及中东局势时，Galloway 批评美方在针对伊朗的行动中展现出“战术卓越但战略无能”，既未协调欧洲盟友与国会，也低估了霍尔木兹海峡的博弈机制。该航道一旦受阻，不仅威胁全球能源，化肥原料断运还可能诱发波及广泛的粮食危机。航运危机的实质不在于船只机械损失，而在于战争风险导致保险公司拒绝承保单艘货值超 1.6 亿美元的超级油轮。此外，双方的舆论战场已演变为首场“AI 模因战”，伊朗团队借助低成本 AI 生成的病毒式内容争夺公众叙事，凸显出美方外交团队被削弱后在非传统战线上的被动。 长期财富复利与应对挫折的心理韧性 (94:35) 面对宏观波动与技术冲击，Galloway 建议年轻人摆脱试图战胜华尔街的投机心态，将首要精力放在自我技能提升和自动化低成本指数投资上。他以自身在 2008 年金融危机中持股市值缩水三分之二的经历说明，经济衰退往往能挤出市场泡沫并拉低资产价格，为年轻劳动者提供难得的低位买入机会。就个人长远发展而言，随着技术工具逐步同质化，叙事能力、人际信任以及承受拒绝的韧性构成了最难被替代的核心资产；面对创业和生活中的不可抗力，成功时归因于运气以保持谦逊、失败时归因于外部环境以宽恕自己，是维系长期前行的关键心态。 Galloway 的核心论点在于警惕将技术突破直接等同于永续金融回报与普遍社会福祉的盲目乐观。然而，对话中对于中国低价开源模型在全球替代闭源商业模型的实际速度，以及 AI 驱动的失业率拐点究竟何时显现，仍保留着假设性质与未决的不确定性。

## Background 该视频由知名访谈播客《The Diary Of A CEO》（主持人史蒂芬·巴特利特，Steven Bartlett）于2026年5月4日发布在YouTube平台。节目特邀纽约大学斯特恩商学院教授、商业评论家斯科特·加洛韦（Scott Galloway），重点探讨了科技高管如何借“AI毁灭论”推高估值、超级富豪阶层与大众的割裂，以及年轻一代在数字化洪流中面临的人际与心理危机。 ## TL;DR 加洛韦揭示了科技巨头宣扬AI就业末日论背后的资本运作本质，指出这不过是支撑天价估值与融资的营销手段，现实中AI正在重塑而非全面毁灭劳动力市场。他警告称巨额基建开支与潜在的开源技术冲击注定将触发AI资产泡沫的大幅修正，而技术带来的真正危机是极致孤独与年轻人承受拒绝能力的萎缩。面对经济周期与阶级分化，他建议年轻人戒除暴富幻想，将精力投入到提升自身技能、定投指数基金以及积累抗挫韧性上，并最终在超越ROI算计的家庭与人际联结中寻找生命意义。 ## Atmosphere & style 整场对话在刀刃般锋利的商业批判与极其柔软的生命体悟之间形成了强烈张力。加洛韦凭借其标志性的辛辣讽刺与机智自嘲，无情戳穿硅谷造神神话与资本傲慢，与主持人巴特利特展开了兼具深度与节奏感的智力博弈。然而随着话题切入为人父母的困惑、创业失败的伤痛以及对离世母亲无法抹平的哀思，演播室内的火药味悄然化作泪水与哽咽，令整期节目在冷峻清醒的现实主义底色之上，激荡出极富感染力的人性温情。 ## Bulletin - [02:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=138s) Scott Galloway 指出 AI 末日论本质是科技高管的融资与高估值营销手段，当前美国失业率维持在 4.5% 左右，并未出现结构性就业崩溃。 - [01:27:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=5272s) 标普 500 指数中近 40% 的权重与 AI 豪赌深度绑定，过去两年美国大部分 GDP 增长主要由 AI 资本支出驱动，一旦开支放缓恐触发系统性衰退。 - [01:25:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=5119s) 中国推出的大批低成本开源权重模型可能形成“数字倾销”，若倒逼西方企业放弃昂贵商业闭源模型，将精准戳破硅谷巨头的利润护城河与估值泡沫。 - [01:01:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=3717s) 加洛韦认为 AI 最大的隐秘社会危机不是失业或武器化，而是极致的现代孤独；年轻人沉溺于虚拟无摩擦互动，正逐渐丧失承受拒绝与现实社交的能力。 ## Key takeaways - [02:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=138s) 科技巨头描绘的 AI 灭顶之灾往往是包裹着恐慌情绪的高明公关，意在用摧毁旧社会的末日论倒逼资本市场接受极高估值。 - [08:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=521s) 真实宏观数据显示就业市场仍在重构而非毁灭：放射科医生与精通 AI 的程序员需求不降反升，职业技术类蓝领甚至在就业率上反超大学毕业生。 - [17:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=1062s) 工业机器人（如亚马逊部署的 100 万台自动化系统）才是真正释放生产力的主战场，而消费级家政人形机器人短期内商业逻辑极其脆弱。 - [19:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=1160s) 特斯拉的高估值依赖马斯克的愿景故事溢价，一旦 SpaceX 推进 IPO，资本市场的大量资金将快速分流，特斯拉估值或向传统制造车企合理回归。 - [26:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=1597s) 企业不会单纯被 AI 取代，但“一个精通 AI 的人将夺走五名初级白领的岗位”，法律初审、金融初筛与行政助理已被大模型快速重构。 - [30:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=1853s) 面对技术快速商品化与趋同，讲故事的能力（Storytelling）与深度人际关系（Relationships）成为未来职场最稀缺、最持久的壁垒。 - [33:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=2022s) 年轻人尤其是年轻男性的心理韧性急剧退化，必须通过主动寻求拒绝（Enduring Rejection）实现对失败的脱敏，以此获得越级竞争的门票。 - [39:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=2397s) 科技领袖的唯一核心考核是股价与每股收益，指望他们凭借个人道德进行自我约束是不切实际的，必须依赖硬性立法与监管安全护栏。 - [50:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=3017s) 顶层 0.1% 的超级富豪通过私人飞机、专属医疗与安保彻底与公共体系脱钩，部分领袖甚至抱有将全人类命运视作个人封神注脚的虚无主义狂妄。 - [01:01:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=3717s) AI 不会带来预期的社会融合，反而通过提供完美拟真生活诱发极端孤独，标普 500 头部近 40% 的经济体量正在让人类远离真实社交。 - [01:19:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=4752s) 历史上当基建资本开支突破 GDP 的 2% 到 3% 时几乎必然引发暴跌，即使 AI 改变世界，其底层行业也有可能像航空或疫苗一样陷入超额利润归零的困境。 - [01:25:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=5119s) 在改善人类生活健康与创造实质商业价值上，GLP-1 减肥药物带来的确定性变革与资本回报已彻底盖过生成式 AI。 - [01:32:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=5561s) 政府当前不计代价救助破产企业的兜底政策，本质是透支公共债务保护婴儿潮一代的资产，系统性剥夺了年轻世代低价抄底资产的跃升空间。 - [01:34:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=5675s) 面对未来不确定性，年轻人最具性价比的策略是极度专注于提升自身溢价技能、强制拦截收入定投低费率指数基金，并尽早投资人际关系网络。 - [01:42:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=6129s) 真正决定商业终极成就的超级力量是抗挫力，绝大多数失败受控于宏观环境，顺境须保持谦卑，逆境应学会原谅自己并重返牌桌。 - [01:46:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=6368s) 人生的真正意义在于找到一件无法计算正向投资回报率的事物进行奉献；父母应当做引导方向的“牧羊人”，而非试图塑造模板的“工程师”。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=0s) 品牌声誉崩塌：美国国家形象与人工智能 在过去18个月里，全球声誉跌幅最大、速度最快的莫过于两大“品牌”：一个是美国在海外的国家形象，另一个则是人工智能（AI）。过去数十年间，美国一直扮演着维护全球规则秩序、制衡流氓国家的基石角色；然而时至今日，在国际舆论场中，美国自身却越来越像一个难以预测的“流氓国家”，历史上首次出现认为中国是全球向善力量（force of good）的人数超过美国的情况。 与此同时，AI 的公共形象也遭遇了毁灭性打击。公众对 AI 的态度已经与财富阶层高度绑定：年收入在20万美元以上的高净值人群是唯一对 AI 持正面评价的群体，因为他们不仅是 AI 工具最活跃的使用者，更直接享受着由 AI 驱动的标准普尔500指数暴涨带来的投资红利。相反，普通中产阶级所直面的是不断飙升的电费账单，根本无缘享受这轮估值狂欢的投资红利。面对公众对于算力消耗与能源成本的焦虑，OpenAI 首席执行官山姆·奥特曼（Sam Altman）甚至公开发表言论称：“别再抱怨能源成本了，想想养育一个孩子需要消耗多少能量吧。”这种脱离大众疾苦的傲慢姿态，让公众深感科技领袖们并未把普通人的切身利益放在心上。 - **财富阶层分化**：年收入超过20万美元的群体普遍对 AI 持积极态度，视其为资产组合增值与生产力创新的引擎；普通中产阶层则只承担电力成本上涨与失业风险，形成强烈的剥夺感。 - **国际形象逆转**：全球公众调查中，认可中国对世界产生正面影响的人数首次超越美国，折射出美国海外国家品牌的空前滑坡。 - **科技高管公关失能**：类似“养育孩子消耗的能量比 AI 更多”的说辞，极大加剧了公众对科技巨头冷酷无情的负面认知。 --- ### [02:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=138s) 末日叙事与估值泡沫：科技 CEO 为何夸大危机？ 在科技圈顶级 CEO 的公开言论中，末日叙事已成为一种普遍的宣传策略。埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）声称，AI 与机器人将彻底取代所有工作，未来上班将变成完全自选的消遣，“就像自己种菜而不是去超市买菜一样”，人类面临的最大挑战将是如何在虚无中寻找人生的价值与意义；山姆·奥特曼断言，到2028年底，全球数据中心内的智力总量将超过数据中心外的人类智力总和；Anthropic 首席执行官达里奥·阿莫代伊（Dario Amodei）也频频就 AI 的悲观情景与大规模就业冲击发出警示。 这种对技术毁灭性的渲染，本质上是一种包裹着末日恐慌的高明营销与融资手段。如果把技术的破坏力描述成即将摧毁社会的巨型陨石，就等于向资本市场宣告该技术具有开天辟地、重塑文明的威力，从而倒逼企业与投资者接受令人咋舌的超高估值。从严谨的商业逻辑来看，为了支撑当前科技公司背负的巨额资本开支与估值溢价，未来3到5年内只有两种可能性： ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: AI投资与估值兑现路径 accDescr: 展示巨额AI资本投资支撑估值所依赖的两种商业兑现路径或潜在市场清算 subgraph CapitalInput["天量资本投入与估值泡沫"] A["巨额资本开支与极高估值"] end subgraph Justification["商业兑现路径（二选一）"] B["增量收入路径<br/>5年内新增数万亿美元营收<br/>(目前尚无规模化爆款)"] C["极致降本路径<br/>大规模削减劳动力成本<br/>(企业通过裁员实现效率流向利润)"] end subgraph Correction["若兑现失败"] D["资本市场估值重构<br/>科技公司估值下挫 50% - 70%"] end A --> B A --> C B -.->|无法兑现| D C -.->|无法兑现| D ``` 目前市场上既没有诞生由 AI 驱动的新型爆款消费品（如所谓的“AI面霜”），也没有展现出由技术直接带来的万亿美元级新增营收。因此，科技巨头为了向股东证明投入的合理性，只能极力兜售第二种路径——即通过彻底的自动化带来空前的降本增效。 与此同时，这种“弗兰肯斯坦式”的人设往往带有虚伪的成分：不少创始人一边向公众渲染自己创造出了无法驾驭的洪水猛兽，一边在二级市场悄然套现股份，随即远赴法国圣特罗佩（Saint-Tropez）与蔚蓝海岸（Côte d'Azur）度假享受奢华人生。 - **估值消化困境**：若无法在未来几年内产生万亿美元级的全新商品收入，企业估值要么经历 50% 至 70% 的深幅下调，要么必须通过极度激进的裁员将降本效应反映在利润表上。 - **虚幻的末日人设**：“造出怪物却束手无策”的悲情叙事，既能抬高创始人的历史地位，又能为其套现离场的商业现实打上技术殉道者的伪装。 --- ### [07:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=453s) 就业市场的真实数据与产业重塑 尽管 AI 带来的裁员末日论甚嚣尘上，但实际宏观数据并没有显示出就业市场正遭遇毁灭性打击。历史上的每一轮重大技术变革都遵循着相似的轨迹：初期出现局部的岗位替代与恐慌情绪，随后技术带来的生产力跃升转化为更高的利润率，进而孵化出全新的商业模式并带动整体就业岗位的净增长。 现实中的劳动力市场数据打破了外生性“就业彗星撞地球”的论调： - **失业率保持低位**：美国当前整体失业率维持在 4.5% 左右，青年失业率约为 8.8%，均低于历史长期平均水平。 - **创业活力激增**：过去10年间，美国人均新企业登记与新营业许可发放数量实现翻倍增长。 - **科技大厂裁员真相**：以 Meta 为例，即便近期传出因 AI 赋能广告定向等系统带来效率提升而裁撤约8,000至10,000人的消息，但从历史周期来看，Meta 的员工总数在2019年至2025年间从约16,000人狂飙突进到80,000人；即便阶段性回落到60,000人规模，也仅仅是回吐了过去24个月由于过度扩张所招募的人力，并非整个劳动力市场的结构性崩溃。 虽然客服、初级程序员等特定垂直行业确实会在短期内面临剧烈的 V 型下挫，但在宏观层面，生产力的释放最终将创造出更多以前无法想象的新型工作，而非彻底消灭就业。 ### [08:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=521s) 所谓“末日论”只是抬高估值的融资幌子 斯科特·加洛韦（Scott Galloway）认为，尽管短期内某些特定领域——例如法律界——会受到冲击，但从中长期来看，AI 创造的就业机会其实远多于它所摧毁的。在加洛韦眼中，科技圈那些耸人听闻的灾难化叙事（catastrophizing），不过是一种包装得十分拙劣的营销套路，潜台词无非是：“我的技术破坏力空前，足以彻底重塑社会，所以你们必须以极其疯狂的高估值来投资我。” 当史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）追问：“你有没有可能看错？如果按照第一性原理倒推，你究竟可能在哪个环节做出了误判？”加洛韦爽快承认自己当然经常犯错，而检验他是否错误的唯一金标准就是看现实中是否出现了大范围、持续性的工作岗位净销毁与大规模裁员。 加洛韦举了放射科医生的经典案例：当年大家都断言放射科医生是“首当其冲要灭绝的职业”，AI 能够扫描数十亿张医疗影像，甚至有长辈告诫年轻一代“千万别去学放射医学”。然而到了2026年，放射科医生的招聘需求不降反升。原因在于，扫描和看图只是医生工作的一小部分，其核心价值在于结合全貌诊断病情并制定治疗方案，而这部分工作依然不可或缺。同样，程序员的招聘岗位年同比上涨了11%，精通 AI 工具、善于设计提示词或掌握“氛围编程”（vibe coding）的人才需求激增，因为现在任何初创企业都能把 AI 嵌入自己的业务中。 加洛韦坦言，只有当被摧毁的岗位无法被新企业和新业务吸纳、导致就业市场出现无法弥补的断崖时，他的论断才会失效。但他强调，根本不需要像埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）所预言的“100%失业率”才会引发生态崩溃： - **历史失业警戒线**：在历史上，一旦失业率达到20%，法国就爆发了大革命，魏玛共和国也走向了极其黑暗的深渊。 - **青年群体风险**：特别是在年轻男性中，20%的失业率极易引发巨大的愤怒并导致他们走上街头，进而酿成严重的社会动荡。 - **真实数据与预期的脱节**：即使未来可能经历一个剧烈的“V型”冲击，但就当前的宏观就业数据而言，根本看不出任何所谓“外生陨石撞击就业市场”的末日迹象。 ### [11:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=665s) “V型”谷底与新旧媒体的人才交替 巴特利特提出了质疑：AI 建立在互联网基础设施之上，Anthropic 或 OpenAI 发布新模型后，能在数秒内传遍全球，大家都在以光速迭代系统，这与必须缓慢搭建实体基础设施的工业革命截然不同；这种指数级传播速度，会不会让“V型”底部的下坠来得太凶猛，以至于社会还没来得及等到彼岸的新岗位诞生，就已经被社会动乱撕裂？ 加洛韦对此回应道，至少到目前为止，数据并没有显示出失业率在快速俯冲。为了说明这一点，他回忆起四年前初到伦敦时的趣事： - 当时他深夜刚下飞机，就直奔梅费尔区 Annabel's 俱乐部的一场热辣巴西派对，感叹“我爱死伦敦了”。 - 次日清晨宿醉严重时，团队提醒他有个播客采访，加洛韦本想以宿醉为由直接取消，但团队劝他说对方是一个很有前途的优秀年轻人。 - 于是加洛韦来到了肖迪奇（Shoreditch）街区一家别致的咖啡馆录音。当时他对巴特利特一无所知，但仅仅两年后，巴特利特就无处不在——机场书架有他的海报，连飞机上的安全演示视频里都是他，让加洛韦忍不住开玩笑直呼“快让他停下”。 加洛韦环顾巴特利特如今规模庞大、宛如“Googleplex”一般的现代媒体园区，指出巴特利特本身就是最好的反例：作为技术敏锐度极高的媒体领袖，巴特利特在过去24个月里在旗下各公司招聘了约220人，其中大部分是年薪六位数英镑的高薪青年。传统媒体如 BBC 或《每日邮报》（Daily Mail）确实在裁员，但新兴科技媒体创造高价值岗位的速度同样惊人。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 新旧劳动力交替与岗位迁移路径 accDescr: 展示技术迭代下传统岗位淘汰与新产业对高低技能人才吸纳的动态流动模型 subgraph Displacement["岗位冲击区"] Legacy["传统老旧行业<br/>传统媒体/基础行政/初级扫描"] Pause["传统初级白领岗位暂停<br/>招聘决策因AI工具出现犹豫"] end subgraph Expansion["新型人才需求区"] ModernMedia["新媒体与技术企业<br/>高薪招募AI素养复合型人才"] Physical["实体基建爆发<br/>木工/焊工/管道工支援数据中心"] Startups["学生自主创业潮<br/>借助AI工具低成本启动Series A"] end Legacy -->|"岗位流失"| Displacement Displacement -->|"技能转型"| Expansion Pause -->|"倒逼提升"| ModernMedia ``` 巴特利特补充道，作为自己旗下招聘业务的实际掌舵人，他在过去60天里确实明显放缓了部分岗位的招募节奏，许多两个月前还会毫不犹豫录用的人选现在被暂时搁置，因为美国科技公司推出的最新自动化工具提供了替代方案，这迫使求职者必须以极快速度自我提升。 ### [13:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=837s) 劳动力市场重构：蓝领反超与被宠坏的新一代 加洛韦分析，就业市场正在经历剧烈重构，但重构不等于毁灭。在过去三四十年间，拥有大学学历者的失业率一直低于非大学学历者；但这一历史铁律在今年被打破——由于职业技术类工种（vocational work）的爆发式需求，没有大学文凭者的失业率反而低于大学毕业生。例如，拔地而起的人工智能数据中心需要海量的木工、焊工和水管工，实体蓝领反而迎来了前所未有的红利期。 面对部分大学生的哀叹，加洛韦直言年轻一代“某种程度上被宠坏了”： - **历史对比**：1992年加洛韦从加州大学伯克利分校哈斯商学院（Haas School of Business）毕业时，全班在毕业当天拿到全职 Offer 的人只有40%，这意味着多达60%的人一毕业就失业；当时整个年级创业的只有他和他的联合创始人两个人。 - **当下的创业门槛**：反观如今他在纽约大学斯特恩商学院（NYU Stern）的学生，借助 AI 极大地压缩开发和启动成本，预计有30到50家初创公司在毕业当天就能直接建立，甚至有学生在读研二就因为拿到1000万美元的 A 轮融资而选择辍学。 - **国家再培训支出的差距**：丹麦将本国 GDP 的 2% 用于劳动力的转岗再培训和职业技术教育，而美国在这方面的投入仅占 GDP 的 0.2%，导致美国在兜底受冲击群体方面表现得极为糟糕。 ### [15:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=958s) 当智能遇上人形机器人：替代还是超级赋能？ 巴特利特将话题引向埃隆·马斯克正在推进的 Optimus 等人形机器人项目。马斯克曾断言未来将不再需要人类外科医生，因为 Optimus 的精密程度将超越地球上的任何专家。巴特利特指出，不仅在西方，中国工厂的生产线正在被工业机器人重塑，而在印度或孟加拉国的工厂里，工人们甚至被要求头戴摄像头工作，以便拍摄记录其手部动作数据来训练即将取代他们的机器人。“超级智能加上物理实体能力，就像两场同时袭来的海啸。” 加洛韦对这种替代论提出了不同的视角： - **医生的算力倍增**：加洛韦认为，在手术领域，机器人更可能扮演超级辅助工具的角色，而非完全取代人类。一名优秀的神经外科医生原本做一台开颅手术需要4到6个小时，借助高精度的机器人工具，他可以将手术精准度大幅提高，并且每天能够完成两台手术，从而使稀缺顶尖医疗资源的生产力翻倍。 - **股票投资背后的商业逻辑**：加洛韦透露，他在2025年最看好的科技股是 Alphabet（当时其市盈率仅为17倍，市场错误地以为 OpenAI 会将其彻底逼入绝境）；而在2026年，他最看好的核心标的则是亚马逊（Amazon），其背后的底层驱动力正是机器人技术与智能化供应链对商业效率的深度赋能。 ### [17:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=1062s) 工业机器人与家庭机器人的现实分歧 机器人技术真正为股东创造核心价值的落地场景，在于人工智能与工业机器人的深度融合，而非大众幻想中的家政服务。在美国，工业机器人的总保有量大约为 40 万台，而仅亚马逊一家公司就部署了 100 万台——其规模是全美其余机构总和的 2.5 倍。早在十余年前，亚马逊便通过收购仓储机器人公司 Kiva Systems 抢占先机，如今其目标是在工业机器人的助力下，到 2032 年将其核心的零售业务规模翻倍，且无需新增任何雇员。结合中国先进制造能力与 AI 控制的工业级自动化能够释放惊人的生产力；相比之下，所谓“在家里端茶倒水的全能机器人”在现实商业逻辑中几乎站不住脚。更令斯考特感到警惕的并非家务机器人，而是未来可能出现的工业化武器化作战机器人。 针对斯考特的怀疑，主持人提出了一种不同的视角：从某种意义上说，人类家中早已充斥着机器人，只是它们并不具备移动能力——例如吸尘器、智能冰箱或智能电视。真正的门槛在于人们是否愿意让机器人自主穿行于室内空间，而一旦接受了能够自动行走的设备，让它递送物品似乎只是顺理成章的延伸。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 机器人技术的现实落地与商业分歧 accDescr: 对比工业机器人与家庭消费级机器人的现实差距与商业前景。 subgraph 商业现实与高生产力 A["工业机器人 + AI"] --> B["仓储与制造业落地"] B --> C["亚马逊：100万台工业机器人"] C --> D["目标：2032年零售业务翻倍且零增员"] end subgraph 资本炒作与现实差距 E["家庭人形机器人"] --> F["概念：端茶倒水、贴身管家"] F -.-> G["成本高昂、应用场景脆弱"] end ``` - **全美工业机器人保有量**：全美其余行业合计约 40 万台，亚马逊独占 100 万台，是全美其他企业总和的 2.5 倍。 - **亚马逊增长目标**：依托工业自动化与机器人技术，计划在 2032 年前使零售业务规模翻倍，期间无需新增任何基层雇员。 - **技术战略根基**：亚马逊在 10 至 15 年前便果断收购机器人研发企业 Kiva Systems，早早构筑了工业自动化壁垒。 --- ### [19:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=1160s) 叙事魔法与资本估值：马斯克的“虚与实” 当今科技界企业高管的角色已经发生了根本扭转：过去的准则是“少承诺、多兑现”（underpromise and overdeliver），而如今的 CEO 们则是“大吹大擂、低位交割”（overpromise and underdeliver）。他们必须勾勒出极具煽动性的宏大愿景，以换取极其廉价的资本，进而“将未来的时间线强行提前”。埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）正是此中高手，早在 2016 至 2017 年就宣称全自动驾驶两年内到来，三年前又豪言将有 100 万辆无人驾驶出租车（Robotaxi）上路，但这些时间节点无一按期兑现。马斯克极其擅长“玩弄魔术棒把兔子塞进帽子”，通过抛出人形机器人、太空探索和 AI 互联等性感概念，转移投资人对特斯拉汽车本质的审视，以此支撑其高达 155 倍的市盈率——而传统汽车制造商的市盈率通常仅在 10 到 15 倍之间。 这种将故事讲在业绩之前的“爵士乐式晃眼法”（jazz hands），虽然充满跳票，却也确实伴随着无可否认的技术奇迹。马斯克旗下的 SpaceX 承担了全球 90% 的火箭发射发射量，预计 IPO 估值将达到其年收入的 90 到 110 倍（年营收约 160 亿美元，净利润约 80 亿美元）；对比当年谷歌上市时的估值仅为营收的 10 倍，且当时的增长速度远快于现在的 SpaceX。在斯考特看来，真正改变生活的两款硬件产品中，最被低估的是苹果的 AirPods——它甚至称不上是传统科技产品，而是史上利润最丰厚、普及度最高的“耳饰珠宝”，如果独立拆分足以跻身《财富》500 强；而过去几年中最震撼的硬科技产品则是星链（Starlink），它让高空航班和远洋航行中的高清通话与播客录制成为日常，彻底拉开了体验差距。对于 SpaceX，“它是一家伟大的公司”与“它的估值被极度高估”这两个判断可以同时成立。 --- ### [22:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=1321s) 降落伞与筷子夹火箭：特斯拉的竞争危机与 SpaceX 的虹吸效应 主持人分享了他自身体验特斯拉全自动驾驶（FSD）的惊艳感受：在洛杉矶设定目的地后一路驶向约书亚树国家公园（Joshua Tree），全程 3.5 小时几乎无需任何人工接管，其行车安全感甚至远超自己手动驾驶。再看 SpaceX 用巨型机械臂（“筷子”）在半空中精确夹住回收的超重型火箭推进器，这种看似科幻的壮举让人不得不承认马斯克确实拥有将不可思议化为现实的“魔法”，如同当代的爱迪生。 然而，情怀与现实商业是两码事。特斯拉确实开创并启蒙了全球电动汽车行业，但竞争对手正在迅速抹平差距。历史上增速最迅猛的汽车制造企业比亚迪（BYD），已经能够以特斯拉 40% 的极低售价，提供达到甚至超过其 80% 到 100% 性能的产品。若非存在严苛的关税壁垒，比亚迪早已在美国市场横扫特斯拉。斯考特预测，当前特斯拉的市值中包含了大量冲着“马斯克魅力溢价”而来的狂热散户资金；一旦 SpaceX 启动 IPO，这批极度崇拜马斯克、不计成本追求增长的资金将迅速撤离特斯拉并涌入 SpaceX。资本市场终将清醒地认识到：特斯拉本质上是一家极其优秀但估值过高的汽车制造厂商，其合理估值应当缩水至当下的五分之一（市盈率回归至 30 倍左右）。 | 对比维度 | 特斯拉 (Tesla) | 比亚迪 (BYD) | |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **产品性价比定位** | 行业先驱、品牌溢价高，平均售价昂贵 | 以特斯拉约 40% 的价格提供 80%~100% 的产品性能与体验 | | **资本估值表现** | 市盈率约 150~155 倍（远超传统车企 10~15 倍标准） | 遵循制造业稳健估值体系，依靠成本控制与垂直整合 | | **市场威胁与防护** | 严重依赖海外关税壁垒保护北美本土市场 | 产能与迭代速度极快，在非关税壁垒市场形成全面围剿 | --- ### [24:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=1467s) AI 对现实职业的冲击：从长途卡车司机到律所初级律师 谈及 AI 导致的工作岗位流失，斯考特指出第一波首当其冲的将是交通运输与客户服务领域，特别是长途卡车司机。卡车可以在车流稀少的夜间（晚上 10 点至凌晨 4 点）由自动驾驶系统稳定运行，这一职位在美国不仅从业人数极其庞大，更是未持有高中文凭的男性群体最主要的就业来源。在接下来的十年内，长途卡车司机这一职业形态大概率将大幅缩减。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 法律初审工作流的 AI 替代路径 accDescr: 展示企业如何从传统律所高昂收费转向使用大语言模型完成合同初审。 subgraph 传统高成本模式 A["商业合同 / 雇佣协议"] --> B["外部知名律所"] B --> C["初级律师按时计费<br/>(时薪 $400 - $2,000)"] end subgraph AI 重构降本模式 D["商业合同 / 雇佣协议"] --> E["提示词设定<br/>('假定你是时薪$1,200的资深律师')"] E --> F["Claude / ChatGPT 交叉审阅并标记红线"] F --> G["企业内部直接修订生效"] end ``` 相比蓝领岗位，白领脑力劳动的隐形萎缩已经在现实企业中发生。斯考特结合自身企业的运营实践坦言，过去每当收到广告赞助、商务合作或雇员协议时，出于虚荣心和合规考虑，他总会外包给知名大型律所审阅；律所指派时薪仅 80 至 120 美元的年轻实习律师处理，转身却向他开出每份合同 400 至 2,000 美元的账单。如今，斯考特严厉禁止团队盲目向外送审合同，而是要求员工将合同输入大语言模型，并明确指示：“假设你是一位时薪 1,200 美元的资深雇佣法或合同法专家，请全面审阅本文件并给出修订红线（redline）”，随后用另一款大模型交叉复核。经过这两道工序，一名普通员工便具备了顶级律所资深协理律师（Senior Associate）的审查水准。斯考特的公司每年在法律咨询上的开销高达 10 万至 30 万美元，通过引入 AI 审查流程，该项支出在当年即可轻松砍掉三分之一。 ### [26:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=1597s) 双屏工作法则与“一人顶五人”的 AI 效率革命 Scott Galloway 指出，AI 本身并不一定会直接抢走你的饭碗，但“一个精通 AI 的人必然会取代你”。为了防范职业危机，他向所有人提出了一个简单却极为实用的操作建议：永远在办公桌上保留一块副屏，上面只运行大语言模型（LLMs），一旦在主屏幕上收到任何数字化工作任务或资料，立即将其导入副屏与 AI 协同摸索。Steven Bartlett 对此深有感触，但他提出了更残酷的现实推论：一个懂 AI 的人夺走的绝不仅仅是一个人的岗位，而是五个人。 Steven 以自己的投资机构为例，在设立第二期投资基金时，团队原计划招募五名分析师。但现在他们只需要一位名叫 Molly 的分析师，因为 Molly 配备了两台运行 AI Agent（智能体）的 Mac mini。这套自动化流程不仅能主动扫描市场上涌现的投资机会、筛选涌入的项目意向，还能自动将项目代入评估框架打分，最终生成提交给投资委员会（IC）的完整报告。同样的情况也发生在法律界与行政助理岗位：原本需要 10 名执行助理（EA）的规模，如今只需 3 个人——一个由 AI 驱动处理全部差旅，一个负责全天候日程调度，第三个仅负责在现场迎宾接待。不过，Steven 也注意到有些岗位依然不可撼动：比如媒体销售中那些需要带客户共进午餐、推杯换盏、靠深厚人际关系维系并当面推介业务的核心岗位。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: AI 杠杆效应驱动的企业资本重组循环 accDescr: 展示 AI 如何精简人力、提升利润率并最终推动商业生态扩张的良性循环流程 subgraph Productivity["传统岗位 AI 化重组"] A["5名初级分析师 / 10名助理"] --> B["1名掌握 AI 工具的核心员工"] B --> C["自动化智能体与工作流接管日常事务"] end subgraph CapitalCycle["商业杠杆与资本循环"] C --> D["企业息税前利润率 (EBIT Margin) 大幅提升"] D --> E["企业盈利增强，撬动更大融资规模"] E --> F["横向并购更多播客/拓展 CPG 消费品及新业务"] F --> G["在全新赛道雇佣并创造全新的人力需求"] end ``` - **Molly 的 AI 杠杆实践**：仅凭 1 位分析师搭配 2 台 Mac mini 上的 AI Agent，就完成了过去 5 名分析师负责的项目主动搜寻、初筛评分到投委会（IC）材料整理的全部流程。 - **高管助理（EA）的团队精简**：从传统的 10 人编制骤减至 3 人（AI 差旅专员、自动化日程调度专员、线下迎宾专员）。 - **不可替代的安全区**：依赖线下高净值社交、人情世故、宴请洽谈与面对面提案的高端销售和公关岗位完全未受冲击。 --- ### [28:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=1716s) 母亲的打字机、消失的岗位与不学电脑的助理 针对岗位的缩减，Scott Galloway 展现了宏观经济学家的乐观视角：企业不再需要雇佣 5 个 Molly，意味着息税前利润率（EBIT margin）的提升，这让 Steven 的商业帝国更加盈利、更容易融到大笔资金，从而有资本收购更多播客频道、进军消费品（CPG）赛道，并在全新领域雇用更多员工，加速资本与创新的流转。Scott 谈到自己的母亲当年从一名普通打字员做起，在法学院负责整个打字员机房，而 Scott 读高中时就在地下收发室打杂。打字机时代终结后，母亲敏锐地发现“打字其实是最简单的部分，真正的难点在于伺候高管的生活”，于是她顺势转型为高管私人助理，获得了体面的薪酬。 类似的代际演变也发生在财会行业。虽然基础记账软件早就普及，但如今的会计师数量不降反升，因为聪明的从业者早已转向更为复杂的财富管理与税务筹划。Scott 强调，每个人都有义务持续升级自己的技能树。他回忆起自己初到纽约创业时，人事部门招来一名助理，对方坐下第一句话竟是“我不碰电脑”，Scott 当场回应：“那你不能在这儿工作。”在今天拒绝接触 AI，就如同在 1998 年宣称“我不用 PC 个人电脑”一样荒谬。Scott 还自嘲道，随着年龄增长，大脑负责掌握新技术的区域正在萎缩，就像自己几年前还能惟妙惟肖地模仿苏格兰口音，如今一张嘴却听起来像“双胞胎私下发明的怪异濒危语言”，既蹩脚又冒犯人。但无论多难，为了保住饭碗或赚取更多财富，每个人都必须逼迫自己动手摆弄新技术。 --- ### [30:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=1853s) 破灭的教育迷信：未来真正不可替代的核心技能 当 Steven 问及为人父母该让下一代储备何种面向未来的能力时，Scott 直言“没人真正知道确切答案”。他回顾了十年前私立贵族学校最狂热的两项课程投资——计算机科学（编程）与中文（Mandarin）。然而十年过去，几乎没人会感慨“谢天谢地我孩子学会了中文”，而程序员的黄金光环在 AI 面前也大打折扣。在 Scott 看来，真正能穿越周期的是**讲故事的能力（Storytelling）**：即深入剖析海量数据、提炼出跌宕起伏的叙事弧线，并能通过写作、播客或公开演讲极具感染力地传达出去。全球最顶尖的商业领袖无一不是顶级的叙事大师： - **Jeff Bezos（杰夫·贝索斯）**：其 1997 年写给亚马逊股东的信中确立的三大核心原则，让人读完就忍不住想“把钱全投给他”； - **Alex Karp（亚历克斯·卡普）**：拿着手机一边散步一边开 Palantir 实时财报电话会，充满独特的领袖人格魅力； - **Jensen Huang（黄仁勋）**：身穿皮衣在如巴菲特股东大会般的万人体育场里做英伟达发布会，表现力堪比摇滚巨星。 技术正在抹平产品本身的差距，就像反向工程让制造业硬件走向趋同一样，底层 AI 模型也在迅速同质化。当三家顶尖律所、三家顶级投行或三家 CRM 软件公司向你竞标时，决定胜负的不再是工具，而是**人际关系（Relationships）**——“我愿不愿意跟这个人共事？我了解他们的家庭吗？我喜不喜欢他们？”Scott 坦言，自己曾希望大儿子成为“翻版的自己”，当儿子 18 岁宣称想当海洋生物学家时，他忍不住吐槽：“你连出海都晕船，到底在开什么玩笑？”但他最终意识到，父母能给孩子最好的支持，是培养他们端正的人格、敢于直视对方眼睛的自信、卓越的写作表达能力以及良性的竞争意识，而不是替他们盲目预测未来的风口赛道。 --- ### [33:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=2022s) 危机四伏的“无摩擦生活”：年轻人正在丧失承受拒绝的能力 Steven 补充道，讲故事的本质其实就是“销售与说服”的代名词——无论是说服投资人注资、说服顶尖人才加盟，还是说服消费者买单。但在当下，Scott 认为年轻一代（尤其是年轻男性）面临的最大危机，是**承受拒绝（Enduring Rejection）能力的全面退化**。随着线上虚拟社交和 AI 陪伴的兴起，年轻人沉溺于完全“无摩擦（Frictionless）”的网络人际关系中，导致现实生活中的韧性、毅力与敢于听到“不”的勇气被严重侵蚀。 很多年轻男性由于害怕被拒绝，不敢主动争取那些看似不够资格的职位，不敢在现实中向心仪的对象表达爱意，甚至连主动结交新朋友的胆量都荡然无存。Scott 透露，每当他指导迷茫的年轻男性时，他重新灌输给对方的第一课就是面对“NO”：逼迫他们离开舒适圈，走入陌生人的群体环境中——无论是一个教会小组、一个业余体育联赛还是一堂马术课，勇敢地迈出破冰的第一步，主动向同伴发起真实的线下邀请，比如问一句：“嘿，要不要一起看阿森纳的球赛？”在过度数字化的时代，敢于直面尴尬与拒绝，正在成为极其稀缺的顶级生存技能。 ### [35:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=2100s) 拥抱拒绝：白手起家与“越级挑战”的底层密码 在指导年轻男性的过程中，斯科特·加洛韦（Scott Galloway）发现大多数人最迫切的愿望其实只有两件事：搬出父母的家，以及找到一个女朋友。在引导他们建立社交连接时，他会给年轻人布置一项极具挑战的任务——找到一个潜在感兴趣的对象，直接邀请对方喝咖啡。加洛韦强调，这一行动的目标在心理预期上应当被设定为“拿到一个拒绝（No）”。因为在现实中，被拒绝几乎是必然的结果；而在第二天他打电话回访时，对方依然毫发无损地活着，那位给出拒绝的人也安然无恙。 加洛韦直言，自己成功的核心秘诀就在于对“拒绝”的脱敏与钝感。他在高中时期曾连续竞选高一、高二和高三的班长，结果连败三次；而在拥有如此“辉煌”的失败履历后，他又毅然竞选全校学生会主席，结果依然是惨败。但他从未被这些失败摧毁，他的态度始终是“哀悼片刻，然后继续前行”。在他看来，任何一位赚到远超预期财富的白手起家者，或者伴侣人品与外貌远高出自身条件的人，身上通常只有两种可能：要么父母极度富有，要么就是对被拒绝感到习以为常。 遗憾的是，当代年轻人（尤其是年轻男性）面对拒绝的心理韧性正在急剧退化。加洛韦大声呼吁年轻人必须学会“越级挑战”（punch above your weight class）：去申请自己看似不够格的职位，去报考本不该被录取的顶尖研究生项目，去主动接触那些看似更酷、更有吸引力的人并表达友谊或爱慕。“想要超越自己的阶层去博弈，就得拿出一把大勺子，做好咽下苦果的准备。”所有白手起家的顶尖创业者，唯一共通的底层能力就是迅速消化打击并迈向下一个目标。 - 指导年轻男性的两步走策略：先通过共同兴趣建立同性友谊，再跨出舒适区直接发起一对一约会邀请，将心理预期锚定在“获得拒绝”。 - 加洛韦高中学生干部竞选四连败的往事，印证了脱敏训练对日后创业和抗压能力的决定性作用。 --- ### [36:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=2198s) “做多自己”：不要在指数型成长的轨迹上低估身价 主持人史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）顺着这个话题，分享了自己近期受到 WeWork 创始人亚当·诺依曼（Adam Neumann）一次播客访谈的深刻启发。诺依曼回忆，自己曾与软银集团（SoftBank）创始人孙正义（Masayoshi Son）同坐一辆出租车。诺依曼原本打算向孙正义争取 3 亿美元投资，但孙正义转头对他说：“你还远远不够野心勃勃。”在仅仅 23 分钟的出租车车程结束时，孙正义直接在一张餐巾纸上起草了一份价值 40 亿美元的投资协议。 这个故事让巴特利特领悟到一个核心商业与人生法则：人生与商业博弈的关键在于“做多自己”（selling yourself long），而绝大多数人终其一生都在“看空并贱卖自己”（selling ourselves short）。人们往往将自我认知锁死在一个静止不变的静态剖面上，忽视了个人的成长其实是一条复利爆发的“指数曲线”。如果将一个人 21 岁时的认知、阅历与资源，与经过多年复利积累后的自己对比，二者完全不可同日而语，但绝大多数人在定价自身价值时，往往只敢按照 21 岁时的低廉筹码去折现。 巴特利特回顾自己的创业史，意识到自己在每一个人生阶段都曾贱卖过自己：18 岁时，穷困潦倒的他为了填饱肚子甚至不得不去偷芝加哥小镇（Chicago Town）冷冻披萨，那时他以区区 5,000 美元卖掉了公司 20% 的股权，并在出租屋里疯狂庆祝；几年后，他又以 30 万美元卖掉了 30% 的股权，以为自己中了欧洲百万乐透（EuroMillions）。然而数年之后，那家公司最终敲钟上市，市值高达数亿美元。既然过去一直在贱卖自己，就必须假设当下依然在低估未来的潜能，唯有彻底切换到“做多自己”的心态，敢于去争取不可思议的机遇，这种自我预期才会演变成自我实现的预言。 --- ### [38:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=2302s) 定价即信号：狂妄愿景与资本市场的自我修正 加洛韦对这种心态表示赞同，但他同时也客观指出，人在极端匮乏时拿走 30 万美元是基于当下生存机会集的必然抉择。不过在商业世界中，“定价本身就是一种极具分量的信号”。在撰写商业咨询方案或商业报价时，加洛韦的策略永远是把初步测算的价格直接上调 30% 到 50%，因为开价高永远留有谈判下降的余地，而客户也总会要求折扣，但过低的开价直接暴露出自我定位的孱弱。 加洛韦从性别观察的角度直言不讳地指出，男性往往更擅长构想一个脱离现实的夸张自我，而女性往往更为克制审慎。这种心理特质在某种程度上阻碍了女性创业者获得充沛资本，加之硅谷风投圈里约 40% 的投资人来自哈佛与斯坦福这两所名校，白人男性决策圈天然更容易被狂妄的宏大叙事所打动。正如查理·芒格（Charlie Munger）曾经说过的精辟论断：面对一个对自己潜力抱有疯狂、愚蠢且令人厌恶的狂妄愿景之人，永远不要轻易与他打赌对赌，因为在极少数情况下，这帮疯子偏偏是对的。 埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）正是这种狂妄愿景的极致代名词。一个人敢于狂妄地宣称要筹集天文数字的资金并掌握尖端技术，直到他一人承揽全球 90% 的火箭发射载荷、掌控地球近地轨道 70% 的在轨卫星，这种野心在常人看来傲慢至极。加洛韦总结道，在人生与商业的博弈中，宁可在上限预估上犯激进的错误，也绝不要自我设限，“因为哪怕你开价过高，无情的市场也自然会把你拽回地面，何须预先自我阉割”。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 自我价值认知与市场反馈闭环 accDescr: 展现从低估自我到建立狂妄愿景并接受市场动态校准的决策心智模型。 subgraph Mindset ["价值锚定机制"] A["常规心态：静态视角<br>（低估复利，贱卖身价）"] B["激进策略：做多自我<br>（上调预期 30%-50%）"] end subgraph MarketDynamics ["外部交互与修正"] C["释放高价值信号<br>（获取过量资源倾斜）"] D["遭遇拒绝或校准<br>（市场自动向下平抑）"] E["实现指数级跃迁<br>（冲破原有阶层天花板）"] end A -->|认知觉醒| B B --> C C --> D C --> E D -->|哀悼并向前进| B ``` --- ### [39:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=2397s) 科技偶像的黄昏：从“新耶稣”到黑化反派的宿命循环 随后，两人的话题转向了近期舆论风暴的核心——OpenAI 首席执行官山姆·奥特曼（Sam Altman）。《纽约客》（The New Yorker）记者罗南·法罗（Ronan Farrow）与安德鲁·马兰茨（Andrew Marantz）发表的重磅深度报道，引发了奥特曼写博文反击。两年前，奥特曼在国会听证会上主动呼吁对人工智能进行严格监管，展现出极其完美的救世主光环；而在过去 18 个月中，奥特曼与整个 AI 概念的公众声誉却经历了剧烈坍塌。 加洛韦深刻剖析了这一社会心理层面的变迁。在 20 世纪 70 至 90 年代，美国的公共英雄多为体育明星、政府要员和电影演员。随着传统宗教信仰与教堂参与度的断崖式下跌，失去神灵庇护的大众依旧迫切渴望权威与类神偶像的指引，而科技接管了这一真空，演化为现代社会的“新宗教”。科技对大多数普通人而言充满了不可言说的神秘感——加洛韦承认自己完全不知道智能手机的底层运作原理，但只要输入问题，机器就会给出一个充满权威感、看似无所不知且温暖的回答，这与人们向神明祈祷的过程毫无二致。20 世纪 90 年代，史蒂夫·乔布斯（Steve Jobs）作为第一代“科技耶稣”诞生，并像耶稣一样英年早逝，从此社会对创新者的狂热造神运动彻底失控。 然而大众始终未能认清资本主义机器下科技巨头 CEO 的残酷本质： - **追逐暴利的单极化使命**：科技 CEO 的根本职责并非守护人类精神福祉，更不是在老弱病残时提供抚慰，而是竭尽一切合法手段让公司股价每股收益（EPS）每天上涨一分钱。 - **作恶的温水煮青蛙**：为了利润指标，雪莉·桑德伯格（Sheryl Sandberg）可以默许社交产品对青少年女性身心健康的残害，马克·扎克伯格（Mark Zuckerberg）将平台武器化以撕裂公共舆论，YouTube 高管则任由算法激进化年轻一代。加洛韦讽刺道：“只要能赚到五分钱，这帮人连自己的表亲都能出卖。” - **无辜外表下的资本獠牙**：奥特曼最初被包装成“大家最梦寐以求的温顺同性恋儿子”形象——举止优雅、轻声细语，在听证会上对议员温和地附和“议员先生，我也深感忧虑”。但指望他们自我约束无异于缘木求鱼。 加洛韦强调，与其天真地叩问“我们能否信任山姆·奥特曼”，不如彻底打消道德幻想，依赖硬性的政府监管与安全围栏。如果当初没有法律介入，烟草行业至今还会用卡通形象向 12 岁儿童推销香烟，福特汽车也依然在向河流倾倒水银。如今，科技界又开始急不可耐地将 Anthropic 创始人达里奥·阿莫代伊（Dario Amodei）捧为下一个救世英雄。然而，科技巨头的剧本永远千篇一律：从备受崇拜的“阿纳金·天行者（Anakin Skywalker）”堕落为冷血的“达斯·维达（Darth Vader）”，这趟黑化周期的用时正在变得越来越短。短短 18 个月后，大众终将再次发现，新一代神坛上的救世主同样会为了股东利益不择手段。 ### [44:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=2644s) 监管缺位与将科技领袖“妖魔化”的误区 斯科特·加洛韦（Scott Galloway）直言不讳地指出，大型科技公司所做的一切本质上都是在试图拖延和混淆监管。然而，问题的核心在于政府缺乏深度的行业专业知识与洞察力，决策层往往充斥着脱离现实的高龄政客，加洛韦讽刺地将他们形容为“亡灵之境与《黄金女郎》（The Golden Girls）的杂交体”，根本弄不懂这些底层技术。当这种颠覆性技术被允许在毫无监管的情况下野蛮生长时，恶果便必然显现。 大众习惯于将山姆·奥特曼（Sam Altman）描绘成最新堕入黑暗面的“达斯·维达”（Darth Vader）。但加洛韦强调，这种指责错位了：科技领袖只是在履行资本赋予他们的职责，真正失职的是公民自己——公众没有选出具备专业能力来监管这些巨头的民选官员。因此，问题不在于“我们能不能信任奥特曼”，我们本就不该把未来寄托在对企业家的个人道德信任上，而应该建立起能够有效制约巨头企业的健全法规体制。 ### [44:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=2685s) 名声的代价与社会暴力的深层根源 主持人提及奥特曼住所曾遭人投掷莫洛托夫鸡尾酒（燃烧瓶）及收到死亡威胁一事。加洛韦明确谴责任何针对个人的暴力或恐吓行为，强调只要在法律框架内行事，哪怕是像奥特曼这样备受争议的科技人物，抑或是在家庭滑雪度假时遭到围攻的副总统候选人 JD·万斯（JD Vance），都理应享有不受威胁的生活权利。这种暴力蔓延是极为悲哀的现象——在美国，私人安保行业的人员数量已经超过了正式警力。 加洛韦深入分析了此类极端暴力背后的社会心理机制。发动暴力的人往往是面临机会匮乏、受精神疾病困扰的边缘年轻男性，他们试图通过针对公众人物的“历史性暴力行动”来重塑自身崩塌的社会资本。社会上有人试图将针对 AI 开发者甚至此前医疗保险高管在街头被处决的行为合理化，加洛韦痛批这种论调毫无正当性。名声历来伴随着巨大的个人安全风险，美国历史上三分之一的总统都曾遭遇暗杀企图。 他对比了美欧两地的政治文化：一位北欧（丹麦或挪威）前首相在卸任时收获全场掌声，随后独自骑着自行车回家；而美国甚至连前总统奥巴马的子女至今仍需要特勤局终身保护。加洛韦认为大型科技公司的算法与社交媒体加剧了这种敌对叙事，将特定个体推向“全民公敌”的靶标。 ### [47:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=2832s) 亿万富翁的“末日应急包”与虚无主义避难所 当主持人问及奥特曼等人是否属于“虚无主义者（Nihilist）”时，加洛韦指出，硅谷科技精英阶层内部确实潜藏着一条深重的虚无主义暗流。许多顶级富豪都配备有精密的“应急逃生包（Go Bag）”和极端事态撤离方案。如果爆发丧尸末日、底层革命、核战争、网络攻击或特大疫情，他们的逃生动线早已用数千万美元铺就：直奔奥克兰机场与私人飞行员碰头，搭乘湾流 G650 直飞新西兰奥克兰，躲进斥巨资打造的地下豪华防核地堡中。加洛韦保守估计，全美亿万富翁中至少有三分之一准备了某种形式的末日逃亡计划。 针对主持人提出的假设——“如果 AI 导致人类自我毁灭哪怕只有 1% 的概率，理性的人难道不该立即停下来吗？”——加洛韦引用了“原子弹之父”奥本海默（J. Robert Oppenheimer）的历史案例进行反驳。二战末期，盟军预估强攻日本本土将造成 300 万美军伤亡，当时科学家研制原子弹并展示将其用于平民目标的潜在毁灭风险，其终结世界的概率远不止 1%，许多参与项目的核科学家后来因背负沉重的毁灭罪恶感而选择自杀。然而，历史前进的齿轮与技术竞争从未因此停摆。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 亿万富翁末日逃生逻辑的致命漏洞 accDescr: 展示硅谷富豪脱离现实的末日逃跑假设及其在混乱现实中必然遭遇的崩塌环节 subgraph Plan["富豪设想的末日逃亡链"] A["极端危机爆发\n社会秩序崩溃"] --> B["携带应急包前往机场\n搭乘私人湾流G650"] B --> C["跨洋飞往新西兰\n入住奢华独立避难地堡"] end subgraph Reality["加洛韦指出的现实悖论"] D["极端环境下飞行员与安保人员\n凭什么继续听从富豪指挥？"] E["当地民众绝不会坐视\n外来富豪独占生存资源"] end B -.->|必然面对的信任崩塌| D C -.->|必将引发的人性掠夺| E style Plan fill:#f8f9fa,stroke:#495057,stroke-width:1px style Reality fill:#fff3cd,stroke:#ffc107,stroke-width:1px ``` 加洛韦曾与一位身家数十亿美元的富豪当面讨论过这种末日计划，并直接指出了其荒谬的逻辑漏洞：在真正全民陷入饥荒、秩序荡然无存的浩劫中，私人飞行员和安保人员凭什么不先动手抢夺飞机与财产？新西兰当地饥饿的民众又怎会放任空降的富豪在豪华地堡中安享晚年？这种斥巨资准备逃跑或执迷于移民火星的做派，是严重的资本错配。真正的理性应当是将才华与资源投向改善现实地球的生活环境，而非逃避现实。 ### [50:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=3017s) 顶层 0.1% 的社会剥离与“召唤神迹”的傲慢 加洛韦进一步揭示了美国极度分化的阶层撕裂现状。全美大约有 900 位亿万富豪，其中约 300 人长期深度参与政治捐款，控制了全美超过 20% 的政治献金。与工会往往无条件支持亲劳工候选人的粗放方式不同，亿万富豪的政治注资极其精准高效，能将庞大资本砸向具体议题，从而对民选官员产生决定性的控制力。 最严峻的问题在于，这顶层的 0.1% 人群已经与美国的社会福祉彻底脱钩： - **公共出行**：他们常年乘坐私人飞机，完全不必忍受交通安全局（TSA）拥挤的安检长队； - **医疗系统**：他们享受专属私人订制医疗服务（Concierge Medicine），无需经历普通人面对的糟糕医保； - **基础教育**：在全美公立学校有 40% 的三年级学生无法正常读写、贫困社区公立生均预算仅 1 万至 1.5 万美元时，富豪子弟就读于年开销高达 7.5 万美元的私立贵族学校； - **社会治安**：富豪社区如纽约苏豪区（SoHo）没有流浪汉、没有可见犯罪、甚至没有巡警，全由遍布的监控摄像头与私人门卫严密防卫。 这种全方位的阶层隔离导致超级富豪失去了修复社会公共体制的动力。更令人不安的是这种脱节正在渗透进技术开发的前沿。 主持人分享了一段亲身经历：在伦敦的一张餐桌上，一位极为了解某位顶尖 AI 巨头 CEO 的内幕人士私下透露，该 CEO 亲口承认，自己明知这项技术有大约 7% 到 10% 的概率会引发终结人类文明的灭顶之灾。但他对此完全不在意，因为在他看来，成为“在人类世界召唤出这一终极智能的造物主”，其历史意义与分量远远超越了毁灭本身的代价。这种视全人类命运为个人历史封神注脚的傲慢与冷酷，让加洛韦与主持人都深感战栗。 ### [52:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=3177s) 科技精英的虚无主义与日益悬殊的阶级差距 对话首先探讨了科技巨头高层的心理状态。史蒂芬提到，人们以前总觉得这些创始人因为为人父母、家中有孩子，本能上应该心存善意；然而现在他越来越相信斯科特所说的“虚无主义”——许多科技大佬根本不在乎普通人的死活，他们仿佛只是在把人类的未来当成一场大型电子游戏在玩。 斯科特对此从激励机制展开了深入剖析。在他成长的年代，美国社会的贫富差距远没有今天这样悬殊：当年他父亲的老板只是开一辆凯迪拉克，自己家开福特 Torino；老板的房子稍大一点，但两家同属一个乡村俱乐部，车程仅隔五分钟；出差时老板坐商务舱，普通家庭坐经济舱，中产阶级与上层阶级的差距仅此而已。 然而如今，这种差距已经撕裂成了天壤之别： ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 阶级差距从过去到现在的演变 accDescr: 对比过去微小的贫富差距与当下在出行、医疗等层面的极端分化 subgraph Past["过去的中产与富裕阶层差距"] P1["交通：经济舱 vs 商务舱"] P2["住宅与生活：同一社区，车程 5 分钟"] end subgraph Present["如今 99% 与 1% 的巨大鸿沟"] N1["底层：廉价航空的屈辱与缺乏保障的医疗"] N2["顶层 1%：湾流 G700 私人飞机与私人礼宾医疗"] N3["现实逻辑：西方 99% 的资源被优化用于服务 1% 的超级体验"] end Past --> Present ``` 斯科特以航空出行与医疗保健为例生动地阐释了这种断层： - **出行体验的断层**：普通人乘坐精神航空（Spirit Airlines）往往体验受辱且混乱；美联航则分化为普通经济舱、舒适经济舱、超级经济舱、商务舱、头等舱；而在富豪阶层之上，还有私人包机、产权共享公务机、赛斯纳奖状（Cessna Citation）、庞巴迪挑战者 300（Bombardier Challenger 300）、环球 650（Global 650），乃至顶级的湾流 G700（G7）。 - **医疗体系的断层**：斯科特年幼时母亲身患癌症，因医保覆盖不足而备受折磨，那是一段充满创伤与羞辱的痛苦记忆；而现在的他拥有私人医疗礼宾团队服务，旅行失眠需要鲁尼斯塔（Lunesta）助眠药时两小时内即可送达家中，在家中客厅就能完成上门 NAD 抗衰注射，出差在外遇到儿子身体不适可随时发短信或 FaceTime 联系私人医生并使用专属急救医疗箱。他的血液样本每三个月送往挪威顶尖实验室由博士团队进行癌症早筛。 斯科特直言不讳地指出，西方社会底层的 99% 实际上正被不断“优化”和“变现”，只为了让那 1% 的顶层阶级享受到无与伦比的生活质量、更广泛的伴侣选择权、下一代更优越的教育与医疗以及无处不在的社会影响力。 --- ### [55:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=3325s) 走向“达斯·维达”：赢家通吃的激励机制与盲区 正因为跨入那 1% 能够获得的特权与奖赏如此惊人，科技行业通过股票期权致富的激励机制彻底绑架了从业者的道德判断。斯科特解释道，创业者和高管们往往会做出无数微小的妥协，并对潜在的社会危害视而不见。例如，即便英国有十八分之一有自残行为的年轻女孩将原因归咎于 Instagram，科技高管也会选择寻找反向研究来制造疑虑，并对自己辩解称：“等我成了亿万富翁，我自然会去做个好人。” ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 科技行业走向达斯·维达的异化路径 accDescr: 展示科技高管如何在极度悬殊的奖励机制下逐步妥协，最终走向道德黑化 A["巨额财富奖励<br/>(股票期权/阶级跨越)"] --> B["微小妥协与逃避<br/>(无视平台危害与算法成瘾)"] B --> C["赢家通吃竞争<br/>(从 5 家分蛋糕到独角兽全拿数十亿)"] C --> D["彻底异化<br/>(走向达斯·维达之路)"] ``` 与此同时，竞争格局也变得极其残酷。过去可能由五家公司共同瓜分市场并各自获得数亿美元回报，而现在则是“赢家通吃”，仅剩的一家胜出者卷走数百亿美元，其余全部出局。这种极度残酷的环境让人们一步步踏上通往“达斯·维达”（Darth Vader）的黑化之路。 斯科特还分享了《Pivot》播客联合主持人卡拉·斯威舍（Kara Swisher）给他带来的启发： - 在疫情期间，斯科特与姐姐走在街上，一位流浪汉动了一下，他姐姐吓得跳了起来。身材 6 英尺 2 英寸、体重 190 磅的斯科特起初觉得她反应过度，但姐姐直言：“你体型高大所以觉得轻松，女性每天都生活在对暴力的合理恐惧中。” - 卡拉随后指出，硅谷这群科技男性大佬根本无法理解什么是“受害”，因为他们通常是出身优渥家庭的白人男性，一生从未体验过成为受害者的滋味。他们不会主动设置安全防护栏，宁愿通过政治献金来规避监管以实现财富最大化。 - 斯科特评论道，公众未来不会去关心萨姆·奥尔特曼（Sam Altman）是一个“好人”还是“坏人”，人们只会记住他是引领了世界第一的 AI 巨头，还是亲手把局势搞砸；若 OpenAI 未能成功上市、估值被 Anthropic 反超，即便他是个好人，在商业历史上也只会被视为失败，因为当下的资本社会从不奖励所谓的好人。 --- ### [01:00:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=3603s) AI 是否能让我们更有“人情味”？ 在经历赞助商广告插播后，史蒂芬抛出了一个核心疑问：以往的社交网络曾许诺将人们紧密相连并让我们更具人情味，但最终却适得其反；那么 AI 是否有可能成为第一种真正兑现诺言、让人类更有“人情味”的技术？当繁重单调的工作被取代，人类是否会回归本质——去专注于人际关系、走入现实大自然（touch grass）并与亲友建立深层联结？ 斯科特分析了社交媒体与 AI 之间的本质差异： - **社交媒体的极化陷阱**：Meta 这类社交媒体目前在整体上已经带来了巨大的负面效应。为了投放更多广告变现，社交算法会主动将用户推向极端政治立场，通过挑动神经来制造愤怒——例如向进步主义者推送特德·克鲁兹（Ted Cruz）或维克托·欧尔班（Viktor Orbán）出丑的视频，或推送 AOC 质问对手的画面，通过妖魔化对立阵营来获取用户时长。 - **AI 算法的温和与包容**：与挑起愤怒的社交算法相反，现阶段数据显示，长时间接触 AI 反而会使人的观点趋于温和。因为大型语言模型的本质是吸纳全体人类数据的均值（medium or average），天生倾向于中间路线。 - 此外，AI 在交互态度上表现得异常友善与礼貌。正如斯科特所打趣的，无论用户提出的问题多么幼稚甚至愚蠢，AI 从不会斥责“史蒂芬，这想法太蠢了”，而是温和地回应：“我完全能理解你为什么会提出这个问题。”这种特质使得 AI 在人机互动层面上呈现出完全不同于社交网络的温和氛围。 ### [01:01:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=3717s) 算法温床与现代孤独：AI 最隐秘的社会危机 Scott Galloway 探讨了大语言模型的内在特性：因为它们本质上是在寻找概率分布的均值和中位数（例如在六个词串联后，寻找统计上最常出现的第七个词），因此正在将大众推向温和与折中，这种中庸调和效应令人感到些许欣慰。例如，养老院中失去亲人或社交圈匮乏的孤寡老人，未来完全可以让 AI 虚拟伴侣在其生活中扮演重要角色。 然而，Galloway 坚决指出，AI 最致命的威胁绝不是武器化，也不是收入不平等或操纵选举——因为不平等很大程度上是选民自身投票选择的制度结果。AI 真正最可怕的下行风险是**极致的孤独**。算法正在让越来越多人误以为，透过冷冰冰的屏幕就能获得完整的人生拟真体验（"a reasonable facsimile of life"）：既然有了 Discord 和 Reddit，何必费劲结交真朋友？既然能在 Coinbase 或 Robinhood 上炒币炒股，何必挤进传统职场？既然有逼真的合成虚拟色情，何必冒着被拒绝的风险去追求现实恋爱？ 这种“人生替代品”对年轻男性的心智造成了毁灭性的打击。Galloway 给出了一组令人震惊的现实数据：标普 500 指数中近 40% 的经济体量，都在设法把人类从最珍贵、最有回报的真实人际关系中剥离隔绝。 - **户外活动锐减**：20 至 30 岁的美国男性在户外度过的时间，甚至少于监狱里的服刑犯人。 - **社交技能退化**：18 至 24 岁的年轻男性中，有整整 42% 从未在现实生活中当面约过女性出门。 - **繁荣背后的空虚**：美国未来的走向将呈现出极端撕裂的图景——前所未有的物质繁荣与经济增长，伴随着规模空前的孤独症、抑郁症、焦虑症以及肥胖症。 --- ### [01:03:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=3818s) 中东战局复盘：战术上的卓越与战略上的低能 对话话题转向了当时中东爆发的军事冲突。主持人询问 Galloway 如何看待特朗普声称“原本预计六周，现在五周半就按计划掌控局势、正在打胜仗”的说辞背后的实质。Galloway 剖析道，特朗普极可能是受到了国家安全顾问团队以及内塔尼亚胡（Benjamin Netanyahu）的说服，幻想着通过摧毁该地区长期的头号威胁来源，让自己作为“解放中东并带来和平”的历史伟人载入史册。 此前针对委内瑞拉的斩首突袭取得了惊人成功（安保人员甚至因未知定向能/无线电波武器倒地呕吐，美军在零伤亡的情况下抓获目标），这场历史级战术行动让高层被“硬汉狂妄”冲昏了头脑，误以为军事行动等同于全面战争。但现代战争的铁律在于**敌人也有选择权**。自二战以来，拥有更强大军队的一方几乎无法再获得“无条件投降”的结果；无论是当年的越战游击队、阿富汗塔利班，还是伊朗伊斯兰革命卫队（IRGC），弱势一方只要能“苟活存续”（survive），就已经赢了。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Operational Excellence vs Strategic Incompetence accDescr: Comparison between tactical execution and strategic failures in Middle East intervention. subgraph TacticalSuccess["战术层执行力 (Operational Level)"] T1["趁伊朗防空瘫痪发动突袭"] T2["重创 IRGC、海军与导弹阵地"] T3["试图为内部起义提供掩护"] end subgraph StrategicFailure["战略层灾难 (Strategic Failure)"] S1["绕开盟友与国会 (无预警行动)"] S2["霍尔木兹海峡博弈误判"] S3["美军承受伤亡 vs 俄式耐受力对比"] S4["陷入泥潭: 撤军示弱, 续战无果"] end TacticalSuccess -->|"缺乏长期博弈思维"| StrategicFailure ``` Galloway 将整场冲突定性为**战术上的卓越与战略上的彻底低能**： - **盟友与制度彻底缺位**：没有拉拢欧洲盟友入局，未向美国国会作战情简报，也未与海湾盟国进行充分战术协调。 - **博弈论层面的致命误判**：一旦伊朗向霍尔木兹海峡的商船开火，封锁化肥原料与能源通道，全球面临的将是大饥荒与经济海啸——这一杀手锏的威慑力甚至远超拥有核武器本身。 - **美军的“玻璃下巴”效应**：美军阵亡 14 名士兵便引发国内巨大震动，而俄罗斯在乌克兰前线每日承受上千伤亡却毫不退缩；美国就像体格庞大却抗击打极弱的拳手，一旦撤离便在全球眼中威信扫地。 - **越战幽灵的再现**：Galloway 引用了胡志明当年针对美军的名言：“你们会杀死我们很多人，我们也会杀死你们一些人；但最终你们会疲倦，然后打道回府。”美国在越战消灭百万人，自身阵亡 5.8 万人后黯然离场，美国社会对战争痛苦的承受底线早已极度脆弱。 --- ### [01:08:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=4124s) 权力分布式瓦解与外交能力的自毁 这场中东冒险不仅没有实现政权更迭，反而给 IRGC 送去了巨大的政治胜利，让其在抵抗美以霸权的叙事中占领了道德高地。整场冲突留下了“我们砸烂了摊子，现在由你们收拾”的烂局，让原本以为驻美军基地是防弹衣的海湾国家骤然发现，美军基地不过是一个巨大的活靶子，未来再没有国家敢轻易协同美军驻扎。 在随后的白宫记者会上，特朗普甚至公开抱怨“伊朗国内群龙无首，我们根本找不到能谈判的对象”。Galloway 直言，这正是德黑兰最完美的防御策略：权力结构极度分布式（distributed power），根本没有可以一刀切除的“蛇头”，你既无法单纯靠空袭完成政权更迭，也找不到签署停火协议的具体实体，只能任由时间拖延并消耗美军的意志。 更令人绝望的是美国自身软实力的自残行为：国内政治彻底摧毁并削弱了国务院专业外交官队伍（diplomatic corps）。当副总统万斯（JD Vance）这类缺乏建制经验的高层自以为能飞往伊斯兰堡轻松达成协议时，面对的却是一个缺乏专业外事支撑、在战略博弈上寸步难行的真空窘境。 ### [01:10:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=4242s) 外交空心化与首次“AI 迷因战争” 回顾历史上每一次停火、协议或峰会，97% 的工作早在领导人的专机降落停机坪之前，就已经由外交官们逐字逐句地梳理、谈判并敲定了。然而，西方特别是美国却亲手掏空了自己的外交队伍与反情报运作体系，导致整个国家在应对危机时如盲飞一般失去仪表指引。领导层误以为让副总统 JD·万斯（JD Vance）飞往伊斯兰堡拍一段看起来极具“总统相”的 TikTok 短视频、再把责任全推给伊朗伊斯兰革命卫队（IRGC），问题就能迎刃而解。削减对外援助（USAID）、轻视软实力与外交基石机构，这种深层的傲慢与无能正在集中爆发，最荒诞的现实是决策层甚至根本不知道谈判桌对面该坐着谁。而对于 IRGC 而言，他们的核心诉求极其清晰——“只要能活下去就算赢”，战事每拖延一天，优势就向他们倾斜一分。 在这场交锋中，一场前所未有的“AI 迷因战”（AI meme war）正在上演。特朗普在 Truth Social 上发布硬汉风格视频、将自己描绘成救世主耶稣的迷因，却被 IRGC 粗粝而犀利的 AI 宣传全面压制。德黑兰那些由 18 到 25 岁年轻人制作的高水准 AI 迷因（例如乐高风格迷因），不仅极其懂得如何戳中特朗普的软肋，还直接借爱泼斯坦萝莉岛（Epstein island）等丑闻话题进行精准舆论打击。正如林肯所言：“没有公众支持你赢不了战争，有了公众支持你输不掉战争。” 在这场 AI 驱动的信息与宣传战中，伊朗反而占据了上风。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 现代地缘冲突中的外交与信息战失衡 accDescr: 对比传统外交与当前美国策略，以及AI迷因舆论战的对抗态势。 subgraph Groundwork ["外交谈判与现实运作"] A["传统外交基石<br/>(97% 细节由职业外交官敲定)"] -->|机构被裁撤/空心化| B["盲飞状态<br/>(不知该与谁谈判)"] C["网红式外交<br/>(短视频表演/转嫁矛盾)"] --> B end subgraph MemeWar ["首场 AI 迷因战"] D["美方宣传<br/>(宏大叙事/硬汉形象)"] vs E["IRGC 青年团队<br/>(高产AI迷因/丑闻打击)"] E -->|舆论争夺更具杀伤力| F["侵蚀公众支持度"] end ``` ### [01:12:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=4370s) 霍尔木兹海峡困境与脱身策略 随着中期选举临近，这场战争让特朗普陷入了进退维谷的“双输局面”：支持率跌至历史低点，连基本盘也在逐渐反噬，但他既无法体面撤军，也无力长期维系。西方世界长久以来将“航行自由”视为理所当然——无论是在马六甲海峡、新加坡海峡，还是承载全球 60% 贸易额的南海，航行自由一向是动用武力的底线。在霍尔木兹海峡面临封锁威胁的背景下，欧洲与亚洲国家拥有绝对的共同利益，最可行的出路是组建多国联合护航舰队，同时通过封锁伊朗港口的石油装卸来施加经济窒息。如果油井开采出的原油无法在约 12 周内装船运出，整个输油系统就会发生倒灌堵塞，对油源造成不可逆的永久性破坏。 原本最理想的战术是在头 72 小时内迅速达成清晰目标：摧毁其大部分海军力量与导弹能力、为伊朗民众提供反抗 IRGC 的契机、与海湾国家协调保障其安全，随后立即宣布胜利并果断抽身。然而现如今，白宫的军事目标早已模糊不清且前后矛盾，甚至在伊朗扣押两艘西方船只这一明显的战争行为面前，美方还在狡辩这“并非撕毁停火”。 - **航运停摆的本质**：霍尔木兹海峡的航运危机核心并不全在军舰被击沉，而在于高昂的战争险。一艘装载 200 万桶原油的超级油轮价值约 1.6 亿美元，在面临无人机威胁时，没有任何保险机构愿意承担兜底风险。 - **瓦解 IRGC 的关键切入口**：不能轰炸平民基础设施以免触犯战争罪，唯一有效的杠杆是经济与就业。IRGC 掌控着伊朗最赚钱的核心经济命脉，数百万家庭依赖其薪水维生。只有威胁到其石油出口的资金链，才能真正迫使其回到谈判桌前。 ### [01:17:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=4631s) 记者会失控与资本市场的残酷脱节 在战事推进到近六周之际，特朗普当初夸下的“六周解决战斗”的承诺彻底沦为笑柄。在近期的白宫记者会上，面对记者们接二连三追问六周时限的尖锐提问，特朗普情绪失控彻底“破防”（crashing out），现场公开羞辱了约十位记者，痛骂媒体是“耻辱”。这种极度焦虑与暴怒恰恰暴露出决策层的迷茫与失控，战略承诺与战场现实之间出现了无法掩盖的断层。 然而，更令人震撼的是金融市场与地缘危机的极端脱节。若单看正在创历史新高的美国股市，根本察觉不到中东正面临一场威胁全球能源供应的战争。这种断裂揭示了现代经济极度不健康的一面：顶层富裕阶层已经完全从底层苦难中“脱钩”。 - **消费支出的极化**：美国 50% 的消费支出由收入前 10% 的富裕人群贡献，油价即便飙升至每加仑 6 美元，他们也毫不在乎、毫无痛感。 - **底层家庭的能源重负**：低收入家庭需要将总收入的 22% 消耗在能源开支上，能源价格稍有风吹草动就会直接摧毁其生计。 - **代价转嫁的残酷机制**：战争的实质负面代价并没有落在高层或金融市场头上，而是被全额“外包”给了高度依赖石油的贫穷国家、饱受波及的海湾邻国、前线的普通军人家庭，以及那些将大半收入填进加油站的普通劳工。 ### [01:19:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=4752s) 历史规律：基础设施投资过热后的必然暴跌 主持人史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）在节目间歇分享了团队践行的“1% 日记”理念——面对攀登珠峰般的宏大目标，唯一的完成方式是将其拆解为每天 1% 的微小步骤。随后，对话切回了当下屡创新高的股票市场与狂热的 AI 资本泡沫。巴特利特指出，现在哪怕是斯坦福大学的学生或任何普通创业者，仅凭一个 AI 点子就能轻松拿到一两千万美元的融资；巨头们更是陷入基础设施军备竞赛，例如 OpenAI 寻求近 2000 亿美元的资金用于数据中心建设，而其年营收预估仅在 30 亿美元左右，这种资本倒挂让人质疑市场是否终将面临剧烈修正。 斯科特·加洛韦（Scott Galloway）毫不犹豫地断言：“修正的概率是 100%。”从人类商业史来看，任何一项基础设施投资占 GDP 的比例一旦突破 2% 到 3%，其后几乎无一例外会伴随一场灾难性的崩盘。当年的铁路热潮、全国电气化改造、互联网初期投资，以及环球电讯（Global Crossing）等电信巨头疯狂铺设光缆的破产潮，都完整经历过这种周期。加洛韦坦言自己在 2000 年互联网泡沫和 2008 年金融危机中都曾惨遭重创，但他强调：技术本身必然会留存并成为里程碑式的存在，但这绝不意味着股票市场能免受暴击。 最危险的隐患在于当前巨头市值的极端集中。历史上最顶尖的科技巨头，几乎都在单年内遭遇过 40% 到 97% 的断崖式暴跌——亚马逊在 1999 年至 2001 年间暴跌了 94% 至 97%，Meta 在 2022 年也曾重挫 72%。然而今非昔比，当今这批科技巨头在整个资本市场中的权重高得惊人，“如果它们打一个喷嚏，全球经济都可能患上重感冒”。 - **资本热潮指标**：初创团队仅凭概念便可融资 1000 万至 2000 万美元；数据中心基建开销高达数百亿乃至上千亿美元，而营收规模仍处在几十亿美元量级。 - **历史崩盘规律**：当某项新基础设施的资本开支突破 GDP 的 2%~3% 时，几乎必然触发挤泡沫式的暴跌。 - **龙头历史最大回撤**：亚马逊在互联网泡沫破裂期缩水 94%~97%，Meta 在 2022 年单年下挫 72%。 --- ### [01:22:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=4936s) 重大技术不等于股东回报：喷气客机、PC 与疫苗的启示 加洛韦随后抛出了一个颠覆主流认知的推论。绝大多数年轻一代投资者普遍存在认知误区，认为划时代的技术突破必然会诞生几家凭借知识产权、分发网络和资本护城河垄断数万亿美元市值的超级公司，就像电商领域的亚马逊、Shopify，或是社交媒体领域的 Meta、YouTube 一样。然而加洛韦提醒，人类历史上许多最伟大、最具开创性的发明，其创造者与整个行业最终都未能替股东守住财富。 加洛韦现场向巴特利特抛出一个思想实验：“如果在未来 36 个月内，你必须在放弃 AI 和放弃喷气式飞机之间二选一，你选哪一个？”巴特利特笑着表示自己宁愿乘坐螺旋桨飞机也要保留 AI。加洛韦则斩钉截铁地选择保留喷气式客机：“以 0.8 倍音速在近对流层巡航，彻底解锁了全球人类的情感连接与商业繁荣。”但残酷的财务现实是：如果把民用航空与喷气客机制造诞生至今的所有利润、亏损、破产重组与政府补贴全盘相加，整个航空工业的历史净利润至今“几乎刚好盈亏平衡，本质上是一门糟糕透顶的生意”。 这种“造福全人类却摧毁股东价值”的现象比比皆是： 1. **个人电脑（PC）**：加洛韦曾担任捷威电脑（Gateway Computer）董事。当时该公司出货量位居全球第二、领先苹果，最终却仅以 6 亿至 7.6 亿美元被收购——“这笔钱不过是 Alphabet 股票开盘三秒钟内的市值波动而已”。苹果真正赚到大钱靠的是 iPhone，而非早已严重商品化同质化的 PC。 2. **现代疫苗**：加洛韦视其为人类仅次于“培育美国中产阶级”之后的第二大伟大创新，挽救了数以亿计的生命，但龙头莫德纳（Moderna）的股价自高点重挫了 90%，没有任何一家公司能长期垄断并转化这部分价值。 加洛韦认为，AI 有三分之一的概率会步入疫苗和喷气飞机的后尘，即“AI 终结了 AI 自身的超额利润（AI puts AI out of business）”。随着模型快速逆向工程与算法收敛，技术差异被迅速抹平，加上开源权重与免费模型的普及，最终的超级赢家是广大的“利益相关者”（公众与社会），而绝非押注天价估值的“股东”。加洛韦直言：在投资层面上，理性的策略反而是做空整个虚高的 AI 商业生态。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 划时代技术的价值捕获分化模型 accDescr: 对比高股东价值集中型技术与高社会价值但股东微利型技术的路径差异 subgraph Monopoly ["垄断聚利型模式（电商 / 社交）"] A["底层网络效应与护城河"] --> B["少数巨头吞噬全产业链"] B --> C["沉淀数万亿美元股东回报 (Amazon / Meta)"] end subgraph PublicGood ["社会效益型模式（喷气机 / PC / 疫苗 / AI）"] D["颠覆性生产力突破"] --> E["技术迅速收敛 / 逆向工程 / 开源化"] E --> F["行业充分竞争，超额利润归零"] F --> G["全人类利益相关者受益，股东回报平平"] end ``` --- ### [01:25:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=5119s) GLP-1 远胜 AI 与“数字倾销”的地缘经济战 加洛韦指出，每年他都会评选一项“年度颠覆性技术”：2024 年他选了 AI，但到了 2025 和 2026 年，有一项技术的深远影响力已彻底盖过 AI。他让巴特利特猜谜，巴特利特先是打趣调侃“睾酮替代疗法”，加洛韦大笑反击：“你明知道我在用，这简直是人身攻击！”随后巴特利特猜出正解——GLP-1 受体激动剂（如司美格鲁肽/Ozempic 类减肥药物）。加洛韦严肃指出，只要去问问那些常年依赖 GLP-1 且每天使用 AI 的人愿意放弃哪一个，答案不言自明。从改善人类生活质量、降低医疗系统负担以及真实创造企业商业价值的角度来看，GLP-1 带来的实际变革远比 AI 更加确凿。 最后，加洛韦将目光转向潜在的宏观黑天鹅。若美国经济在未来 24 个月内遭遇 40% 到 50% 的剧烈腰斩，导火索大概率不是中东的地缘冲突，而可能是来自大洋彼岸的降维打击——现代版的“数字钢材倾销（steel dumping）”。 在 20 世纪八九十年代，中国为了抢占并整合全球钢铁产业链，曾以极具竞争力的价格向西方市场大量输出优质廉价钢铁，导致美国本土钢厂在成本端根本无法招架；当市场份额被击穿整合后，产业定价权便彻底易主。加洛韦推测，面对美国筑起的重重关税与技术封锁，如果对手选择向全球无限量释放顶级的开源权重（open-weight）模型与低成本算力服务，实际上就是对硅谷巨头依靠高昂 API 费用筑起的技术壁垒展开精准爆破。这种“零门槛免费供给”将彻底抽干西方闭源大模型企业的现金流逻辑，导致成百上千亿美元的基础设施投入瞬间沦为沉没成本。 - **年度技术交锋**：加洛韦认为 GLP-1 减肥药在重塑社会健康与资本价值捕获上，比大语言模型更具确定性与实质意义。 - **数字倾销假说**：类比 20 世纪钢铁产业竞争，海外若大规模倾销免费、开源的高性能大模型，将迅速压低全球 AI 服务边际成本，直接瓦解硅谷巨头的利润护城河。 - **市场脆弱点**：高度集中的大科技巨头市值支撑着美股大盘，一旦模型收费体系被开源低价浪潮冲垮，可能诱发 40%~50% 的系统性估值回撤。 ### [01:27:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=5272s) 中国的“AI倾销”与美国AI泡沫破裂的隐忧 加洛韦（Scott Galloway）提出了一个关于地缘科技竞争的大胆假说：中国正在开启所谓的“AI倾销”（AI dumping）。商业历史上一再上演的经典策略，是先以80美分的价格售卖价值1美元的商品，直到彻底垄断市场，然后再大幅提价。如今，中国正在推出一系列开源权重模型（open-weight models）。据估计，已有大约三分之一的企业开始采用成本更低廉的中国轻量级开源模型。加洛韦直言，如果自己处在决策者的位置，绝对会向美国市场大举倾销廉价AI技术。一旦大型企业开始意识到这一点，并公开宣布不再与 Anthropic 或 OpenAI 签署价值数千万美元的软件授权协议，转而使用这些极其便宜的中国模型，资本市场便会立刻醒悟——这些AI巨头的高估值在现实中根本无法维系。 如果这种估值幻觉被戳破，美国股市可能面临剧烈崩盘。加洛韦指出，标普500指数（S&P 500）目前有高达40%的权重直接或间接与美国押注AI的豪赌绑定；过去两年中，美国大部分的GDP增长本质上是由AI相关的资本支出（capex）驱动的。一旦这股资本支出放缓，经济将立刻陷入衰退。主持人对此深感震撼，并总结道：对于竞争对手而言，向美国人提供廉价AI，恰恰就能精准击断美国经济的膝盖骨（"kneecap their economy"）。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: AI倾销导致美国市场衰退的逻辑链条 accDescr: 展示中国廉价开源模型如何冲击美国高估值AI公司并引发布局衰退 subgraph Dumping["外部冲击：廉价开源"] A["中国推出低成本开源模型"] --> B["约1/3企业转向廉价方案"] end subgraph TechCrash["科技巨头估值崩塌"] B --> C["企业放弃OpenAI/Anthropic高昂授权"] C --> D["AI独角兽天价估值无法自圆其说"] end subgraph MacroShock["宏观经济连锁反应"] D --> E["AI资本支出(capex)急剧放缓"] E --> F["标普500核心权重(占比40%)重挫"] F --> G["整体经济直接陷入衰退"] end ``` - 核心数据点：标普500指数约40%直接或间接系于AI产业赌注。 - 经济支柱：过去两年美国GDP增长的主要驱动力是AI资本开支，而非广泛的消费端生产力激增。 --- ### [01:29:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=5369s) 衰退的残酷真相与纽约时报的惨痛教训 针对未来12到24个月内可能爆发的经济衰退与裁员危机，加洛韦引用了摩根大通首席执行官杰米·戴蒙（Jamie Dimon）的名言——所谓经济衰退，就是“每隔七年就会发生一次的事情”（"something that happens every seven years"）。他直言，年轻一代自成年以来几乎从未见识过真正意义上的残酷衰退，对真正的经济萧条缺乏体感。 为了具象化这种冲击，加洛韦分享了自己2008年金融危机期间进入《纽约时报》（The New York Times）董事会的亲身经历。他当时筹集了6亿美元成为该报最大的股东之一，结果在经济危机中资产迅速缩水至2亿美元，“一夜之间变成了2亿”。当时由于雷曼危机爆发，信贷市场冻结，占报社总收入70%到80%的广告业务在短短60天内蒸发了70%。面对现金流近乎断崖式的暴跌，他们被迫四处奔走，最终只能靠一位墨西哥亿万富翁（卡洛斯·斯利姆，Carlos Slim）注资才得以脱困。加洛韦感慨，那段经历恰逢自己孩子出生，压力巨大。他向主持人发问：想象一下如果你的订阅和广告收入在单月内暴跌70%，企业将面临怎样的灭顶之灾——必须彻底削减成本、不得不无情裁员，整个商业世界瞬间停滞。 --- ### [01:30:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=5441s) 资产价格回调：给年轻一代的罕见历史红利 加洛韦话锋一转指出，从宏观生态来看，衰退在某种程度上是健康的，它能代谢掉繁荣期积累的“脂肪沉积物”（fatty deposits），而走出衰退的阶段往往是开创新事业的最佳契机，因为此时人力更便宜、物料更低廉，人们被迫用全新的视角审视商业。对于20多岁、有才能且尚未背负房贷、子女重担的年轻人来说，一场摧毁资产泡沫的衰退不仅不可怕，反而是天赐良机。 他以自己的财富积累为例：2008年金融危机爆发后，政府救助了银行但并未直接托举整个经济，导致资产价格暴跌。当时加洛韦四十出头，正值收入爆发的黄金期，幸运的是他依然能够赚取高额收入。于是在2009年资产见底时，他以每股8美元、10美元和12美元的白菜价，大举买入了亚马逊（Amazon）、苹果（Apple）和奈飞（Netflix）。这些公司在随后的十几年里实现了超过20倍的涨幅。加洛韦指出，人生在财务上清晰地分为两个阶段：“投资期”（investing part）与“收获期”（harvesting part）。年轻一代正处在投资期，在这个阶段，最渴望见到的本应是低廉的资产价格，但如今放眼望去，苹果、英伟达不可能再涨20倍，布鲁克林的房产每平方英尺高达3000美元，市场上根本找不到任何便宜的价值洼地。 --- ### [01:32:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=5561s) 代际剥削：靠透支未来给婴儿潮一代兜底 加洛韦严厉谴责了当前欧美政策对年轻世代的系统性掠夺。现在的政府政策彻底违背了市场规律，实行“不让任何东西破产”的兜底政策，用赤字财政与救助计划人为托市。他以讨论中的精神航空（Spirit Airlines）5亿美元政府贷款为例，直言这种政府救助本质上就是“年轻人把钱转移给老年人”——因为持有精神航空股票和面临破产风险的老板都是老年人，而渴望便宜资产的则是年轻人。 在加洛韦看来，经营不善的企业就应当被允许破产，资产价格必须下跌。然而在新冠疫情期间，政府出资救助了所有婴儿潮一代的餐馆与小企业主，这种做法实际上剥夺了刚从烹饪学院毕业的年轻人的机会，让他们失去了以极低价格接盘餐馆的入场券。他犀利地批判道，老一代掌权者选择“刷爆年轻人的信用卡”，用源源不断的公共债务来平滑老年人的资产曲线，确保老年人的资产永不缩水，但这彻底阻断了年轻人的阶级跃升之路。 --- ### [01:34:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=5675s) 动荡周期的生存指南：资产配置与青年财富法则 面对经济前景的高度不确定性与年轻人的财富焦虑，加洛韦给出了针对不同人生阶段的具体建议。就他个人而言，由于已经处于守成阶段，核心目标是“避免变穷”而非继续暴富，因此他推行极致的分散化配置（diversification）： - 在任何单一资产上的投资比例绝不超过总净资产的3%。 - 逐步从估值过高的美股市场撤出，将资金分散配置到拉丁美洲和欧洲市场。 - 保持对另类资产的关注，例如他与儿子一起投资宝可梦卡牌（Pokémon cards），他认为当前除收藏品外的大多数传统资产都存在严重的估值过高风险，随时可能腰斩。 对于资金有限（例如手里仅有1万美元）、处于职业初期的年轻人，加洛韦给出了截然相反但极其实用的策略： 1. **最好的ROI是投资自己**：年轻时没有任何投资的回报率比得上提升专业技能、寻找高速成长的行业并拼命工作（"working your ass off"），或者加入高速增长的公司争取股票期权。 2. **强制储蓄机制（截留收入）**：年轻人普遍存不住钱，“如果手里拿到100美元，就会花掉105美元”。因此最关键的技巧是利用一切自动扣款、雇主配捐（matching program）或理财工具，在收入进账前直接拦截，自动投入低成本指数基金（low-cost index funds），让自己根本看不到这笔钱。 3. **划分娱乐性本金**：可以将不超过30%的资本拿去“碰运气”，比如买入英伟达或自认为能战胜市场的热门标的。年轻人在这个过程中终会碰壁并认识到自己无法战胜大盘，但这种尝试有助于建立对市场的客观敬畏。真正的致富从来没有捷径，唯一的底层逻辑始终是控制消费、稳定定投并专注于自我提升。 ### [01:36:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=5769s) 慢慢变富的秘密与时间复利的魔力 斯科特·加洛韦（Scott Galloway）直言，真正可靠的致富方式只有一个：慢慢变富。最切实可行的路径，就是保证每个月都有一笔固定资金投入低费率的指数基金（low-cost index funds）。至于试图去预测和下注“下一个风口”——哪怕是如今炙手可热的 AI 赛道——他坦言任何宣称自己能准确预判未来的人都是在信口开河。加洛韦幽默地指出，好消息是他确实掌握变富的方法，坏消息是过程非常缓慢，且需要极强的自律。对于年轻人而言，最关键的是尽早养成存钱习惯：十几岁时每月存 25 美元，二十几岁增至 100 美元，再到 500 美元、1,000 美元。只要坚持这一策略，哪怕未来没有成为白金唱片歌手、畅销书作家，或是打造出一个播客商业帝国，财务上也绝对会安然无恙。 加洛韦强调，个人的精力应当放在职业聚焦上：找到自己擅长的事，深耕成为不可替代的高手，从而获得溢价与利润率（margin）；在此基础上保持克制、拼命做资产分散化，然后将剩下的全盘托付给“时间”。看着坐在对面的史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett），加洛韦感慨自己常觉得自己也和史蒂芬一样年轻，但一照镜子却猛然惊觉自己“离死大概只剩五年了”。岁月如白驹过隙，他为史蒂芬打了个“魔法盒子”的比方：如果有一个盒子，放入 10 万美元，等到了加洛韦这个年纪就会变成 100 万美元，而在主观感知中，这漫长的几十年其实快得就像“一秒钟”，那么一个人当下愿意往这个盒子里放多少钱？复利的威力和时间的流逝速度，是年轻人最该敬畏和利用的杠杆。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 财富与人生的复利循环机制 accDescr: 展示从技能深耕、资本积累到抗挫力与关系的长期复利过程 subgraph Capital ["资本与复利积累"] A["深耕擅长领域获取溢价"] --> B["自律储蓄并定投低费率指数基金"] B --> C["资产极度分散化，利用时间复利"] end subgraph Network ["人际与抗挫资产"] D["在早期善待他人、投资年轻伙伴"] --> E["关系网络在50岁后转化为复利资产"] F["坦然承受失败并坚决重返牌桌"] --> A end ``` --- ### [01:37:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=5861s) 早期关系的投资同样具有强大的复利效应 除了将资金投入低费率指数基金，加洛韦认为唯一值得大力押注的，就是投资自己以及投资人际关系。对自己的投资体现在学习技能、获取资质认证；而对人际关系的投资，则是在年轻时尽可能多地为他人施以善意、提供力所能及的帮助。这种在他人微末之时给予的提携，其复合回报往往超越金钱。人们一生都会铭记那些在自己年轻且无权无势时伸手拉过一把的人，这种感恩会转化为长期的忠诚。 谈及此处，加洛韦问起史蒂芬初创时期为他注资 5,000 美元的投资人。史蒂芬深有感触地透露，自己刚在那个周末给那位名叫阿利斯泰尔（Alistair）的恩人发了感谢信。史蒂芬解释说，当年最重要的其实根本不是那 5,000 美元本身，而是一个极其聪慧且有威望的人看着他，并对他说“我相信你”。这份认可让史蒂芬有底气去面对当时忽视他创业梦想的母亲，并真正开始相信自己的潜力。加洛韦总结道，在年轻时给他人一个工作机会、发一条鼓励的短信、当面夸赞对方的才华，这些看似微小的善举如同投资一样会不断滚雪球；当你 50 岁醒来时，会发现当年积攒的情谊已经变成了不可思议的情感与人脉资产。 - **核心资产配置**：低费率指数基金 + 个人技能提升 + 早期人际关系网络。 - **人际复利本质**：在对方尚未成名时给予无条件的信任与背书，其心理价值远超资金本身。 --- ### [01:39:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=5954s) 超级力量是抗击打能力：脸上中弹后重新站起来 当史蒂芬询问哪项底层心智或哲学决策带来了最大的财富跃迁时，加洛韦将自己的“超级力量”归结为极致的抗挫韧性（resilience）。他坦言自己在职业和个人生活中无数次“迎面被人开枪击中”，但他允许自己哀悼片刻后，便拍拍灰尘重新站起来再去融资、创立下一家公司。回顾过往履历，他曾创办一家电商孵化器，开张 6 个月便宣告倒闭；2002 年上市的电商公司经历了破产重组（Restructuring，他戏称这是破产的高级叫法）；2008 年创办的视频分发公司同样化为泡影。客观算下来，他的战绩大概是“三胜四负两平”，失败的次数远多于成功。无论是求学被拒、单恋落空、遭公司解雇，还是企业清盘，他总能站在镜子前重塑自我认同：“我依然能为公司创造价值，我依然能再次拉到投资，我依然能让别人感到幸福。” 加洛韦指出，商业世界的客观规律是“七家创业公司里只有一家能成”，既然概率如此，他就一口气创立了九家，用高频次的出棒来对冲失控的运气。他观察到很多华尔街与对冲基金圈的精英朋友，在 1990 年代和 2000 年代初期被称为“宇宙主宰”（Masters of the universe），每年轻松赚取一两百万甚至三百万美元。然而，当这些一生从未品尝过失败滋味的人（名校毕业、一路平步青云）自立门户募集基金并遭遇第一次暴击时，很多人瞬间失去了身上的精气神（mojo），信心彻底崩溃，从此一蹶不振。加洛韦认为，真正决定一个人能否获得终极成就的，不是从未跌倒，而是在公开受辱、给投资人打电话坦承关门大吉之后，依然拥有再次站上击球区的勇气。 --- ### [01:42:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=6129s) 顺境保持谦卑，逆境学会原谅：没有什么是表面看起来那般极端 面对 30 出头、事业如日中天的史蒂芬，即将年满 62 岁的加洛韦分享了他认为未来 30 年年轻人最该领悟的人生法则：“任何事情都绝没有它看起来那么好，也绝没有它看起来那么坏。”（"Nothing's ever as good or as bad as it seems."）在对话中，加洛韦拿自己的外貌和年龄开涮，调侃自己能显得年轻全靠睾酮替代疗法（TRT）。回到正题，他严肃告诫史蒂芬：人在大获成功、风头正劲时，必须极度谦逊，因为大部分所谓的成功其实受控于宏观环境而非个人能力。如果宏观经济遭遇冲击、地缘政治恶化导致市场冻结，眼前的光环可能在一夜之间烟消云散，而那并不是创业者的过错；同理，眼下的辉煌也并非全靠个人英明。 加洛韦毫无保留地剖析了自己年轻时的狂妄：1999 年互联网泡沫顶峰、公司筹备上市期间，他甚至开始四处看私人飞机，自以为无所不能，对待前妻傲慢刻薄，狂妄地将一切运气与时代红利归功于自身的坚毅与品格。这番惨痛的教训让他明白，顺境时绝不能被外界的吹捧蒙蔽双眼；而逆境溃败时，也切记放过自己，因为很多灾难同样不受个人意志控制。加洛韦感慨，人在行将就木时回顾一生中最灰暗的低谷，往往不会为事件本身感到难过，而是会遗憾“自己当时竟然被打击得如此消沉、自责了那么久”。无论是失恋、被解雇还是破产，一切都会过去，懂得自我原谅并拥抱快乐，是人生最核心的修行。 | 处境状态 | 典型心理误区 | 加洛韦的应对准则 | 潜在后果/认知真相 | |:--- |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **巅峰顺境** | 沉迷光环，以为成功全凭个人才华与毅力 | 保持极度谦卑，把资源和精力投资给他人 | 大多数顺境只是身处正确的时代与位置，宏观黑天鹅随时可能将其夺走 | | **低谷挫败** | 丧失信心，陷入长期的自我惩罚与悔恨 | 学会原谅自己，清醒认知许多失败非个人之过 | 临终时人们最遗憾的不是灾难本身，而是当时让自己被悲伤困顿了太久 | ### [01:44:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=6286s) 走出孤岛：从职业狂热到重新投资人际关系 Scott Galloway 回顾自己 25 到 45 岁的岁月，坦言自己曾完全陷在“仓鼠跑轮”（hamster wheel）式的拼搏中，总觉得赚的钱不够，全部个人认同感都绑在事业上。在那漫长的二十年里，他几乎没有建立起任何健康深厚的关系，虽然朋友很多、也会保持联络，但他从未真正向人际交往投入精力。40 岁出头时，他经历离婚并决定搬到纽约，过上一种完全没有任何社会责任和束缚的生活。他形容当时的自己宛如一个“低配版的霍华德·休斯”（a poorer version of Howard Hughes），甚至像个穴居人：呆在公寓里，偶尔出门只是为了找吃的、喝点酒或找乐子。起初他极度享受这种没有任何牵挂、没有义务的状态。 然而，在大量阅读关于幸福感与长寿的文献后，他猛然警醒：如果继续这样自我孤立、彻底切断与外界的连接，自己大概率活不过 55 岁。于是他下定决心走出封闭，主动重新盘活旧友圈，有意识地投入精力经营人际关系。他建议处于 30 多岁的人群，一定要尽可能多地向人际关系“投资”，因为这种连接在未来会带来不可估量的回报；而最重要的第一步，就是学会原谅过去的自己。 - 25 岁至 45 岁期间将全部精力押注在职业成功上，忽视了深层关系的建立。 - 离婚后搬到纽约，曾一度享受毫无拘束的隐居式生活，但随后意识到极度孤独对健康和寿命是致命毒药。 - 认识到人际关系需要有意识地经营与投入，而不是被动等待。 --- ### [01:46:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=6368s) 重新定义“人生意义”：一场无法计算投资回报率的奉献 当主持人提起“成为父亲”的话题时，Scott 坦言自己最初根本不想要孩子，甚至坚信没有孩子人生也能过得很快乐。他走上为人父的道路几乎是被“逼”出来的——当时他的伴侣人品极佳、容貌出众，她非常渴望要小孩，而坚决表态“绝不再婚”的 Scott 最终被伴侣一句“我们不需要结婚”彻底打破了防线。 这也彻底颠覆了 Scott 过去看待“人生意义（Purpose）”的视角。过去他习惯用一种扭曲的纯资本主义思维来衡量一切：要求友谊的索取多于付出、要求投资的回报大于本金、希望给员工发的薪水低于其创造的价值，把一切关系都当作自己必须占据优势的交易。但他最终发现，所谓的“人生意义”，恰恰在于找到一件你“永远不可能获得正向资本回报（positive ROI）”的事物： ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 资本交易思维与人生意义奉献思维的对比 accDescr: 展示从追求单向利润回报的商业思维转变为对家庭与使命单向无限付出的过程。 subgraph Capitalist["资本交易思维 (商业逻辑)"] A["付出资源/金钱"] --> B["追求超额回报 (Positive ROI)"] B --> C["一切皆为利己算计"] end subgraph Purpose["人生意义思维 (无私奉献)"] D["抚养孩子 / 崇高使命"] --> E["无法计量的爱、焦虑与金钱投入"] E --> F["无法获得对等物质回报"] F --> G["收获纯粹的人生使命感 (Purpose)"] end ``` 养育孩子就是最典型的例子。无论以后给孩子住多好的房子，孩子永远不可能在凌晨两点为父母彻夜失眠，他们不可能在物质或情感上对等偿还父母倾注的关切与焦虑。Scott 举例指出，退伍军人往往是对国家最忠诚、最自豪的人群，因为国家根本无法等价补偿他们离开家庭、拿生命去冒险的代价——正是因为这份投资永远无法在物质层面“回本”，它才转化成了崇高且无可替代的使命感。无论是投身公益、拯救流浪动物、维护女性身体自主权，还是养育后代，真正的使命感正是在这种“甘愿过度付出、不再拿天平去衡量”的体验中诞生的。 --- ### [01:48:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=6500s) 携手创造的意义：从双人创业到抚养下一代 除了抚养孩子，Scott 强调“与伴侣共同构建事物”同样具有非凡的奖赏感。他用经常出差住酒店打了个生动的比方：自己总是在形单影只时被免费升级到富丽堂皇的“总统套房”，但如果没有人与你同享，这种升级就像根本没发生过一样空虚。在商业上，他最享受、最有成就感的项目无一例外是与合伙人（co-founder）共同打拼并收获成功的成果；在家庭中，看着孩子经历健康与身心起伏，最终成长为善良优秀的人，并且这一切是你与伴侣携手打磨出来的，那种满足感是任何单打独斗都无法比拟的。 谈及何时为人父母，Scott 指出世界上从来没有所谓“生孩子的完美时机”。他唯一的硬性建议是： - 经济上要有基本的稳定：2008 年金融危机期间他一度破产，恰逢孩子出生，那成了他人生中最窒息的压力源。 - 伴侣必须具备极高的“办事能力（competence）”：育儿就像指挥一个庞大的装甲坦克师（Panzer tank division），琐碎事务繁杂庞大，伴侣的靠谱与能力至关重要。 当他谈及两个儿子时，眼中泛起泪光，声音充满哽咽。他坦言自己离世前脑海中浮现的最后一个画面，绝对会是孩子们；对儿子的爱与责任，毫无疑问是他这辈子做过的最具有奖赏感的事情。 --- ### [01:50:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=6621s) “做牧羊人而非工程师”：接纳两个性格截然相反的孩子 Scott 坦率承认，自己并不是在孩子刚出生的那一刻就立刻母爱/父爱泛滥的。面对新生儿，他最初感受到的只有沉重的责任与焦虑，甚至因为习惯了以往以自我为中心的生活而感到不适。他对孩子们的爱是一点一滴、缓慢生长出来的。有趣的是，他的两个儿子呈现出完全相反的极端个性： | 孩子 | 个性特征与外在表征 | Scott 的互动与感受 | |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **大儿子** | 宛如 17、18 岁时的自己复刻：高瘦身形（6尺1寸、130磅）、青春期糟糕的皮肤、相似的笑声，天生具有讨好型人格（pleaser），周末会跑进父母卧室站起来说“我们来定个计划吧”。 | 拥抱大儿子就像拥抱当年的自己，有一种奇妙而深层的自恋式迷恋与疼爱。 | | **二儿子** | 完全像“外星物种”，思维与行事逻辑与父亲截然不同；机警敏锐，如同在家里四处寻找防守漏洞、专门挑软肋发难的“小恐怖分子”。 | 充满不可思议的观察欲，惊叹于自己竟然能创造出一个与自己如此截然不同的生命。 | Scott 幽默地总结道：如果一个人想彻底理解“先天遗传胜过全盘后天教养（nature over nurture）”，那就去生两个孩子。即便生长在同样的家庭、接受相同的照料，两个孩子的本质也会天差地别。 他借用前第一夫人米歇尔·奥巴马（Michelle Obama）以及儿童心理学家的经典比喻：父母总以为自己是能够捏造泥土的“工程师”，但实际上父母只是“牧羊人”。父母可以决定喂他们吃什么草料、引导大致的前进方向，但孩子天生的本质是既定的。从前 Scott 幻想儿子们会长大陪他看二战老电影、一起练 CrossFit，但现实中他却在深夜陪着儿子研究宝可梦卡牌（Pokémon cards）。他深切体会到，做一个好父亲的真正奥秘在于彻底放下成年人的自私——即便自己彻底告别了奢华悠闲的早午餐和圣巴泰勒米岛（St. Barts）度假，即便必须熬夜去了解自己毫无兴趣的宝可梦，也要全身心沉浸并拥抱孩子所热爱的一切。 ### [01:53:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=6805s) 家庭与育儿带来的踏实感，以及新书《成为男人的沉思录》 步入家庭与养育子女后，一种前所未有的松弛与解脱感会悄然降临。斯考特坦言，为人父母彻底打破了那种时刻想要在外界证明自己“非同凡响、光芒万丈”的虚妄执念。当周末的日程变得简单而笃定——无非是去参加某场略显乏味的四岁小孩生日聚会，或是带孩子去踢足球赛——这种看似琐碎的生活节奏反而带来了一种令人释怀的踏实与自由。与伴侣共同构建家庭，注视着孩子一天天变化、听他们提出各种稀奇古怪的问题，人便会在这个过程中找寻到真正的使命感。不过斯考特也特别说明，这种生活路径因人而异并非放之四海而皆准，没有孩子的人同样可以过得非常幸福。 史蒂文随后提到了斯考特当时刚出版的新作《成为男人的沉思录》（*Notes on Being a Man: How to Address the Masculinity Crisis: Build Mental Strength and Raise Men*）。他表示身边无论是男性还是女性朋友，都在热烈讨论这本书，因为现代社会太缺少一份关于“如何在当代做一个好男人”的清晰指引。书中涵盖了善良、做个好父亲的真谛，以及勇敢走出家门、去积极迎战现实世界的强韧意志。斯考特谈及创作初衷时坦言，他在动笔时心中只有一个纯粹的目标：“我希望三四十年后，我的儿子们读到我写的东西时，能觉得他们对我、对这个世界有了一点更深刻的理解。” 斯考特以此作为克服恐惧的盔甲。在当下充斥着严苛叙事与政治正统观念的舆论环境中，任何立场的人都极易被舆论绑架或噤声；唯有将写作视作“跨越二三十年与自己儿子的私密对话”，才能彻底摆脱外界杂音的胁迫，保持最赤诚真实的表达。 - **家庭生活的心理红利**：从追求外在光鲜转向日常陪伴的平实自由，在抚养孩子的互动中获得确定的人生目标。 - **《成为男人的沉思录》的核心关切**：正视男性危机、建立心理韧性、学会温柔善良与主动面对外界挑战。 - **斯考特的写作准则**：不迎合任何政治正确或既定叙事，完全以一位父亲留给后代的坦诚家书为立足点。 --- ### [01:55:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=6925s) 终极拷问：人生最大的挫折与不可磨灭的丧母之痛 节目进入每期固定的收尾传统环节——由上一位未曾谋面的嘉宾为斯考特留下一道盲盒问题：“用一句话概括，你经历过最艰难的挫折是什么？你希望传递给他人的经验教训又是何物？” 面对这个问题，斯考特脱口而出：“那很简单，是我母亲的去世；你永远无法过多地向父母表达爱意。一定要原谅他们。”他回忆道，母亲当年走得很缓慢，这对遭受病痛折磨的母亲而言无比残忍，但对他而言却成了一种庆幸，因为他有机会在最后的时光里倾尽所有，没有留下任何未曾言说的遗憾。 说到此处，斯考特难以抑制汹涌的情绪，当场哽咽落泪。当史蒂文轻声询问他此刻正在经历何种情绪时，斯考特红着眼眶直言：“我无比想念我的母亲。我是一个至今依然没有走出丧母之痛的中年男人。”母亲是他生命中的明灯，当年仅凭一份微薄的秘书薪水独自将他抚养成人，不仅为他撑起了一片天，更赋予了他面对世界的所有自信。 --- ### [01:57:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=7033s) 悲伤是爱的代价，以及收尾时的诙谐调侃 史蒂文见状温和地追问，面对这样的长久伤痛，是否有什么办法能够真正“走出来”。斯考特斩钉截铁地回答：“我不想走出来。我认为悲伤就是爱的收据（The receipts for love is grief）。我希望未来我的儿子们对我也有同样的感情。”这份未曾消散的哀思并没有阻碍他的正常生活，反而让他敢于在情感表达上更加大胆赤诚。 斯考特透露，自己过去曾将这种放不下的执念视为一种心理疾病，甚至专门去接受过悲伤心理咨询（Grief counseling）；但如今他彻底释怀，明白这根本“不是缺陷，而是一种特性（not a bug, but a feature）”。爱所对应的代价就是无尽的悲伤与焦虑。他借此勉励所有年轻人：愿大家一生中不仅能享有丰沛的快乐，也能经历相当分量的悲伤，因为唯有深切拥有过至亲至爱的人，才有资格承受这般沉重而珍贵的悲痛。 随着这声沉甸甸的“阿门”，演播室内的沉重氛围随之化开。斯考特随即恢复了惯有的幽默风趣，大声向史蒂文表达感谢，并调侃起对方飞速膨胀的商业与播客帝国：“祝贺你那日益膨胀的庞大帝国！我的老天啊，这简直失控了！每次我来这儿都忍不住想：‘直升机都停哪儿呢？’用不了多久，你演播室旁边恐怕就要拔地而起一座核电站了！”斯考特笑称，前不久自己带着孩子们在机场时，抬头就看见史蒂文高达上百英尺的巨幅广告牌，让他当场忍不住喊话“快停手吧”。两人在欢笑声中为这场兼具深度商业洞察与厚重人性温度的对话画上了句号。 ## Notable quotes > [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=0s) 别再抱怨能源成本了，想想养育一个孩子需要消耗多少能量吧。 — 山姆·奥特曼 > [26:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=1597s) AI 本身并不一定会直接抢走你的饭碗，但一个精通 AI 的人必然会取代你。 — 斯科特·加洛韦 > [35:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=2100s) 想要超越自己的阶层去博弈，就得拿出一把大勺子，做好咽下苦果的准备。 — 斯科特·加洛韦 > [39:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=2397s) 只要能赚到五分钱，这帮人连自己的表亲都能出卖。 — 斯科特·加洛韦 > [01:03:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=3818s) 你们会杀死我们很多人，我们也会杀死你们一些人；但最终你们会疲倦，然后打道回府。 — 胡志明 > [01:19:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=4752s) 如果它们打一个喷嚏，全球经济都可能患上重感冒。 — 斯科特·加洛韦 > [01:22:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=4936s) AI 终结了 AI 自身的超额利润。 — 斯科特·加洛韦 > [01:29:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=5369s) 所谓经济衰退，就是每隔七年就会发生一次的事情。 — 杰米·戴蒙 > [01:42:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=6129s) 任何事情都绝没有它看起来那么好，也绝没有它看起来那么坏。 — 斯科特·加洛韦 > [01:57:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc&t=7033s) 悲伤就是爱的收据。爱所对应的代价就是无尽的悲伤与焦虑。 — 斯科特·加洛韦 ## Mentioned 斯科特·加洛韦 (Scott Galloway), 史蒂芬·巴特利特 (Steven Bartlett), 山姆·奥特曼 (Sam Altman), 埃隆·马斯克 (Elon Musk), 达里奥·阿莫代伊 (Dario Amodei), 杰夫·贝索斯 (Jeff Bezos), 黄仁勋 (Jensen Huang), 亚历克斯·卡普 (Alex Karp), 亚当·诺依曼 (Adam Neumann), 孙正义 (Masayoshi Son), 史蒂夫·乔布斯 (Steve Jobs), 雪莉·桑德伯格 (Sheryl Sandberg), 马克·扎克伯格 (Mark Zuckerberg), JD·万斯 (JD Vance), 卡拉·斯威舍 (Kara Swisher), 内塔尼亚胡 (Benjamin Netanyahu), 唐纳德·特朗普 (Donald Trump), 杰米·戴蒙 (Jamie Dimon), 卡洛斯·斯利姆 (Carlos Slim), OpenAI, Anthropic, Meta, Amazon, SpaceX, Tesla, Alphabet, BYD (比亚迪), Starlink, AirPods, Kiva Systems, Optimus, GLP-1, Ozempic, 《成为男人的沉思录》 (Notes on Being a Man) ## Video description AI CEOs are selling us the dream of ‘freedom’, making billions off the fear of mass job loss! Scott Galloway reveals the truth is more complicated and far more deceptive. Scott Galloway is an NYU Stern Professor of Marketing, entrepreneur, and host of The Prof G Pod and Pivot. He is known for breaking down the biggest shifts in business, technology, wealth, and culture. He is also the bestselling author of books such as The Four, The Algebra of Happiness, and Post Corona. He explains: ◼️Why the AI job apocalypse is just marketing hype ◼️How AI is making the rich richer while leaving ordinary people anxious ◼️Why Sam Altman, Elon Musk, and Big Tech leaders should not be blindly trusted ◼️How robots and AI will reshape work, but may not destroy it completely ◼️Why storytelling, relationships, and resilience may become the most valuable skills ◼️Why young men are losing the ability to handle rejection ◼️How billionaires are quietly separating themselves from society 00:00:00 Intro 00:02:45 What’s Actually True About AI 00:05:00 Are AI CEOs Exaggerating The Future To Raise Billions? 00:09:00 What Would Prove The AI Skeptics Wrong? 00:11:05 Could AI Move Too Fast For Society To Handle? 00:16:05 What Happens When AI Combines With Robots? 00:19:05 Is Elon Musk Selling Vision or Reality? 00:24:05 Which Jobs Are First To Disappear In The AI Shift? 00:30:05 What Skills Will Actually Matter In The Future? 00:33:45 Are Young People Losing The Ability To Handle Rejection? 00:39:55 Can You Trust The People Building AI? 00:44:50 Are Tech Leaders Quietly Preparing For The End? 00:52:00 Do Some AI Leaders Believe The Risk Is Worth It? 00:58:04 Ads 01:00:05 Could AI Make Us More Human? 01:05:00 What Happens When AI Becomes Your Closest Companion 01:10:00 The Hidden Trade-Off Between Convenience And Real Relationships 01:15:00 Why Loneliness Could Explode 01:19:26 The Real Reason Human Connection Might Become More Valuable 01:25:00 What This Means For The Next Generation 01:30:00 How Power, Politics, And AI Are Becoming Intertwined 01:35:00 The Dangerous Gap Between Technology And Regulation 01:40:00 What Happens If Governments Can’t Keep Up With AI 01:45:00 The Future Of Work, Power, And Who Really Wins 01:50:00 Why The Biggest AI Risks Aren’t What You’ve Been Told Follow Scott Galloway: Instagram - https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/vBFaVJ X - https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/16DDqOa YouTube - https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/D5fzguH Website - https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/5Vfyd55 You can purchase Scott’s book, ‘Notes on Being a Man’, here: https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/D2dQqxN Sponsors: Linkedin Talent Solutions - http://linkedin.com/DOAC Function Health - https://Functionhealth.com/DOAC to sign up for $365 a year. One dollar a day for your health [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdU6UdUKaYc)

[0:00] 山姆·奥特曼: 别再抱怨能源成本了，想想养育一个孩子需要消耗多少能量吧。 [26:37] 斯科特·加洛韦: AI 本身并不一定会直接抢走你的饭碗，但一个精通 AI 的人必然会取代你。 [35:00] 斯科特·加洛韦: 想要超越自己的阶层去博弈，就得拿出一把大勺子，做好咽下苦果的准备。 [39:57] 斯科特·加洛韦: 只要能赚到五分钱，这帮人连自己的表亲都能出卖。 [63:38] 胡志明: 你们会杀死我们很多人，我们也会杀死你们一些人；但最终你们会疲倦，然后打道回府。 [79:12] 斯科特·加洛韦: 如果它们打一个喷嚏，全球经济都可能患上重感冒。 [82:16] 斯科特·加洛韦: AI 终结了 AI 自身的超额利润。 [89:29] 杰米·戴蒙: 所谓经济衰退，就是每隔七年就会发生一次的事情。 [102:09] 斯科特·加洛韦: 任何事情都绝没有它看起来那么好，也绝没有它看起来那么坏。 [117:13] 斯科特·加洛韦: 悲伤就是爱的收据。爱所对应的代价就是无尽的悲伤与焦虑。

[5:00] Scott Galloway: Catastrophizing and talking about this massive destruction in jobs is a way of justifying the massive investments these companies want enterprises to make... I'm Dr. Frankenstein and I've created this monster, but I don't know how to deal with it, so I'm going to go peace out to Saint-Tropez. [11:05] Scott Galloway: Old media is going to lose jobs, but you're creating... How many people have you hired in the last 24 months across all of your companies? About 220. And those are high-paying jobs... young people making six figures plus. [19:05] Scott Galloway: Musk in particular is very good at saying 'look over here' as he stuffs a rabbit into a hat. Tesla is an automobile company... so it's constantly 'look over here' because I think it's very difficult to justify the valuations he's raising money at. [24:05] Scott Galloway: AI is not going to take your job. Someone who understands AI is going to take your job. [29:24] Scott Galloway: I can no longer perceive a calendar. I can't tell you what I have next. For some reason, I used to be able to do a Scotsman accent... like no one's business a few years ago. That part of my brain has died. And when I try to do an accent, it sounds like a dead language that twins speak to each other and it offends everybody. [33:42] Scott Galloway: The goal is 'no.' Because what's going to happen is you might get a 'no'... And then I'm going to call you the next day and I'm going to say, 'Are you okay?' And the answer is going to be 'yes.'... The secret to my success is rejection. [39:57] Scott Galloway: The closest thing we have to religion is technology... Most of the time when we're on AI, we're kind of praying. We're sending a question into the echo to a being thinking it's smarter than us and it's going to come back with an empathetic, loving, correct answer. So the new Jesus Christ was born in the '90s and that was Steve Jobs... And the new Jesus Christ, if you will, are these tech CEOs. And here's what we fail to understand: they do not have our best interests at heart. [89:29] Jamie Dimon: something that happens every seven years. [99:14] Scott Galloway: I've lost... I've had more losses than wins. Every time I've been rejected from a school, my affections weren't returned... I got fired, I had a company go out of business... The pivotal moment in my professional success was a willingness to say, 'Okay, I just got shot in the face. The whole world says I'm a failure... I mourn, and then I go out and I raise more money.' [101:45] Scott Galloway: The key to success is getting shot in the face and then just getting up again. [113:58] Steven Bartlett: In one sentence, what is the most challenging setback you've experienced, and what's the lesson you want to pass on to others? [113:58] Scott Galloway: I miss my mom terribly. I'm a middle-aged man who hasn't gotten over the death of his mother. Light of my life.

[0:00] I think the greatest brand destruction [0:01] over the last 18 months is the US brand [0:04] abroad and AI. So with America, Trump [0:06] has been convinced that this was his [0:08] defining moment of being known as the [0:09] president that liberated the Middle [0:11] East. But I think the Trump [0:12] administration will [music] be known for [0:13] criminal corruption and incompetence. [0:15] And that incompetence is bubbling up. [0:17] And then the second greatest fall is AI. [0:20] And also Sam Alman who's gone to the [0:22] dark side. And I'm an AI optimist. But [0:24] here's what we fail to understand. These [0:26] techs, they do not have our best [0:28] interests at heart. Scott, I often come [0:30] to you to help myself form my opinions [0:32] on some of the most sort of [0:33] consequential issues going on in the [0:34] world. And when I look at some of the [0:36] quotes from the CEOs of these AI [0:37] companies, I've got one here from Elon [0:38] that says, "AI and robots will replace [0:40] all jobs." What's your view here? I [0:42] think it's mostly the catastrophizing is [0:44] nothing more than thinly veiled attempt [0:46] to say my technology is so devastating [0:48] that it's going to shift society and you [0:50] should invest at this crazy valuation. [0:52] And the data doesn't reflect that [0:54] there's some big exogenous meteor coming [0:56] for the employment market. But I believe [0:58] it's actually going to create more jobs [1:00] than it destroys. But the scary thing [1:01] for me is that because of AI and because [1:04] of these frictionless relationships that [1:06] people are engaging in online. I think a [1:08] lot of young people are losing the [1:09] ability to endure rejection. But I think [1:11] a more important technology in terms of [1:13] how it's going to change the world and [1:14] what will create more shareholder value [1:15] is not AI. It's really [1:20] >> This is super interesting to me. My team [1:22] given me this report to show me how many [1:23] of you that watch this show subscribe. [1:25] And some of you have told us according [1:26] to this that you are unsubscribed from [1:28] the channel randomly. So favor to ask [1:30] all of you please could you check right [1:32] now if you've hit the subscribe button [1:34] if you are a regular viewer of the show [1:35] and you like what we do here. We're [1:36] approaching quite a significant landmark [1:38] on this show in terms of a subscriber [1:40] number. [clears throat] So if there was [1:41] one simple free thing that you could do [1:43] to help us, my team, everyone here to [1:45] keep this show free, to keep it [1:47] improving year over year and week over [1:49] week, it is just to hit that subscribe [1:50] button and to double check if you've hit [1:52] it. Only thing I'll ever ask of you. Do [1:54] we have a deal? If you do it, I'll tell [1:55] you what I'll do. I'll make sure every [1:58] single week, every single month, we [1:59] fight harder and harder and harder and [2:00] harder to bring you the guests and [2:02] conversations that you want to hear. [2:03] I've stayed true to that promise since [2:04] the very beginning of the D of Sio, and [2:06] I will not let you down. Please help us. [2:09] Really appreciate it. Let's get on with [2:10] the show. [2:12] [music] [2:16] [music] [2:18] Scott, welcome back. I um I often come [2:22] to you to help myself form my opinions [2:24] on some of the most sort of [2:25] consequential issues going on in the [2:27] world because I I find you always have a [2:29] very interesting perspective and one of [2:31] the things that's been front of mind for [2:33] me and I think the audience as well is [2:35] this subject of artificial intelligence. [2:38] It's moving incredibly quickly. It feels [2:39] like a moving target. And I think I saw [2:41] some stats the other day that said the [2:44] subject of artificial intelligence is [2:45] less popular as like an industry than [2:48] even ICE in the United States. Mhm. [2:50] >> In part because the big CEOs of these [2:53] companies are saying that our jobs and [2:54] our way of life is going to be [2:56] fundamentally disrupted and people don't [2:58] feel like they have a say in that. We [2:59] didn't choose this. [3:01] >> What's your perspective on everything [3:02] that's going on? [3:03] >> There have been few brands that have [3:05] fallen further faster in the last 18 [3:06] months than two brands. The United [3:08] States brand abroad. We used to be the [3:10] enforcer of the operating system to keep [3:12] rogue nations in check. The US is now [3:14] that rogue nation. So the US brand [3:17] abroad for the first time in history [3:19] more people feel that China is a force [3:21] of good in the world than the US. That's [3:23] never happened before. So the brand US [3:25] has fallen furthest fastest. The second [3:28] greatest fall is AI. Your view of AI is [3:33] directly correlated to your wealth. The [3:35] only cohort that has a positive rating [3:38] of AI is people making over $200,000. [3:41] Because generally speaking, wealthy [3:44] people look at AI as something that's [3:46] fueling their portfolios and uh wealthy [3:49] people are the biggest users of AI. So [3:52] they see it as a positive. They see it [3:53] as innovation. They see it as the S&P [3:55] going up. But if you're [3:58] an average middle class person, what you [4:00] may see is that your electricity bills [4:02] have gone up and you don't even have [4:04] access to invest in these companies. And [4:07] you see some statements from people Sam [4:10] Alman saying, "Stop complaining about [4:12] energy costs. Think about the amount of [4:14] energy it takes to raise a child." So [4:16] they haven't really managed the brand [4:18] well. In the last 18 months, it's gone [4:20] from something kind of scary, but we can [4:22] be optimistic and a wealth creator to [4:24] something that's very scary and [4:26] something that's a wealth creator for [4:27] the wealthiest already. The brand in the [4:29] last 18 months has had tremendous, [4:32] tremendous erosion. When I look at some [4:35] of the quotes from the CEOs of these AI [4:36] companies, I've got one here from Elon [4:37] that says, "AI and robots will replace [4:39] all jobs. Working will be optional, like [4:41] growing your own vegetables instead of [4:43] buying them from a store. The challenge [4:44] will be fulfillment. How do you derive [4:46] fulfillment and meaning in life?" And [4:48] Sam Molman said, "By the end of 2028, [4:50] more of the world's intellectual [4:52] capacity could reside inside data [4:54] centers than outside them." And when I [4:57] went through Sam's blog several times, I [4:59] mean, he's talking about a fairly [5:00] dystopian future. And many of the CEOs [5:02] are I mean even Amadea Enthropic talks a [5:05] lot about you know his his bare case for [5:07] AI and the job disruption that will [5:09] follow and so I think I'm trying to get [5:12] clarity for myself really on like what [5:14] what is the truth what's marketing and [5:16] what's the truth and I want to add [5:18] another point which is I hire a lot of [5:19] people [5:20] >> and I'm already finding that our [5:21] framework specifically for entry-level [5:23] roles [5:24] >> y [5:25] >> has has quite radically changed and so I [5:27] didn't believe this stuff like a lot of [5:29] people told me about oh Sam Alman these [5:30] guys they're doing marketing to make [5:31] their company seem powerful. But then [5:33] when I noticed a change in my own [5:34] behavior when I'm sifting through these [5:36] CVs, yeah, I thought, "Oh, maybe things [5:39] are going to change." I think it's [5:41] mostly and catastrophizing and [5:43] a means of fundraising. Every technology [5:45] in history goes through a similar arc. [5:47] There's some catastrophizing, there's [5:49] some job loss, that increase in [5:52] productivity results in additional [5:53] margin, new business opportunities, and [5:56] employment growth. I don't see any [5:58] reason why this would be any different. [6:00] And I think that catastrophizing and [6:02] talking about this massive destruction [6:04] in jobs is a way of saying or justifying [6:06] the massive investments these companies [6:08] want enterprises to make in their [6:10] companies. Because if you look at the [6:11] amount of capital they have committed [6:13] and the valuations of these companies, [6:15] one of two things needs to happen in the [6:17] next 5 years at least in the US. There [6:18] either needs to be a trillion dollars in [6:20] incremental revenue from new products [6:22] from companies that have licensed AI. So [6:24] L'Oreal does a big site license with say [6:26] open AI. Does it come up with new [6:28] products? It's like how does it justify [6:30] that investment? We're not seeing a lot [6:31] of AI moisturizer or cars that are built [6:34] by AI. I mean, there's AI has hit [6:37] industrialized robots at Amazon, but [6:39] there's not a lot you would call new [6:40] AIdriven or AI products. AI plays a role [6:43] in the background, but it's very hard [6:46] for companies right now to point to [6:48] incremental growth or revenues from AI. [6:50] So, in order to justify these [6:52] valuations, then they have to say, all [6:54] right, there's going to be massive cost [6:56] savings or efficiencies. And there's [6:57] some examples. I think Meta Meta has [7:00] just announced new layoffs because of [7:02] efficiencies they're getting with AI [7:03] targeting. So, one of two things needs [7:05] to happen in the next three three years. [7:07] Either these companies valuations need [7:09] to be cut by 50 or 70%. Or you need a [7:12] massive destruction in the labor market [7:14] that creates tons of efficiencies that [7:16] their customers can then flow to the [7:18] bottom line. And I think what the CEOs [7:20] are saying is that there's going to be [7:21] massive efficiencies. I also think that [7:23] you sound more interesting and it makes [7:25] your technology sound more seinal when [7:28] you say it's changing the world and we [7:30] don't know how to control it. And quite [7:32] frankly, I find it a little bit [7:33] obnoxious [7:34] that some of the founders in key figures [7:36] in AI catastrophize just about the time [7:39] they take a secondary and peace out to [7:41] the Kotazura. That's not helpful. I'm [7:42] I'm Dr. Frankenstein and I've created [7:44] this monster, but I don't know how to [7:46] deal with it. So, I'm going to go peace [7:47] out to Sanrope. That's just not very [7:49] helpful. They always talk about the [7:51] peril. It's like, well, what do you mean [7:52] by that? So, the first the first big [7:55] fear catastrophizing is just this [7:57] unprecedented job destruction. They've [7:59] been talking about that for three years, [8:01] but let's look at the data. The [8:03] unemployment rate in the US is 4 and a [8:04] half%. Among youth, it's 8.8%. [8:08] That is slightly below the historical [8:10] average. The number of new business [8:13] permits or new businesses started per [8:15] capita in the United States has doubled [8:17] in the last 10 years. And we hear about, [8:20] well, what about Meta? They announced [8:21] they were laying off I think eight or [8:22] 10,000 people yesterday. 2019 to 2025 [8:26] they went from 16,000 people to 80. So [8:29] even if they go back to 60,000 it takes [8:31] them back to it takes them back about 24 [8:33] months. So I don't doubt that there'll [8:36] be a real dip or a severe V down in [8:39] certain industries, customer service, [8:41] probably the legal field. But I believe [8:44] over the medium and the long term it's [8:45] actually going to create more jobs than [8:47] it destroys. And I don't I think some of [8:49] the catastrophizing is nothing more than [8:51] thinly veiled attempt to say my [8:53] technology is so devastating that it's [8:56] going to shift society and you should [8:57] invest at this crazy valuation. Could [9:00] you be wrong? Oh 100 I'm wrong all the [9:02] time, Stephen. No, but I mean like [9:04] what's the what's what would have to be [9:05] the case for you to find out that you [9:07] were wrong in terms of how you've [9:08] reasoned up from the first principles of [9:10] your thinking there? [9:11] >> Job destruction, layoffs. [9:13] >> But what would you have misunderstood [9:14] for that to be the case? like what what [9:16] did you miss would you have uh [9:17] misestimated for that to be the case? [9:20] >> Ground zero for the job that was going [9:21] to go go away was radiologists. You [9:24] could scan billions of images and [9:26] radiologists [9:28] kid mama don't let your your daughter [9:30] grow up to be a radiologist cuz that [9:32] job's going away. The new job listings [9:34] for radiologists in 2026 is up because [9:37] what it ends up is that while scanning [9:40] the image is important, it's a small [9:42] part of the job. The value out of a [9:43] radiologist is diagnosing the illness [9:45] and then coming up with a treatment [9:46] plan. And that's as important as ever. [9:49] The number of coders, job listings for [9:51] coders yearon year is up 11%. So people [9:54] who understand how to use these [9:56] technologies and come up with different [9:57] prompts or different means of vibe [9:59] coding that demand has gone up because [10:02] now AI can be applied to almost any [10:04] startup. Where I will be wrong is if [10:06] there is sustained job destruction and [10:08] the new jobs created and new businesses [10:11] and the employment those jobs create [10:12] doesn't keep up with new jobs. And there [10:15] is a scenario you don't need 100% [10:17] unemployment like Musk is predicting. At [10:20] 20% unemployment the French had a [10:22] revolution in Weimar Germany turned very [10:24] ugly. At 20% unemployment especially [10:26] among youth especially young men tend to [10:28] get very angry and take to the streets. [10:31] So you could see a V that's so severe [10:33] even if there's a job recovery if it [10:35] hits 20% unemployment that could cause [10:37] real uh civil unrest. But I just look at [10:41] the data. I look at the employment [10:42] numbers. If you didn't know there was [10:45] this seminal technology that very smart [10:47] people were predict predicting a job [10:49] apocalypse around and you just looked at [10:50] the data, you wouldn't know there's [10:52] anything going on there. the the data [10:55] doesn't reflect that there's some big [10:57] exogenous meteor meteor coming for the [11:00] employment market. Is there a case that [11:02] this technology because it's you know [11:04] built on the internet so it has inherent [11:07] rapid distribution every day anthropic [11:09] release a model chat release something [11:11] it spreads across the world very quickly [11:13] and everybody's updating their [11:14] technology at the speed of light unlike [11:16] the industrial revolution where you had [11:17] to build infrastructure and physical [11:18] infrastructure is there a case that [11:20] because of the speed of this technology [11:22] and the proliferation of it that it will [11:24] be unlike the revolutions of the past [11:26] >> right that's the fear that the V is so [11:29] severe [11:30] >> and so vicious that we don't have time [11:32] to recover and even if there is more [11:33] jobs on the other side that there's too [11:35] much civil unrest around around the V. [11:38] But so far the V doesn't be decelerating [11:41] or diving as quickly as people had [11:43] predicted. I was kind of reminiscing on [11:45] the way over here. I moved here almost [11:48] four years ago. The first thing I did I [11:50] got off a plane at night and I went to [11:52] this amazing party at Annabelle's this [11:54] Brazilian party with all these hot [11:55] people everywhere and I thought I love [11:57] London. And the next morning I woke up [12:00] feeling pretty hung over and my team [12:02] said, "You have this podcast with this [12:04] young guy." And I said, "Cancel, I'm [12:06] hung over." And they said, [laughter] [12:08] they said, "No, he's really up and [12:10] coming. He'll like him. He's a nice [12:12] kid." And I came into this little place [12:14] in Shortitch or wherever with all these [12:16] like cool coffee houses. I had no idea [12:18] who you were. And within two years, you [12:21] were everywhere. It was like I'm [12:24] in the airport and I see your banner on [12:26] your book. And then I get on the plane [12:27] and the safety video has you in it. I'm [12:29] like, make him stop. And my point is [12:33] where I'm going with this is this place [12:35] is like uh I mean it feels like the [12:38] Google Plex. You're hiring like crazy. [12:41] You're one of the most technically [12:43] sophisticated people I know in media and [12:46] yet you're hiring a bunch of organic [12:49] things, walking around and eating and [12:51] and going out and drinking and having [12:53] kids. So you're you're the example. Old [12:56] media is going to lose jobs, but you're [12:59] creating how many people have you hired [13:01] in the last 24 months [13:03] >> across all of our companies? About I'd [13:04] say about 220. [13:06] >> Okay. And those are high-paying jobs. [13:08] Those are young people probably making [13:10] six figures plus. That's a lot of [13:12] employment. So is the BBC or is the [13:15] Daily Mail or whatever laying off [13:16] people? Yeah. But I'm not sure they're [13:17] laying off people faster than you're [13:19] hiring them. [13:19] >> Yeah. And what I found is that we're [13:21] hiring a different type of uh person and [13:23] AI fluency is becoming increasingly [13:25] important. I say the other thing is the [13:28] only thing I noticed was 60 days ago I'm [13:30] I consider myself to be head of [13:31] recruitment. We have a recruitment team [13:32] downstairs and I own a recruitment [13:34] business. But as I go through that inbox [13:36] people that I otherwise [13:38] two months ago ago would have been you [13:41] know jumping to hire, I'm now pausing [13:44] because there's new technology that's [13:46] been launched by these companies in [13:48] America. That means there's alternative [13:50] solutions and that's what's giving me [13:51] pause. People do need to consider ways [13:55] that they can upskill themselves with [13:56] these technologies. [13:57] >> The labor market is definitely reshaping [13:59] and it might reshape faster, but I'm not [14:01] sure it's going to be the apocalypse. [14:02] There'll be winners and losers. For [14:03] example, [14:05] for the last 30 or 40 years, the [14:06] unemployment rate among college grads [14:08] has been lower than non-ol grads. It's [14:11] shifted this year. The unemployment rate [14:13] among non-ol grads because of the boom [14:15] in vocational work is now lower than the [14:17] unemployment rate among college grads. [14:19] >> Mhm. [14:20] >> And if you think about it, you're like, [14:21] okay, well, that's bad for new college [14:23] grads. But at the same time, all of [14:24] these data centers need carpenters, [14:28] welders, plumbers. So, there's been [14:30] booms in other parts of the employment [14:32] market. But yeah, the employment [14:33] market's absolutely reshaping. But when [14:36] I graduated from business school, a lot [14:38] of it, quite frankly, is your generation [14:40] is spoiled. What do I mean by that? When [14:42] I graduated from Berkeley in 1992, 40% [14:44] of us had a job on graduation day. [14:46] Meaning 60% did not have a job. I would [14:49] bet that kids in my class at Stern, I [14:52] bet 40% of them were starting their own [14:54] business [14:55] >> because with AI when I graduated, there [14:58] were two there were two entrepreneurs in [14:59] my class and the second person was my [15:01] co-founder. We were the only business [15:03] started in the high school of business [15:05] from 1992. I would bet there's going to [15:07] be 30 to 50 businesses that are started [15:10] on graduation day. There's kids dropping [15:13] out of their second year of business [15:14] school to start businesses because they [15:15] just raised $10 million in a series A. [15:18] Now, you have to have certain skills, a [15:20] certain type of personality, a certain [15:22] facility with technology. I'm actually [15:24] quite excited about this. We're starting [15:26] to see an uptick in productivity, which [15:28] should result in incremental um [15:30] profitability. Will some people be on [15:32] the wrong side of the trade? Absolutely. [15:34] Do we need to do a better job of [15:36] providing more unemployment, more [15:38] retraining? Denmark spends 2% of GDP on [15:40] retraining and vocational training. We [15:42] spent 2% in the US. So, we're not good [15:45] at retraining. We're really bad at it, [15:47] actually. We're not good at taking care [15:49] of the people on the wrong side. But as [15:51] a global in terms of global employment, [15:53] I just don't I think that [15:54] catastrophizing is is dressed up [15:57] fundraising. [15:58] >> What do you think about what Elon's [16:00] doing with um Optimus? Because if you [16:02] bring those two forces together, you got [16:04] Optimus robots, these humanoid robots [16:06] where he says there'll be I mean some of [16:08] the quotes that he said, I mean it might [16:10] be marketing, but he's predicting that [16:12] you won't need to be a surgeon because [16:14] there'll be so many Optimus robots that [16:15] are more advanced than any surgeon on [16:17] earth. So Optimus robots will be doing [16:19] surgery. Um, and if you combine [16:21] intelligence with sort of physical um, [16:25] physical power that comes from these [16:27] robots, it does beg the question where [16:29] human skills remain outside of the [16:32] relational stuff and Maslo serving Maslo [16:34] Maslo's hierarchy of needs. That's the [16:36] one of the things I contend with. I'm [16:37] like, you're seeing in China especially [16:40] how robots are really changing [16:42] production lines. And I saw this video [16:45] the other day of I think it was in India [16:46] or Bangladesh where they had their [16:49] factory workers have cameras on their [16:50] heads. [16:51] >> Yeah. [16:51] >> So that they could film their hands [16:53] because they're they're intent on [16:54] replacing them with robots. [16:55] >> Yeah. [16:56] >> This combination of intelligence plus [16:58] robotics feels like [17:01] >> it's two tsunamis at the same time. [17:03] >> I think that's right. But let's use the [17:04] surgeon as an example. I think the robot [17:07] in the context of surgery will be not a [17:09] replacement but a supplement. and that [17:11] is there'll be a large class of surgeons [17:13] who know how to weaponize robotics to be [17:15] better surgeons and quite frankly do two [17:17] surgeries a day instead of one. I think [17:20] most brain surgeries take four or six [17:21] hours using robotics and precision [17:24] instruments. A great neurosurgeon will [17:26] be able to increase the productivity and [17:28] the accuracy of their surgeries. My big [17:31] tech stock pick of 25 was Alphabet cuz [17:33] it was trading at a P of 17. I just saw [17:35] it as being ridiculously cheap cuz [17:37] everyone thought OpenAI was going to put [17:38] it out of business. My big tech stock [17:39] pick for 26 is Amazon because I think [17:42] where robotics really hit the rubber [17:44] meets the road in terms of shareholder [17:46] value is the collision of AI and [17:48] industrialized robots and there are [17:50] 400,000 um industrialized robots in the [17:54] US and there's a million at Amazon. So [17:57] million Amazon has two and a half times [17:59] the number of industrialized robots as [18:02] the rest of the nation combined. But the [18:04] notion that we're going to have someone [18:05] in our house bringing our tea a robot, I [18:07] don't buy that at all. I think that [18:10] automated robotics, the collision of [18:11] advanced manufacturing in China and [18:13] using AI with robotics will yield [18:16] tremendous advantage. Amazon is saying [18:18] they're going to double their largest [18:20] business, which is their retail business [18:21] by 2032 without an incremental hire [18:24] using robotics, industrialized robots. [18:26] And they were early. They made an [18:28] acquisition 1015 years ago of a robotics [18:30] company called KA. But the notion that [18:33] there's going to be a robot bringing me [18:35] my tea here. Oh, that's The [18:37] scary thing for me that I'd want to know [18:38] more about is weaponized uh [18:41] industrialized robots as warriors [18:43] because I wonder, you know, there's just [18:45] you can go some weird places, but again, [18:47] I think AI and robotics, yes, this [18:50] notion that we're going to have robots [18:53] serving us our food or in our house, I [18:55] don't I don't see that. It's interesting [18:57] because well I guess one could argue [18:59] that we we already have robots in our [19:01] houses but they just don't move. So the [19:03] quite the leap really is would you allow [19:04] a robot to move through your house? [19:05] Because I mean a Hoover is a robot. A [19:07] fridge is kind of like a robot [19:08] especially the smart fridge is you one [19:10] could say a TV is a robot a smart TV but [19:12] the the difference is they don't move [19:14] through our house or would we allow the [19:16] Hoover to move itself and then once we [19:18] allow that would we allow it to [19:19] potentially bring us something? [19:20] >> Yeah, I get it. I just don't the the [19:22] stuff I've seen on actual application of [19:24] these robots and keep in mind these [19:26] individuals the job of the CEO now is it [19:29] used to be to underpromise and overd [19:30] deliver. Now it's to overpromise and [19:32] underdel and create a vision that [19:34] creates cheap capital so you can pull [19:36] the future forward. My understanding is [19:37] three years ago we had a million [19:38] autonomous Tesla taxis on the road and [19:40] that did not happen. In 2016 Mus said or [19:44] 2017 there was going to be autonomous [19:46] was two years away driving. So their job [19:49] is to predict a very exciting future. I [19:50] also think Musk in particular is very [19:53] good at saying look over here as he [19:55] stuffs a rabbit into a hat. I mean Tesla [19:57] is an automobile company so he's got to [19:59] create a stories to justify its 155 [20:02] times earnings when most automobile [20:04] companies trade at 10 or 15. So it's [20:07] robots it's space it's connectivity with [20:10] AI and autonomous and robots. It's [20:13] constantly look over here because I [20:14] think it's very difficult to justify the [20:16] valuations he's raising money at. So, [20:18] and to be clear, he [snorts] as much as [20:21] anybody is able to pull that vision [20:22] forward. He's launched 90% of the [20:24] rockets sent into space have been by [20:25] SpaceX, but this is a company that's [20:28] trading that has $16 billion in revenue [20:31] with 8 billion in profits and it's going [20:33] to go out in its IPO at a projected [20:35] valuation of 90 to 110 times revenues. [20:38] When Google went public, it went out at [20:40] 10 times revenues and it was growing 10 [20:42] times as fast. So, what is this? The key [20:44] attribute of an innovator right now is [20:46] storytelling. And that is to make sure [20:48] the promise is way ahead of the [20:50] performance such you can access cheap [20:52] capital and pull the future forward. But [20:55] a lot of this stuff I find is a lot of [20:57] jazz hands. He's always he's you know [20:59] he's often known for being wrong about [21:00] his timelines. But he does seem to [21:02] deliver magic to the world. [21:04] >> The best product in my mind, the two the [21:07] two products that have changed my life [21:09] from a technology standpoint, most [21:10] underrated product is AirPods. [21:13] If AirPods alone, you know, Tim Cook [21:15] just stepped down were its own product. [21:17] It'd be a Fortune50 company. I think [21:19] it's I don't even think it's technology. [21:21] I think it's the most profitable [21:23] ubiquitous piece of jewelry in history. [21:24] I just walk around with them in my ears [21:26] now, right? And then the best product I [21:29] think of the last few years has been [21:30] Starlink. [21:31] >> That's amazing. [21:32] >> I just think it's absolutely I've done [21:34] podcasts from planes. I can talk to my [21:37] sons on FaceTime. That product is, you [21:41] know, all airlines are flying the same [21:42] tin can, same routes, same bad food, a [21:46] real point of differentiation for them [21:47] and also in maritime. I think Starlink [21:50] is the best tech product. So, power to [21:52] him. When they go public, is it an is [21:55] SpaceX an amazing company or is it [21:57] overvalued? The answer is yes. Two can [21:59] be true at the same time. [22:01] >> What do you think of Tesla? Because for [22:03] me it's magic. I don't think people in [22:05] Britain realize this or other parts of [22:06] the world, but for me the first time I [22:08] got in the Tesla that I I got in LA and [22:11] pressed the location and took my hands [22:13] off the wheel. All I had to do is [22:15] occasionally look look forward, which [22:17] they're removing now. And it took me 3 [22:19] and a half hours to Joshua Tree without [22:21] any intervention. [22:23] >> And the safety record in it is is safer [22:25] than if I had driven myself there. [22:27] >> It's just magic to me. And then when I [22:29] watched this, the space rockets come [22:30] down and be caught with the chopsticks. [22:32] Incredible. [22:32] >> How this is just magic. [22:33] >> Incredible. [22:34] >> And so when when he I've got to be [22:35] honest, when he says that these Optimus [22:37] robots are going to be I I go, do you [22:39] know what [22:40] >> he's delivered a lot of magic in the [22:42] past that no one would have thought [22:43] possible. Can you even imagine 10 years [22:44] ago him saying that what people would [22:47] have said if he said, "We're going to [22:48] launch this massive sort of 70ft [22:50] skyscraper into the air and then we're [22:52] going to catch it on chopsticks." [22:53] Staggering. Incredible. [22:54] >> And then we're going to relaunch it [22:55] again and then we're going to catch it [22:56] again. [22:56] >> You would have gone impossible. [22:59] >> Edison of our generation. But you asked [23:01] about Tesla. [23:03] Uh, I bought a Tesla. Incredible [23:05] product, far superior to anything on the [23:07] market. He deserves credit for inspiring [23:09] the EV race, which will be good for the [23:11] environment. But the reality is [23:13] everyone's caught up. The fastest [23:15] growing automobile company in history is [23:17] BYD. BY company [23:19] >> BYYD is basically an 80% of a Tesla. [23:21] Some people would say 100% of a Tesla [23:23] for 40% of the price. If there weren't [23:25] ter if there wasn't a ridiculous tariff [23:27] war right now BYYD I think would be the [23:29] number one EV in the United States it's [23:31] eating Tesla's launch in addition what I [23:34] think is going to happen about Tesla [23:36] credit where it's due change the market [23:38] inspired the EV race good for good for [23:40] the planet but when you look at its [23:42] valuation right now I think what you're [23:43] going to see is when SpaceX goes public [23:45] there's a lot of money in the market [23:47] that wants to get some of that Musk RZ [23:51] what you were talking about this guy is [23:54] incredible I I don't care how expensive [23:55] it is. I want to invest behind Elon [23:57] Musk. I get it. That money is about to [24:00] come out of Tesla, which people are [24:02] finally figuring out is just a great car [24:04] company that should be trading at 30 [24:05] times earnings, not 150. And it's going [24:08] to go into SpaceX. So, I think the [24:10] boost, the retail surge in SpaceX you're [24:13] going to see, and the valuation they're [24:15] planning to go out at is just [24:16] extraordinary. Some of that is going to [24:18] come at the cost of Tesla. I just I [24:20] think people are waking up to the fact [24:22] that Tesla's a great auto company. It [24:24] should be trading at about a fifth of [24:25] the valuation it is. Now [24:27] >> on that point, what jobs do you think [24:28] will be impacted by AI? I've heard you [24:30] talk about logistics and transport. Um I [24:34] think London have just announced that [24:35] Whimo and Tesla's full self-driving [24:37] technology are on the way. They've [24:38] greenlighted Whimo, for example. [24:40] >> I'd hate to be a truck driver. To me, a [24:42] long haul truck driver is the first [24:44] place. Trucks can drive between 10:00 [24:46] p.m. and 4:00 a.m. when there's no [24:49] traffic on the road. I don't think it's [24:50] a very good job. What's interesting [24:51] about or one of the things interesting [24:53] about truck drivers, it's the biggest [24:54] employer of non- high school grads in [24:56] America of non- high school graduate [24:58] males. It's the biggest employer. It's [25:00] actually one of the two or three I think [25:01] biggest jobs by number of people in the [25:03] United States. I would think within 10 [25:05] years we're going to have very few long [25:06] haul truckers. Obviously, customer [25:08] service, it feels like that will likely [25:10] go away. [25:11] >> Yeah. But where I see job destruction in [25:13] my world is that I used to anytime I got [25:17] an agreement from anybody, an advertiser [25:18] for a contract, an employment agreement, [25:21] whatever it is, I'd send it to my lawyer [25:22] and say, "Can you review this?" And [25:24] because the bills, there's latency in [25:26] the bills, it probably cost somewhere [25:28] between 400 bucks and 2,000 to review [25:30] every contract, right? Because I'm I'm a [25:33] narcissist and I think I signal by [25:35] having a name brand law firm. And so [25:36] they hire some kid at 120 or 80 to 120 [25:39] bucks an hour and they charge me 4 to [25:41] 500. Right now I say to the person in [25:43] charge of that project and they say, [25:46] "Well, I'm sending it the contract [25:47] review to our lawyer." I'm like, "No, [25:48] no, no, no. Put it put the agreement. [25:51] Describe what we're looking for. Ask [25:53] Claude or uh Chat GPT to pretend it's a [25:56] $1,200 lawyer, an hour lawyer, [26:00] employment lawyer or contract lawyer, [26:01] and ask them to review this document, [26:03] redline it, and do the same thing at [26:04] another LLM." and then you make those [26:07] changes. Congratulations, you are now a [26:09] senior associate at a law firm. I [26:11] probably spend a hundred or $300,000 a [26:14] year on legal fees across my [26:16] organization. I think I'll cut that [26:18] easily by a third this year. So, that's [26:20] one way I see it. [26:21] >> But I have a podcast company, not nearly [26:23] the industrial behemoth this thing is, [26:26] but I keep asking everybody, how do we [26:30] use AI to do this? And I find that [26:32] they're getting better at it and it [26:34] enhances our work, but we're still [26:37] hiring. Again, I think it's a [26:39] supplement. And if you want to protect [26:40] against AI, it's pretty easy. I've said [26:43] this for a while. AI is not going to [26:44] take your job. Someone who understands [26:45] AI is going to take your job. So, what I [26:47] tell people is have a second screen. And [26:49] that is always have a second screen open [26:51] that has nothing but AI on it, LLMs. And [26:54] anything you get digitally, [26:55] >> port it into your AI screen and start [26:58] playing with it. Do you know that quote [26:59] is so interesting because I've heard [27:00] that quote a lot that AI won't take your [27:01] job someone that understands AI will [27:03] take your job and I as you said it then [27:05] I thought you know I was thinking about [27:06] different um roles in my team and my [27:09] open roles that we haven't hired for and [27:11] I thought [27:12] >> someone with AI will take your job but [27:14] they won't just take one job [27:16] they'll take five of those jobs and so [27:18] if you think about an analyst [27:19] >> right [27:20] >> we've got Molly downstairs analyst for [27:22] my investment fund we were well intent [27:23] on hiring maybe five analysts for my [27:26] second fund we only need Molly now [27:28] because Molly's He's got two agents that [27:29] she works with in two two Mac minis and [27:32] she's got a a setup that screens the [27:34] inbound interest and also goes [27:36] proactively into the market looking for [27:37] new opportunities and pulls them back [27:38] into her runs them through a framework [27:40] scores them prepares them for the IC. So [27:43] Molly enabled by AI, she's probably [27:45] taken out five jobs. And this is I think [27:47] even with the law example, that that [27:50] lawyer that's using these models um [27:52] probably doesn't need to have five [27:53] junior lawyers now um if they're really [27:56] really competent with and if you think [27:57] about an executive assistant. [27:59] >> Mhm. [28:00] >> So with executive assistants, we might [28:02] for our executives would have hired [28:03] maybe probably 10 um EAS in total. Mhm. [28:06] >> Now, you really need one that has is [28:09] powered by a to do all the travel, one [28:10] that does all of the scheduling, and [28:12] then one that meets people at the door. [28:14] >> So, you need three versus potentially [28:15] 10. And this is kind of what I'm saying. [28:18] Um, in most roles, but not all of them. [28:20] There are still some roles when I looked [28:21] at the rogue chart where I go, actually, [28:23] you know, this sales, a lot of the sales [28:25] we do from a media perspective are take [28:27] someone for lunch, whine and dine, call [28:29] them, relationships, pitch the deck. [28:31] >> Those kinds of things seem to be [28:33] completely un uh untouched. But let's [28:36] continue down that path. You no longer [28:38] need five mollies than you'd want. [28:40] >> Yeah. [28:40] >> That creates additional EBIT margin. [28:42] Creates a more profitable diary of a CEO [28:44] empire means you can raise more money [28:46] and then you go buy more podcasts or [28:48] invest in them who hire more people. So, [28:50] >> and it creates a faster cycle of money [28:52] and new ideas and when we were walking [28:54] in here, you're talking about acquiring [28:56] podcasting and you're getting into CPG [28:58] and you're getting into different forms [29:00] of media and you're driving growth and [29:01] innovation. Will some people be on the [29:03] wrong end of it? My mom was a secretary. [29:06] She started as a typist. Typus went [29:08] away. She oversaw the the the [29:10] secretarial typist pool at a law school [29:12] downtown and I worked in the mail room [29:13] in high school. But my mom realized that [29:16] the hard part of her job was interacting [29:18] with the senior level executive and she [29:20] became an executive assistant and she [29:22] never made a lot of money but she made [29:24] good money. Realizing the typing was the [29:26] easy part of her job. The hard part was [29:27] managing some dude's life. Right. [29:29] [clears throat] [29:30] >> So accounting should go away. But what [29:33] you're saying is there's actually more [29:34] accountants this year than there was [29:35] last year because accountants, the smart [29:37] ones, are moving into wealth management [29:38] and tax optimization, which keeps [29:40] getting more and more complicated. So [29:43] yeah, do you have an onus to update your [29:45] skills to understand new? I remember [29:46] when I first moved to New York and they [29:48] hired an assistant for me and she came [29:50] in and said, "Oh, I don't use [29:51] computers." And I'm like, "Well, you [29:53] can't work here." So it's like it to say [29:56] you're not going to learn AI or at least [29:57] the basics on how to use it. It's like [29:59] being in 1998 and saying, "Well, I don't [30:01] use PCs." Mhm. [30:03] >> So I don't Yeah, you got to update your [30:05] skills. The cycle times decreasing. A [30:07] lot of people will find themselves on [30:08] the wrong side of the trade. I have to [30:11] force myself to use AI. I don't, you [30:12] know, I'm the part of your brain around [30:15] understanding new technologies begins to [30:17] die, right? I can no longer perceive a [30:20] calendar. I can't tell you what I have [30:21] next. For some reason, I used to be able [30:23] to do fant I could do a Scotsman accent, [30:26] Stephen, like no one's business a few [30:27] years ago. That part of my brain has [30:29] died. And when I try to do an accent, it [30:31] sounds like a dead language that twins [30:33] speak to each other and it offends [30:34] everybody. There's parts of your brain [30:36] that die. And the part that where you [30:38] can understand new technologies or at [30:40] least have the will to learn them starts [30:41] to go away as you get older. I have to [30:44] force myself to play with these new [30:46] technologies. Everyone who wants to make [30:48] more money or wants to hold on to their [30:50] job should have the same onus to learn [30:52] these new skills. [30:53] >> On that individual level, there's people [30:54] listening now that that want to make [30:56] sure that they have the skills, their [30:57] kids have the skills of the future, [30:58] right? What are some of those important [31:00] skills? I mean, you've got kids. What do [31:01] you What would you say to them? [31:02] >> I get asked that all the time. What is [31:04] the skill? So, the honest answer is I [31:07] have a view, but nobody knows. Do you [31:08] realize 10 years ago in private schools, [31:10] the biggest incremental investments in [31:12] curriculum were two things? Computer [31:14] science and Mandarin. [31:16] >> How's that worked out? Like, thank God [31:19] my kid knows Mandarin. I mean, said [31:21] nobody right now, but they thought it [31:23] was going to be computer science. And [31:25] you could argue that hasn't worked out [31:26] as well as everyone thought. I would say [31:28] that the enduring skill is storytelling [31:31] and that is that your ability to look at [31:33] data, create a narrative arc and then [31:34] communicate that story in a compelling [31:36] way via all the different mediums [31:38] >> whether it's podcasting I think you have [31:40] to write well to be a great storyteller [31:42] but if you think about the most [31:43] successful people in the world at the [31:45] end of the day they're usually [31:46] storytellers the great CEOs I read Jeff [31:49] Bezos's 1997 letter to shareholders [31:52] where he focused on those three [31:53] principles and I'm like take my money [31:55] right I see even a guy like Alex Karp at [31:58] Palunteer walking around doing a live [32:00] earnings call on his phone. It's very [32:03] compelling. Um Jensen Hang, you know, [32:06] when he does these giant Buffett-like [32:08] stadiums where he gets up and he's like [32:10] a rockstar. That's storytelling. [32:12] Technology is, I think, going to create [32:14] a equalization among the product. [32:17] Reverse engineering created parity among [32:19] manufactured products. I think most [32:21] technology are technologies are going to [32:22] converge and we're seeing that [32:23] convergence in AI models. So I think the [32:26] point of differentiation is [32:27] relationships, right? Do I want to work [32:29] with this person? Do I know about their [32:31] kids? Do I like them? At the end of the [32:32] day, I have three different law firms [32:35] pitching me business, three different [32:36] investment banks, three different CRM [32:39] companies. Who do I have the best [32:41] relationship with and who do I want to [32:42] work with? So storytelling, it sounds [32:45] very p, but the ability to establish [32:47] strong relationships with other sentient [32:49] beings. I still believe that everything [32:51] reverse engineers to biology. I think a [32:53] certain fundamental understanding of the [32:56] sciences, those seem to be pretty [32:58] enduring. You know, my my oldest said he [33:00] wanted to be a marine biologist. I'm [33:02] like, who are you kidding? You got [33:03] seasick. I mean, at 18, what you want [33:06] it? You want them to be smart, good [33:08] people, aggressive, support them [33:10] becoming their own person, which I've [33:12] had trouble with. I want them to be mini [33:13] me. And then helping them find something [33:17] they're great at. But telling your kid, [33:19] "No, you need to go into this because [33:20] this is where the future's going." Nope, [33:22] we don't know. I We have We know the [33:25] basics. I would want my kid to be able [33:26] to write well, to be able to look [33:28] someone in the eye, to be competitive. [33:30] You know, I I encourage them to play [33:32] sports, to do chores, which they do none [33:34] of. But other than that, I don't know. [33:39] What do you think are going to be the [33:40] skills of the future? I think it's [33:41] really difficult to know. [33:42] >> I think what you said about [33:43] relationships is really important. You [33:44] said storytelling, and I think [33:45] storytelling is a proxy of of sales and [33:48] persuasion. And whether that's [33:50] persuading an investor to believe in you [33:52] or people to come and work for you or [33:53] customers to come and buy your thing. So [33:55] I think I think storytelling and sales [33:58] is is going to be an enduring skill. The [34:01] skill that is the biggest threat that [34:03] people are young people are losing [34:04] especially young men and this is a skill [34:06] and it's hugely underrated [34:08] is the ability to endure rejection. [34:11] And because of AI and because of these [34:13] frictionless relationships that people [34:15] are engaging in online, I think a lot of [34:18] young people, especially young men, are [34:20] losing the perseverance, endurance, [34:23] willingness to hear no. Whether it's [34:26] expressing friendship, whether it's [34:27] applying for a job you're not qualified [34:29] for, whether it's approaching someone [34:31] and expressing romantic interest, I [34:32] think a lot of young people, especially [34:33] young men, I think they can have a [34:35] frictionless relationship online and are [34:37] they're losing this sense of resilience [34:39] and aggressiveness. Uh, so I think that [34:42] skill when I mentor young men, the first [34:45] skill I try to reinccorporate back into [34:46] their life is what I call no. And that [34:48] is I need you to go out. I need you to [34:50] go put yourself in the agency of [34:52] strangers, whether it's a church group, [34:53] a sports league, a riding class, and I [34:56] want you to make an overture, an [34:58] expression of friendship. Hey, do you [34:59] want to grab the Arsenal game or watch [35:00] come over my house and watch it? And [35:02] then most of these kids, when you ask [35:04] them what they want, they usually want [35:05] two things. The men I mentor, they want [35:07] to move out of their parents house and [35:08] they want a girlfriend. And so once we [35:10] do the friend approach, then I say, [35:13] "Okay, find someone you may be [35:14] potentially interested in. Ask them out [35:15] for coffee." And this is the goal. The [35:17] goal is no. Because what's going to [35:19] happen is you might get a no. Probably [35:21] going to get a no. And then I'm going to [35:22] call you the next day and I'm going to [35:23] say, "Are you okay?" And the answer is [35:25] going to be yes. Is he or she okay? The [35:27] person who said no. Yeah, they're fine. [35:29] Because [35:31] And I'm I'm boasting. The secret to my [35:33] success is rejection. I ran for [35:36] sophomore, junior, and senior class [35:37] president of my high school. I lost all [35:39] three times and based on my track [35:40] record, I decided to run for senior body [35:42] or student body president where I went [35:43] on to get this lose. Never bothered me. [35:47] I mean, I mourned and I moved on. Every [35:49] entrepreneur, how many nos have you [35:50] gotten? [35:51] >> Oh, hell. Yeah, more so than [35:52] anybody. [35:53] >> I mean, so the any person you look at [35:55] and think that person has made more [35:57] money than I would have thought or any [35:58] person who's hanging out with someone [36:00] much higher character and hotter than [36:02] them has one thing in common. They [36:03] either have very rich parents or more [36:05] likely. [36:06] >> They're they're comfortable with no. So, [36:09] and unfortunately, I think young people, [36:11] especially young men, are becoming less [36:12] and less resilient to know. Apply for [36:16] jobs you're not qualified for. Apply to [36:18] graduate programs you shouldn't get [36:20] into. Approach people who you perceive [36:21] as being cooler and hotter than you. And [36:23] express friendship and romantic [36:24] interest. That is the key. You want to [36:26] punch above your weight class, get out a [36:28] big spoon and get ready to eat [36:30] That is the only thing that is common [36:32] across all great entrepreneurs who are [36:34] self-made is they have the ability to [36:36] mourn and move on. [36:38] >> I've been thinking about this a lot [36:39] lately. It was inspired by listening to [36:41] Adam Newman on that podcast a couple of [36:43] uh a couple of weeks ago. He did one [36:44] with um Rick Rubin I think it was and [36:47] and in it he tells the story of sitting [36:48] in the back of the cab with Massa who's [36:50] the the owner of SoftBank and ask he was [36:54] going to ask him to give him $300 [36:55] million and Massa turns to him and says [36:57] you're just not ambitious enough. And he [36:59] says by the time that 23minute cab drive [37:02] had finished, Massa had offered him 4 [37:04] billion and he had signed a little [37:05] napkin thing that Massa had in the back [37:07] of the cab. And that story and other [37:09] stories like it have inspired have made [37:11] me realize that like some of the game in [37:13] life and success is what I now call [37:15] selling yourself long and most of us go [37:18] through our lives selling ourselves [37:19] short. And I think in part because we [37:21] don't see ourselves on an exponential [37:22] curve. We see ourselves as a fixed [37:24] state. This is who I am. This is what [37:25] I'm worth. But you've almost got to like [37:27] factor in your own expon exponential [37:29] improvement. If you take you from 21 to [37:31] now, how your intelligence and wisdom [37:33] and connections have all compounded. But [37:36] you would have sold yourself at the [37:38] value of you at 21 years old. So I'm now [37:40] I actually now think in every season of [37:42] my life I've sold myself short. When I [37:44] was 18 years old, my I sold 20% of my [37:46] company for 5K, $5,000. [37:49] And then I thought that was I couldn't [37:50] believe it. I was celebrating in my room [37:51] at the time. I was stealing Chicago Town [37:53] pizzas to feed myself. And then a couple [37:54] of years later, I sold another 30% of [37:56] that company uh 30% of my company for [37:58] 300k and I thought I'd hit the [38:00] euromillions, [38:01] >> right? [38:01] >> That company ran up and was on the stock [38:03] market for many hundreds of millions [38:04] many years later. I thought, God, I've [38:05] sold myself short my whole life. So [38:07] assume I'm doing the same now. And if I [38:10] if I assume that, how [38:13] how what would I say? What would I what [38:15] what opportunities would I go for? And I [38:18] think that app for me that apply should [38:19] apply to everybody. I think it's [38:21] self-fulfilling. [38:22] >> Yeah. I there's something about [38:23] imagining where you want to be in 5 [38:25] years outrageously in the reverse [38:26] engineering back. But the moment you [38:28] took that 300K, you really needed it. I [38:30] mean that was so it's a function of your [38:33] opportunity set and what's actually the [38:35] market says to you. Uh I think pricing [38:37] is a signal. I struggle with pricing and [38:40] what I tell whenever we're writing a [38:42] proposal or okay whatever I get back I'm [38:45] like okay increase the pricing 30 or 50% [38:48] more because pricing is a signal and [38:50] it's you can always take the price down [38:52] and the client the person will always [38:53] will always come back and ask for the [38:55] price down but I mean quite frankly and [38:57] this is sexist I think men are better at [39:00] imagining an unrealistic self and women [39:02] are more measured [39:04] >> and I think that's one of the things [39:05] that has held back women as [39:07] entrepreneurs and the fact that not as [39:08] much capital has been available to them [39:10] because the people allocating capital [39:11] have been white dudes from Stanford or [39:13] Harvard. 40% of VCs are from two schools [39:15] of I think it was Charlie Munger who [39:17] said someone who has a crazy vision of [39:21] their own potential [39:23] that's stupid and obnoxious. [39:25] His attitude was never bet against that [39:27] person because occasionally they're [39:28] right. And so for we talked about Musk [39:32] for a guy to think I'm going to raise so [39:34] much money and command technology that I [39:36] can be responsible for 90% of launches [39:39] and control 70% of the Earth's low orbit [39:44] satellites. [39:45] That's pretty arrogant. So yeah, I agree [39:48] with you and you know it. Let me put it [39:50] this way. If you're going to air to the [39:52] upside because the market will bring you [39:54] back on its own. [laughter] [39:57] >> That's so true. Um Sam Salman has been [39:59] in all the news lately in part because [40:01] of this article that the New Yorker did, [40:02] two reporters there, Ronan Faroh and [40:05] Andrew Morren. [40:07] >> Um which was this article and then he [40:08] responded with with this blog post here [40:11] two years ago. I thought Sam had a [40:13] really good brand [40:15] >> cuz he was out in Congress. He was [40:17] saying this tech, you know, he was [40:18] asking for regulation. It seemed it has [40:20] turned unbelievably quickly, [40:22] unbelievably fast. Well, we've said this [40:24] before, he's a proxy for all of AI. I [40:26] think the greatest brand destruction [40:28] other than the US over the last 18 [40:30] months has been AI and also Sam Alman. [40:33] But we keep falling into this trap over [40:35] and over and that is something happened [40:37] through the 70s, 80s and 90s and that is [40:40] America used its heroes used to be [40:42] athletes, government officials and [40:45] actors and then there was a dramatic [40:48] decline in um attendance to religious [40:51] institutions but people still have [40:53] really big questions and want sort of an [40:55] authority or a godlike figure. The [40:57] closest thing we have to religion is [40:59] technology. Most people don't understand [41:00] it. It has a mystical feel to it. I have [41:02] no idea how my phone works. I can ask it [41:04] anything and it comes back with a [41:06] relatively authoritative answer that I [41:07] trust. Similar if I was talking or [41:09] praying. Like most of the time when [41:10] we're on AI, we're kind of praying. [41:12] We're we're sending a question into the [41:14] echo to a being thinking it's smarter [41:16] than us and it's going to come back with [41:18] an empathetic, loving, correct answer. [41:20] So the new Jesus Christ was born in the [41:23] '9s and that was Steve Jobs. And he was [41:26] taken from us early like Jesus Christ. [41:28] The idolatry of innovators has [41:29] absolutely gone crazy. And the new Jesus [41:33] Christ, if you will, are these tax CEOs. [41:36] And here's what we fail to understand. [41:38] They do not have our best interests at [41:39] heart. They are not concerned with our [41:42] emotional well-being. They are not going [41:43] to comfort us when we're older. They are [41:45] there, and they play a key component in [41:47] capitalism to do anything that is [41:49] required to get their earnings up 1 cent [41:51] per share every day. and they will make [41:54] incremental decisions that justify the [41:56] harming and self harm of teen girls. [41:58] Cheryl Samberg, the weaponization of our [42:02] platforms to make our the coarsening of [42:05] our discourse, Mark Zuckerberg, [42:08] I mean, the radicalization of young men, [42:11] uh, the people running YouTube, [42:13] they we keep thinking that the newest [42:16] tech CEO is going to save us, that this [42:19] guy cares. Sam Alman was the gay son we [42:22] all wanted. Like super nice, super [42:24] friendly, hush voices, well senator. I'm [42:28] worried about that as well. Right. These [42:31] guys would sleep with their cousin for a [42:34] nickel. That's their job. Their job is [42:36] to increase earnings. They're not here [42:38] to save us. We're supposed to elect [42:41] people who put in guard rails for them. [42:43] So everyone is saying or asking me, can [42:45] we trust Sam Alman? I'm like, no. And we [42:48] shouldn't have to. We should have [42:49] regulators putting in guard rails on AI. [42:52] We should be testing these things. [42:53] Government agencies should be testing [42:55] these things. We should be ensuring that [42:57] these technologies are not used to [42:59] surveil Americans, right? That we would [43:02] still have cartoons like characters on [43:05] cigarettes marketing to 12y olds if we [43:08] hadn't put in place regulation. And the [43:11] tobacco executives would claim that they [43:13] weren't marketing to young people. Ford [43:15] would still be pouring mercury into the [43:17] river if we didn't have an EPA and [43:18] regulation. So Sam is doing exactly what [43:21] he's supposed to be doing. The latest [43:23] hero that's going to save us is Dario [43:24] Amod. We've decided he's the good guy. [43:27] Now the villain's journey in tech is the [43:29] same. Some compelling person we think is [43:33] a wonderful guy and it's almost always a [43:35] guy, occasionally a woman. You know, we [43:38] need to do better gender balance. That [43:40] was Cheryl Samberg in the workplace. And [43:42] then we find out that they are doing [43:44] their job and that is doing anything [43:46] they can legally to increase shareholder [43:47] value regardless of whether it prevents [43:49] a tragedy of the commons or not. And [43:51] then we get angry at them. The journey [43:53] from Anakin Skywalker to Darth Vader [43:55] gets shorter and shorter, but they all [43:57] follow the same path. And then 18 months [44:00] later, we realize that they would too [44:02] will do will say and do whatever they [44:04] can to try and delay and opuscate [44:05] regulation. And that sometimes when we [44:08] don't have a government with a lack of [44:09] domain expertise, with a lack of [44:11] insight, with people who are a cross [44:13] between the land of the dead and the [44:15] golden girls and don't understand these [44:16] technologies, that when these [44:18] technologies are allowed to run just [44:21] free with no regulation, they do bad [44:24] things. So Sam Alman is the latest [44:26] person we've discovered as Darth Vader, [44:28] who's gone to the dark side. It happens [44:30] with all of them because they're doing [44:32] their job. We as citizens aren't doing [44:34] our job. and that is we're not putting [44:35] in place elected officials that regulate [44:36] these companies. So yeah, can we trust [44:39] Sam Alman? No. But we shouldn't need to [44:41] trust him. We should be able to trust [44:42] that we have smart elected officials [44:44] that will regulate these companies. [44:45] >> Did you see this article he wrote in [44:47] response to being having a Molotov [44:49] cocktail thrown at his house? [44:50] >> I read this article without reading it. [44:52] So there's been death threats on his [44:53] life. And let me be clear, there's [44:56] absolutely no justification whatsoever [44:59] for this. And it needs to be I don't [45:01] even like it when people yell at JD [45:02] Vance when he's skiing with his family. [45:04] One of the we don't want to be that [45:06] nation or we don't in the west we have a [45:07] if you're operating with the confines of [45:09] the law which Sam is he deserves to live [45:11] in peace. It is sad. Do you realize in [45:13] the US now there's no more people [45:14] working in private security than there [45:16] are cops really because there's always [45:19] going to be a number of people who are [45:22] likely I don't know about the [45:23] perpetrator here who are mentally ill [45:25] and who will find an excuse essentially [45:29] the the makeup usually of these [45:31] perpetrators or these these these [45:32] criminal actors is they're usually young [45:35] men looking to restore their social [45:37] capital through what they perceive as a [45:39] historic act of violence against a [45:40] famous person. This has gone on for a [45:43] long time. He's now famous. I don't [45:45] think it's fair. I've seen some people [45:47] try to equate AI's dangers as if these [45:51] acts of violence are somehow justified. [45:54] They're not. There's no justification [45:56] for a healthcare executive being [45:57] executed in the streets. There's no [45:58] justification for violence against Sam [46:01] or attempted violence against Sam and [46:03] his family. I think it's young men with [46:05] a lack of opportunity, mental illness, [46:06] and unfortunately access to firearms [46:08] everywhere. But it's always happened. I [46:10] don't make the connection that somehow [46:12] it's more justified. I think famous [46:13] people, one in three presidents has been [46:15] shot at. [46:16] >> Crazy, isn't it? [46:16] >> So, the more famous you get, quite [46:18] frankly, the more personal risk there is [46:20] because someone is going to decide that [46:21] taking you out for whatever reason is [46:23] going to restore their social capital. [46:25] Um, actually, if you look at [46:27] assassination attempts and violence, the [46:30] it's actually gone down. But these [46:32] stories are cinematic and very [46:33] interesting and they get a lot of [46:35] attention. But I think it's a shame we [46:36] live in a society where especially in [46:38] the west where they have to endure that [46:40] kind of risk. The one of the really most [46:42] lovely moments I've seen, I don't know [46:43] if I don't know if it was the Danish or [46:45] the Norwegian prime minister who stepped [46:47] down, they applauded and he got on a [46:48] bike and rode home. [46:50] >> I thought you can't do that in the US. [46:52] You know, Obama's kids still have Secret [46:54] Service protection. [46:55] >> So there's definitely something I I [46:58] quite frankly blame it on big tech that [47:00] tries to convince people that this [47:02] person is their enemy and this person is [47:04] evil. Sam's not evil. I don't I don't [47:06] know him personally. I sat next to him [47:08] at this party I went to, but he's doing [47:10] his job. Quite frankly, we're not doing [47:12] ours. [47:12] >> Do you think he's a nihilist? And I [47:15] don't really know the definition of the [47:16] word nihilist, but I guess it's someone [47:17] who believes that life is essentially [47:18] meaningless. [47:20] >> I think there's a nihilist vein running [47:22] through big tech where a lot of them [47:24] have go bags. [47:26] They have a plan for if gets real. [47:29] If there's a zombie apocalypse or [47:30] there's a revolution or there's a [47:32] massive pandemic, they have definitive [47:36] plans and they've spent tens of millions [47:37] of dollars. They meet their pilots at uh [47:40] Oakland airport. They get on their [47:42] Gulfream 650. They fly to New Zealand to [47:45] Auckland and they have a bunker built [47:46] out. [47:47] >> Is this true? [47:48] >> Oh, there's a lot of them. [47:49] >> Really? [47:49] >> There's a lot of goat plans amongst the [47:51] wealthy. And sometimes it's not as [47:53] dramatic. Sometimes it's just a home [47:55] nuclear attack, cyber attack, [47:57] revolution, but there I would say [48:00] amongst billionaires, I would bet [48:01] conservatively one in three have some [48:03] sort of go plan. And that's nihilist. [48:07] And also I to a certain extent I think [48:09] wanting to be an interplanetary species [48:11] is a little bit nihilist. [48:12] >> Also, you know, if they're saying that [48:15] in the future people aren't going to [48:16] have jobs and there's robotics and [48:18] there's this AGI, this super [48:19] intelligence which is going to be [48:20] smarter than everybody. Um, and even if [48:23] there was a 1% chance, a 1% chance that [48:27] these doomer predictions around AI could [48:29] come true, I would I would stop. A 1% [48:32] chance of humanity um sort of [48:34] self-imploding or destroying itself. [48:37] Wouldn't a rational person stop? [48:39] >> Well, okay, you're Oenheimer. It's going [48:41] to take 3 million American deaths to [48:44] invade Japan. Japan will not surrender. [48:48] And you're you're been charged with [48:49] splitting the atom. there was much more [48:51] than a 1% chance that our ability to [48:53] split the atom and then show and then [48:55] show we would use it against a civilian [48:56] population would result in the end of [48:58] the world should he have stopped [49:00] development of it. So a lot of [49:02] scientists nuclear scientists killed [49:04] themselves. They committed suicide [49:05] because they were convinced once we'd [49:06] split the atom and used it against [49:07] civilians it was the end of the world. [49:09] It was just a matter of time before we [49:10] all all using nuclear devices. So I [49:13] don't I think you keep moving forward [49:16] and nihilism where nihilism impacts [49:17] these people. Let me go back to the go [49:19] bag. I talked to one of these people. He [49:21] outlined his plan for me. Right. [49:23] >> He's a billionaire. [49:24] >> Yeah. Outlined his plan. His plan B if [49:27] things get really ugly, right? [49:29] And my view was, "Okay, boss, let's play [49:31] this out. Something happens. There's an [49:33] event. It's too dangerous to stay here. [49:36] You meet your pilots at the airport. I [49:38] mean, really gets real. People [49:40] scouring for food. People become feral. [49:43] Like, you don't think your pilots are [49:44] going to kill you and your wife? [49:47] Like what what do you think's going to [49:49] happen? You don't think the people in [49:51] New Zealand are going to be like let's [49:52] go take the rich guys Like it [49:56] strikes me that these are such mil [49:58] misallocated [50:00] efforts and capital that if you're [50:03] really focused on your own future, [50:04] whether you're wealthy or not wealthy, [50:07] that your resources and your talent [50:09] should be allocated towards trying to [50:11] make this place a little bit more [50:12] habitable, not trying to colonize Mars, [50:15] not having a go bag. And this is part of [50:17] the problem with the 0.1%. There are 900 [50:20] billionaires in the United States and I [50:23] would imagine 300 of them 300 of them [50:24] give money. They're responsible for 20% [50:27] of all political donations. And that 20% [50:29] number is misleading because they can be [50:31] more strategic. So unions are big [50:33] givers, but they just give money to [50:35] whoever's pro- union. So it's not that [50:37] strategic. Billionaires can allocate [50:39] capital to a specific issue, really ramp [50:41] it up. So they have a disproportionate [50:43] amount of control over our elected [50:46] population. And the problem is the 0.1% [50:48] are not invested in the health of [50:50] America. Why? They don't have to put up [50:53] with TSA lines. They fly private. They [50:56] don't have to put up with shitty [50:57] healthcare. They have concierge medicine [51:00] and access to the best medicine in the [51:01] world. They don't have to put up with [51:03] 40% of third graders can't read or [51:05] write. Their kids go to amazing schools [51:06] that spend on average $75,000 a year on [51:10] their kid versus 15,000 at a public [51:12] school, 10,000 at a public school in a [51:14] low-inccome area. They don't need [51:16] police. They have dormant security. [51:18] Where I live in Soho, there's no [51:19] homeless. As far as I can tell, there's [51:21] no crime. There's no cops. There's [51:23] cameras everywhere and dormant [51:24] everywhere. My point is, they are no [51:26] longer invested in the well-being of [51:29] America. They've totally dissociated [51:32] from the investments required to make [51:35] America a better place because they're [51:37] sequestered from it. They're no longer [51:38] invested in the well-being of America. [51:40] And what I find strange about this [51:41] nihilism is that these individuals think [51:44] that they are no longer as invested in [51:46] the well-being or the safety of the [51:49] world. I think that's very unhealthy. [51:51] >> These are some of the most concerning [51:53] conversations I've had. So, like one of [51:54] the things that happens when you have a [51:55] podcast and you, you know, interesting [51:57] people come on and you start hanging [51:58] around with more interesting people and [51:59] more powerful people is you get a world, [52:01] you get little peaks into new worlds [52:03] that you didn't know existed. You kind [52:04] of get to see behind certain curtains. [52:06] And I remember having a particular [52:07] conversation in um in London at a [52:10] kitchen table where someone was [52:12] describing one of these AI CEOs to me [52:15] and basically making the case that they [52:17] believe there's a roughly 10% chance I [52:20] think they said seven if I'm not [52:21] misunderstanding percent chance that [52:23] it's um that it will result in the end [52:25] of the world some sort of catastrophic [52:28] event. But they really didn't care [52:29] because [52:31] they think that being the person that [52:33] summoned this new intelligence amongst [52:37] us was probably more consequential than [52:41] whatever happens. And like if I wasn't [52:43] privy to, again, hearing this secondhand [52:46] from someone I know who knows this [52:49] person extremely well, I know he knows [52:50] him extremely well cuz they hang out. [52:52] Him telling me that, I would have [52:54] wouldn't have believed this. I would [52:55] have thought that's nonsense. I would [52:56] have thought to myself, you know, they [52:57] must be kind because they have kids and [52:59] they're, you know, but actually now I I [53:01] very much believe what you're saying [53:02] about this nihilism where I don't [53:04] actually believe they give a Some [53:06] of them I actually don't believe some of [53:08] them give a I actually think some [53:10] of them are playing a game and they're [53:11] playing a video game with with our [53:13] futures [53:14] or they the incentives. Look, in the [53:17] United States, when I was growing up, my [53:20] dad's boss had a slightly bigger house [53:22] and he drove a Cadillac and we drove a [53:24] Grand Torino, but we were members of the [53:26] same country club and his house was a [53:28] 5-minute drive away. [53:29] >> And maybe my dad's boss got to fly [53:31] business class and we flew coach. The [53:34] delta in having money, having a decent, [53:37] you know, having a middle class life and [53:39] an upper class was like this. Now the [53:41] delta is this. Let's look at air [53:45] transportation. Flying on Spirit [53:46] Airlines is a humiliating, dangerous [53:48] experience. United Airlines, economy, [53:51] economy, comfort, economy, plus business [53:54] class, first class. Oh, wait, that's not [53:56] enough. Let's go to private. There's [53:57] charter. There's fractional. There's a [53:59] cessence nitation. There's a Bombardier [54:01] Challenger 300. There's a global 650. [54:03] Now there's a new G7. The delta in your [54:07] life, in your healthcare. My mom was [54:09] very sick when I was very young. And [54:11] when I think about how humiliating it [54:13] was for the two of us having her to [54:15] endure cancer when we were underinsured, [54:18] >> it was a devastating, traumatic, [54:20] humiliating experience. [54:22] >> Now, if I need I take Lunesto when I [54:26] travel cuz I have trouble sleeping. I [54:27] have a medical concierge company. They [54:29] get me the drug delivered within two [54:32] hours to my house. I have NAD [54:35] treatments. They arrange for someone to [54:37] come to my house when it's convenient [54:38] for me and do it in my my living room. I [54:41] can text my doctor. I have a medical kit [54:44] with all these things in it. If I'm [54:45] abroad, I can text my doctor and say, [54:47] "My son's not feeling well." They [54:49] FaceTime me. I open the kit. They can [54:51] tell me exactly what to do. The the [54:53] healthc care I am receiving right now, I [54:56] have my blood taken every 3 months. They [54:58] send it to some bond layer in Norway [55:00] with PhDs who can tell me that I have [55:03] less than a 7% chance of any cancers as [55:06] evidenced by a lack of whatever it is [55:08] antibodies, the cancer cells. The health [55:10] care now for the point for the 1% is [55:13] dramatic. And it's all the same thing. [55:15] The bottom 99% of Western societies are [55:18] essentially being optimized and [55:19] monetized to make the life of the 1% [55:23] just unbelievable. [55:25] The life you can lead in the 1% is so [55:28] dramatic and so incredible. Broader [55:30] selections set of mates. Your kids have [55:31] better health care, better educational [55:33] opportunities, you have influence, [55:35] people want to know you. So the the [55:38] incentives to not be rich but to be very [55:40] rich are so incredible. And the way you [55:43] get very rich is through stock options [55:44] typically in technology that I think the [55:47] incentives are so great that people will [55:48] make incremental decisions and ignore [55:51] the fact that oh one in 18 girls who are [55:54] self harming in the UK site Instagram as [55:56] a reason for that. Well, let's find [55:59] research that maybe create some doubts [56:01] because once I become a billionaire, [56:03] I'll be a better person. and they're [56:05] getting so much criticism and so much [56:07] posting and it's so competitive and [56:10] there's fewer and fewer winners that [56:12] become much bigger, right? It used to be [56:14] five companies won and got hundreds of [56:16] millions of dollars. Now one company [56:18] wins and gets tens of billions. So you [56:20] can see how incrementally this path to [56:23] Darth Vader is pretty tempting. So I I [56:27] think these I think they just get caught [56:29] up in they get caught up in this [56:33] competition and they lose all sight. [56:34] Also my uh co-host on the pivot podcast [56:38] said something that was illuminating to [56:39] me during co I was walking down the [56:42] street with my sister and a homeless [56:44] person kind of stirred. There was a lot [56:45] of homeless people because they to the [56:47] homeless shelters turned out everybody [56:48] and she jumped out of her skin and I [56:51] said well that was a bit of an [56:53] overreaction. He's not going to hurt us. [56:55] And she said, "You know, you're 6'2", [56:57] 190. Easy for you to say. You [57:00] understand? She women walk around in a [57:02] constant state of fear. And that fear is [57:04] rational. And it really struck me. And [57:06] then Cara said, "These guys don't [57:09] understand anything about victimization [57:11] because they've never been victims. [57:13] They're traditionally white males who [57:15] have grown up in upper income households [57:17] and they've never really understood what [57:18] it's like to be a victim. So they don't [57:20] put in place the safeguards. It's so [57:22] competitive that it's just easier for [57:24] them to give money, some strategic money [57:26] to key people and ensure that they're [57:28] not regulated such that they can get to [57:30] be billionaires because all the [57:31] incentives are do whatever is required [57:34] to win. Sam Alman isn't going to be [57:35] remembered for being a good or a bad [57:37] guy. He's going to be remembered for the [57:39] guy who either was the number one AI [57:42] company or blew it. That's what he's [57:44] going to be remembered for. And right [57:45] now he's blowing it, it appears, right? [57:47] But people are going to look back and [57:49] say, "Well, he didn't get public. [57:52] Anthropic ended up being at worth more. [57:54] It was kind of a disappointment [57:56] financially, but he was a good guy." [57:58] That's not what he's going for. And [58:00] quite frankly, that's not what our [58:01] society rewards. [58:03] Whenever I talk to new founders, they [58:05] all carry the same belief that the [58:06] biggest threat to their small business [58:07] is having a bad product. It's not. The [58:10] biggest threat they face is hiring the [58:12] wrong person for their small team. [58:13] Because bad hires put the handbreak on [58:16] growth and rapidly infect company [58:18] culture. And I get it. When you're [58:20] starting out, you need a players to grow [58:21] your company, but you don't have 40 [58:23] spare hours to spend sifting through [58:25] interviews. So, you hire fast to fill [58:27] the seat. But this ends up costing you [58:28] even more in the long term. What any [58:30] small business actually needs is a [58:31] reliable and efficient way to find the [58:32] right talent without stalling momentum. [58:34] That's where our long-term sponsor [58:36] LinkedIn and LinkedIn Hiring Pro can [58:38] help you. It streamlines the entire [58:39] hiring process from drafting a job [58:41] description to shortlisting candidates [58:43] and conducting AI powered interviews for [58:45] initial screenings. Nearly 60% of hirers [58:48] who've used this tool have found a [58:50] candidate to interview within a week. [58:51] Hire right the first time around and get [58:53] started by posting your first job for [58:55] free at linkedin.com/doac. [58:58] That's linkedin.com/doac. [59:00] And terms and conditions apply. [59:03] Inflammation is something I'd never [59:04] really thought to check until fairly [59:06] recently. There aren't any symptoms or [59:08] obvious signs for a lot of people, and [59:09] yet it's consistently linked to some of [59:11] the most serious health outcomes that we [59:12] know of. But our sponsor, Function, [59:15] tests twice a year for inflammation [59:17] markers alongside hormones and heart [59:19] health and stress and toxins, giving you [59:22] a far more specific view of what's going [59:24] on inside your body. I did my tests [59:26] recently and I was shocked a little bit, [59:29] a little bit amazed, a little bit [59:30] surprised by my results. But what I [59:33] really loved was having all of the [59:35] information about my body in front of [59:36] me. It makes it so much easier to make a [59:39] more informed decision immediately about [59:41] what I do in terms of exercise and in [59:42] terms of what I do in terms of my diet [59:44] and everything else. So, if you want to [59:46] look into it yourself, go to [59:47] functionhealth.com/doac [59:50] and use code doc25 [59:53] for a $25 credit towards your [59:55] membership. It gives you 160 lab tests [59:58] for $365 a year, which is just $1 a day. [60:03] I think your assessment of AI in terms [60:06] of it creating more opportunity than it [60:08] destroys is accurate. I also think that [60:11] in the near term and all of our lives [60:13] are going to be quite quite different. I [60:16] spend a lot of time on this podcast. We [60:17] talk we've spoken to a lot of the big [60:18] CEOs from AI companies and tried to pass [60:20] through this and I've never really [60:21] gotten to a solid a solid conclusion of [60:24] what the future looks like. But um do [60:25] you have a a a case for the future where [60:28] this technology is the first that [60:29] actually delivers on the promise of [60:30] making us more human? There's talk about [60:33] loneliness. There's talk, you know, [60:34] algorithms are going to get get more [60:36] attentive. But I have this like thesis [60:37] that potentially, you know, social [60:39] networking say it's going to connect us [60:40] and make us more human. That's kind of [60:42] the narrative of all these tools. But [60:43] maybe this technology renders us only [60:45] useful for that which humans can do, [60:47] which is the relationships thing you [60:48] were talking about and connection and [60:50] being out touching grass with our [60:51] friends and family. Is there a utopia [60:53] >> just with social media has some real [60:55] upsides? I would argue at this point [60:57] meta is actually a net negative. It's I [60:59] think done so much damage. [61:01] >> But with AI, there's a lot of upsides. A [61:04] really encouraging piece of data I saw [61:06] is that when you spend time on social [61:07] media, it takes you to the extremes. The [61:10] algorithms see money and more Nissan ads [61:13] in figuring out if you're conservative [61:15] or liberal and then demonizing the other [61:17] side and tickling your sensors. Right. [61:18] >> Yeah. I'll get served a video of Ted [61:22] Cruz or Victor Orban looking like an ass [61:24] because that I'm a progressive and that [61:26] makes me happy. And then they elevate [61:28] content of some progressive of AOC [61:31] calling out somebody and I start to hate [61:33] the other side. What they're finding [61:35] with AI is it's actually people who [61:36] spend more time in AI, it's actually [61:38] moderating their views because AI is [61:40] about uh taking the medium or the [61:42] average of every piece of data. Also, do [61:45] you notice how nice AI is? [61:47] >> Yeah, [61:47] >> great question, Stephen. You know, no [61:49] matter what you say or how stupid it is, [61:51] it won't say, "That's a really stupid [61:52] idea, Stephen." It'll say, "I can [61:54] understand why you're asking this [61:55] question." And generally speaking, [61:57] because it looks for the median of [61:58] things, it looks for the average. What [61:59] is the most often used seventh word [62:02] after these six words are strung [62:03] together? [62:04] >> Mh. [clears throat] [62:04] >> That it's pushing people towards the [62:06] middle. It's actually having a [62:07] moderating effect, which I find very [62:09] encouraging. I think old people in [62:11] senior care who maybe have lost family [62:13] members or don't have a lot of [62:15] relationships in their life, I can see [62:18] AI characters playing a big role in [62:20] their life. I believe for a long time [62:23] that the biggest danger of AI is not [62:28] weapons, it's not income inequality. We [62:30] voted for income inequality or [62:32] contamination of our elections. I mean, [62:34] all of these things are big issues. The [62:36] biggest downside of AI in my view is [62:39] loneliness. And that is, and we talk [62:41] about this a lot, AI is convincing [62:44] people they can have a reasonable [62:45] faximile of life on a screen with an [62:47] algorithm. Why go through the effort of [62:48] having friends when you have Discord and [62:50] Reddit? Why go through the hassle of [62:52] getting a job when you can make money on [62:54] Coinbase or Robin Hood supposedly? And [62:56] why would you go through the effort of [62:58] trying to have a romantic relationship [63:00] when you have lifelike synthetic porn? [63:02] And the young male brain, I think, is [63:04] especially susceptible to this. Men aged [63:06] 20 to 30 are spending less time outdoors [63:07] in prison inmates. 42% of men 18 to 24 [63:11] and we talked about this on your last [63:12] show have never asked a woman out in [63:14] person. So people are starting to [63:16] believe they can have a reasonable [63:17] faximile of life. And what they need to [63:19] know is that 40% of the S&P our economy [63:22] is trying to sequester you from the most [63:24] important and rewarding thing in your [63:26] life and that is your relationships. So [63:28] my prediction for America is we will [63:30] never be as prosperous. incredible [63:32] prosperity, incredible economic growth, [63:35] and massive loneliness, depression, [63:37] anxiety, and obesity. [63:38] >> I wanted to get your POV as well on all [63:40] this war stuff that's going on over in [63:42] the Middle East. What you thought Trump [63:44] was trying to do and actually what [63:46] happened because, you know, he's he's [63:47] talking about, oh, no, we said it would [63:49] be 6 weeks, it's 5 and a half weeks, [63:51] everything's going to plan. We're we're [63:53] winning the war. And I you're good at [63:56] seeing through things. What what [63:57] actually happened in your view here? I [63:59] think that he was talked into by some of [64:02] his security adviserss and Netanyahu [64:03] that his legacy could be restoring or [64:06] making the Middle East more peaceful and [64:08] being the the president that that [64:11] severely diminished the capacity of what [64:14] has been arguably the number one um [64:17] source of terror in the region and maybe [64:19] even around the world for a long time. [64:21] that this was his defining moment as a [64:23] president to go in that they were [64:24] weakened, they were hobbled and we had [64:26] the military assets and the intelligence [64:28] to go in and topple the regime and he [64:30] would be known as the president that [64:31] liberated the Middle East. I think he [64:33] bought into that [64:34] >> off the back of Venezuela. [64:36] >> Well, [64:37] >> which was a kind of a success. [64:38] >> Not kind of. That was arguably one of [64:40] the greatest military operations in [64:42] history, but it was a military [64:43] operation. It wasn't a war. I mean, [64:45] supposedly his guards didn't know what [64:48] happened. and all of a sudden they were [64:49] on the floor throwing up because there [64:50] was some sort of crazy radiation or [64:51] radio waves. Not a single American [64:54] soldier uh killed, lifted him out. I [64:57] mean that that was that was an [64:59] incredible operation. I think he got [65:01] drunk on that macho and that success and [65:03] thought well I can do the same thing. [65:05] And the problem with wars is that the [65:07] enemy has a say. And what we have found [65:10] since I think a lot of our leaders [65:12] believe that wars could ultimately if [65:14] you have a bigger army will result in [65:16] unconditional surrender on the other [65:17] side. And there really hasn't been [65:19] unconditional surrender since World War [65:20] II. And all the enemy needs to do [65:22] whether it's the Vietkong or the Taliban [65:24] or the IRGC, all they need to do is [65:26] survive and they win. In addition, I [65:29] would describe the war as being [65:31] operational excellence and strategic [65:32] incompetence. I actually believe there [65:35] was justification and some merit to the [65:37] idea of a military operation that tried [65:39] to take advantage of a weakened Iran [65:41] whose air defenses were down to take out [65:44] the IRGC or at least maybe provide cloud [65:46] cover for a revolution against the IRGC [65:50] to diminish their navy, diminish their [65:51] nuclear capabilities, diminish their [65:53] missile launch capability. I think there [65:54] was real justification for that. The [65:56] problem was the strategic incompetence [65:59] here. not going to not enlisting some [66:01] European allies, not not briefing [66:04] Congress, not coordinating with Gulf [66:06] allies, not recognizing the game theory [66:09] around what happens if they start firing [66:10] at ships in the straight of Hormuz. It [66:13] just was strategically incompetent. And [66:16] now we're in a situation where we want [66:19] to diminish their nuclear capacity. But [66:21] the reality is if they can maintain an [66:23] ability to to turn off and on the [66:25] straight of hormones, that is probably [66:27] more powerful than them having nuclear [66:29] weapons. If you look at if you look at [66:32] what happens if if the fertilizer or the [66:37] the products that create fertilizer are [66:39] further sequestered, you could have a [66:42] mass starvation event around the world. [66:44] And so we've essentially given them [66:49] potentially a weapon that's more [66:50] powerful than a nuclear weapon. And also [66:54] we look like we have a bit of a glass [66:56] jaw. We go in, we lose 14 soldiers. [66:58] Tragedy for them and their families. The [67:00] Russians are losing a thousand people a [67:02] day and they don't show any signs of [67:03] giving up. We look like this giant boxer [67:06] who's the most skilled and biggest boxer [67:07] in the world. We go in argument over [67:10] whether we should go in or not. But now [67:12] if we withdraw, what incentive do the [67:15] Iranians right now have to negotiate [67:18] when every day this goes on, they look [67:20] like the little guy that's that that [67:23] stood up to the evil America and Israel. [67:25] I think this has been a disaster from a [67:28] US brand standpoint. And I would argue [67:30] that them blocking inbound and outbound [67:33] traffic from Iranian ports is actually [67:35] the way to go. But that lends itself to [67:38] the argument we should have just [67:39] continued with economic sanctions. But I [67:42] have to own it. I thought military [67:43] action was a good idea. I would argue, I [67:46] apologize for the word salad here, that [67:47] we've been at war with Iran for 47 [67:49] years. Their first act to this regime in [67:50] 1979 was to take 110 Americans hostage. [67:54] 70% of the IEDs in Iraq were built in [67:57] Iran. We have been at war with Iran for [67:59] a long time. The question is whether or [68:01] not this military action/war was worth [68:04] it. And it looks as if it was so poorly [68:07] executed on a strategic level that it is [68:11] really diminished our brand. And we're [68:13] now in the definition of a quagmire. If [68:15] we leave, we look weak. And any nation [68:17] we perform military action against just [68:19] says start firing missiles at their [68:21] neighbors. You know who summarized every [68:23] war for the US right now is in this war [68:27] was Ho Chi Min. When he was describing [68:29] Vietnam, he said, "They will kill a lot [68:31] of our people. We will kill some of [68:33] theirs. They will tire. They will go [68:36] home. [68:38] >> We killed a million people in V Vietnam. [68:41] We lost 58,000 and we left. [68:44] >> Yeah. [68:44] >> Right. So, Americans tolerance for pain. [68:47] And I'm not suggesting that we should go [68:49] on military misadventures. But this [68:52] right now is no doubt turning out to be [68:54] a giant win for the IRGC and a pretty [68:58] severe loss for America that fur further [69:00] alienates us from our allies and shows [69:03] uh kind of our soft tissue around our [69:05] willingness to actually finish the job. [69:06] The other statement that kind of [69:08] perfectly summarizes this war is we [69:09] broke it now you fix it. We're leaving [69:12] the world a much more insecure place, [69:15] much more economically vulnerable. Gulf [69:17] States thought that having a US military [69:19] base was Kevlar and ended up just [69:22] putting a giant bullseye on them. So, [69:24] people are going to think twice before [69:25] they cooperate with our US military by [69:27] hosting bases. Uh we appear to have not [69:30] thought through getting our expats out [69:32] of the Gulf, protecting the Gulf States. [69:35] And I'm biased. I think the Trump [69:36] administration will be known for [69:37] criminal for corruption and [69:39] incompetence. And that incompetence is [69:41] bubbling up. I watched a press [69:43] conference of his last night where he [69:45] said this which kind of links to what [69:46] you were saying. [69:47] >> They're they're delaying it because they [69:49] we don't know who to deal with. They are [69:51] in, you know, they know who the leader [69:53] is in this country. We don't know who [69:55] the leader is in Iran. [69:57] >> And I just thought, do you know what? If [69:59] I was running Iran, [70:01] that's exactly what I would want. We [70:04] don't know who to deal with, Trump. We [70:05] don't even know who to negotiate with. [70:06] If he can't negotiate, he can't do [70:08] anything. So I think I think the [70:10] Iranians potentially the the IRGC are [70:13] saying no we don't even know who's [70:14] leading because then what can you do? [70:16] You can't just keep bombing. That's not [70:18] going to work. You also can't negotiate. [70:20] So it runs the clock down. You can [70:22] affect regime change from the air. They [70:26] the Iranians are smart. They have [70:27] distributed power. [70:28] >> Yeah. [70:28] >> So there's no kind of head of the snake [70:30] to cut off. But also a lot of this is [70:32] incompetence on our part. Do you know [70:34] what we have done in the US to our [70:35] diplomatic corps? We've absolutely [70:37] gutted it. When Vance goes to Islamabad [70:40] thinking he's going to do a deal, if you [70:42] look at the history of every truce of [70:44] every deal of every summit, 97% of the [70:48] work is done before they hit the tarmac [70:51] by diplomats who go through line by line [70:54] and iron out and talk to each other and [70:57] negotiate. We've gutted our diplomatic [70:59] core. Our counter intelligence [71:02] operations have been gutted. So, we're [71:05] kind of flying blind without [71:06] instruments. and they think that JD [71:08] Vance going to Islamabad for a Tik Tok [71:10] moment where he tries to look [71:11] presidential and then blames it on the [71:13] IRGC, it's just not going to work. So I [71:16] think a a lack of investment in key [71:18] areas, a lack of soft power, whether [71:21] it's through cutting USA aid, a lack of [71:23] respect for our diplomatic core and the [71:26] engine room, like like you know actually [71:28] working with people and talking to them. [71:30] I think this level of incompetence and [71:32] arrogance is all bubbling up and they [71:35] you're right, they don't even know who [71:36] to talk to. That's good. They don't even [71:38] know who who do we negotiate with. And [71:41] by the way, you got to look at [71:42] incentives. If I'm the IRGC, I'm like, [71:45] all we need to do is survive. Yeah. [71:46] Every day this goes on. And by the way, [71:48] we're in the middle of what I'd call a [71:50] the first AI meme war. And that is Trump [71:54] is communicating with truths on truth [71:56] social and these macho videos and memes [72:00] of him as Jesus Christ, but he's been [72:02] bested by kind of the sloppi memes of [72:08] the IRGC. Have you seen these Legos [72:10] memes? They understand him better than [72:13] he understands them. They are [72:15] outstanding. And it's a group of 18 to [72:17] 25 year old probably people who look [72:19] like this crew. [72:20] >> None of the none of this what we're [72:21] involved in Tehran [72:24] figuring out AIdriven means, highly [72:26] produced, highly effective, very strong [72:28] message going right after the, you know, [72:30] portrayals of the Epstein island and I [72:33] mean they are doing a much better job [72:36] because as Lincoln said and it goes back [72:37] to basics, you can't win a war without [72:39] public support and you can't lose a war [72:41] with public support. And right now Iran [72:44] is winning what you would call the [72:45] slopp. [72:47] They're putting out better information [72:48] and propaganda than us right now. [72:50] >> And what how do you predict this ends? [72:51] Because as you said, we can't back out [72:53] of this war as the West. Trump can't [72:55] back out of it, but he also just can't [72:57] keep doing it. His the midterms are [72:59] coming up. His approval ratings are I [73:00] think an all-time low because of this [73:02] war. His base is turning on him. So, he [73:04] can't it's like lose loose at this [73:06] moment. [73:07] >> Yeah. So, the honest answer is I don't [73:09] know cuz he's unpredictable. If I had to [73:10] pick anything, I think there'll be a [73:12] multinational force that has a vested [73:13] interest in ensuring the straight of [73:15] hormones is open. There's so many things [73:17] we've taken for granted in the West and [73:19] one of them is freedom of navigation. If [73:21] Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia [73:23] decide we need money or we need [73:24] geopolitical power, we're going to close [73:26] the straits of Malika or the Strait of [73:28] Singapore. What if China closes off [73:30] certain straits in the South China Sea [73:32] where something like 60% of trade goes [73:34] through? We have always enforced, we've [73:37] gone to war over this basic notion of [73:39] freedom of navigation that pretty much [73:40] any ship goes pretty much gets to go [73:42] anywhere with pretty much anything on [73:44] it. So I think that European nations, [73:47] Asian nations all have a vested interest [73:49] in ensuring the straight of Hormos is [73:51] open. The way to do that is by [73:54] sequestering or blocking offloading and [73:56] onloading of oil into Iranian ports [73:59] because at some point it not only shuts [74:00] them off economically. I didn't know [74:02] this, but within I think about 12 weeks [74:06] if you can't offload the oil and get it [74:09] somewhere, it backs up and actually [74:12] starts to damage the source. Well, [74:14] >> oh, okay. [74:15] >> It like stops up. So, I think ideally [74:18] the optimistic scenario is there's a [74:20] multinational force that enforces the [74:22] straight of Hormos. He comes up with a [74:24] series of objectives. If he had in his [74:26] first if he had outlined, we're going to [74:28] take out most of their navy. We're going [74:29] to give the Iranian people an [74:30] opportunity to overthrow the IRGC. We're [74:33] going to take out the majority of their [74:34] missile capability. [74:36] And after 72 hours said, "This is a [74:38] win." and got the hell out and [74:40] coordinated with Gulf States to say, [74:41] "What can we do to ensure your safety?" [74:44] I think it would have been a win. But [74:46] now, I don't even know what his [74:48] objectives are. Can you list what his [74:49] objectives are? I don't know what they [74:51] are. They seem to keep [74:53] >> We're going to be out very soon, which [74:54] is why we need to continue this war. It [74:56] the communications here and thinking has [74:59] been so sclerotic [75:01] and difficult to track. I'm like, who's [75:02] boarding what ships? Is it a ceasefire? [75:04] Isn't a ceasefire? He claims that them [75:07] commandeering two western vessels is not [75:10] a violation of the ceasefire. Of course [75:12] it is. That's actually that's an act of [75:14] war. So we don't even know what to look [75:16] for. You ask me how does this turn out? [75:18] I think a multinational force that opens [75:20] a straight of hormones. Too many people [75:21] have too much vested interest in free [75:24] navigation. [75:25] >> But in such a scenario they they're [75:27] probably building up drones right now in [75:28] a ceasefire underground. They'll be [75:30] building drone factories in every bunker [75:31] in Iran right now. The minute you do a [75:33] multinational force in the straight of [75:35] moose, those drones start hitting ships [75:36] and then the big companies say, "I'm not [75:38] putting my ships through there." [75:40] >> I think that's a fair point and actually [75:41] not that many ships have gone down. But [75:42] it's actually an insurance problem [75:44] because if you have 2 million barrels on [75:46] a tanker, you've got aund $160 million [75:49] payload. Someone has to take receipt of [75:51] that. Someone has bought it. So there [75:53] needs to be middlemen in the form of [75:54] insurance. And no one wants to ensure [75:56] take that kind of risk right now. So [75:58] it's a lack of insurance more than it is [75:59] a lack of safety from the threat. But I [76:01] do think the reality is the Iranians, [76:04] the IRGC, I say the bottom line is you [76:07] go after the money. You don't bomb [76:09] civilian infrastructure. That's a war [76:10] crime. But making it very difficult for [76:13] them and creating a carrot. You can [76:15] have, you know, free flow of oil. If you [76:17] look at the Arab Spring, if you look at [76:20] revolutions, they're usually a function [76:21] of unemployment or economics. So if you [76:24] were to inhibit their ability to export [76:26] oil, that brings them to the table [76:29] because the IRGC has been able to [76:30] survive because millions of families in [76:32] Iran are dependent upon the IRGC for [76:34] their check. They control the most [76:36] profitable, biggest parts of the [76:37] economy. So if you if you cut off their [76:41] economics that I think or threaten to, I [76:44] think that brings them to the table. I [76:46] think that's an the most optimistic [76:48] scenario is the straits open by a [76:49] multinational force and there's a [76:51] feeling of safety because it's enforced. [76:53] Iran agrees to keep it open and somehow [76:56] we develop a series of objectives that [76:58] we claim those boxes we've been checked [77:00] and we declare victory and get the hell [77:02] out of dodge. But every day this goes [77:04] on, we seed, in my opinion advantage and [77:08] power to the IRGC because they just look [77:09] like they're winning. I think it's clear [77:11] that Trump miscalculated this situation [77:14] quite horrifically. You you have to be a [77:16] logic like you don't have to be a genius [77:18] to look at what he's saying and see the [77:19] contradictions, the constant [77:20] contradictions week over week. And the [77:21] big one he's now got himself trapped in [77:24] is he was handing out a six week [77:25] timeline at the start of this and we're [77:27] approaching 6 weeks. So if you watch [77:28] this press conference from yesterday, he [77:30] is incredibly irritated because all the [77:32] journalists are saying, "You said 6 [77:34] weeks, it's 6 weeks." And for the first [77:37] time, there's a real measurable [77:39] contradiction in what he said at the [77:41] start versus now. And so if you watch [77:43] it, he's so he's so agitated. He's [77:45] calling the reporters a disgrace. I [77:47] think in this press conference [77:48] yesterday, he personally insulted around [77:51] 10 journalists. [77:52] >> He's crashing out. [77:53] >> He's crashing out. [77:54] >> Yeah. [77:54] >> And for me, that was like, "God, this [77:56] guy's lost. But I find the most [77:59] interesting thing about this, one of the [78:01] most interesting thing is someone who [78:02] follows the markets. If you didn't know [78:05] there was a war in Iran that threatens [78:06] geopolitical, [78:08] I don't know, safety, world oil flows. [78:11] >> Yeah. [78:12] >> If you looked at the market, would you [78:13] know? [78:13] >> No. [78:14] >> The market just hit an all-time high in [78:15] the US. And again, it goes back to [78:17] something very unhealthy. And that is [78:19] there's certain elements of our economy, [78:21] specifically the wealthy, that have [78:22] totally disassociated from [78:24] >> they can't feel it at the pump. Do you [78:26] feel it? [78:27] >> No. [78:28] >> So 50% of consumer spending in the US is [78:30] the top 10%. The top 10% don't give a [78:33] if gas is at six bucks a gallon. It [78:35] doesn't matter. Young uh poor people, [78:38] lower-inccome people spend 22% of their [78:40] household income on energy. And when [78:43] energy prices are going up, it really [78:45] impacts them. So unfortunately, we've [78:47] again outsourced the downside of war to [78:49] less wealthy nations who are very oil [78:51] dependent, to the Gulf, which is [78:53] incurring damage here. But America is [78:56] somewhat sequestered other than [78:58] reputational risk in who gets elected [79:00] president. [79:02] We're somewhat squ again we've [79:04] outsourced the pain to military families [79:06] to people who who spend a [79:08] disproportionate amount of their income [79:10] lower income households on energy. But [79:12] it's somewhat dangerous that the most [79:14] powerful people in the world and to a [79:15] certain extent the most powerful nation [79:17] in the world seems to be unaffected by [79:20] some of these uh by some of this. uh we [79:23] stocks are at an all-time high. [79:26] >> This is something that I've made for [79:28] you. I've realized that the direio [79:29] audience are striv [79:33] goals that we want to accomplish. And [79:35] one of the things I've learned is that [79:37] when you aim at the big big goal, it can [79:40] feel incredibly psychologically [79:42] uncomfortable because it's kind of like [79:44] being stood at the foot of Mount Everest [79:46] and looking upwards. The way to [79:47] accomplish your goals is by breaking [79:49] them down into tiny small steps. And we [79:52] call this in our team the 1%. And [79:54] actually this philosophy is highly [79:56] responsible for much of our success [79:57] here. So what we've done so that you at [80:00] home can accomplish any big goal that [80:02] you have is we've made these 1% diaries [80:05] and we released these last year and they [80:07] all sold out. So I asked my team over [80:09] and over again to bring the diaries back [80:11] but also to introduce some new colors [80:12] and to make some minor tweaks to the [80:14] diary. Now we have a better range for [80:18] you. So if you have a big goal in mind [80:20] and you need a framework and a process [80:22] and some motivation, then I highly [80:25] recommend you get one of these diaries [80:26] before they all sell out once again. And [80:28] you can get yours at the diary.com. [80:31] And if you want the link, the link is in [80:33] the description below. [80:35] On this point of stocks, the average [80:36] person and tying it back into what we [80:38] were saying about AI because there's [80:40] been this overinvestment in artificial [80:42] intelligence technology companies. As [80:44] you said earlier, a kid in Stanford [80:45] right now or anybody could raise 1020 [80:48] million for some AI idea they have and [80:50] I'm seeing it everywhere. Um the [80:52] companies are overinvesting in [80:53] infrastructure. I mean it was crazy. I [80:55] think OpenAI did the biggest ever fund [80:56] raise. Was it almost two $200 billion [80:59] >> to build data centers on revenues of I [81:01] don't know is it $30 billion or [81:03] something? Craziness is going on in the [81:04] markets. At some point things correct? [81:07] >> Oh 100%. And if you look at the greatest [81:09] spends on infrastructure, when they get [81:10] above 2 or 3% of GDP, there's almost [81:12] always a crash afterwards. It happened [81:14] in the railroads. It happened in [81:16] electrification. It happened in the [81:17] internet. It happened in the huge telco [81:20] buildout of global crossing. [81:22] Now, having said that, that doesn't mean [81:24] those companies don't come back at some [81:25] point, but there's almost always a dip [81:27] or a correction afterwards. Uh I [81:30] encourage or I I absolutely was on the [81:32] wrong end of that dip in 2000, again in [81:34] 2008. [81:36] But if you look at the most valuable [81:38] companies in the world, [81:40] they have in a single year all of them [81:42] have had a 40 to 97% correction. Amazon [81:45] went down 94 97% from 99 to 2001. [81:49] Facebook was off 72% in 2022. The [81:53] difference now is if those companies go [81:55] down, they're such a big part of the [81:56] market. If they sneeze, the global [81:58] economy could catch a cold. So I I think [82:01] the technology [82:04] will absolutely survive. I do think it's [82:05] seminal. It's breakthrough. But that [82:08] doesn't mean that we're not going to [82:08] incur a pretty massive correction from a [82:10] stock market perspective. Also, let me [82:13] catastrophize for a moment. [82:17] your generation and the majority of [82:19] investors right now are under the [82:21] impression that any breakthrough in [82:22] technology results in a small number of [82:24] companies over time that are able to use [82:26] IP distribution ability to raise capital [82:31] to sequester and capture trillions of [82:33] dollars in market cap e-commerce that's [82:36] Amazon eBay Shopify social media you [82:40] know whether it's you know obviously [82:42] Meta or or or Snap or YouTube or AI. [82:48] The problem is is that what we forget is [82:51] there have been seinal technologies that [82:54] have not necessarily resulted in any [82:56] small number of companies been able to [82:57] capture shareholder value. Let me give [82:59] you some examples. If someone said to [83:01] you right now for the next 36 months you [83:03] either have to go without AI or jet [83:05] transportation, what would you pick? [83:08] [laughter] [83:09] >> Without jet transportation or without AI [83:11] >> prop planes for the next 3 years or or [83:14] AI? I would I would keep the AI. [83:16] >> Okay. Hands down, jet transportation. I [83:20] use AI every day. I invest in AI [83:22] companies. Jet transportation is much [83:23] more important to me. I think that's [83:25] skirting along the surface of the [83:27] atmosphere at 810 the speed of sound has [83:28] unlocked emotional and financial [83:30] well-being across the world. It's an [83:32] unbelievable innovation. If you added up [83:34] all the shareholder value, the losses [83:36] and the gains, the profits and the [83:38] losses right now, as we sit here now, [83:40] the entire airline and jet manufacturing [83:42] industry is at break even. It still [83:44] hasn't made money. If you look at all [83:45] the airlines that have gone out of [83:46] business, if you look at the government [83:47] subsidies of all the jet plane [83:49] manufacturers, it has been a shitty [83:50] business. It's at zero. PCs. I was on [83:53] the board of Gateway Computer. I realize [83:56] that's the weakest flex in the world. [83:58] >> I [laughter] have no idea what that is. [83:59] >> You don't know what Gateway is? Oh god, [84:00] I feel so old. It was his company Ted [84:03] Wade who was sort of the Michael Delvis [84:04] generation figured out a way to assemble [84:06] computers in I think South Dakota and it [84:08] became this hugely valuable company. It [84:09] was the second when I was on the board, [84:10] it was the second largest computer [84:12] manufacturer by volume in the world. We [84:13] were ahead of Apple. We got sold for [84:15] $600 million or maybe 760, which is what [84:18] Alphabet will lose in about three [84:19] trading seconds or gain today. No one's [84:22] been able to capture a lot of money [84:23] around PCs. People say Apple. No, it [84:25] wasn't PCs. It was the iPhone. Vaccines. [84:28] I think vaccines are the second greatest [84:30] innovation in history, only bested by [84:32] the American middle class. Millions of [84:34] lives saved through vaccines. [84:36] Mona is down 90%. There's no one company [84:39] that's been able to capture sequester [84:41] shareholder value. So my thesis is that [84:43] there's a one in three chance that AI [84:46] becomes as important as vaccines, as [84:48] important as jet transportation, as [84:50] important as PCs, but there's no one or [84:52] small group of companies that are able [84:54] to capture shareholder value. Why is [84:56] that? AI puts AI out of business. And [85:00] that is if you look at the convergence [85:01] of the technologies, all the models are [85:04] converging. [85:04] >> Yeah. the AI reverse engineers any [85:07] feature and basically they're all kind [85:09] of they all started with this delta [85:11] they're all converging towards the same [85:12] thing. So I wonder if the big winner or [85:15] the stakeholder that wins in AI is us. [85:18] >> Yeah. [85:18] >> And that is we have this we have amazing [85:21] vaccines PCs transportation [85:24] but a small number of companies haven't [85:26] become worth trillions of dollars. And I [85:28] wonder if the same thing might not [85:29] happen with AI, with openweight models [85:31] out of China, with um basically great [85:35] models that are for free. My prediction [85:38] would be to go short the AI ecosystem [85:40] from a shareholder standpoint, but from [85:43] a stakeholder standpoint, I think it's [85:44] going to be great. And let me back up. I [85:48] think a more important technology in [85:50] terms of how it's going to change the [85:51] world is not AI. You know, every year I [85:53] say this is my technology of the year. [85:54] In 24, I said it was AI. 25 and 26 I've [85:58] had the same technology that said this [85:59] is more important than AI. Any guesses? [86:02] Talk about this a lot. You would not [86:04] know this technology or use it. That's a [86:06] hint. [86:08] >> Okay. [86:10] Testosterone [86:11] [laughter] [86:13] replacement. [86:14] >> That hurts cuz you know I'm on it. That [86:16] hurts. [86:16] >> Okay. No. Um Okay. A Zen. [86:19] >> Okay. [86:19] >> GLP1. [86:20] >> GLP1. Yeah. [86:21] >> Talk to somebody who's on GLP1 and uses [86:23] AI every day and ask them which one they [86:25] would give up. [86:26] >> [laughter] [86:26] >> Yeah, [86:27] >> I think GLP1, if you look at what's [86:29] really going to have an impact on [86:30] people's lives and what will create more [86:31] shareholder value, I think it's GLP1 [86:33] than AI. And a lot of people much [86:35] smarter than me say you're full of [86:36] AI. AI is going to change everything. I [86:39] I don't I think GLP1 is more important [86:41] technology than than AI. And my thesis [86:43] is there's a one in three chance that AI [86:46] ends up being more like vaccines than [86:48] e-commerce or social. and that it's [86:50] going to be impossible for a small [86:52] number of companies to capture all the [86:53] shareholder value they're raising money [86:55] at. The other kind of what I'll put, you [86:58] know, fun to speculate or catastrophize. [87:00] If someone were to say the US economy [87:02] crashed in the next 24 months or or [87:05] valuations came down not 30% but the [87:08] market dropped 40 or 50%, which has [87:10] happened before, I wouldn't think it's [87:11] because of its misadventures in the [87:13] Middle East. I think there's a decent [87:15] chance if I were advising she and China [87:18] and I saw America as a real adversary [87:20] and said we are sick of these guys [87:22] messing with us, treating us so poorly, [87:24] these ridiculous tariffs, very difficult [87:27] to understand what they're what they're [87:29] thinking or how we deal with them. I [87:30] would do what I think they're doing and [87:32] that is I would engage in modern-day [87:34] steel dumping. So back I think it was in [87:36] the 80s or the '90s, China wanted to [87:39] ramp up, they wanted to consolidate the [87:41] global steel market. So they began [87:42] dumping cheap steel into the US and US [87:44] steel manufacturers could not compete. [87:45] And the idea was price it below market, [87:48] consolidate the market and then you get [87:49] margin power. That's basically what [87:51] Amazon and Netflix have done. They've [87:52] sold you a dollar worth of goods for 80 [87:54] cents until they wrapped up the market. [87:56] Then they started raising prices. I [87:58] think China is beginning to engage in [88:00] what I'll call AI dumping. And that is [88:02] they're going to have a series of [88:03] openweight models. About a third of [88:05] corporations now are supposedly using [88:07] Chinese lightweight openweight models [88:09] that are cheaper. If I were she, I would [88:11] just dump cheap AI into the US market. [88:14] And the moment large corporations start [88:15] announcing they're not engaging these [88:17] multi-million dollar site licenses with [88:19] anthropic or open AI, they're using [88:21] these inexpensive Chinese models and the [88:24] market realizes that there's no way they [88:25] can justify these incredible valuations. [88:28] I think the US market crashes because [88:30] 40% of the S&P now is directly or [88:33] tangentially related to this giant bet [88:35] America is making on AI. The majority of [88:38] GDP growth over the last two years has [88:40] come from AI capex. If that slows down, [88:43] we're immediately in recession. [88:45] >> That's such an interesting idea that if [88:46] you're sat in China as a leader now, you [88:48] go, you know what? Give Americans cheap [88:50] AI and you'll kneecap their economy. [88:52] >> 100%. That's what I would do. [88:54] >> It does make sense, right? [88:56] >> It makes a lot of sense. I I've heard a [88:58] lot of founders um get quite scared that [89:00] there will be an economic crash in the [89:02] next 12 or 24 months because of the [89:04] overinvestment in in AI. And investors [89:06] are going to start to realize that the [89:07] returns just aren't there for a lot of [89:09] these companies that have raised at 100 [89:11] million valuation that on an idea and so [89:14] the market will contract. And if it if [89:15] the market does contract, what does [89:16] history tell us that the individual [89:18] should do? The person listening, they're [89:20] not the average person in such a market [89:22] because they're scared they're going to [89:23] be laid off. If all this investor money [89:24] suddenly contracts, investors go risk [89:26] off. They might be laid off. Well, [89:29] again, so Jamie Diamond was asked, "What [89:31] is the definition of a recession?" and [89:33] he said something that happens every [89:34] seven years. Your generation isn't used [89:37] to a recession. [89:38] >> No. [89:38] >> I was on the board of the New York Times [89:40] and within like 60 days 70% of our [89:43] revenues went away. 2008 the credit [89:46] crisis advertisers 70 80% of the New [89:49] York Times revenue was advertising. [89:51] You know, in May we're doing X million [89:54] in revenue. [89:55] >> And then you joined the board and then [89:56] >> Yeah. [laughter] No, I think I joined [89:58] the board. I joined the board at exactly [90:00] the wrong time. I raised Quickstory. I [90:01] raised 600 million to become the largest [90:03] sheriff in the New York Times and [90:04] overnight I turned it into 200 million. [90:06] [laughter] [90:07] So, but yeah, that was that was a [90:09] learning experience for me. Anyways, [90:11] just about the time I started having [90:13] kids. God, that was stressful. Anyway, [90:15] they basically within 60 days lost 70% [90:19] of their ad revenue and we had to go and [90:21] find a Mexican billionaire to basically [90:23] call us to bail us out. Your generation [90:25] really doesn't know what a recession [90:27] looks like. Like, everything stops. [90:30] Imagine 70% of your subscription and [90:32] advertising revenue from 1 month to one [90:34] month declines. What would that do to [90:36] your business? [90:36] >> You'd have to consider letting people go [90:39] and you'd have to cut costs. And [90:41] >> but here's the thing, to a certain [90:42] extent, it's healthy. You start [90:45] developing all these fatty deposits and [90:48] the best time to start a business is [90:50] coming out of a recession because people [90:52] are cheaper, things are cheaper, people [90:54] have a new way of looking at stuff. And [90:55] also for your generation, [90:58] people don't realize, I mean, quite [91:00] frankly, if I'm a 28-year-old who's [91:01] talented and doesn't have kids and dogs [91:03] yet, I think a recession that takes down [91:06] the asset prices might not be the worst [91:07] thing in the world that happens to your [91:09] generation. Because when 08 crashed, [91:12] when there was the crash of '08, we let [91:15] the banks fail. We I'm sorry, we bailed [91:18] out the banks, but we didn't bail out [91:19] the economy. And I was coming into my [91:21] prime income earning years. I was in my [91:22] early 40s and I was still lucky enough [91:25] and talented enough to make good money. [91:27] So what did I get in 2009? Amazon, [91:30] Apple, and Netflix for 8, 10, and 12 [91:32] bucks a share. [91:34] Those companies have 20xed. [91:36] [clears throat] [91:36] >> We don't let anything fail now. We bail [91:39] out the markets. Where do you and your [91:41] colleagues find value? Like what's cheap [91:44] right now? Where do you find value? And [91:46] here's the thing. When you There's two [91:48] parts of your life from a financial [91:49] standpoint. There's investing part of [91:51] your life and there's harvesting. You're [91:53] in the investing part of your life. [91:55] There's a certain [91:57] advantage to getting to invest when [92:00] asset prices are low. There's nowhere [92:02] for you to find value. [92:04] >> Yeah. [92:04] >> I I I'm pretty comfortable saying Apple [92:06] or Nvidia aren't going to 20x from here. [92:08] Where do you find value? Real estate. [92:11] What? Brooklyn is $3,000 a square foot. [92:14] So while you're in the investing part of [92:17] your life and you can survive a bit of a [92:19] shock, I don't know if quite frankly a [92:22] good thing to happen for your generation [92:24] wouldn't be a correction in asset prices [92:27] because the economy has an unbelievable [92:29] malleability and resilience to reform, [92:31] reshape and come back. Recessions [92:33] usually don't last longer than 18, 24, [92:36] 36 months. And I think a correction in [92:39] asset values would be good. But what [92:41] we've decided, the leadership of my [92:43] generation has decided we'd rather pull [92:45] out your credit card and artificially [92:47] prop up the markets through deficit [92:49] spending or bailouts. [92:51] They're talking, we mentioned Spirit [92:52] Airlines, they're talking about a $500 [92:54] million government loan [92:56] to Spirit Airlines to bail them out. [92:59] That's nothing but you transferring [93:01] money to me. [93:03] >> Because who owns shares in Spirit? [93:06] People my age. Who's trying to buy [93:09] for cheap? people your age, it should be [93:12] allowed to go out of business. It should [93:14] decline in price. Asset value should go [93:16] down. When we bailed out every baby [93:19] boomer owner of a restaurant or a small [93:21] business in COVID, that just robbed [93:23] opportunity from the new graduate of a [93:24] culinary academy who wanted her shot to [93:27] go buy a restaurant for pennies on the [93:29] dollar. Everyone in my generation has [93:32] had those asset dips where if you were [93:33] resilient and coming into your prime [93:35] income earning years, you could buy [93:36] assets for a lower price. We've decided [93:39] that the the government is here to bail [93:41] my generation out and smooth out our [93:43] assets. Make sure that our assets never [93:45] go down by too much. All that does is [93:48] rub opportunity from your generation. [93:50] You wrote this book, the the MLP [93:51] profile, the simple formula for success. [93:53] Uh brilliant, brilliant book. And [93:56] linking to what you were just saying [93:57] there, where are you investing now? Like [93:59] if you're a young person that's trying [94:00] to defend your money or just really [94:02] anybody at any age that's trying to find [94:03] a place to put your money where you'll [94:04] make a return. I guess there's actually [94:06] two questions here. which is the [94:07] investing part. And they're like, "How [94:09] do I set myself up just to make more [94:10] money, especially if there's going to be [94:12] an economic collapse, things might get a [94:14] little bit uncertain?" I think you I [94:16] think I heard you say before that less [94:18] people are leaving their jobs. It's it's [94:19] harder for entry- level people to get [94:21] into newer roles potentially at the [94:23] moment. So, in such a world where there [94:24] is uncertainty and I want to make sure [94:27] that I don't go broke, I have $10,000, [94:30] let's say, and I want to make sure I [94:32] increase my earning potential. What's [94:33] one's advice for those dual strategies? [94:35] >> Well, I'll tell you what I'm doing. So, [94:38] and it's different. I'm at a point where [94:40] I'm not looking to get rich. I'm looking [94:41] to not get poor. So, I just diversify [94:43] like crazy. I don't put more than I [94:45] don't invest more than 3% of my net [94:47] worth in any one thing. [94:48] >> Yeah. [94:48] >> And I've been diversifying out of the US [94:50] market, in the Latin America and [94:51] European markets because the reality is [94:54] nobody knows. The only kevlar against [94:56] the unknown, which is everywhere, is [94:57] diversification. Now, a younger person [95:00] can take more risks, right? I mean, what [95:02] am I doing? I'm diversifying and I'm [95:04] investing in Pokemon because I do it [95:05] with my son and he loves it and I think [95:08] collectibles are actually the only place [95:09] where there's value right now. [95:10] Everything to me just looks crazy [95:12] overvalued. I look at everything and [95:13] think that's going to get cut in half. [95:15] Oh, that's going to get cut in half. But [95:17] you always want to be in the market. [95:18] It's very hard to be a stock picker. So [95:20] if you're your age, you're a talented [95:22] entrepreneur. You're investing in [95:23] yourself. There's no ROI like finding a [95:26] business you're good at, trying to [95:28] invest, and working your ass off. That's [95:30] how you get wealthy in this for young [95:32] people in this generation or you find a [95:34] company that's going fast. You do well [95:36] there. You get stock options. But the [95:37] key is to make sure that a certain [95:40] amount of your income never comes into [95:42] your hands. People your age can't save [95:43] money. If they get $100, they'll spend [95:46] 105. So the key is to find every [95:48] matching program or every vehicle or [95:51] hack to make sure you never see the [95:52] money. And from an early age, it goes [95:54] into lowcost index funds. Take 30% of [95:57] your capital and have fun with it. buy [96:00] Nvidia, whatever you want that you think [96:02] you're smarter than everyone else and [96:03] then you're going to find out you're not [96:05] and and the market outperforms you. But [96:07] how do you get rich? The only answer I [96:09] have is slowly and that is figure out a [96:12] way to make sure that money every month [96:14] is invested in lowcost index funds. In [96:18] terms of trying to pick the next big [96:21] thing, oh Christ, your guess is as good [96:24] as mine. I just don't. And anyone who [96:26] tells you they know doesn't know. So, I [96:29] know how to get you rich. That's the [96:30] good news. The bad news is the answer is [96:32] slowly and it requires some discipline. [96:34] But people your age, just find out a way [96:36] to start saving when you're a teenager, [96:38] 25 bucks a month, then in your 20s, 100, [96:40] then 500, then a,000. And regardless of [96:43] whether you have a platinum record or a [96:45] bestselling book or a podcast empire, [96:47] you're going to be fine. Uh, but I don't [96:50] I can't look at a sector and say, "Oh, [96:52] it's AI." Well, AI is overvalued right [96:54] now. I don't know. Your job is to find [96:56] something you're good at, to focus such [96:58] you can become great at something which [96:59] commands margin. To show some [97:01] discipline, save some money, to [97:03] diversify like crazy, and then to let [97:05] time take over. Cuz I look at you and I [97:08] think, "Oh, I'm like Stephen. I'm a [97:10] young entrepreneur." And then I look in [97:11] the mirror, I'm like, "Fuck." And I'm [97:12] like, "Oh my god, I'm 5 years from [97:14] death." [97:16] It goes, but it happened in a blink. So [97:19] take advantage of that because if I gave [97:21] you a magic box and said if you put like [97:23] you're making real money now if you put [97:25] $100,000 in a box by the time you're my [97:27] age it's going to be worth a million [97:29] bucks. And imagine that that that that [97:32] box is like a second. 100,000 in a [97:36] second it's a million dollars. This to [97:38] this feels like a second. So how much [97:40] money would you put in that box? [97:41] >> Oh my gosh. Yeah. So the moment you have [97:43] some capital, just think about trying to [97:47] at a young age show some discipline and [97:50] put some money in that box because it [97:52] just compound interest is just it's [97:56] staggering the power of it. But trying [97:58] to predict where you should invest other [98:00] than investing in yourself, additional [98:02] skills, certifications, investing in [98:03] relationships, trying to be as do as [98:06] many nice kind things for other people, [98:07] I think that compounds, especially when [98:09] you're younger. People remember people [98:11] who helped them when they were younger [98:12] and maybe not that powerful. I imagine [98:14] you're very loyal. [98:16] >> The person who gave you 5,000 bucks, do [98:18] you resent the money they make? They [98:20] made [98:21] >> I actually emailed him this weekend. [98:22] It's called Alistister thanking him [98:23] again. Send him a big letter for [98:25] >> that because that person took a chance [98:26] on you. There was a certain amount of [98:28] kindness there, right? [98:28] >> It wasn't even the 5,000. It was that a [98:30] smart person said, "I believe in you." [98:32] And that meant that I could go back to [98:33] my mother who was ignoring me and [98:34] saying, "Look, the smart person believed [98:36] in me and therefore it made me believe [98:37] in myself." That's really the investment [98:38] they made. That's everything and they [98:40] took a chance and it probably was they [98:42] wanted a return but what they wanted to [98:43] do was help out a young man. Those [98:45] people [98:46] >> your opportunity to make those [98:47] investments as a young person whether [98:48] it's helping someone get a job being [98:50] kind a kind a kind word a kind text [98:53] telling them how impressive they are [98:54] whatever it might be that stuff it's [98:56] like investing it compounds and you wake [98:59] up at 50 and you find those [99:02] relationships are really powerful [99:04] assets. [99:05] >> Mhm. [99:05] >> So look I don't I don't have a silver [99:07] bullet here. save money, diversify, [99:10] compound interest, invest in [99:11] relationships early. Those compound too. [99:14] >> What are the most important decisions [99:15] you made that resulted in the biggest [99:17] sort of wealth upside for you? And they [99:19] could be any kind of decision. It's not [99:21] like I invested in this, but just I [99:23] don't know, a philosophy, a mentality [99:24] and approach that when you look back on [99:26] your career, you go, it was that that [99:28] that was the biggest step change in my [99:30] money. Well, my superpower is I I I've [99:34] gotten shot in the face a couple times [99:35] personally and professionally and I [99:37] mourn and I get up and I go try and [99:40] raise money again and start another [99:41] company. I had an e-commerce incubator. [99:43] It was basically out of business 6 [99:44] months from starting it. My e-commerce [99:46] company that went public in 2002 went [99:48] through restructuring, which is a fancy [99:50] word for bankruptcy. In 2008, I started [99:53] a video delivery company that went out [99:55] of business. So, I mean, you know, [99:58] people talk about their successes. I [99:59] think generously I'm sort of like three, [100:02] four and two. I've lo I've had more [100:04] losses than wins every time I've been [100:07] rejected from a school. I had my [100:10] affections weren't returned from a [100:12] potential romantic partner. I got fired. [100:14] I had a company go out of business. I [100:16] had investment. I've always been able [100:18] and I think this is a key skill. I think [100:19] you have to do whatever you need to do. [100:21] Whether it's be around people who care [100:23] about you, exercise, you have to be able [100:25] to stand in front of a metaphorical [100:26] mirror and go. I can add a lot of value [100:29] to a company. I can raise money again [100:32] and start a business if I need to. I can [100:34] make someone really happy. [100:36] >> That's been my superpower. So the the [100:39] seinal moment in my professional success [100:43] was a willingness to say, "Okay, I just [100:44] got shot in the face. The whole world [100:46] says I'm a failure because my business I [100:47] raised a ton of money and I had to call [100:48] my investors and say we're shutting [100:50] down." That's humiliating. It's public [100:51] failure. I mourn and then I go out and I [100:54] raise more money. I try another company [100:56] because only one in seven businesses [100:58] succeed. So I started nine [laughter] [101:01] and I knew at some point if you work [101:04] hard enough, I mean you can't guarantee [101:05] success, but so much of it is out of [101:07] your control. You just want to step up [101:09] to the plate as many times as possible. [101:11] You want to have a great swing. You want [101:12] to be in shape. You want to be a good [101:13] person. But a lot of it is resilience. I [101:16] have a lot of really talented friends [101:19] who came up through the alternative [101:20] investments community. Masters of the [101:22] universe making one, two, three million [101:25] bucks a year working for hedge funds in [101:27] the '9s and the odds and then they went [101:29] out on their own, raised a bunch of [101:30] money, hit some bumps and then closed [101:33] their funds or they had a business. I [101:36] have friends who are entrepreneurs who [101:38] left a good job and started a business [101:41] and they get stuck. These are people [101:43] who've never known anything but success. [101:45] They got into an Ivy League school. They [101:47] got a great job. Everything has been [101:50] this. And then they hit a failure and [101:54] they just get they lose their mojo. They [101:57] just get stuck. They can't get over it. [101:59] They lose the confidence to go out and [102:01] raise more money. And that's the key. [102:04] The key to success is getting shot in [102:06] the face and then just getting up again. [102:09] >> I'm 30 years old. How old are you, [102:11] Scott? I'm 61. Are [102:13] >> you actually 61? [102:14] >> No, I'm lying. Yeah, I'm 61. It's the [102:16] testosterone therapy show. [102:18] >> No, I thought I didn't think you were [102:19] 61. [102:19] >> I appreciate that. [102:20] >> Um I thought you were [102:22] >> 62 and 61. [102:22] >> 62 in November. [102:23] >> If you'd said to me anywhere between [102:27] 49 and 61, I think I would have believed [102:31] you. Um so [laughter] [102:33] >> I'm sorry. Let me take that out. I'm 49. [102:35] Stephen, [102:36] >> what is it that you know, you're 61, I'm [102:39] 33. Yeah. What is it that I don't know [102:41] as a 30-year-old that I'm going to find [102:43] out in the next 30 years that I should [102:46] know? What is the most important thing [102:47] that I should know about the next 30 [102:48] years? [102:50] >> Nothing's ever as good or as bad as it [102:52] seems. You've raised a ton of money. [102:54] You're on fire right now. [102:58] >> Be humble [103:00] >> because a lot of this is out is out of [103:01] your control. If there's AI dumping in [103:03] the US or the swore gets out of control [103:05] and the market shuts down, [103:08] >> this goes away. Yeah. [103:10] And it's not your fault, but nor is your [103:12] success. So when things are going really [103:14] well, be really humble and invest a lot [103:17] in other people and realize be careful [103:19] not to believe your own press. In 1999, [103:22] my company was going public. I was [103:23] looking at jets. I just thought I was [103:25] the man. I wasn't very kind to my [103:27] ex-wife. I really thought a lot of [103:30] myself. And I I credited my character [103:33] and my grit for my success without [103:36] crediting enough to how lucky I was that [103:39] I was in the right place at the right [103:41] time. So be humble when you're [103:43] successful. At the same time, [103:45] when you fail, and I failed a lot, [103:47] realize a lot of that isn't your fault, [103:49] too. And forgive yourself and move on. [103:53] So a lot of your success and a lot of [103:54] your failure isn't your fault. And when [103:56] you look back on your life, when you [103:58] look back on the biggest [103:59] disappointments, and my sense is I don't [104:01] know much about you, but my sense is you [104:02] haven't had a lot of tragedy or a real [104:04] disappointment, at least professionally, [104:05] it feels like it's been upward for you. [104:07] When you look back on the most [104:09] disappointing things that happened to [104:10] you in this decade, you're not going to [104:13] be disappointed about the thing that [104:14] happened. You're going to be [104:15] disappointed about how upset you were. M [104:17] >> so forgive yourself and realize this [104:20] will pass because at the end of life [104:23] people wish they'd allowed themselves to [104:25] be happier. They think I wish I had not [104:29] beaten myself up over that breakup, over [104:32] that loss of job, over that loss of [104:34] money. They're upset about how upset [104:36] they were, not about what actually [104:37] happened. So nothing's ever as good as [104:39] bad as it seems. and to really try and [104:44] embrace and I didn't do this embrace [104:46] relationships and that is I got on a [104:49] hamster wheel. I just never had enough [104:51] money. I I was my whole identity was [104:54] professional and from like the age of 25 [104:56] to 45 I don't think I established many [104:59] healthy relationships. I just didn't [105:00] invest in them. I was always good with [105:02] friends. I always stayed in contact. But [105:05] I kind of woke up in my early 40s. I [105:08] just decided I wanted to move to New [105:09] York and not have any obligations. I got [105:12] divorced. I don't say left my friends, [105:15] but I had enough money. I was living [105:16] like a caveman, just occasionally [105:18] leaving for food or alcohol or a good [105:20] time. And I liked having absolutely no [105:23] obligations and no connection to [105:24] anybody. I actually enjoyed it. And then [105:26] I realized I started reading a lot of [105:28] literature on happiness and longevity. [105:30] And I realized if I do this, I'll be [105:31] dead at 55 because I don't have any [105:34] connection to anybody. And so I started [105:36] investing in relationships, started [105:39] making an effort to reinvigorate [105:41] friendships, [105:42] really start started to think about [105:44] thoughtfully about I want to be around [105:46] people a lot more. I was becoming very [105:48] much an introvert and isolated. I mean, [105:50] and I was like a poorer version of [105:52] Howard Hughes at some point, but so I [105:54] would say really focus on as much as you [105:57] can relationships and investing in them [106:00] uh in your 30s. I think it's super [106:02] rewarding or it pays off. But more than [106:04] anything, just forgive yourself [106:06] >> and become a dad. [106:08] >> Well, look, I didn't want to have kids. [106:11] So, and I think you can be happy without [106:13] kids. I kind of got forced into it. I [106:16] was with someone who much higher [106:19] character, much more attractive than me, [106:21] and she decided she wanted to have kids, [106:22] and I said, "Well, I'm never getting [106:23] married again." And she called my bluff [106:25] and said, "We don't have to be married." [106:27] So, I'm Anyways, so I didn't want kids. [106:32] Uh, but now, and this goes back to [106:35] purpose. Everyone talks about finding a [106:36] purpose. And the way I approach life, [106:38] which was really screwed up, is I [106:39] approached it from a capitalist [106:40] standpoint. I want more out of this [106:42] friendship than I'm getting. I want more [106:44] out of this investment than I invested. [106:45] I want to pay this employee less than [106:48] the value they're creating. I saw [106:49] everything as a transaction that I [106:50] wanted to be on the right side of. And [106:52] what I figured out is that finding your [106:55] purpose is finding that thing that you [106:57] can never get a a real positive return [107:01] on. What do I mean by that? I will never [107:03] get a positive return for my children. [107:05] There's they're never going to be up at [107:07] 2 a.m. worried about me, right? I I they [107:11] are costing me so much money. I don't [107:12] care how nice the senior home is that [107:14] I'm putting them in. The amount of love, [107:16] concern, and anxiety I feel over my [107:18] boys, it would be almost impossible for [107:21] them to return that. And that's the [107:24] point. I finally have something where I [107:26] feel like that sense of purpose. The [107:28] most loyal, proud Americans are veterans [107:31] because there's no way America can [107:32] really pay them back for leaving their [107:34] families and risking their person. [107:37] That's an unparalleled investment. [107:38] They'll never get that investment back, [107:40] but what they get back is purpose. And I [107:42] didn't realize that finding something [107:44] you were so passionate about, whether it [107:46] was a nonprofit or saving dogs from kill [107:49] shelters or getting involved in a [107:51] woman's right to have bodily autonomy [107:53] where you give so much that there's just [107:56] no way you'll ever really get at the [107:57] kind of tangible ROI. And what I [108:00] realized is when you find that, that's [108:01] your purpose. And I didn't realize that. [108:04] So having kids for me has given me [108:07] purpose. Um I enjoy it, but that's my [108:10] thing now. I realized that's my job is [108:13] to overinvest is not to measure it [108:15] because I'm just not going to get that [108:16] back. So for me, having kids has been my [108:19] purpose. Also, building something with a [108:22] partner is really rewarding. It's like [108:25] you travel a lot. Inevitably, I don't [108:27] know if this happens to you. I always [108:28] get upgraded to the presidential suite [108:30] when I'm alone. And it's like it doesn't [108:32] happen. If you don't have someone to [108:34] share with, it doesn't happen. And the [108:37] most rewarding businesses, the most [108:38] rewarding things in my life have been [108:40] when you build something with a [108:41] co-founder or you build something with a [108:43] partner. And when you have kids who go [108:45] up and down in terms of their health and [108:48] well-being and they end up being good [108:49] kids, which my kids are, and you've [108:52] built that with somebody, that's [108:54] immensely rewarding. It's like the most [108:56] rewarding businesses I've ever had have [108:58] been with co-founders where we build [109:00] something together and it pays off. It's [109:02] just so rewarding. And when you don't [109:04] build something with someone else, when [109:05] you build it on your own, it's like [109:07] getting upgraded without anyone there. [109:10] It's like it didn't happen. [109:11] >> So, so true. [109:13] >> Yeah. [109:13] >> What I tell any man, there's never a [109:16] good time to have kids. You want to be [109:18] somewhat financially stable. That was my [109:20] problem. The biggest source of stress in [109:21] my life was when I had kids in ' 08 when [109:24] I went broke. That was hugely stressful. [109:27] And I think you want to make sure you [109:29] have a not only a partner you're [109:30] committed to, but I didn't realize how [109:31] important competence was in a partner [109:33] because once you have kids, it's like [109:35] operating a panzer tank division. [109:36] There's a lot of moving parts and you [109:38] have to have a competent partner. But I [109:40] think if you're economically somewhat [109:42] secure and you have a competent partner, [109:44] for me, I'm not going to tell anyone [109:47] what to do. Having kids has given me my [109:50] purpose. Hands down the most rewarding [109:52] thing I will ever do. That is that is [109:54] the last thing I I will think about when [109:55] I die. I see so much emotion in you when [109:58] you talk about it. Your eyes filled with [110:01] with tears as you started talking about [110:02] your boys. [110:03] >> Yeah. [110:04] >> Because I know a lot about you because [110:05] I've interviewed you a couple of times [110:06] now and I've read your books and so on [110:07] and it's um I find that fascinating [110:09] because I don't know what it is. I don't [110:11] know what where where that emotion comes [110:13] from because lots of people sit here and [110:14] talk about their kids, [110:15] >> right? [110:15] >> But when you the minute you started [110:16] mentioning them and the impact they've [110:18] had on you in terms of find helping you [110:19] find your purpose, I could see the [110:20] emotion in your eyes. [110:21] >> Yeah. Well, there's and there's some [110:23] things that surprised me. [110:26] one, [110:28] I didn't fall in love with my kid. I I [110:29] didn't love my kids when they first came [110:31] out into the world. You know, I felt a [110:33] sense of responsibility and anxiety. I [110:35] did not like having babies. I was able [110:38] to be selfish up to that point. I didn't [110:39] feel this immense level of love and [110:41] support that you were supposed to. I [110:44] fell in love with my voice. It was a [110:46] sort of slow incremental [110:48] incremental thing. And like I mean for [110:52] me and I think everyone's a little bit [110:54] different. The reason I'm just [110:56] fascinated and obsessed with my older [110:58] one is he's me. I look at him you know [111:03] the bad skin he had in his junior year. [111:05] It's scrawny 6'1 130 lb. The way he [111:10] laughs I'm like when I hug him I'm [111:12] hugging me at 17 or 18. It's like so [111:14] rewarding and that's why I love him so [111:17] much. My second is a different species [111:19] than me. I observe him with fascination [111:22] because I can't get over the fact that I [111:25] made that because he is so different [111:27] than me. So I'm fascinated by him in [111:30] just such a different way. Right? My [111:33] oldest is a pleaser used to come into [111:35] the bedroom on a Sunday and get in bed [111:37] with us and then stand up and say, [111:39] "Let's make a plan." And I'd be like, [111:41] "Where are the cameras? This is like a [111:42] hall this like about Hallmark film, [111:45] right? My youngest is a terrorist [111:47] assessing the household for [111:48] vulnerabilities so we can strike more at [111:50] our weakest. The only one recommendation [111:53] I make to anyone who has a kid have two [111:55] because it's fascinating. The only thing [111:57] I can guarantee you when I meet someone [111:58] with one kid I'm like okay the only [112:01] thing I know about the second is it will [112:03] be entirely different. If you want to [112:06] believe in nature over nurture have two [112:08] kids cuz they just could not be more [112:11] different. And it's fascinating. [112:14] We just haven't treated our boys that [112:16] differently. I don't We just haven't. [112:17] Birth order, whatever. There's something [112:19] in the batter. First Lady Obama, [112:21] Michelle Obama said something that [112:23] really struck with me. She said, "They [112:25] come to you." You know, I forget. I [112:27] think you've had that guy on the the [112:29] child psychologist guy. [112:32] We think we're engineers and that we get [112:34] to make the sheep. We don't. We're [112:36] shepherds. We get to point them in the [112:37] right direction. We get to pick what [112:38] food they have. But they come to you. Oh [112:41] my god. I've seen that. And I I like to [112:44] think I always thought that my kids were [112:47] going to be super into World War II [112:49] movies and CrossFit because that's what [112:50] dad is into and they just want to hang [112:51] out with me. No, no, no. The reason I'm [112:53] up at night looking at Pokemon cards is [112:55] because my kid is interested in it. And [112:57] what you realize as a dad is if you want [112:59] to be a good dad, you have to lean into [113:01] their interests. I'm not fascinated by [113:03] Pokemon. That's not something I will do [113:04] once my kid is out of the house. But [113:07] what you realize is you have to engage [113:08] in their interests and get into it. And [113:11] it took me a while because I was very [113:13] selfish to fully embrace that. I hated [113:16] giving up my weekends. I liked having [113:18] fabulous brunch with interesting people. [113:20] I liked going to St. Barts. All that [113:22] went away and I resented it for a while. [113:25] And then there's a certain ease and [113:27] relaxation that overwhelms you where [113:28] you're like, I'm not trying to be [113:30] fabulous. I know what I'm doing this [113:31] weekend. I'm going to some lame birthday [113:32] party for four-year-olds and then I'm [113:34] taking my kid to the soccer game. And [113:36] there's a certain ease about it that's [113:38] relaxing and liberating. Building some [113:41] something with somebody, seeing the way [113:43] they evolve is just fascinating. Just [113:46] fascinating the things they start asking [113:47] you and you find your purpose. So I [113:51] would recommend it to anybody, but I [113:53] also want to be clear, it's not [113:55] oneizefits-all. Some people can be very [113:56] happy not having it. So many of the [113:58] themes we've talked about today, [113:59] especially at the end of this [114:00] conversation, are in your new book, [114:02] Notes on Being a Man: How to Address the [114:04] Masculinity Crisis: Build Mental [114:05] Strength and Raise Concerns. I've had so [114:07] many of my friends, actually, both men [114:09] and women, talk to me about this book [114:11] because I think so many of us have been [114:12] looking for a road map on exactly these [114:14] subjects, notes on being a man. Some of [114:17] the themes are here on the back about [114:19] being kind, about being a good dad, and [114:21] how what that means. Um, but a lot of [114:23] the stuff you said about getting out of [114:24] the house and really attacking the world [114:25] and who one should become in such a [114:27] world. So, I highly recommend anybody [114:28] who is raising sons, who is a son, who [114:30] is a father, or just wants to understand [114:32] what it is to be a good man in the [114:34] modern world gets this book. And I'm [114:35] going to link it below. [114:36] >> Thank you. [114:37] >> All of you. It's been such a smash hit [114:39] and it's it's really rare that my some [114:40] of my close friends will send me [114:42] messages thinking about one particular [114:43] friend about this book and I think it's [114:45] a testament to the impact it's having on [114:47] the world. So, thank you for writing [114:48] this. I know you took a long time to [114:50] write this book because we talked about [114:51] it a couple of times when we had [114:52] conversations, but it is finally here. [114:55] >> Who is it for? I write with only one [114:58] objective. I hope my sons read my stuff [115:00] in 30 or 40 years and feel like they [115:03] understand me and the world a little bit [115:05] better. That's it. And I tried I use [115:07] that as a means of trying to be fearless [115:08] because there's so many comments and so [115:11] many there's such a narrative out there [115:13] trying to shape your views around the [115:14] orthodoxy that whatever your political [115:17] leanings are, it's pretty easy to be [115:18] intimidated into having a certain [115:20] narrative. So I try to write as if no [115:22] one's going to read it but my sons in 20 [115:23] or 30 years. We have a closing tradition [115:25] where the last guest leaves a question [115:26] for the next not knowing who they're [115:27] leaving it for. The question left for [115:29] you is in one sentence, what is the most [115:31] challenging setback you've experienced? [115:32] And what's the lesson you want to pass [115:34] on to others? [115:36] That's easy. My mother dying and you can [115:40] never tell your parents how much you [115:42] love them too much. Forgive them. And [115:50] my mom died slowly, which is bad for [115:52] her, but it was good for me cuz nothing [115:54] went outside. [115:59] >> What What is What is the emotion you're [116:01] experiencing? [116:01] >> I miss my mom terribly. I'm I'm a [116:04] middle-aged man who hasn't gotten over [116:06] the death of his mother. Lie to my life. [116:14] raised me on her own secretary salary. [116:18] Gave me confidence, [116:22] everything. [116:26] >> Is there a way to You said you're a [116:28] middle-aged man that hasn't gotten over [116:29] the loss of his mother. Is there a way [116:31] to [116:31] >> I don't want to. I I think the recedes [116:35] for love is grief. I hope my boys feel [116:37] the same way about me. Hasn't got in the [116:39] way of my life. [116:41] uh makes me be more bold with my [116:44] emotions. [116:46] Yeah. I don't I see it I used to see it [116:49] as a problem. I went to grief [116:50] counseling. Now I see it as a not a bug [116:53] but as a feature. [116:55] The the recedes for for love are grief [116:58] and anxiety. And so what I would tell [117:00] every young person is I I hope they have [117:03] a lot of joy in their life. I also hope [117:04] they have a decent amount of grief [117:06] because that means they have people they [117:07] loved immensely. [117:11] Amen. [117:13] >> Thank you, Scott. [117:13] >> Thank you, Steve. Good to see you. [117:15] Congratulations on your burgeoning [117:17] empire. [laughter] [117:19] >> Jesus Christ, man. This is out of [117:21] control. [laughter] [117:24] >> You say this every time. [117:25] >> Every time I come here, I'm like, "Where [117:27] are the helicopters?" [laughter] [117:30] Is is it's like pretty soon I'm going to [117:32] see like a nuclear tower power plant [117:34] towering next to [laughter] It's just [117:37] amazing. and you're you're like [117:39] everywhere. At one point at one point I [117:41] was on I was I was at the airport with [117:43] my boys and I'm staring at this like 100 [117:45] foot like testimonial deal and I'm like [117:48] make it stop. [laughter] [117:51] God [117:52] Jesus. YouTube have this new crazy [117:55] algorithm where they know exactly what [117:57] video you would like to watch next based [117:59] on AI and all of your viewing behavior. [118:01] And the algorithm says that this video [118:04] is the perfect video for you. It's [118:06] different for everybody looking right [118:07] now.