01:02:01 · Daniel Palmer, Adam Miller
And so not only do we have to build a technology that enables that, we have to make sure that governments and society and all of the moving pieces are able to coalesce in a way that enables that. [01:02:14] S5: I've got a challenge there. I think theoretically a lot of that is down, but from an employer perspective, don't you always want people to work like a decent amount of hours? Like you're, if you're hiring people, want them to work eight, nine, ten hours a day. Like the idea of people working like this sort of smaller reduced work for the same pay, do you think employees will adjust to that or do you think there would just be less work going around so everyone will work less units of time per day? [01:02:40] S3: Look, don't think the way it will work is we'll just like average out all the work over the workforce, and so we all still have jobs, and then we maybe only work for like 5% of our time. I think what will happen is the jobs that do still need to be done will have people doing them probably full time, then there'll just be jobs that don't have to be done. Of course there'll be a transitionary period where yeah, there'll be, I mean David Graeber is, there's a really good book by someone, I think it's called David Graeber called Bullshit Jobs and Sorry for Swearing Again, I think it's a really good read, this has been a problem in the white collar workplace for well before AI. But yeah, don't think necessarily we'll just end up in this situation where we're at, or just forced to go to work and do nothing.
01:02:40 · Daniel Palmer, Sachin, Adam Miller
[01:02:40] S3: Look, don't think the way it will work is we'll just like average out all the work over the workforce, and so we all still have jobs, and then we maybe only work for like 5% of our time. I think what will happen is the jobs that do still need to be done will have people doing them probably full time, then there'll just be jobs that don't have to be done. Of course there'll be a transitionary period where yeah, there'll be, I mean David Graeber is, there's a really good book by someone, I think it's called David Graeber called Bullshit Jobs and Sorry for Swearing Again, I think it's a really good read, this has been a problem in the white collar workplace for well before AI. But yeah, don't think necessarily we'll just end up in this situation where we're at, or just forced to go to work and do nothing. [01:03:32] S2: I think people know this is coming, right? Like at the same time that Thrive Capital invested in OpenAI, they also invested in A24, the movie studio. I think there's a way of making it more efficient, a16z just invested in a movie studio. And I think there is that whole thesis of like, yes, text to video models, but I think they also know these things are going to be more valuable when we get to this point of automation. [01:03:52] S5: But I
01:03:52 · Adam Miller, Sachin, Daniel Palmer, Michelle Gilmore
[01:03:52] S5: But I [01:03:53] S2: think a more broad question that I want to like ground us in is that who should be making these decisions? Because, Dan, you made the point that our government should be stepping in. I think that's just not going to happen anymore. Now that there's a geopolitical race on, like the deep seek moment to it that everyone calls it. It's kind of like, it feels like the West has to get there first for, you know, Western world order to prevail. Guess that's like the argument that people will make. How do we feel about especially Michelle, with your comments around SF, there's hyper rational people that aren't really thinking about the ethical consequences that are moving as fast as possible. And the reality, all this is being built in one city, because Google's there, all the labs are is fair [01:04:36] S3: to black. [01:04:37] S5: Yeah, exactly. [01:04:39] S1: You know, when when I've sat with people, billionaires in SF behind closed doors, who have told me that they do not care at all about the ethical consequences. And that was September last year. Wow. And I think that is terrifying as someone that deeply cares about the impact that I leave on this world and the impact of my decisions. And I try to think deeply about the cause and effect and consequence. And I make mistakes all the time, but I am trying, as opposed to saying, I don't care. I'm very rich. I'm going to get out of this before anyone does. [01:05:31] S2: Yep.
01:05:32 · Michelle Gilmore
[01:05:32] S1: And is this someone that, you know, is out there making all these investments? So I think that, my honest response is it's terrifying. A lot of it is being driven by people who don't necessarily care about the outcome because they are insulated. Mhmm. And then there's the whole bunch of minions that just work for those people. Mhmm. And so that is another reason why I think that we have a responsibility to explore other ways of doing this, of building value, of building wealth, of dispersing wealth. Yeah. You know, we can sit there as as round here as privileged people who are going to have jobs, but what about the people who can't buy milk next week? Like, no one in this room is in that situation. So I think that that the government will have to be part of it. Various, welfare policies and mechanisms are going to have to scale. I think Australia will probably be some... A place where if you're one of those people, it's gonna be a better experience than somewhere like America. But there are going to be huge cohorts of people that are going to feel this very, very deeply. You know, there's people that won't be able to buy food. There's people that are climate refugees now. We're talking about kind of AI refugees being created. Right? So, you know, I don't think we should downplay it, and I don't think we should say that it's not happening. But I think it's also happening alongside a whole bunch of other crisis that we need to be really honest about. And this didn't just happen yesterday. This has been building for a long time. And this blatant disregard for, consequence is a capitalist notion.
01:07:27 · Sachin, Michelle Gilmore, Adam Miller
[01:07:27] S2: And I think something interesting there that I don't think anyone's really talking about is also, if you're not an AI company, it's so hard to raise. So there's so many deep tech companies, there's so many companies that are like climate tech companies that are doing important things for the world that aren't raising net cash. [01:07:41] S1: On the investors. Yep. Right? Yeah. Like, shame on the investors, just like the statistics around female founders and the percentages there. Like, shame on the investors. That that is about where their decision making is skewed and what they're seeing as investable. And the traits have always been the same. Like, it's so homogenized actually, that just the same traits get invested in over and over and over again, which is why, again, I think think that humanity can only benefit from us going elsewhere. [01:08:20] S5: Mhmm. I also think
01:08:20 · Adam Miller, Sachin
[01:08:20] S5: Mhmm. I also think [01:08:21] S2: that another thing we had kind of to talk about here, is probably a good segue, is that there's been a change in the archetype of SF founders. SF used to be this place of like, I think more intellectual freedom, more weird people that are like countercultural or like had different opinions. Now it feels like there's a lot of nineteen to twenty three year olds going to YC, building the hype company, getting lots of Twitter viral distribution. There's companies like Icon and Cluey. Cluey's cheating on exams, that's how it started. And that's become an archetype. It feels like going into tech and raising VC is like what going to McKinsey used to be like. It feels like the memetic thing that everyone's doing. What do we think about this archetype of founders? I think you can say that a few of them are kind of like Rifters. Maybe Daniel, you have a good view of this with people in your category. Yeah, look,