Speaker 1: It's funny how the internet now everybody can comment on everything. Every technology cycle to me is increasingly harder because you're probably going into a different part of how the human mind operates. Right now we're like developing personality. That's that's insane. There's technology, there's culture, which is collective, and then there's our individual progress as a human species. Culture is changing. Technology is improving. Where are we as people?

Speaker 2: I can't believe the scale at which we're at now. like this is absolutely unbelievable. I was at OpenAI. We were discussing a bunch of things around how do you think about personality development of models and these are really technically hard problems. I think the number one challenge even open AAI mentioned is that how do we make the power of the models more easily accessible and useful in terms of what they can do and I think this is happening with agents but it's still seems very primitive and very inaccessible to a lot of individuals. I think that the number one way you change the NPS of AI is you make important things cheap quickly.

Speaker 1: Here live with Signal, the great culture commentator of our time. You have opinions on everything from, you know, what's happening in AI both as a consumer but also the industry to what's happening in all the big tech companies to what's happen in dating markets more broadly to how the product should be developed. There there's no commentator like you. There's no sort of um how do you sort of make sense of yourself on the internet in terms of how you thread these topics together? What what sort of threads it all?

Speaker 2: I mean, I could have an opinion on Iran and dating at the same time.

Speaker 1: Maybe within minutes,

Speaker 2: maybe even Iranian dating.

Speaker 1: Like, you're like, by the way,

Speaker 2: how does it work there? Are they using Tinder? Like, I don't know. I mean, uh, there's probably several jokes about Tinder about love bombing and stuff. All right. I apologize.

Speaker 1: Okay. I have this weird tendency to where I like to add humor into things that are not inappropriate. Anyway, I I think look, all it's funny how the internet now everybody can comment on everything.

Speaker 2: Yeah, there's a lot of people that have a a great perspective in a singular dimension. got Ben Thompson writing about technology and markets and if you want to have an analysis of an earnings report of Microsoft I mean who better in the world than Ben Thompson I mean you could you can PY writes about deep tech and crazy I think 40page papers about industries and things and really fun to read really great things what I noticed is like I've been in technology for such a long time since I was a kid and and I'm particularly fascinated with culture in general eneral as well. And I think that intersection of tech and culture is so fascinating to me. And I like to relate everything back to computer science and how I've learned about the world through computer science and computers in general. And uh I think all my tweets and things are really in essence relating the idea of life to technology and culture to technology in maybe an interesting or that's how my mind works. I think my writing is all a reflection of the prompts that happen in my brain that get translated somehow into words that are in the right order that other people can interpret and therefore have a reaction to and maybe generate a little bit of hate online or a little bit of love. And I think that's that's actually quite beautiful that we're all

Speaker 1: the most poetic thing I've ever heard about.

Speaker 2: I do have a Shakespeare profile photo.

Speaker 1: Exactly.

Speaker 2: And uh, you know, I think that that's been great. I I grew up playing a game called Sim City and um in Sim City you can increase the simulation speeds. There's a button that allows you to increase the simulation of the city and the cars move faster and the people move faster and the disasters happen faster and everything is just increased. And I feel like in the recent maybe obviously in the last 20 years with with respect to iPhone and whatnot, but man in the last 2 3 4 years, holy [ __ ] who the hell hit the 100x speed?

Speaker 1: Yeah. Like it feels ridiculous. Like if I talk to somebody that something happened last like last month, it feels like it happened like 10 years ago. Like Nicholas Maduro got pulled from Venezuela and brought to America in the most amazing outfit and people forgot about this.

Speaker 2: Like it's it's just incredibly fascinating the way that the the world is moving so fast and technology is accelerating that. I think if you were if it's the fuel that is empowering that engine and I don't know what we did but it's moving really really fast and then do you think if I was to almost separate the three ideas you know there's technology there's culture which is collective and then there's a sort of however you measure our individual progress as a human species culture is changing technologies improving where are we as people are we more spiritually mature less spiritually mature than we were 50 years ago, 500 years ago, 5,000 years ago or are we just basically, you know, Neanderthalss with iPhones? I think generally technology should help us understand ourselves in in a better way such that we are able to have um intellectual, spiritual, potential growth as a species, as a collective and the individual I suspect. Um and I think I firmly believe that I'm like pro technology helping achieve that. I love using AI to be able to understand myself. Like I if I say something, it's like, wait, am I does this make sense? Does this is this more interesting? Like how how do I personally think about it? This is the way that I'm what am I missing? And those are really things that help me grow intellectually, spiritually, personally, relationships, all of those things. So inherently, I mean, if I understand your question correctly, it's more like these things are really um helping us experience ourselves much better. And I think that probably is the greatest achievement you can possibly have. I mean, we're tool builders and every tool that we've ever built has helped us progress as a human human species or individually, whether it's art or the wheel or whatever. And um I I can't believe the the scale at which we're at now, right? like it's it's absolutely unbelievable. And I think what's shocking to me is that the collective has not caught on yet.

Speaker 1: Do do you think the norms around AI relationships with boyfriend, girlfriend, or just, you know, best friendships are going to be something in the next, you know, 5 to 10 years extreme to a degree that seems unimaginable right now for for the average person? What do you think? When you have ease of access and reward structures around it and a human desire paired with it that's deep, I think you get some interesting outcomes. And the desire and the the pursuit of connection is an incredible and important element of any human's existence. And the idea that AI can help you facilitate that with depth and scale and everending like AI doesn't get tired.

Speaker 1: What else is surprising you most about how people are interacting with AI particularly the different models or what what what do what are you observing as you're looking at the landscape and trying to make sense of where things are going?

Speaker 2: Well, first of all, I don't think most people are utilizing them anything beyond the basics. Like it's fascinating to me that every single time we're focused on really advanced capability demonstration like holy crap this is a PhD researcher or whatever yet I don't think most people are utilizing in such a fashion obviously and I think um most people are utilizing very very very basic tasks um and so I think we're in like the stone ages of how people view and perceive and use these things even though there's a billion people utilizing them but they're not utilizing to the full capabilities like I think the number one challenge for even I think OpenAI mentioned is is that how do we make this stuff the power of the models more easily accessible and useful um in terms of what they can do and I think this is happening with agents it's happening today but it's it still seems very primitive and very um inaccessible to a lot of individuals I think this I personally like to think about this because the way that I like to think about the world one of my favorite Shakespeare quotes and this is why the Shakespeare picture exists is Um, brevity is a soul of wit.

Speaker 1: And Shakespeare was able to capture an essence of the world in very simp like not simple terminology. Maybe I don't know back then it was simple but in in a few words or a few sentences and um and uh I think we need to we need to make this stuff much more easily accessible and useful for individuals. Um, I don't know how that will be, what that will look like, but it's certainly something that I love to think about personally. And um, uh, I don't I don't know where we where we'll end up, but I view it more as an art than a science at the point at the moment.

Speaker 2: Yeah.

Speaker 1: Um, but it's it's it's cool. It's a fun it's a fun time to exist as a technologist. A lot of people are wondering what to even work on in the age of sort of the big labs like what what to start, what to how to think about what could be, you know, a real company versus something that they'll end up doing or or what's just worth doing. H how have you how have you thought about it or how do you advise people to think about that? A lot of AI today is very much the big labs kind of are dominating consumer territory when it's OpenAI and Anthropic and then tons and tons of people trying to find a business use case for it in various verticals. It's interesting.

Speaker 2: I personally focus on what I'm passionate about. Like I was at a demo day or whatever. There's a lot of individuals who I thought clearly they were they found the idea through AI to work what to work on. It's fascinating. I was like, are you really interested in real estate? Like, I don't know. Do you want to spend your time working on this? And is this an interesting problem? Like, I I don't think about as from a technology perspective. Like, screw AI. I don't care about like what do you what what what area are you interested in? What what what thing what thing drives you? Like, if I were an investor, um I think that's probably the only thing that matters is like are you going to keep going into this problem space um if you're not that interested in it? Look, we're having a lot of fun doing this. And I think if you're not having a lot of fun doing stuff, you probably shouldn't work on it. It's something that like it's a privilege thing obviously and often a lot of people don't find work fun. They have to do it because it's economically necessary, but um if you're going to build a company, try to have fun with it. There's a great quote um in the Bhagwat Gita, which I read recently again and it was like, you know, you're not entitled to the fruits of your labor and um I never think about the outcomes. I just try to figure out what I enjoy, what I what kind of how much fun I like to have and the problems that I like thinking about. I like all this account that I have is just pure fun. Like I get I I really enjoy talking and and thinking about this and my my brain prompts me to think about it. we were talking about, you know, the real prompt is in your brain. Like that is where it originates and then you're translating that into some text that you're sending into AI where we call that a prompt. And sure, yeah, but like

Speaker 1: without the the spark in your existence, and your inner self, nothing would happen.

Speaker 2: This some Rick Rubin [ __ ] man.

Speaker 1: It's true. Like, it's [ __ ] It's It's so [ __ ] true. Like, how

Speaker 2: we should get you together, Rick.

Speaker 1: This is why this is why, you know, I think Rick Rubin. People made fun of him.

Speaker 2: No, he's amazing.

Speaker 1: He's incredible.

Speaker 2: He's incredible because he was ahead of the curve.

Speaker 1: Oh, totally.

Speaker 2: And I think music is such a I I know Anish, you're a giant, you know, you DJ music, but like it's such a you have to feel it. Yeah, you have to feel it. And there's such an important element to it. I think when you're doing anything new, building a company, you have to feel it.

Speaker 1: So, okay. So, I have a question for you. So, there's sort of two different archetypes of great consumer founders. Okay. I'd say there's the maybe maybe the modern archetype is somebody like, you know, Boris is working on Claude Code or of course Dario or, you know, Sam and some of his co-founders who are so extraordinarily technical. They're like willing these things into existence that were unimaginable 5 years ago. Okay. And that's great. And ChatGPT is the fastest product to what I think is a billion users, etc., etc. There's a other archetype from the Web 2.0 days, right? These are like the gentle sort of consumer, I don't know, philosophers whose canvas was technology, right? Think Ev, think Kevin Rose, all these people were just cut from a different cloth and they were perhaps more students of culture than technology. Okay. And you got two very different forms of types of companies and I don't quite know where I'd put Zuck, but let's set him aside for a moment. Do you think that there's a preferred model? Is like is the gentle builder more of a New York informed model and the technical builder is more of an SF informed model? Is it just something that matches with the product cycle? Like and then maybe talk a bit about what you think your strengths are and you know how it meets the moment. I think of most people as one type of artist or another and they have like they have like brush strokes they use.

Speaker 2: You know, I was at Monae and it was like I loved what I love is I love going in and looking at the actual brush strokes of the painting. Then you get these like pixel level um understanding of like, wow, he used this color for this brush stroke or whatever. And then you zoom out and you're like, oh my god, I see this wonderful little painting and um I'm deeply inspired by it. So it's just like I think people are utilizing different styles and different forms of like a different type of um but it's in the end when you're doing anything new Mhm. It is it is just a sort of a canvas like the painting and and and you know some people like hard edge paintings and you know those renaissance style and some people like modern art and some people like this you know waterlies of and I think just a different form and at least all the initial versions of it you know going back to the Web 2 era with with Kevin Rose and the it was a very different time because building network products like that whether it's Dig or Twitter um fundamentally different than developing personalities of a model. like holy crap. I was at OpenAI and we were discussing a bunch of things around how do you think about personality development of models and you know the the fact that you can't really easily change them or how do you reduce the sophency of the models and these are really technically hard problems and I think every every technology cycle to me is like um is increasingly harder because you're probably going into a different part of how the human mind or the human like operates. Right now we're like developing personality. That's that's insane. Like if you asked 10 years ago we were going to build personalities for computers, you would have kind of been like, "Wait, what?" Yeah. What does that really mean? And these guys were with with Kevin and Jack and whatnot. They were architecting um I think delivery vehicles in some sense, right? like they were developing architecture for humans to add payload and then send it to another human.

Speaker 1: Mhm.

Speaker 2: Whether it's broadcast or onetoone uh you know with Dig was a news and people posted and the comments and and Twitter was like another version of that. Um now I think we're kind of designing this upper echelon of of how a human personality works and how intelligence works. And I think that's a grand like it's a such a it's no longer feels like a delivery vehicle. It feels like the actual thing in the payload and the and the underlying I don't know if that makes sense. This is how my mind works. I don't know if you guys think about it that way but in some sense um we've we've we've moved upleveled a lot and the complexity has increased drastically.

Speaker 1: Mhm.

Speaker 2: Training a model and then you know reinforcement learning, human feedback, what's interesting. There's like multiple different types of um ways that things engage. Uh, I think these are just

Speaker 1: And talk a little bit more about what you've observed in terms of the personality differences between models or what you think particularly makes, you know, Claude so interesting or, you know, I think one of the things that they focused on it it going back to our Rick Rubin point, right? It's like it feels artisan. It feels like it's got a soul, whereas I think in some sense the other models feel a little bit more robotic, a little bit more utilitarian, if you will. And you know, if you think about what AGI is, and I think or there's a great um Simpsons episode, right, where one of the Bart sells his soul for $5 to Milhouse was one of the most profound, interesting episodes of The Simpsons. And okay, well, he wrote he wrote Bart's soul on a piece of paper and then handed it to him and then he felt it like he felt like he didn't have a soul. And I found that really interesting because you know it sort of explores the idea of like I think going back to our initial point like what is a human and what what are we what are we doing here? How does technology help us in in terms of understanding ourselves and the way that we exist? And I felt like there was like less syphy there was this push back was like talking to a real human being. It's personified like it's called Claude and Mo Claude is known as a person. So it is it feels very um crafted artisan slash dare I say premium to a certain extent and I think it's been really fun and one of my uh my sister is a doctor and she randomly just she was using Chad GBT for a few years and she canceled and she like I'm using Claude now and I I got to I was like what how did you find out about this? Wh what? It's It's nuts. And I think it just goes to show you the the proliferation in the in the marketing and the storytelling of Claude has been aesthetically really next level. It's been really really fun to watch. I like good products. I like talking about good products and I like praising the people who make good products. That's that's what we're about here, right? Like it's like give credit where credit is due. They made a beautiful little tool and when paired with like a a thing in your pocket that is also crafted and artisan with Apple and iPhone and and then you get this like really magical intelligent experience on your device wherever you are.

Speaker 1: How do you think about what these product experiences might look like in a couple year? Like how do you think how do you see the interface evolving or what are you sort of predicting in terms of what's on the what's on the horizon? I think the most interesting thing to me is um they seem like in a very infinite state in some sense. I don't know. I mean they're really powerful in one end of the dimension, right? But they're also like it's unclear to me. Experiencing intelligence through just conversation back and forth is one way, but the ambient layers are really fun and interesting to think about. Like we were building a fun little product that woke you up with AI, right? And it's like a very primitive thing. Everybody wakes up in the morning God forbid otherwise. But um how is it going to weave into your daily existence as if it's not a chatbot but more as a sort of ethereal entity that exists? I mean obviously movies have personified this and you know there's been her and whatnot but it is going to be fascinating to see how it weaves into your daily life whether it's your home or work and in a very ambient state. Um, I know it's not about like listening to you all the time potentially or it's not about but I think there's a lot of these explorations that have yet to be done um at the interface layers. Uh, how does AI talk to you first today? That's a push notification I think roughly. Um, is that it? I don't know. Um, how does Apple integrate AI into iOS and weave it into the operating system and um, how do we use application applications or specific types of things? Are they even necessary anymore? Uh, do we even need an interface if we're just talking to it? I don't know. I think those are really interesting questions. I I personally like the ambient AI layer. I think that's you're seeing a little bit of this with like Open Claw and whatnot and sort of working agents working in the background and kind of surfacing the right things at the right time. There's a great product a while ago that didn't work called Google Now. The whole purpose of Google Now was to kind of predict a search, right? It's like what are you going to search for next, Eric? Pos like in some sense, right? Um and uh it was ahead of its time in some sense, but when you marry it with context and intelligence, I think that is actually a huge vector for how to to think about what the future of AI and how the stuff will weave into our lives. And I don't think anybody's there's not going to be a single person who doesn't use this stuff. It's just a matter of when.

Speaker 2: Yeah.

Speaker 1: Right. Um, that's gonna be that's gonna be interesting. I don't know.

Speaker 2: Oh, no. No. Just quick story. I remember asking Biology. I was like, Biology, how do you know so much about, you know, um, crypto and economics and bio and math and science and, you know, all these things. Like, give me all the books you read. He's like, books? I don't read books. I just get in fights with people on the internet. And then just that's how I like internalize all the information. I It's real time. I need to know. I learn what I need to know to win the argument.

Speaker 1: And the cool thing. and then he like really remembers it.

Speaker 2: Conceptually, those are really fun ways to have these discussions. I mean, obviously, some of it's not kosher to possibly say or do out loud, but I think that's actually really cool. Learning from other people is what we do best. Like monkeys or like, you know, apes are watching other people other other they use tools because they learn how to use I that's wonderful. Imagine if I'm using a tool wrong like hammer backwards or whatever. Somebody's like, "No, you're an idiot. This is how you use it." Wonderful. Now I've benefited. Um maybe that other person got a dopamine hit because they they proved me wrong. And I think in the end we all win. It's great. Uh and I I I think that's how I treat my account in some ways. It's almost as if I'm not really trying to gain anything. It's just I don't have anything to lose. Yeah.

Speaker 1: Like what what do I lose by being wrong?

Speaker 1: So I have a question for you. Um, there's a study that came out a few weeks ago that generated a bunch of conversation, which is that in China, AI is highly popular. In the US, AI is very unpopular. In fact, it's even less popular than ICE right now. Okay, the NPS of AI is not great in this country. How would you fix that? Like, I always think about movements, right? When people create movements and all the movements are rooted in simple storytelling, in some ways we are in like an fear-driven development, you know, like there's a lot of fear that's being generated as a result of this. And I think there's a positive framing to all this. Like I think we're moving towards a world where hopefully there's highly abundant elements of everything. Like right now we all feel like we're fighting for resources, right? Whether it's capital labor or whatever like people think of the world as a finite amount of things finite like a lot of people have this like you know in Silicon Valley we have this classic thing where it's like everything is grow the pie you know yeah positive sum positive sum everything is positive sum normal people don't really think about that like they don't really think about growing the pie at least I don't know I'd love to get your perspective on this which is like we're fortunately are we are in some sense primitive and that we are competing for resources, competing for finite things and and whatnot. But I think the framing has to be around like hopefully we are if we if we if we do our jobs well, we're moving towards a a world that's highly abundant in everything that humans might actually need.

Speaker 2: I think that the number one way you change the NPS of AI is you make important things cheaply, like soon. Okay? And we've all seen the famous chart that Mark has tweeted a thousand times, right? which is the diffusion of products prices on a per product category basis right so this is the famous one where it's 1970 everything is essentially you know referenced to that date and then certain things get more expensive certain things get cheaper the number one thing that gets cheaper is flat screen TVs so flat screen TVs are asmmptoing to essentially $0 the things that are getting educ expensive are healthcare education and housing okay there's actually a little bit of math and I did this math a few months ago that you can do to show how you can make education and healthcare cheaper with AI very very quickly. And by cheaper I don't mean disinflation which is a reduced rate of inflation. I mean actual deflation like cheaper than it was last year. Okay.

Speaker 2: So here's the math. Just consider it for a moment. Education is actually the easiest one. education. If you restore student administrator ratios to what they were 10 years ago, and you make professors modestly more productive, modestly, then you can actually just have education in school getting cheaper every year. Like the explosion of administrators, not professors, not teachers, but administrators is totally under discussed and it's insane. So you can make education cheaper. Like we could do it right away. We already have all the technology. We just have to make a different set of choices for healthcare. 45% of health care cost is administration. Okay? It's all this overhead. And if you you've done the healthcare thing, we've all done it, right? The like revenue cycle management, all the back office stuff, all the nurses phoning you to tell you what drugs to take the night before you get a procedure, like all of that stuff is overhead and all that adds to cost. If you can take a bunch of the cost out of that with models and by the way, these are the by category the number one consumer of OpenAI models for example are healthcare companies and healthcare startups. You can make healthcare cheaper year-over-year. So, I think we should, our like moonshot as an industry should be to make these two things way cheaper in the next five years and that's how we're going to win the hearts and mind.

Speaker 1: Would you subsidize it?

Speaker 2: What do you mean?

Speaker 1: As in like effectively like should the model companies give it away for free to these industries?

Speaker 2: Maybe. Yeah, maybe. I don't know how you substit or something like that. But it's very interesting because actually and Dixon said this a while ago which really got me thinking and he's like how many of our problems in society are actually intelligencebound versus being collective action problems. And that's why the third category I mentioned healthcare, education, housing. Housing has nothing to do with intelligence or technology. It's entirely collective action. Totally. We could just build skyscrapers in Marin tomorrow and it would be abundant cheap housing for everybody. But we have to decide to do that together. I wonder if giving stuff away or making free I I wonder if people will realize it, you know? I think generally the world has gotten cheaper and cheaper and cheaper. Like you can go to Walmart and buy a hairdryer for five bucks. That's ridiculous. Like I I I remember I I not to do this again, but tweeted about this. Of course I remember the book on my encyclopedia of Signal, bro.

Speaker 1: I tweeted about

Speaker 2: I remember. No, it's like um the billionaires drink the same Coke as you are. Yeah.

Speaker 1: They're using the same goddamn iPhone. They're using Claude and Chad GBT just like you are. Yep.

Speaker 2: And like the the underlying essence of equality or the the access is is pretty much like incredibly similar. Like

Speaker 1: I mean, but they don't have the same healthcare you have and we should fix that. That's true. If you get sick as a billionaire versus a normal person, what's the delta, dude? You'd be surprised. I mean, look at New York State right now, right? Your beloved New York City. mean you have insurance, right? Like that's probably the the

Speaker 1: In New York State, they're about to make it illegal at the state level to get to give or receive um health advice or financial advice via

Speaker 2: Oh my god.

Speaker 1: Like how [ __ ] up is that, right? So what does that mean? People who have lawyers and doctors already are going to be unaffected and people who use the models for lawyers and doctors are once again set back enormously. Like how can we be okay with that, you know? So a lot of these are own goals.

Speaker 2: It's crazy. If you look, the state of Massachusetts made it illegal to buy Apple stock because it was too speculative when when Apple was going public. This is like the early 80s, you know, the home of Elizabeth Warren. It's like we must protect the consumers from these enormal financial gains, you know, like

Speaker 1: the number of ridiculous things that are done in the name of protection, you know, and I I think that is a fundamental underestimation of the average consumer. Yeah.

Speaker 2: Right. I think people are pretty smart, pretty savvy. They talk, they'll figure things out, and if you don't prevent them from accessing the tools, like they'll use those tools to make their lives better, you know?

Speaker 2: I have a weird idea.

Speaker 1: Tell me.

Speaker 2: Um, the fact that we don't allow normal people to have equity share or stakes in OpenAI and Claude like imagine if normal people were like, I I own a piece of these things. I mean, maybe that would feel much better and they would they would have this ownership mentality. Um and right now all this concentration is happening in Silicon Valley and a few people. Yeah.

Speaker 1: Give people access to to to create a sense of ownership. Yeah.

Speaker 2: Earlier and therefore like imagine if a billion people had stock in OpenAI in some way, shape or form. Maybe that's a dumb idea, but would they be more bought in in AI? Would they have a positive view of AI?

Speaker 1: Or what if their kids did? What if you rolled it into the Trump accounts, you know, and it's like, look, I have my job and I think I'll be okay. And now I know that my kids will be okay, too.

Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah, they have a stake in the future.

Speaker 1: That's right.

Speaker 2: Quite literally. Yeah, you could market it that way.

Speaker 2: That to me has been a very weird development where I do think people perceive tech individuals as they're hoarding or concentrating resources and wealth. Um, for example, we're all privileged in technology and it's wonderful and a lot of us are exposed to this whether it's via equity or whatnot or even just usage. you know, you're like, but I I think there's potentially a perception with all the power outcomes that happen that that there is a concentration or a hoarding, whether if you want to use a negative terminology like that, um, and that creates a weird dynamic, right?

Speaker 1: Like I'm going to get left behind.

Speaker 2: Yep.

Speaker 1: While the guys in San Francisco are going to be enormously wealthy. And that's probably what I I've heard people feeling this way and and especially, you know, there's potentially a negative sentiment in technology and the NPS score probably reflects that, right?

Speaker 2: Um, and that is that is not I think that's something to be fixed and ownership might might fix that. any I mean I I uh I love I I think there's this the power law dynamic that Peter introduced is really fascinating to me because it it was like business outcomes. Yeah. And the internet drives power law outcomes in a variety of different other scenarios as well, not just business. And and I think um people are starting to catch up and people are seeing this sort of wealth discrepancy that exists and technology is a crazy accelerator. like we talked about this right at the beginning. It's Yeah. And and this this this entity is is accelerating and returns. I think that's maybe something to look at. Uh I don't know if the right answer or whatever, but I I did see that tweet about the the the concentration of like the inaccessible um private the companies are staying private longer. Yeah. Uh what does that really mean? That's crazy, right?

Speaker 1: Maybe we should have a law that says you have to go public at some point before XYZ. somewhat do have that with the way RSUs are structured and things like that.

Speaker 1: Anything you want to tease or how do you want to um

Speaker 2: Oh, that's a great question. Um we are building a fun little consumer product and um I'm excited to kind of story tell on this. It's like a little bit different. I mean, we're three people having fun building a fun little, you know, interfaces of consumer AI and what we think might be really interesting for average normal people to experience and use and it works out of the box. So, I'm very excited for that. That's been really fun. It's what we've been up to. One of the fundamental things that I I just don't want to talk the talk. I want to walk the walk. And I'm I'm I'm excited to be able to share what we're up to. I mean, it's it's small. It's fun. It's it's interesting. We're um and um you know, we're we're going to we're going to we're going to see how well it lands.