Sam Altman's Vision For the Future!

The thing we do that's had the most impact on the world is how we set the chat to be T personality. What's different with the new model? Smarter, faster, more context. What's like the most common thought in your head? What are we aiming towards? Like what's your vision here? Almost unimaginable prosperity. This is Sam Altman. Three years ago, he catapulted us into a race to invent super intelligence. But he actually started working on this 20 years ago when everyone thought creating AI was impossible. And against all odds, he and a team of scrappy engineers did it and changed the world. Now, over 900 million people use chat to be T every week. In today's episode, I'm gonna ask Sam questions he's never been asked before. Okay, I'm probably gonna be really bad at this. Let's try it. And give us a rare look into his vision for the future. So you gotta have robots. So you can get ahead of it and build the next big thing. That was so fun. Thanks for coming on the show. Thank you for having me. Yeah, I'm so excited. I've watched like all of your interviews for over the last 20 years. Oh no. It's been cool, because I think there's been a lot of things that you've stayed very consistent on. One of them is your like focus on builders. And I think a lot of people don't know, they see you as like the CEO of OpenAI now, but they don't know that you were obsessed with AI like 20 years ago. Can you tell me about your initial venture into it in college and what made you love artificial intelligence? One, I think it is just from like a tech nerd perspective, the coolest thing ever. It's just such an interesting idea that we could make computers think and do stuff for us and help. I have like loved this, my understanding of the story of technological progress in human history, where we keep inventing tools on top of tools on top of tools and build up this scaffolding that lets us do more and more. And that gets to the, so I think it's just like a beautiful idea and very cool technology. But that gets to the second thing, which is in terms of technology and scientific discovery that can make the world better, if we can put this tool in the hands of people, and if people can use AI to build and explore and create and make new companies and new kinds of art and new kinds of experiences for each other and whatever else they'll do with it, that is how I believe the world gets better. That's also how I believe people get fulfilled. So before this, my career was in startups and I used to watch people make startups and I thought it was like awesome for the world, awesome for the people doing it. I now think we're going to be in a world where you can have these one person startups or three person startups, whatever. And the amount of human potential that is going to unlock and the amount of good stuff that's going to make for all of us that was just totally impossible without this technology, I think will be quite great to see. Which historical figure do you think would have benefited the most from having AI? Da Vinci was the first one that came to mind. Some very broad thinker interested in a lot of things. It's just huge creative energy trying to get as much done as possible. It's interesting too, because I feel like when the transformer initially came out, it's like a predictive text model. It's crazy how far that one breakthrough has gotten us in discovery. Do you think about that? I, all the time. Ilya Sutskever once said a very simple sentence that as many simple sentences said, it really stuck in my mind, which is prediction is very close to intelligence. And the idea is that if you can compress all of the information about the world, the state of things, whatever, into its smallest representation, and then as part of that predict the thing that's going to happen next, you understand it in a sort of deep way. And this idea, at the time, a lot of people in the AI field were quite excited about generative models for a reason they couldn't quite articulate. But I think the reason was something to do about this, that prediction is very close to intelligence. And if we're trying to build systems that really understand all of the data they're trained on, if we can get them to start predicting what comes next, that seems like a great step. And certainly when you watch children begin to understand the world, I think you can observe a similar phenomenon. Yeah, I think about it a lot. Watching AI get smarter makes me hopeful because I'm like, all right, if I just input all of that information into my brain, I would get the same outcome. Do you think that certain people are just more destined to be great at physics or science and math? Or do you kind of believe that if you just gave everyone the same information, they would have the same output? No, I don't think they wouldn't. I'm happy they wouldn't. I'm happy we get the rich tapestry of human experience and that people have different interests and talents and also different training data. But I think it'd be quite sad if we showed every person the exact same training data and they had all the exact same ideas and the exact same interests and anything else. So I'm grateful that doesn't happen. It brings me to an interesting thing that you said in a previous interview, which is that there's never been another time in history where this many people have talked to one mind. There are 900 million Chachaputi users every week. Extraordinary. How does that influence how you shape the personality of Chachaputi? We've gone through many different approaches to this. It's so hard to get this right. People want different personalities. The same person wants different personalities on different days. People on different time horizons might prefer a very different personality. You might want a model, if you're just thinking about how it makes you feel today, you might want a model that tells you how great you are. And if you're thinking about what's gonna maximize your fulfillment and accomplishment over a longer period of time, you might want a model that pushes back on you way more. That's a great point. Almost no one wants to go set sliders about here's how I want Chachaputi to behave. I want it to be this funny and I want it to be this nice to me and push back on me this much. And we don't do that for friends in our lives either. But we do gravitate towards different people or different people at different times or want the people in our lives to support us in different ways, in different environments, in different days, in different contexts. And we expect them to understand that. And right now, Chachaputi doesn't work that way and most people don't expect it to work that way. But that is what I think we should shoot for. I think it does kind of model a little bit though. I feel like my Chachaputi is very energized and optimistic in a way that when I use the account logged out, it's not. It definitely does a little bit of this. It definitely kind of gets to know you somewhat. And this is what we've been going for. We've been pushing towards this kind of memory and understanding more and more. But we used to not have that. We used to have these sliders and tell us what the personalities were, that kind of thing. And then you had 4.0, which was an interesting moment for you because for people that don't know the context is that it was very agreeable, but in a good way in some ways. And I remember in an interview, you talked about how some people actually emailed you saying like, this is the only supportive chat in my life. I still think about those emails a lot. Yeah, how do you navigate that? Because I think what's really cool is you have this opportunity to rewire someone's brain for positivity and work ethic if you do it right. But there's a lot of responsibility. We, yeah, the responsibility on this point is huge. This idea that there's, we talk a lot about the risks with AI and the benefits and we measure the big bio-risk or cybersecurity risk. But probably the thing we do, at least historically, has had the most impact on the world is how we set the chat GPT personality. How encouraging should it be? How tough love should it be? How much should it customize to you versus me versus not do that? How understandable should it be, what it's doing? How much do you need to see those sliders after all? And we have historically, not just us, the whole field, not treated this with the same amount of rigor and scientific focus and sort of risk understanding that we have on things like let's not make a new pathogen. But the impact this has had on the world is huge. I think it's had tremendous positive impact. Obviously with 4.0 it had some negative impact too. I still have not heard anyone talk about this in a way where I'm like, this is the answer. This is how the world should think about the power of the default personality or the limits of personality in these models. But it is clearly a huge issue and going to get bigger. How are you thinking about it right now? I have asked a small number of people that I think are really wise in different ways. People from great spiritual traditions, like great clinical psychologists, people who I just think really understand how people interact with each other and what motivates them and what fulfills them to try to write different sort of instruction manuals for chat GPT about here is how to behave to maximize people's fulfillment and personal growth and sort of accomplishment and enjoyment of life. And I want to get those and I want to try aligning chat GPT to the combination of those and see what happens. Would it have to change by culture too? I think it largely will, but there are some universal things about people that seem more about biology than culture. Like what? There's this interesting book. I'm going to get the title slightly wrong. Maybe I won't. I think it's called Human Universals. Okay. But it was some anthropologists that went through every human culture they could find and looked for, and they made a list of all the traits. And then if something didn't exist in even one culture, they took it out. Because they said that's not really a universal. That's like some sort of cultural thing. And there were some things that weren't obvious to me that would exist in every culture, like value and travel, but still did. And there were a lot of things that made sense to me that would value in every culture. I was talking earlier about how I'm very excited about AI and what I think it can do for the world. But increasingly, one of the concerns we're hearing from people is, okay, let's say you're right. Let's say you do give, with this technology, you give everybody on Earth a ton of agency, and people working with this technology collectively make huge prosperity for the world. People will still work because they want to work for fun, but no one will have to, and everybody will have this great life and whatever. Increasingly, people are saying, well, you talk about a right to prosperity, but what about the struggle? What about the need for adversity? What about the need to overcome challenges and learn and not have everything taken care of and how important that is? And there are a few things like that that seem important to how we evolved as well. I agree. I also feel like that's a little bit of a false equivalency that's being made because I don't think, like if you look at any big technological revolution, there's never really been an overall decrease in jobs. It's just that the jobs have shifted. Yeah. We were promised four-hour work weeks or whatever, and we were promised less stress and more happiness and more abundance. And maybe if we were still content with the quality of life from 100 or 500 years ago, actually, we wouldn't have to work that hard. We could get that. But we want more and more and more. The bar keeps going up. And more than that, we want to accomplish and we want to compete and we want to be useful to each other in whatever the new world looks like. And we want to sort of push on new things and discover new frontiers and invent new products and services and make new stuff. Totally. I saw something once where some music producer said decades ago that music had gotten so good, he really didn't see why there was ever going to be a need to create any more music. Crazy. And we just don't work that way. Yeah, of course. Fortunately, unfortunately, it depends on your take. People are still going to be working hard. People are still going to be stressed. People are still going to be unhappy. People are still going to be striving to create and trying to overcome adversity in whatever way is meaningful to them. And through that, find fulfillment and growth. And maybe it looks nothing like the kind of struggles that we have today or the kind of work we have today, but I bet the spirit of it will be very similar. Yeah, I think that's an interesting point because if you look at how AI is pulling in general, it is like not pulling positively in America. And yet I'm so excited about it. And like, I feel like a kid in a candy store when I use Shashuity because it opens up all these new doors to explore. And I think a lot of my founder friends feel similarly. But then I look at how it's often covered in the news and it will be like 50% of jobs are going to be wiped out. Why do you think that narrative has taken off and what do you think is actually going to happen? A lot of thoughts. I think people do kind of always like doom cells. The news covers bad stuff, calamity, that kind of thing. And people seem to love, a lot of people seem to love reading about, talking about how horrible the future is going to be and the bad stuff seems to travel better than the good stuff. Now, I think with any new technology and this degree of change, there is reason for caution. And that speaking of these things that are like deep human evolutionary traits, we seem to evolve something where we do want to think about the bad, we want to talk about the bad, we want to, and that probably helps us defend against it. And there's probably a really important societal shared caution thing there. I know some AI CEOs are saying things like 50% of the jobs are going to go away. To say nothing of how tone deaf it is for someone to be saying, my company is going to eliminate 50% of the jobs and my company is going to be the most valuable company in human history and how wonderful that's going to be, but 50% of you are going to lose your jobs. To say nothing about the wisdom of, not even wisdom, just the sort of like the tone deafness of that. I don't think that's the right way to think about it. Jobs will go away. Jobs have gone away with every technological revolution. Jobs will change. I think someone said to me just yesterday that really stuck with me is, I can use the new model, GPT 5.5 in codex to accomplish in an hour what would have taken me weeks two years ago. And I thought I would have been much less busy in that world. And I have never been busier in my life. I'm waking up in the middle of the night to do more work. It's like, make it stop, please, it's too much. With new tools, I think we will create in new kind of ways. I have no doubt that the economy is going to change a lot and jobs are going to change a lot. And I think caution is warranted. And I think rigorous debate about new social contracts, new economic systems are warranted as well. But I don't think it's like we're all going to sit around in a life without meaning and without work. It's just going to be different. I also think that scientific breakthroughs are really coming and super exciting. I want to dive into that with you. I have so many questions here. But one of the first ones that came to mind is going back to the idea that it's like a predictive model. I think there's like two scenarios that are playing out here. One is like, if you gave a human enough time and you gave them all this information, would they develop the same breakthrough? And then two, is it kind of like move 37 which was like in the game of Go when AI came up with a move that humans never would have done. Like which path are we on? Well, they might not be that different. I was smiling because I was remembering when we had the first GPT models, there were all of these really smart-sounding scientists or AI experts that would say, next token prediction will never develop new knowledge. It can't. It's modeled off of the data. It's been shown. It can't figure out anything new. And they sounded so smart. They had all of this like fancy explanations, these fancy explanations for why this was going to be the case. And then with really with 5.4, a little bit of 5.3, it was the first time where models started contributing in small ways, new knowledge to humanity's collective knowledge. Like what? Proving unproven mathematical theorems, some small-ish new pieces of physics, things like that. I expect this to keep going. In some sense, move 37 was already an example of this. And so this idea that we can train a model to just predict the next token based off of things it has already seen and then use that ability to go discover fundamentally new things that didn't exist anywhere is like not so obvious on the face of it. In fact, you kind of would say what people turned out to be wrong about, which is it shouldn't do that. But really what these models are learning to do through this process of next token prediction is to reason, to understand how to make sense of all of the data they have seen and complete what comes next, even if it's something they haven't seen before. This reasoning process can be applied to things that you have not seen before. And this is really quite remarkable. Like the fact, but people do this too, right? Like people can go study all of the known physics and then keep running their model, their predictive model or whatever. And by applying that reasoning ability, they have learned through not just the facts, but the underlying thinking process that they develop during their physics training, go discover new physics. And I think that's what these models are doing too. Now, could people do it with more time and more brainpower? Probably yes, I would say yes, actually. But it is much easier to go make a faster, bigger model than it is to figure out how to give people like much bigger brains. So I, for one, am thrilled we have these new kind of like external tool that we can ask to go think really hard about a problem that maybe would be harder. Like for us to think about ourselves. When you see these models read like hundreds of thousands of pages in a few seconds, and then synthesize across all of them. It's like, you know, maybe if we had a bigger brain, we can do that, but we cannot with our current size brains. Yeah, it is interesting though, that it kind of is similar to biological brains. And it made me curious, are there other things in nature that you think we could copy for tech breakthroughs? Like the airplane is based on the bird. Like are there other examples of that? A great scientist once said that there is no alternative. That's the only thing that we figured out how to do. Oh, interesting. Obviously, that's not quite true. I like that. I mean, neural networks, artificial neural networks were clearly inspired by the way neurons in a brain connect. I certainly don't think it's literally true that nature is our only source of inspiration for discovering new science. But man, is it a good place to start looking? Yeah. Is there anything that you're thinking about now that you want to implement? Like this is a big week, obviously, for your new science model. How are you thinking about science breakthroughs? What you're focusing on there? What comes next? I saw that there is an Australian guy that helped his dog's cancer be cured. That is a specific thing. I was just talking to a founder of a company. I got to visit YC last night. Oh, cool. Who was thinking about a similar thing like that, but making that a scaled... I mean, I'm sure a lot of people think... Like custom mRNA vaccines? Custom RNA vaccines for cancer in people. Yeah. And that seems tremendously exciting. Totally. Why haven't we done it yet? As I understand it, there's many reasons, but one of the big ones is the FDA is not well set up to think about how we're going to do that, although getting better fast. Yeah, it's interesting because I think when I think about personalized, or like the next frontiers, personalized medicine has to be it because all of us have such different DNA and risk outcomes. Certainly, the idea that if you get cancer, a company or a lab can make you a personalized vaccine just for your cancer and it's very likely to be effective or likely to be effective sounds like an obvious thing we should all demand. Do you use Chachapiti right now for your health? I do. What do you use it for? I am probably an over-user of it. I think they used to call them like cyberchondriacs. I don't know what they call the Chachapiti version of this. Okay. But any mild symptom I get, I will go down a Chachapiti rabbit hole. You know, like everybody else, or many other people, I will put my blood test in there and I kind of wish I... I mean, I'm happy I do, but sometimes it'll really be like, oh, this is slightly off and I'm like, oh, should I do something about this? It helped me recently. How did it help you? I had a stress rupture from running and my doctor went out of town and I had an MRI and I put it in and it read the MRI for me. Obviously, he got it checked, but it was accurate. That's great. It blew my mind. I... when we first launched Chachapiti and there was like a little bit of this, it was not very good. People said people will never use Chachapiti for medical advice. It's just not nearly good enough. It's never going to be good enough. And even if it were good, everybody would like rather talk to a doctor. People still definitely want to talk to their doctor, but the amount of Chachapiti usage of people asking medical questions and getting, at least how they reported to us, really helpful information is like quite extraordinary. Is it tough for you to constantly have people doubt that the technology is going to be impactful? Yes. It shouldn't bother me anymore. Yeah. It still annoys the ---- out of me. It would bother me too. I feel like if you look at like any big tech breakthrough, like before we flew planes, the newspaper was like, we will never fly. It will be a hundred years. And then like the next week, we were in the sky. That was that particular example in the early days of open AI, we used to talk about all the time. Love that. That Wright Brothers, New York Times article. Yeah. We used to talk about all the time and we said, AI is going to be like this. We're trying to be right. But the fact like, honestly, it annoyed me a lot in the early days, but you know, it was like not super clear. So I thought it was at least like intellectually honest of the critics to say, maybe this isn't going to have a big impact. Now watching people say there's really no value and this is going to have no impact on the world. It shouldn't bother me. I mean, it's obviously ridiculous, but it's so annoying. It's so intellectually dishonest and so annoying. And also I feel like when you're in the arena every day and you're like trying so hard to push the ball forward, you want people to believe in it. And like, I think with our videos, I often try to show people like amazing technology and what the future can look like. Cause I think you need to see it to then like lock in and build. And ultimately I feel like people are the most fulfilled when they're working hard on something that they care about. If you were talking to like a 22 year old today, what types of things would you be curious to know about like how they're feeling about the world? And how would that inform what you build? Um, a thing that I have been trying to do over the last couple of weeks is really sit with people using the latest model and using Codex to understand how it's going to impact their work, what they're excited about, what they're not excited about, what they need from us that we haven't already built. And I've done this mostly with people running companies or senior engineers at companies. And I really should go sit down with some young people and say, try this out and watch what they do and like listen to their concerns. You have a unique perspective too because you advise so many young founders. When you were on Joe Rogan's podcast a few years ago, you talked about how there was a lack of like 25 year old founders. Has that changed since then? That's totally changed. What do you think changed it? Um, I think there were a few things happening at once. So I don't really get to advise founders anymore because life got so busy. But I have been thinking that I need to find some way to do that again because one of the most important things about this technology is the entrepreneurship it's enabling. And I feel out of touch on that in a way I really don't like. Like I intellectually understand it, but I want to go like, I want to go like be in the trenches with people building companies with, you know, two founders and 10,000 GPUs who like, I've met a few of these recently. But yeah, this is reminding me that I got to figure out some way to get closer to startups again. Why there weren't, why there was not this sort of cohort of young founders then and why there is now. I think it was a lot of things. I think the US educational system went through like a very dark period where COVID happened at the same time. And we were kind of like demotivating this whole set of people and telling them that like, I don't know, the future is going to be bad and capitalism is bad and companies are bad and, you know, ambition is bad. That seems to have corrected. Yeah, we're back. We're back. There was like a Timothee Chalamet thing that went viral where he was saying how much he wanted to win an award. And it was, people were stoked about it. Like they were like, it's so cool to care again. That's great. It should never have not been. But the sort of like the, you weren't allowed to be ambitious or to like, yeah, it was really weird. Really weird time. And then I think another thing is startups thrive when there's dynamism and newness and the, you know, there's a change in the technological landscape. And that happened when the iPhone app store launched in 2008, I guess. That happened when AWS launched a few years earlier. And then it didn't happen for like a very long time until AI came along. So there was just like a kind of period in the wilderness. There were still successful startups, but not as many as there can be when, you know, there's a real technological shift. You said that on your blog seven years ago. You were like, we're due for another technological shift. I got it. And you did. And you're the man that made it, which is cool. Thank you. How do you think about focus now? Like what are the next areas you want to focus on with AGI? And obviously you guys like shut down SOAR recently. What are the areas that get the most focus and why? I think the three most important things for us now are accelerating research. Okay. We talked a little bit about this. And this goes from like AI research to physics, to biology, everything. But accelerate research because research and scientific understanding does so much for humanity. Second is accelerate the economy. Talked about these automated startups. Big companies using AI to be more productive. And all of, you know, eventually like building the space colonies or whatever. And then third is the sort of like personal AGI. ChadGBT was like a little preview of this. You know, maybe you can type in your medical questions and get some advice. But you would really like, or at least I would really like, an AGI working for me with my whole context, my whole life all the time. Just spending compute to like make my life better. Those are the three most important focuses. They're shockingly similar in terms of the enabling technology and platform. But those are the areas where I think society will really feel the value. For scientific breakthroughs specifically, you guys have the foundation where you're focusing on Alzheimer's research. What other areas do you think we can expect breakthroughs? Like in the next year? I would expect the progress in math to be astonishing. Oh, tell me. Like in what way? I think we'll just discover hugely important new math and solve math problems that seemed out of reach. And like many other times in history, I expect if we discover new math that'll point the way to new physics and other new cryptography, who knows what real world applications. But I hope we hold ourselves to a higher bar and work on some of like the messier, more difficult scientific understanding that has more of a real world impact. I don't think we'll get Alzheimer's cured in the next year or even really treated in the next year. But I hope we can start to see some new promising vectors that we can go push on. Remember Mark Zuckerberg in an interview talked about how when he talks to people that work in AI, they're like, we are going to solve every disease. And then when he talks to doctors, they're like, that is not going to happen. So there's clearly a disconnect in the two fields. How do you think about it? It will take longer than the AI people think and shorter than the doctors think. Love that. Yeah, I totally agree. And I think if you even look back to a few years ago, the types of breakthroughs that are now possible with AI, it's just like, we're definitely on an exponential. It seems like longer context windows is going to be super important in that exponential. How do we do that? Is it more compute? What has to happen? I don't think it needs to be like a literal 1 billion or 1 trillion token context window, although I assume we'll be able to do that too. I think what you care about is that somehow the model can effectively understand your whole life or your whole company or all the things you care about. And there have been amazing, they all cost a lot of compute, unfortunately, or a lot of memory, at least. But there have been amazing new methods to use the current context windows but really figure out the important bits or to use tools to go off and find the less important bits when necessary and make way better use of the same amount of context. So I think that will keep going with the new model and the things we'll add to the new model in the coming months. I don't want to say it will feel like infinite context but it feels like, okay, this model really understands a lot. It has way more stuff in its head than I have in mind. What's different with the new model? Like, what'd you guys change? Smarter. Okay. Faster. More context. And a, I don't have the right word for this, more reliability, let's say. Like, I think it, let me say more intuition. Oh, okay. It feels like it does a better job of understanding what I actually want and trying a few times knowing when it's on track for that and not and actually getting me the right thing. So the subjective experience is way more of the time that I ask the model to do something, it does the right thing. Interesting. Because it understands, based on its training, did you guys update algorithms We have a lot of algorithmic change and it's a newer, better, bigger base model with a different architecture and then, or architectural improvements, and then all of the things we've learned about post-training, how people want to use these models and how to kind of connect them to the world, people's systems, people's context, to be helpful. So in thinking about it, tell me if this is the right understanding. It kind of seems like AI gets better in three ways. It's better algorithms, more data, and then like maybe more energy or more compute. Are those kind of the three things that we can push on? Effectively, yes. There's more data is a very broad category. Like is this, do we mean by that literally just more training data or do we mean like we're going to connect it in a loop that it can learn continuously as you're doing something and it's failing? That's cool. But yeah, broadly speaking, I agree those are the three categories. Which one's the easiest one to have a breakthrough in? Building more compute is the most certain one. There's the least science there. It just takes a lot of money and a lot of complex supply chain, but you can just do it. Algorithmic breakthroughs are the highest payoff, but the hardest and most uncertain to find. And better data is in the middle. Yeah, but better data, does that tie to like recursive learning or like the model teaches itself or is that different? It can, yeah. I mean, that's totally one way to do it. In some sense, if the model is really smart, it can go prove an unproven theorem. And now in the next training run, there's one more thing the model can learn. We have this new proof. Yeah. That's an example. Interesting. Are we at that point where the model is improving itself a lot right now or no? It's so hard to frame that question properly. In some sense, clearly, yes. If our engineers are three times as productive as they used to be because of codecs and they can write the code for the next model faster using the previous model, you kind of got to count that. Totally agree. And then in the spiritual sense, people mean of like, are we just pushing a button and saying, you know, go make the next model and come up with these new algorithm ideas? Definitely not. I also think on the supply chain, like how do we build all these like data centers front? Robotics is so exciting. You said that robotics is a big priority for you. Yeah. Can you bring into your mind, like what excites you about robotics and then what's the roadmap? We live in the physical world and, you know, even when we're in the virtual world, as you were saying, we need like this massive complexity in the physical world to enable that. We need to make the chips and build the data centers and, you know, run the power plants and whatever else. So a very sad future would be where computers can do these incredible things, but because we didn't figure out robots, we have to like go run around the physical world as like the actuators of the AGI. They'll say, you know, please go move this table and do this and do that. Nightmare scenario. Really bad. So you've got to have robots. What type of robots do you think will be the best? I am not that focused on any particular morphology I want, but what I want is like automated manufacturing and the ability to say, like, we need more of whatever this thing is. And with the same generality of chat GPT, a factory of robots that can reconfigure itself and make more of that thing. Do you think you would ever physically manufacture them or would you partner? Don't know. OK. Is AI hardware outside of that a priority to you? Like, I know Johnny Ives is involved. Yeah. Oh, you mean, I thought you're gonna say chips. You mean like consumer AI hardware? Yeah. Totally. We were talking earlier about how you want an AI to have all the context in your life. Yeah. And current hardware, which is amazing. I think the iPhone is currently the greatest piece of consumer hardware ever made by a lot. Like, incredible what that has done. I agree. But it was not meant for a world where you needed a piece of hardware that could absorb all of the context of your life. You know, you can use the phone, you can stop using the phone, you can put it in your pocket. But it's kind of like on or off. Yeah. And when we are not using it, like, this has been a very interesting conversation. I would love this to be referenceable by my personal AGI later. Yeah. But my phone is in my pocket and it's not gonna understand us. Yeah. And I would like a device that, if I wanted to, can participate and understand and know about this conversation. Totally. Yeah. I think also it would be interesting to get, like, outside insights. Like, I recently downloaded the transcripts of every... Do you have the podcast, Acquired? Yeah. Okay. Love that podcast. And I was trying to reverse engineer, like, what makes their show successful. So I downloaded, like, 400 transcripts from the show, put into Chachamuti and had it analyze, like, their story structure. And it was amazing. And I imagine that you could have similar insights of your own conversations and how you approach things as a leader. Yep. But I also know that when people see, like, an always-on recorder, there's an ick with it. Totally. What do you think? One of the reasons I initially wanted to talk to Johnny is because I was thinking about what hardware for the AI world is going to be and the ick that I feel with technology that is just too present in my life. Like, even a smart speaker. I thought Johnny would have great insight about how to design something that held all of these things in tension. And I think he'll do great. What do you think will be, like, the biggest thing that is misunderstood about your approach? I don't know yet. I'm sure there will be many things we can come back and talk about there. Yeah, interesting. I'm also very interested in, like, the use of AI, kind of in the background, like agents. What does that mean? And how do you think about it? When the team first made the Codex app, I put it on my computer. Okay. And it had this thing that, at the time, we called YOLO mode. I think we found, like— You called it YOLO? We did. I think we found, like, a more polished name for it eventually. But you could basically say, like, you can just run in the background of my computer and do stuff. Yeah. And you don't have to ask me every time. And I was like, I'm absolutely never going to turn that thing on. And I lasted a few hours, and I got kind of so annoyed by having to, like, give permission to every step. I just put it on. And there was this agent, you know, running all over my computer, doing stuff in the background. And then pretty soon after that, I, like, didn't want to close my computer because I wanted to stop working. Yeah. And the transition there was so smooth, so uneventful. I, you know, thought it was kind of crazy I was doing it and sort of irresponsible. But here I was. We've since figured out how to make it a more responsible thing to do. Yeah. But I went from thinking I wasn't going to be comfortable to loving the idea that an agent was just running around my computer doing useful stuff. What was it doing for you? Deal with my messages, deal with my email. Eventually, I tried some images, look around my computer and figure out what you can do to be useful to me. Whoa. Did it do anything? That time I first tried it, no. But it led me to working on this little project of making this automatic to-do list. That's sick. Which is sick. An auto-completing to-do list is a very cool thing. Totally great. Is it built into the PHP homepage? No, no, it's just a little program. That's cool. Yeah, because I feel like I always download different to-do list apps and then they never stick and I end up just texting myself. Yes. That's cool. Yes. Do you think that there will be agents that kind of work together? Will you have one agent that's like your personal trainer or will it just be kind of the same? I wonder about this so much. This is one of the product design questions I would most like an answer to. Yeah. How people are going to want to work. I suspect that people will have kind of a conceptual model of different agents and then maybe like their kind of personal assistant, chief of staff, whatever you want to call it that coordinates among them a lot of the time. Yeah, okay. So let's say that you and I time travel into the future and we go in 2050, China is a long way out. Feels like even you can't predict six months away. But I'm curious like what your dream, like if we were to dream together what the future looks like, what are we aiming towards? Like what's your vision here? Like, man, that feels so far away. Like kind of almost unimaginable prosperity seems likely. What I hope for, but what I think we have to really work for is radical levels of human agency where people can just do and create like beyond anyone's imagination. And we avoided the kind of centralization of power tendencies. And then in terms of what the world actually looks like, I don't know, space colonies by then, maybe. Flying cars? Yeah, maybe. Floating trains, that'd be cool. All right. I hope it looks like the future. Me too. Yeah, I hope it kind of looks like this. To end this video, have you ever heard of a blind ranking? Basically, I'll give you options. You won't know what's coming next and you have to tier list things. I want to do tech breakthroughs. Okay. And I have to rank this 1 to 10 and I won't know what's coming. Yeah, so 1 through 5, what's the most important in your mind? But you won't know what's coming next, so it's a challenge. You gotta give yourself some room here. Okay, I'm probably gonna be really bad at this, but let's try it. I'm sure you're gonna be amazing. 1 through 5, 1 is the most important. Yes. Okay, I'm gonna give you 1 to start us off. Fire. The other thing that's gonna be hard is I'm gonna think they're all 1s. They're awesome. 3. Okay, that's a good answer. The printing press. 4. Okay. Satellites in space. 5. I like that answer, that's smart. AI. 1. 1, okay. Self-driving cars. So your only option left is like... 2. Would you swap any of them now, knowing all the options? I would go AI, fire, printing press, satellite, self-driving cars. Good answer. Why AI over fire? Fire was clearly extremely important in human history. I mean from like food to steam engines and warmth in difficult climates and way other stuff in between. But I would bet that viewed backwards a hundred or a thousand years from now, they will both be two of the great enabling general purpose technologies of all time and AI will have done more in total. But you know... Tough to say. If someone wanted to say it the other way, I wouldn't fight them. All right, my last question for you. What's like the most common thought in your head? Like what do you think the most every day? At this point, it's been like what does the successful societal rollout of this look like? Like not just the technology, but like what is... How do we encourage all of this agency and entrepreneurship? How do we think about what the social contract is going to have to look like? What does it mean to live in a world of declining GDP, even if quality of life is going way up? How do we go be aggressive enough on the supply chain to build out the compute power I think we all need for a good and sort of fair future without breaking the economy in the short term? Those sorts of things. Love it. Yeah, you have an interesting, exciting challenge of having to think about the now, but then also thinking about 5, 10, 15 years. I probably should think about the now a little bit more, but yes. Love it. Thanks so much for coming. Thank you very much. You're awesome. Really enjoyed this. Yeah, this is epic. All right. That was so fun. Dude, you're awesome. Thank you for doing that.