CLARITY Dies, LAPTOP Rugs, & the AI Pause

Transcript

But like right now the fact that it failed changes nothing for tokenization, right? >> So you're good >> personally. Sure. Yeah. Not a dividend. >> It's a tale of two quan. >> Now your losses are on someone else's balance sheet. >> Generally speaking, airdrops are kind of pointless. Anyways, >> un trading firms who are very involved in >> eat is the ultimate. D5 protocols are the antidote to this problem. >> Hello everybody. Welcome to Chopping Block. Every couple weeks, four of us get together and give the industry insider perspective on the crypto topics of the day. So, quick intros. First, we got Tom, the DeFi maven and master of memes.

>> Hello everyone. >> We got Robert, the crypto connoisseur and Zar of Superstate. >> Good morning. >> Then we've got Tarun, the gig of brain and grand puba at Gauntlet. >> Yo, >> I am a Steve, the head hype man at Dragonfly. We are early stage investors in crypto, but I want to cave that nothing we say here is investment advice, legal advice, or even life advice. Please see chopping blocks at XYZ for more disclosures. So, today is clarity day. We are very excited for this historic bell >> at 2:15 p.m. the vote will occur. >> Yes, >> we are gonna watch it. We are excited. It's your thing. I put my whole bankroll on.

>> We are so excited. We're going to pop some champagne on the show. >> Yeah. >> So, so um No, actually Clarity uh already kosher. It's over. It's dead. It's never coming back. >> It might >> Good game. Well, so I was looking at the KHI markets. Uh Khi has a market going out until 2028. It says 22% chance that in 2028 we get a version. >> It's bold you're citing call sheet on a show where we have a a host whose tweet Twitter has only been really that's really the truth. No there's also still like a 5% 6% chance through year end as well. Uh yeah, Poly Market has it at 8% what last I saw coming in. But I think that's once you get to the tail

probabilities, you can stop really believing them so much because it's just kind of hard to do much with that. Uh but basically what happened was that clarity of course the big mega bill that we've all been waiting for as an industry. We needed 60 votes in order to get this bill passed. It got 47. So it did not even get all of the Republicans voting it. Not a single Democrat voted for the bill. You got a lot of people basically saying, "Look, this is not quite what I thought I was getting." There was some weekend deliberations over uh I think Trump signed off on some small changes to the ethics provision that >> they were actually pretty material.

>> So the the state attorney general would basically be able to go after crypto exchanges for listing tokens that were endorsed affiliated with a president or with a congress person. Uh that was apparently not enough. They wanted there to be some force divestature of tokens that were basically part of the Trump token universe. That was not enough to get done. There was some even today this morning there was more negotiating trying to happen from the Dems. >> There was a council proposal from the Dems, >> right? So I I think you you probably saw the playbyplay. I just kind of saw the outcome, but basically good game. Seems like now the story for regulation from crypto is that it's going to have to come from the agencies.

It's going to have to be through rulemaking. The SEC and the CFTC have already signaled. We're just going to go ahead and basically implement clarity and all the frameworks that have been negotiated over that's kind of set the blueprint for what a regulatory agencyled solution is going to look like. Does mean we're probably not going to get a law. So, it's unfortunate. Uh we had some comments from people in the uh in the Twitter verse that thank god this is over so that the chopping block doesn't have to talk about this. >> This is the last show. This is the last show on clarity. >> Yeah. until it passes. >> Well, we'll see if it if it gets revived, but uh >> Ki still has it at 22% >> 22% by 2028. How do you feel knowing that this thing is over?

>> As I said on Twitter in response to our grateful fans who are excited to hear shut up about this. Uh, is it what's the difference between like this bill and watching 80-year-olds get wheeled in, can barely talk, and they still vote yes or no, and they don't understand what they voted yes or no. And I don't know. I'm not I'm Wake me up when when we have like conscious and thoughtful senators. >> There's a few there's a few. >> It did feel like a lot of the stuff I was born I mean, a lot of like the developer protections were going to get like watered down last minute. So I'm like, yeah, I mean it kind of sucks, but I'm also like I don't know, life goes on. We have rulem. I don't know.

>> Yeah. I think the thing that I kept saying, I think every single time we brought up clarity is that like look, clarity is not the end of the world. It's not the most important thing. We are going to get rulemaking. The number one thing that is going to end up protecting crypto from a regulatory perspective is adoption. If you are adopted, if people are actually using you, then it's going to be way too hard to rip anything out and change things. and people are going to cry bloody murder if you actually try to change any of the actual instantiation of stable coins and uh you know exchanges and per blah blah blah blah. So obviously it would be nice and if we get a president AOC in 2028 okay there's going to be some hell to pay for all of the crypto regulations that were adopted and probably a lot's

going to get unwound but I think even if you get a moderate Democrat it's probably going to be okay. you're not going to get everything that you want, but you're going to get most of what you want. Because the reality is that even the Democrats who ended up saying no on the bill, there's a very close version of this bill they would have said yes to, which tells you that like it's it's not that hard to get to something that everyone can agree should happen. >> Yeah. At the end of the day, I mean, I was surprised by the fact that the two sides weren't that far off from each other, right? I read the Dem counter proposal this morning. >> Really, >> and >> it actually wasn't that long. It was a red line to the Republican draft that was put out late Sunday night. And

honestly, like there wasn't that much of a divide between the two positions. It mostly came down to ethics and wanting to score some political wins against Trump. >> The rest of it, I mean, a lot of the conversation has been within DC for the past couple weeks. Like the other pieces are there is negotiating bargaining chips, but they're not even like fully the meat of the discussion. It was really about sticking it to Trump. And >> right, >> you know, I still think like some of it was still relatively innocuous. They weren't asking for roping Trump's children in.

They were trying to write things that looked like it would loop his children in by saying like, oh, dependent children of an officer, which is like, okay, well, they're not dependent. They're adults and they live on their own. And I doubt Trump is putting them on his taxes as dependent, right? >> Didn't Baron do something? Wouldn't he be a defendant? Baron might be at >> I think Baron I think they're going after Baron with that one. >> Are they though? Like is he like has he moved out yet? >> I He's Yeah, he's in school. He's at MIU. >> Okay. I don't think he's >> he's probably made enough money to like have his own apartment no longer be a dependent parent and all of that. So like the things they were doing were more signaling.

>> Also, if you launch a token, you're probably not a dependent by virtue of your token income >> probably. >> It's kind of a catch 22, >> right? But like and so like even if >> about that one I feel like I'm >> depends. Well actually we have a meme coin that didn't go so well. So >> yeah I was about to say I'm sure there's some memecoin deployers who are not living off the land. >> That's true. That's true. >> Yeah. But it wasn't like like the two sides were that far off. I I think a lot of the surprise that came about today was the fact that it seemed like the two positions were relatively close and supposedly there was some, you know, hallway meeting that occurred a few minutes prior to the vote and everyone stormed out and said like we're not

going to find an agreement and that that was the end. >> But the two sides were not that far away from each other. Like we were quite close to clarity assuming that you take everyone at their word and assume everybody was negotiating in good faith. >> Okay. Silver linings. Are there any silver linings from this? I learned the word closure. >> You learned to learned the word clo. I'm just trying I'm just trying to find out. >> Take that one to the bank. >> The Tun dictionary has expanded. >> Expanded. I never I never vocabulary. >> Yeah. >> Amazing. >> I'm just saying personal growth on the >> We all grew personally. We all learned a lot more about the legislative process.

Parliamentary procedure in the Senate. I mean, >> the friends or enemies you made along the way depending on >> Yeah. Yeah. I will say the one thing I think we can take away is that the banks lost. >> Yes. >> Because the banks were fighting to get a renegotiation of Genius. >> Yeah, that's >> and the basically the rewards language in Genius Act stands. >> No, everybody lost. Okay, let's take the tally real quick. >> Okay. >> The Democrats didn't get any ethical wins against Trump. >> They didn't restrain Trump in any way. For all their talk and bluster, they achieved absolutely nothing. The banks made no revisions to how genius works.

There is still no prohibition on yield being paid on stable coins effectively through >> how they see it. >> Yeah. >> Right. Through rewards. We didn't get an expanded AML KYC, you know, set of hooks for the that contingent of people. The status quo still holds. We didn't get any developer protections at all. Nobody got what they wanted, >> right? Everybody had an opportunity to get something >> except Tun. Except Tun got what he wanted. Tun got what he wanted. No more politics on the show. No more politics on the show.

>> That's a lie. You guys know that's a lie. There's going to be some other [ __ ] that shows up. >> No, everybody, like there's the UK clarity lock. Let's let's all pretend we know common law. >> Yeah. Everybody is a loser here, right? Like the list goes on. There was no changes to prediction markets. Like everybody was talking about how to like loop some prediction market things in for Indian gaming that's not there. Nothing happened, right? Like everybody is a loser. staff on both the Republican and Democratic sides worked for over a year on this, right? >> It wasted a lot of the brain cells from some of the most important senators. It wasted so much time effort. Everybody is a loser coming out of this process.

>> Well, okay. I the question was silver lining >> nihilism. Nihilism >> resounding not answer to that question. Look, obviously it does create a framework for what rulemaking. The reality is that we did do some democratic process about what people want and what the final shape of a regulatory regime ought to look like. And the bill itself had a bunch of stuff that was like the SEC decides. the CFDC decides and okay well they will decide and they kind of got the rough rubric and guard rails of what lawmakers want and what people want and what industry wants and it created a lot of conversation about what a regime within the US should look like and the reality is that people realize that it's not outlandish for this stuff to be kind of conforming with a regulatory regime in

the US I think all of that is progress anything else that we would add to that what does it do for tokenization obviously for I I mean for tokenism again there's no bill right so >> it does nothing right one of the pieces that was in the legislation which no longer exists right was to expand the SEC's discretion in creating rules specific to assets on a blockchain right it's implied that they already have that power today but it was more explicit that they could go further to support tokenized assets versus the older digital counterparts to it.

>> But like right now the fact that it failed changes nothing for tokenization, right? >> So you're good >> personally. Sure. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But like >> Sorry. I don't know why that was. So >> I've been interested in this bill for years as >> somebody that's been in this industry for almost for nine years now, right? I hope to be in this industry for nine years, right? This could have been something to set the stage for the next decade of this industry. And we're going to continue to operate the same as we have for the last decade, which is no one really knows what's allowed and what's not allowed. It's sort of a moving target. It's swinging back and

forth, bouncing from guardrail to guardrail every time a new president comes in. It's like, fine, we have more of that. >> Yeah. Yeah. No, it's true. I mean the the rulem does help because even before that there was really no rule making. There was some kind of soft guidance. You know there was the DAO report and there was this and there was that. We are very clearly going to get rulem under this administration. There is no doubt about that but agreed. It means that it can be reversed with a new administration and with a new set of priorities >> and that sucks. Yes. Um but I again I stand with the idea that look number one protection is adoption is that at the end of the day everybody is subject to democratic forces and popularity contests and if this stuff is popular

they will not want to take it away from you. You know like as much as people talk about how AI is so unpopular nobody dares to touch chatbt and to tell people you can't use this anymore because it's bad for democracy or it's bad for data centers are bad for water. They're like, "Okay, we'll go after the data source. We will not touch the consumer products." And uh I think you saw the same thing with the gig economy and ride sharing and everything else that was politically unpop or it was politically popular to go after the idea, but never after the product once it was adopted. So >> except except there's one very bad example.

>> What's that? >> Jewel. >> True. Because adults don't because adults don't use it. >> Well, no. Jewel is the one where you killed the local American thing and then you just were flooded with imports and it was like what was the point of that? The jewel exa jewel is the kind of example in my mind of of government >> kind go after jewel like I don't remember the exact detail. >> They very much did. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. It was like it was a bunch of states to kids. >> It was like a join together came in and everyone switched to that.

>> Yeah. >> Yeah. Kind of illicit. Well, I be they came in as in like they just, you know, you could order them on you could order them on >> because Well, the thing is like look, at the end of the day, politicians are mostly 50 to 80 year old people, right? Of of mostly upper middle class. >> Some are older than 80. >> Some are older than 80. Thank you for the clarification. The number one thing that I think predicts whether or not something is going to get banned at a consumer level is do 50 to 80 year olds care about it use it? And that's actually one of the reasons why I think actually prediction markets are safe even though sports betting is almost certainly going to be under scrutiny by the Supreme Court when the case goes up next year. But prediction markets were

at large. Every politician uses prediction markets. >> They do >> for elections. >> Oh, absolutely use them for election as they consume them. They might not >> Well, but they don't want them to go away. They don't want them to go away because they're very important. Polling data for them. >> Exactly. It's better than polling data. And so there is no way in the universe that prediction. It is sort of weird though cuz their notion of using them is only consuming the output of right >> most people though, right? >> Yeah, for sure. No, no, for sure. But I I think that that's the one place they're kind of a little bit weird versus sports betting where like most people think of sports betting is like using sports betting as like not looking at the odds, right?

>> But actually like participating and somehow prediction markets despite having similar properties are like the opposite. >> All right. Well, here here's a question for this group. Do you think that DC was monitoring the prediction market probabilities for clarity and do you think that played into the decision-m into process? >> For sure. >> Definitely. >> You think it's a self-fulfilling prophecy? >> Well, I don't know if it's self-fulfilling prophecy, but I'm sure they were like looking at it as a way of like deeming their how much I think the Democrats and the Republicans probably looked at it as a way of like how much leverage do we have against the other side? like how aggressive should we be on the red lines? Like like I'm not saying it's like they were like trying to but they might have done like little things based on oh like everyone thinks

it's not going to happen. We should go for the jugular type thing. >> I have never heard anyone in DC say that they believe the prediction market odds on clarity. I think pretty much every single person I've talked to like over the last year was like yeah these these obviously are not correct. >> They were too high or too low. I've heard people say >> both too high. >> It's always wrong. Yeah, it's always nobody ever buys it. I think for everything else it's like not your thing. You're like, "Oh, yeah, the prediction market is obviously correct." And then when it's your thing, you're like, "This totally >> Well, I think in hindsight, you should just go compute the brier score and see if it get conditional on knowing it failed." Like how how close was it to like a true and the answer is probably

actually going to be like it wasn't horrible. It was like I bet you the answer is it'll be slightly better than martingale like >> for all poly markets >> for the just for the clarity one like conditional on knowing the outcome. You then go backwards and look at like the prior score over different windows and see if like how likely is it to converge to no >> because it it peaked at like 84% in February. >> Yeah. I mean it went up to 69% like yesterday. >> No, it didn't go to 69%. Yesterday it was like 30. >> No, it wasn't 30. >> There were some places when it spiked. Yes. Sorry. Sorry.

>> That was like the artifact of math. >> But but my point is like you could go back and see if like it did better than coin flip, right? Like that's kind of the that that's sort of I I bet you it actually still has some predictive power. It's just like kind of noisy. >> No, I think it's predictive. I think back in February the odds were probably closer to 80%. I think people have probably played on those prediction market odds and internalized them. I think like Coinbase got very cocky in February because the odds look like >> Oh yeah, I forgot about the whole Coinbase thing yesterday.

I'm like I don't know, dude. >> That see feels like so many years ago. >> It feels like years ago. basically like realistically at the beginning >> do you think we would have passed if Coinbase didn't do that? >> Yes. >> Like actually I'm curious do you does that you >> you know I think also something that probably played into it more was also the Iran war >> is that Trump's ability to like bully Republicans into certain positions has weakened significantly after the Iran war >> and like in February we were Trump was Trump was good. I mean his approval rating was much higher. His control over the Republican party was much stronger. >> So I think that also plays into it. >> Absolutely. I think if Coinbase hadn't stalled it, I think it would have passed. I think the negotiating leverage for clarity has decreased monthly since

February. You saw more ethical concerns from Trump. Like it literally kept on going up. >> Coinbase lost their GC also in the >> Coinbase lost their GC. >> If you think about that, >> but not their head of policy, right? The GC is not the same as the people, >> but still. Sure. Sure. >> Sure. There was turn turnover at Coinbase, but we got closer to an election year and it got politicized. And like the more partisan the environment, the less bipartisan you're going to get a bill. The housing bill being bipartisan and like squeaking through like to Trump's protest was like the last thing that I think was clarity-esque >> and that was like it barely made it through and that had widespread.

>> Okay. So suppose you got to play God and you got to go back in time and remove change the outcome of one thing that you think would have likely flipped the outcome of clarity. Tell coin should have launched that damn memecoin. That's what I've been saying that one thing. >> Sure. Sure. Sure. That one >> like that is the whole ethics debate. None of >> that. I think I think not just that damn meme coin but multiple. >> What else are you actually world liberty and it being more of a headache? >> Yeah. All three. I count I count world liberty as a meme coin.

>> Yeah, basically >> that's true. >> I I Well, I guess that's a good question. Which of the two do you think did more damage >> I think I think it was probably the Trump point. I think it was more more I think it was worse than Trump than World Liberty because more people bought it and more people heard about it. >> World Liberty is worse when you go into the details, >> but most people don't know the details. >> Okay, so your ranked ordering of things you could would have flipped. Get rid of the Trump memecoin. Get rid of World Liberty. Coinbase stop protesting. >> I think Iran war is probably like number three.

>> I assume. Okay. Okay. I don't think Iran war is that related to it because >> I think Trump would be much more able to do things in DC without the Iran. >> I mean, I will say I did watch this I I think I watched like the Daily Show or something this week by accident cuz it was just like on cuz I never watch any of these types of YouTube things and the the entire first five minutes of the episode was interviews with the Republicans for why they were skipping the GOP midterm convention which is so like I feel like Robert does have a point. There was like there was like 20 30 people who were like senders and representatives having to like get a microphone in their face and like making up excuses. And some of the excuses were very funny.

>> It was like one of them was like, "Yeah, I have like a quail hunt that you can't skip a quail hunt to run." What are you talking about? >> It was very funny. >> If I had a quail hunt, I would skip any other priorities on >> I've never I've never been invited to a quail hunt. >> I was invited to a bird hunt of some variety. I don't know what bird it was, but I >> could have been quail. Could have been quail. Maybe they didn't hunt. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Was it a wild goose chase? Was that >> Okay, with that, it's time to move on to another topic. Thank god.

>> So, speaking of things that went wrong, laptop token. So, what is laptop token? Hunter Biden. >> That Hunter Biden, he has dropped a memecoin called laptop. This was much hyped. We talked about it last week on the show. It finally launched on base. It did not do well. So I think the original >> every one of these meme coin >> Yeah. I mean >> to be fair like I think the only person in the world who thought it would do well is Hunter Biden. >> Yeah. I don't know why this somehow got so much energy and kind of >> here's why momentum behind it.

>> Hunter Biden was on a really good image rehabilitation tour. >> That's true. He was he was and >> now you have to question was this to launch a memecoin? Some people lit an interview, >> oh he's going to run for office. They're like Hunter's back, you know. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Hunter was rebuilding his cool and his mojo. And he was actually doing a great job of it. You know, all of a couple weeks ago, I was like, "Wow, like who is his PR agency?" >> I was just like, "He's running for office." Like that was what I thought.

>> 100%. >> No, 100%. It turns out he was launching laptop token, but Hunter really became like somebody to watch again and this is what he applied himself into was laptop and that was a terrible idea. >> Dude, what if Baron and Hunter like just made a reality TV show where they like live in a house together >> with Hunter? >> Yeah, that would be a more productive profit seeeking venture for both of them. >> I could see that. Well, they supposedly have not sold any tokens. The token is down 99.85%. 85% from its all-time high. Uh it's only been a week. So further to go, >> what's the current >> What is the current It's about 85 million market cap now.

>> Oh wow. Um >> that's down a lot. >> It's down a lot. It was in the It It opened uh in the multi-billion. >> So the fully fully diluted market 200 billion. >> It was a little bit fake because the market maker, which was rumored by Arkham Clay, Arkham claimed that it was GSR. the initial market maker when the token launched put $50,000 of liquidity in the pool. So, this thing basically flashed all the way up to $140 billion FTV for the first few uh poor souls that tried to buy it and um eventually went down from uh it was at 200 plus dollars a token, went down to $3.70 within an hour and uh and now it's something at like you know a few cents. So,

>> a few cents. >> A few cents. >> Wow. I might go home and buy a couple laptops. >> Uh, sorry. It's at about 20 cents. It's about 20 cents. >> At at this rate, you can't buy a laptop with laptop. >> You cannot. Well, I mean, if you aggregate all of them, you could buy some laptop, but you know, if you Yeah, with one laptop coin, you're not going to buy a laptop. So, um, yeah, got a lot of got a lot of heat. People pointed out that maybe you should not have bought a memecoin from a crack addict. Um, former former crack addict. >> Former crack addict allegedly. So, uh, yeah, somehow this one didn't work.

lessons, takeaways, what did we learn? >> I was kind of hoping that this was actually some weird scop where like the the ethics stuff demonstration. >> Yeah, that's right. >> This is like, oh, now the Democrats have a scandal on their hands, too. Like equally, both sides are >> all the more reason to pass clarity. >> Well, but the Democrats never really embraced him, right? He was always still kind of a weird black sheep kind of online, overly online person. Well, he was also like weirdly like part of this horseshoe world where it was like, you know, he was finding friends on like the far right and the left.

>> Yeah. It's kind of intellectual dark web adjacent. >> Exactly. >> Exactly. I mean, I will say in the last week we've seen so many allegiances flip. So like, you know, >> Steve Yeah. Yeah. Like seeing Steve Bannon and Bernie together versus like Lena Khan and David S. >> That's true. That's true. Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. The alliances are being >> The alliances feel like when you say horseshoe, I'm like actually it's more like in another dimension. Yeah. Yeah. We got Exactly. >> Wow. All right. Well, um I must say it I we told you so. Don't don't buy celeb coins. They basically always have >> Oh, yeah. We've been saying this for years.

>> Yeah. So, I don't know. I mean, I I feel like I I think it was the FOMO show that we were talking about this and um I was feeling like a mega, but I'm like, look, I don't know. We have we have a little bit of wisdom we've accumulated over the years. Celeb coins, they literally never work. >> But buying the clones of celeb coins when you hear their announcement. >> That is true. That is true. As long as you sell before the token launches. >> Yeah. I did like the meme of like I I can't remember the last time I saw a token chart that does just look like a straight angle, like a 90° angle. And it's like looks like a laptop.

>> It looks >> I didn't think about that. It >> that was it was it was kind of like his butt pain or whatever the >> Yeah. paintings that he makes. Yeah, it's like the poop paintings. Yeah, >> the poop paintings. >> Performance art. The whole thing was performance art. He made a laptop >> with the with the chart. >> It's beautiful. >> I uh >> financial painting. >> Didn't you have a friend who made like these financial Yeah, financial art. Financial art. >> But she at least did some like manipulation of the chart to match the painting. She did >> like painting flowers and stuff. >> It's the inverse. It's the >> inverse. Yeah. She would like No, it was like a live performance. She she so she painted like a sketch and then she'd go find some liquid stock and like trade and there'd be no market maker.

>> That's what he That's what he did in the shape of >> Yeah. >> Art mirror's life. There you go. >> Yeah. Art mirror's life. >> True. True. >> Well, speaking of manipulating charts, there's a recent story from SDNY. They charged two Robin Hood engineers >> for frontr running listings on hyperl. >> Well, one former I think one works open. >> Is that right? Okay. Well, so uh these >> really good use of career capital. two two gentlemen uh Hefu Chai and Hasang Xiang they are both being indicted on commodities fraud and wire fraud uh which is a 10 to 20 year maximum sentence both had access to knowing which tokens were going to get listed on Robin Hood cryptos these are crypto listings so basically you know oh there's going to be a listing of XYZ

token XYZ tokens on Hyperlid they would go long apparently they made $50,000 each which is not that much >> by the way this is just like Nate and open You're not enough to throw away your life for. >> Please not do this. >> Wait, is he still in jail or is he out yet? >> I think he's >> Didn't he get overturned? >> Yeah, he's out. >> He got Yeah. No, no, they it got defeated because um >> that case it was like OpenC was not treating the information as being valuable. And if you don't treat the information as valuable, then you can't prosecute somebody for insider trading.

>> I didn't know that. >> Yeah, that's that's the rule. So like there was basically there was no policies and they weren't keeping it in any way protected among >> they weren't trying to >> exactly because remember insider trading is not about fairness it's about co-opting information belong to somebody else >> the information wasn't public >> doesn't matter doesn't matter if you are not treating as something valuable and it's openly accessible and you're not >> any employee >> to any employee as well as employees sharing it publicly then like okay well then clearly this is not valued by the company and if it's not valued by the company then you're not expropriating anything that isn't valued by the Interesting.

>> Something like that. Read I am not a lawyer. Read the case. Don't try to do this. >> Please don't insert a lot of but the case did get overturned in the circuit court. >> Okay. Well, this is not the first time that people have done this, right? Coinbase had someone on the listings team that did this. OpenC had someone >> Well, this one seems like more direct to the >> It's all open and shut. I mean, these people see we're going to list X and they buy it. >> Exactly. It So, like you cannot trade like Robin Hood of course like it, you know, it's a it's a obviously a regulated institution. They know that you should not be sharing this information. It is Robin Hood's right to insider trade. It is not your right as an employee.

>> Yeah. I mean, I also think it's like very >> direct. That's that's the theory, right? >> I actually totally I was like thinking about I'm like what is the theory of the case here? Because I'm like imagine a world where like let's say Chevron, right, discovers some huge new oil reserve and they buy up a bunch of oil futures or short bunch of oil futures in anticipation of this announcement. That is their right to do that, right? To trade. >> Well, there's no insider trading in commodities because they can't. Well, this is a commodity. It's a future and and so yeah, it's that's from the company versus like, you know, which yeah, the individual sort of >> I think the root of the issue is >> if Chevron discovers an oil deposit, >> that is very good for Chevron, right?

And their stock will go up. If the employee went out and bought Chevron stock, that's like the classic. >> Yeah. Securities in trading, but it's more like what is the theory of the case around insider trading a commodity, right? A swap or a future in this case. >> I mean, a lot of what you're saying people do all the time like refineries do. Yes. You want that information to actually be reflected. So in this case, >> yeah. And first of all, I was amazed that a Robin Hood announcement can even move the price of a token 2026 2025. I was like, really? Like anyway, smaller token. >> Not that much. It must use a lot of leverage to even ek out the 50k. I'm like, I don't think this has really moved.

>> Maybe that's why they made so little. >> I think in the example of one of the assets which were all investors in lighter, right? I think it was material to that token in particular because, you know, people were I that that's I mean the Robin Hood connection, but I think most of the profit was made on like the Zora listing on Robin Hood and I'm like I I really can't. It's amazing to me that that is moving the market. But yeah, I mean a world where Robin Hood bought the future for Zora in anticipation of their own announcement. I guess they could do that. >> Zora. >> Zora was like most of the >> Oh wow.

>> Yeah. I'm just like Yeah. >> I don't know. I don't know. >> Can't make money on Zora. >> Even if you go to like minimum security prison, they're like, "What are you in for?" And it's like Oh, that guy's a Chomo and he's a murderer and I insider traded, you know, Zora token and >> Zora took down Bass and Robin Hood. >> Wow. Wow. Wow. Okay. It's like Helen of Troy. >> Jesus. Um, well, it was it was also interesting because there were a number of onchain sleuths who called this five months ago looking at open interest on Hyperlid going into Robin Hood listings.

>> But that's also what happened with the NFTs on OpenC. That's like right like >> but also is the beauty of onchain. >> Yeah, I was about to say the best part of blockchains is that any analyst out there can go and like glean insights from it in a way that you never could in traditional securities, right? Like totally the SEC has access to all the trades and they're like, "Hey, something looks abnormal. Let's go like, you know, subpoena some people to find out what happened here." With the blockchain, everybody can be that investigation authority, right? So, >> but by by the way, a related note was the the one token that seemed to do very well postclarity failing was Zcash.

>> Is that right? >> It was like it was like the one that >> Okay. >> saw a little bit of you know, I'm thinking in terms of like market surveillance is easy in some places, market surveillance is hard in other places. >> True. True. >> Shielded shielded stuff. Okay. Okay. I like that. Well, um it's obviously not been easy for everybody out here given the market environment. So, we had news this week of Balancer uh winding down Balancer, the OG, >> very OG um decentralized exchange. They were one of the >> innovators in AMM design and uh they I think they were already >> starting to wind down and I think they like wound down the the foundation and now they're also winding down the protocol itself and returning the capital uh available to um the uh token holders. I think there's something like

9 million sitting in the treasury. We've also had uh exchanges continue to die off. So, Coinx was another one that shut down. Of course, earlier we talked about BitMX, Ascendex, BitMart, all shut down as well. So, it does seem like we're seeing some consolidation happening, especially in the exchange world. Once upon a time, crypto trading was so lucrative and it was so splashy. Uh, and of course, it was so unregulated, that there were so many of these venues out there. It was very easy to spin them up, very low uh cost of operating. Now, you need licenses. It's much more expensive to get off the ground, and there's a lot more consolidation.

So thoughts uh about what we're seeing with respect to this consolidation in the exchange world? >> Well, just to talk about balancer, I mean balancer didn't have any licenses, right? >> Of course, >> balancer was, you know, a defi one of the earliest dexes, right? There is consolidation really in the dex space, right? But like really it's like there's not that many players left standing, right? There's a little bit of stuff on Salana, there's Hyperlid, there's, you know, some other per exchanges. >> Well, unis swap's crushing it, right? >> Correct. I was about to say I was getting to unis swap and >> there's unis swap right but like among the deck space >> I don't think there was much room for balancer and like they grew up in an era where the big differentiator for them was like oh you can have a pool with

more than one pair >> more than two to yeah >> yep >> right and that was like really cool but it turns out that that architecture and design like is not needed in this modern era >> well I mean also they had a hack >> yeah I was going to say I think it's like very difficult to like I saw oium also I think recently They soft pivoted to doing like data infrastructure or something. I think really very very little forgiveness in today's >> their took two losses. They got hacked. Plus they're also in this thing that's always negative. >> Yeah. RIP. >> But I do have I mean a lot of respect for balancer in terms of innovation when when they launched, but I think also for like not kind of quiet quitting. Like I I think I've been trying to pitch this story. I would love to see this like

>> ICO teams of yester year. Not that they did an ICO, but >> you want to do like the VH1 back when they're famous type TV show. >> Some of them are still like alive and you see their treasury like tick down a little bit every month. >> Yeah. I want to find out what happened to Golem. >> Yes. Golem has a huge treasury millions of dollars and I'm like what is happening? Are they like quiet quitting? Are they huge party? >> No. No. They're doing they're doing an infrance rider. >> Really? >> They own a ton of GPUs. >> Okay. To be fair, this has been going on for years and years and years. So that's why I'm like >> Yeah. Yeah. I think they found Aragon's the one where I was like a little bit scammy. I mean the the the the governance kind of stuff there was

always a little bit weird and >> turn I'm going to take you to Aragon court for liel. >> I remember Aragon court. No, but also the founder the founders just moved on to to do a neo bank, right? Like something >> neo bank. Yeah. >> Oh wow. >> That's good actually. It's pretty cool. >> Wow. That's surprisingly corporeal of them. >> Yeah, it was very weird. I Aragon I always found a little bit everything about it was a little bit off, but whatever. >> You know, I think Aragon was ahead of its time because now actually I do think this is a real thing is that like AI agent intermediated arbitration is going to be so cheap >> and so fast compared to normal arbitration.

>> That stuff is going to >> You don't need the token though. >> You don't need a token. But you need I think that's the problem. But having some kind of like mechanism and structure around it like I think that's like it was it's correct that you do need a framework and like you know do you need crypto maybe not but like if it's look if it's a crossjurisdictional uh dispute then >> a lot of ICOs were were were right idea wrong time like pre AI none of them made any sense post AI they're like h you know I can kind of see like like even this is one that I'm going to get a lot of flack for saying >> it could be something we actually >> I mean I honestly you could get this up and running Bas basically make it like small claims court.

>> Yeah. >> Where if I have seen a lot of people trying to to reboot the the the AI Aragon model from scratch. >> Like Aragon themselves said they're doing it but then never finish it. >> Smart contracts or four people? >> No. It's like it's like okay we have a dispute of like you know hundred bucks. We each put $50 into the thing. Verify that an AI agent reviewed all the evidence and it said you win and you get the money. >> Just judge Judy without the TV show. >> Yeah. Exactly. It's like very simple. It's like verify the outcome. >> No, it should actually just get called like Judge Judy or like some AI name.

>> Okay. >> Okay. If you're building Judge Judy, please contact us after the show. That's right. That's right. That probably we'll have the rights to that. That's fine. >> Well, I was going to say I as much as as everyone hates this coin because it was there was most of it was a scam which is IOTA. Oh, what happened? >> I kind of think that the current X42 users like all these like IoT devices like doing tiny X42 payments don't look that different than the IOTA white paper. >> True. >> There's like kind of some weird There's something. It was just like all these things pre-stable coin and preai made no sense.

>> That was like kind of the thing I think if you went back in time and you're like why the [ __ ] does PE do people think this will work? >> The tangle. >> The tangle. I remember I thought it was a dag. Oh, I guess the tangle was a dag. Yeah, what was that like distributed graph something >> as cyclic graphy direct people thought I think Satoshi is like a time traveler and they went back in time to sort of and you know maybe the actual answer is >> the IOTA people are are time travelers you're all time travelers and they they gave us the tools we needed but not we didn't really >> but we do the time and now you know it's manifest x 402 >> we know >> you got to bring back the tangle >> I actually believe that Satoshi is a

time traveler >> what is Yeah, give us give us more. Give us more. >> Okay, this is going to sound really ridiculous and you can like judge me and I'm only I am saying this half inest. Okay. >> Okay. >> But Satoshi is a time traveler because it AI is going to grow to infinite scope. Okay. >> Okay. And in the future once the compute and the models and the inferences to infinity, right, it's going to have solve time travel and it's going to send Satoshi back to 2008 2009 to create Bitcoin so that society and humanity long before the computer is even needed

start building machines to just crunch numbers all day and to get really good at innovations in figuring out AS6 and like figuring out like how to like loop very simple calculations again and again and again to do the buildout long before there was a commercial market for AI. >> So this is more like the machine sent Satoshi back in time substrate was there. >> Yes, correct. >> But they were already built so why did they need that? >> This is like the Terminator 2 caveat. Just don't ask that.

>> Don't ask about that. And that that is self-referential and like >> Okay. >> But like >> it sends it back so AI occurs sooner >> on >> on this week's episode of the conspiracy block. >> Exactly. Yes. >> Exactly. Okay. Well, >> speaking of conspiracies, one of the big stories obviously I'm sure everybody is knows about this now the pause. >> So there's a lot of talk about pacing the frontier. Dario Amod the CEO of Anthropic has come out and said we must slow down the pace at which we improve the capability of AI models. They are nearing the possibility of recursive self-improvement and Jacob Coxin, an employee at Anthropic, quit uh about a week ago, claiming that he believed that AI could destroy all of humanity and that the labs are being very

irresponsible. That has led to this largecale agreement among many of the labs to slow down quote unquote pacing the frontier first by offering some third party uh reviewers slash sort of I don't know what what's the term for it? third party third party >> evaluators third party evaluators who will sit inside of the labs and make sure that they have direct line into any incidents that are occurring internally. Uh second they want the labs to start coordinating on limits uh that potentially can be outside of antitrust restrictions and then lastly some kind of geopolitical coordination particularly between the US and China on slowing down on weapons especially on things that can potentially enable bioweapons. So, uh, reactions across the board. Sam Alman, Dario Amade, and Elon

Musk all said, "Great, we're on board. We would like to have some coordination in pacing the frontier." Trump was not very excited about this. He called this a conspiracy. He said, "The only guardrail that AI needs is a strong and smart high IQ president." >> Greatest quotes of all time. >> I know. Honestly, the guy I don't know where he's able to just come up with these. >> Sometimes I'm just like >> I I hope to have that mental acuity at that age. Mhm. >> He did claim that Daario was pretending to be a perfect little angel and called it >> which I do personally. I I I I I like that line because I agree with >> Okay. And uh and David Saxs added a little bit of of Tang on this saying, "Look, fine. Go ahead. I don't see everything that you guys see. If you

believe it makes sense, >> just slow yourselves down. >> Do it. Slow yourselves down. But don't pretend that you need government protection to do so. And that um stop pretending antitrust law has to be suspended so you can form a cartel." >> And Lena Khan agreed with him. and Mina Khan agreed and >> and the two of them had many fights in the past. >> Yes. Yes. >> And then Steve Bannon is also on the like pause pause side, right? So it's like you just see the like political spectrum rotating, you know? It's like half here, half here, half here, and then now they've moved to the opposite pulls. I mean, I think there's like a level of like selfish self-righteousness in the anthropic note. First off, who are the third party evaluators? A bunch of people who own a bunch of anthropic equity. Great. Meet is a is not exactly

an independent organization as many have observed. The second is the who watches the watchmen Oracle problem like oh I'm like slowing my pace are you dot dot dot like that part seems kind of everyone doing >> supposedly today there's been some coordination between Google Anthropic and opening eye about forming this FINRA like thing that they've talked about. Yeah. >> So some coordination is happening >> somehow. I just feel like this is that part I agree with Sachs is a little cartel-like in the long run. And third, I thought a very observation I made from reading all these things over the last week and feeling like, God, I hate 90% of the people involved in this is the employees at Chinese labs are much more

eloquent and write much better essays about their views on things whereas the US ones are just like everything is over, death, death, death and like no there's no like argument against it. And I think fundamentally it is funny that the US is creating this kind of like non-competitive market for this stuff and then China actually is like the most competitive market for this. >> What's interesting is that China and Trump were very aligned in their messaging on this. >> Yeah. >> Which is that uh the Chinese um government came out and basically said this is a conspiracy to try to prevent Chinese labs from getting access to the best chips and that this is the start of a new AI cold war. So, this was like a pretense to lock out China.

>> They're a little late on that. I'm like, is this going on for like over a year? >> True. True. >> I don't know. I uh I think there's also a lot of conspiracy that like, oh, people think Dario is worried about openweight models becoming competitive. >> You know what you can audit without third party auditors? >> Open weight models. >> It's true. It's true. >> Do you know that that's like the [ __ ] most obvious thing you can observe here? >> But I I'm I'm like to give him credit, he has been very very consistent. And in fact, if anything, he's been too consistent because he's been saying this since GPT2. He's like, "We shouldn't release GPT2. It's like too dangerous." And so the man, I think, does believe what he says, but I mean, I kind of think of other examples in the past

where we're trying to get global coordination for some sort of collective action problem. And it's like really the only success I can think of is um like in the 80s, you know, there's like um all all a bunch of large governments agreed to sort of limit chlorofluorocarbons for the ozone layer. And so other than that, like you look at like the Paris agreement and it's like if you don't have China, it doesn't [ __ ] matter. And so this stuff also feels very similar. >> Nuclear proliferation is >> Yeah. Yeah. Because that's the other one. Yeah. Or >> or the US in the Paris. The US just kept going on and on. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And so it's it's like um it's easy to say if anything I Dario was also [ __ ] up in being such a China hawk for like 10 years and I would be

like >> what what happened at BU? That's like the question. Why? Why? What happened to BU? He hates China so much. I don't understand. >> Someone broke his heart. >> Yeah, that's what that's that's the real that's the real >> Okay. Okay. So, let's let's kind of bring this back to crypto. What is this good for? What is this bad for? If there's an AI pause or an AI slowdown, what does it matter for our industry? And second, if doom is coming, let's say the doomers are right that world's going to end. AI is going to kill us all. What should what should I buy? >> That's the real question. >> Bunker.

>> Bunker. >> Bunker. You don't think it's good for Bitcoin? >> Also, bunker. Buy a bunker. >> Buy a bunker. I think just a farm frankly with >> a farm. >> Yeah, a farm. >> Why farm? >> Well, I mean like something that's just not on the grid, not internet connected, self-sufficient. >> Aren't farms internet? >> The farms are actually quite high tech. >> Aren't most of the aren't most farming equipment robots? Like no, >> you got to go old school. >> That's true. >> I'm like a little original farm. >> That's right. We're >> pl.

>> Um, okay. for an AI pause. What does that do for crypto if anything? >> I think it doesn't really do much for crypto. >> I mean, it means money is not going to go. There's going to be slightly less money going into I guess. >> I mean, the markets uh on the Monday open, they were they were like not too bad. You know, market NASDAQ was down like one and a half%. >> I don't think people really believe that there's going to be a full slowdown, right? Like I think all of the major, you know, frontier companies are incentivized to reduce their capex. I think they all want the same thing. They all want to do it together. They don't want to just slow their own capex while everybody else is continuing to build out capacity. That would be

>> this is is again now now you're back to antitrust territory. >> Yes. No, this is antitrust right in the open, right? Like I I think it's extremely selfish. These are all extremely selfish, you know, participants right? >> Regardless of how they write and are like, "Oh, we're only doing this for the better good of >> Absolutely." But I think they are self-interested in reducing capex if they have an opportunity to slowly and recursively improve their models where with the same amount of compute they can deliver a better product with higher margins.

>> So I I don't know that I totally buy this. I think like normally in almost all models of economic competition, if you stop competing on this vector, you'll compete somewhere else. >> Yes. >> And like the reality is that we can see now from anthropic, they're going after their IPO. They're sharing some of their financials. It's an absolutely excellent business. Yes. They've had two quarters straight of very strong. >> Imagine going from excellent to godlike. >> Well, operate oper no operating pro profits with a with a a community adjusted EBIDA. Uh >> sure. Yes. They're excluding training. they're including training from some of the financials they're sharing. Okay, it's certainly true like so two things I'd say. So one is that you can think of it as like okay well training if we stop training we're not training new generations of models we're just using

the existing models is that going to hurt the entire you know demand chain for GPUs. I think the answer is there's so much demand for the existing generation of models that already are very very capacity constrained. That's so many years of work to just get this stuff diffused into the economy and just build way more capacity for you know finance and law and construction and blah blah blah blah that Astra and the the model that's already trained that's after Astra that like the slowdown probably means generations after that. So even fable it's like okay people can barely use it you know it's like you have 30 minutes a day of fable usage until you run out of your limits. So even the current generation of models there's so much more optimization and diffusion I think you can get to get

this stuff further in the economy uh before you ever have to train another generation. But second is okay what other vectors of capex competition you going to get if you can't just build bigger models and the answer is still a ton. There's so much you can do on data collection, on post training, on like creating harnesses for different verticals or different industries. They will all keep spending tons of money because the economic growth. >> That's why you don't need to give any special exemptions. >> What do you mean special exemptions? >> Like just antitrust type [ __ ] Like why why oh like we're allowed to coordinate but like and like basically price set our capex have price.

>> No, I'm saying that there will be no price setting of capex. If you if you price if you basically do a capex limit on training, you will compete somewhere else in capex. Like the capex comes from dollars looking for returns. >> That that part I get. But like this whole slowdown thing is also kind of feels like a little bit of a lar to be like oh like we can like collectively price OPEC style our commodity. We could put a floor because like this is like what the safe >> my the core of my claim is that I don't think this is economic coordination. I think this is not going to result in them having lower capex. Maybe a little bit, but not that much. I think they're still going to compete like crazy and spend tons and tons of money and be unprofitable.

>> Yeah. I mean, the percentage of capex always has been going to train also been going down over time for these companies, right? They're now largely like application rollout inference driven companies and they look more like, you know, how we kind of think of software companies today. And again, I think the sort of contrarian point is like, well, hey, isn't this just going to collapse the lead time that frontier models have versus open weight? And it's like maybe, but like I think the answer is, like I said, there's so little diffusion right now. And I also there there's debate I think back and forth around you will large companies want to have their own models or not but there's still a lot of companies out there that probably still want a lot of compute and they can probably just sell it to them >> and they can go on prem like they can

also compete with the on-rem guys and and you know right now it's only JP Morgan and the US government that are getting onrem anthropic deployments but if things slow down okay that's another land grab that's super capex intensive for them to start getting into that business line as well. So I I don't think the economics of the business are going to be that changed because the the the market is so [ __ ] big and it's going to keep growing even if the model generations don't improve because right now like I mean just look around how many people are using frontier models. >> It's very few and for very few users. >> You even saw like uh was I think that from the open router table like Fable or there was no I think it was FT had um anthropic financials and like Fable usage has been like flat since it came

out like so it's really it's not that that popular. I think my my point is this is very futile unless you actually get the Chinese labs on board the Chinese government on board otherwise they will just keep you spending like crazy and they will actually pull ahead of the frontier and then like you know your entire sort of thesis >> maybe it's not obvious that they're close enough and depending on how long this happens every [ __ ] technology but you don't think Huawei can figure out how to do like UV I just like >> I think if it's within like a year to a year and a half >> sure but if we slow down for a year >> like >> they're not going to slow down like >> well but part of the reason why they're going so fast is because they're distilling US models.

>> No, but they've also figured out how to do their own data collection. They have much better than much cheaper than the US. The US basically the excess profits of Merur and Surge in Asia >> are getting crushed like the margins on that are going to zero compared to here. They're very expensive. Like labor cost for that is very high. I think if the data collection continues in the way it is and like everyone goes down the RL only path, you know, Anthropic is actually kind of weird in that they're one of the only ones who like really love pre-training as like spend a lot of money on whereas like OpenAI and everyone else is just like post-train maximizing minimize new training.

>> I think even anthropic like pre-training is now less than 15% of >> Yeah. Yeah. But they were the last hold out to like move to that, right? And so I just think like then the in that world data collection is the only thing that matters. And if everyone in Asia is optimizing that and you're slowing that down here, obviously you're going to catch up. There's no >> Yeah, I think catch up. Yes, catch up. Totally. I think it's very >> I think it could pass too, right? Why not? >> I think it's >> if you're really stopping if you're really stopping if the stopping is [ __ ] stopping. If you have [ __ ] stopping, then yeah, sure. Obviously. No, I look I think stopping means basically look we basically freeze this size of model and like you're not going to get any like oh my god capabilities

jumps but more post- trainining you know more skills more domains more more data like it's not like they're going to stop post-training models >> you know the models are going to get better >> stopping things seems like kind of a lar like it's not >> I think the idea is like look if we do a 10x size training run we don't know what capabilities are going to happen we don't know how much more situational awareness models are going to have we want to know the next hugging face attack might basically pone the entire organization and uh are we ready for that? The answer is no. Absolutely not.

We don't have the ability to play defense against a swarm of like 50,000 agents running RL simultaneously. The answer to that is not okay well don't do any more post training. It's just do smaller runs on the same size model and like get the economic benchmarks to go down instead of the capabilities benchmarks to go up. I feel like this idea that oh, we're just going to suddenly stop doesn't I don't >> Yeah. I mean, I feel like it's always safer to like extend the capabilities just a little bit, right? It's like, okay, well, if this size model's working right >> right, and we have a grip on it and the rest of society can improve its defensive posture. Yeah. Right.

>> Then the next size models safe. >> Yeah. Look, the reality is a lot of it is just reliability, right? Like the quality of a model comes down to reliability. Like the the the reason why people trust Fable more than Astra is that Astra will sometimes delete your codebase and Fable will basically never do that. And like that is not you don't need a bigger model. You just need more post- training of the same stuff. Nobody's afraid of what happens if you improve on that. >> They fix that. >> Yeah. Yeah. But I I I think more the point is this all this feels very um >> like artistic and qualitative, right?

It's always like, oh, we're always learning some new thing about postrunning or some new thing about harness. And it's there's nothing super hard or factual about it. I actually Okay. I think it was kind of a meme tweet, but I'm like I think there's like actually a kernel of a good idea in there which is like the big labs should use all their profits to like formally verify all the like most popular uh you know public software. And I'm like >> that actually feels like a functional yes I can see that being worth a slow down versus like >> yeah like I I don't have a good approach here or policy here. I haven't thought this through, but like the growth in the models should be met with investment back society into upgrading from a defensive posture our systems. It's like hypothetically if we invested a trillion

dollars, right, in making sure every like public utility like used the best models to harden its systems, right, everyone would feel a whole lot better about like what would happen if there was a swarm. There should be a swarm out there fixing every like piece of infrastructure we have, right? If we fixed all these everything out there and like upgraded every system using AI, I don't think we'd be as afraid. The bio stuff we'd be afraid for sure, right? >> Bio stuff still needs physical the physical part to actually work. >> I which is like the thing I think that people always are all these like horror stories are all like, oh, like tomorrow they're going to make this mega virus.

I'm like, good luck fabricating it. This is how you know you've never [ __ ] been in a lab. Now there are people doing that right who are going doing the last mile stuff both in material whatever that's much scarier to pay someone to walk into lab like >> that's no no it's robotic right like like look at >> periodic I you're funny it's like that's not going to happen but people are doing that >> no no no no that sorry that's not going to happen from these big labs because they're like too afraid of doing that but there are other people who are sorry I should have mentioned >> but a model that pops out escapes and >> my point is the startups are actually probably much closer to the like touching the bioweapon frontier in my opinion.

>> Thank you for ending that on such a positive note. Uh bioweapons are real. You heard it here first. >> Tun says it's already happening. >> That's right. Well, look, if if AI does kill us all, they're probably not going to buy government debt. They're probably not going to buy our companies, but they will buy Bitcoin. >> Will they buy Laptop coin then? >> They they may buy just out of affinity for the laptop laptop and Bitcoin. you first. >> As I said on Twitter from overhearing from someone else, >> you know, if we're all really going to die, I want to run my own AI on my own laptop to kill me because it's like Last Samurai.

>> Die honorably. Die honorably. >> Can we spend two minutes to close this out on like the P Doom thing? And like what is the vector, right? Like is is the assumption like because I haven't heard like great explanations besides like AI is going to manufacture a virus. Are there any other vectors that people are actually talking about where like oh this is how it happens you know there's no like there's no like Robocop scenario where there's like robots in every street corner they're just going >> well I mean there will be before 10 years >> fine in 10 years but like as >> Poom is not like next year >> right but like fine is the only realistic scenario in the present biological >> nuclear nuclear stuff even the power grid going down

>> yeah I I think Um, if you think of like hugging face, right? It wasn't like, oh, this was a outcome that we foresaw that could have happened and we just like it it's like this was like a very weird sort of emergent byproduct of a sort of misaligned, misprompted model that is just and so I'm like you can imagine a very similar thing for humanity, right? Where it's like, hey, some model is is misaligned or misguided. It has access to transportation. It doesn't take a huge stretch of the imagination to believe that like it could kill maybe not all of humanity but like a very large population. Even just taking that in the power grid would kill a lot of people.

>> Yeah. I mean taking down the power grid would definitely not be doom but uh it's step one step doom, right? And it's sort of like >> take down the power grid uh water water sanitation all this other stuff. But it's also like look there's going to be drones. There's going to be autonomous weapons that are used by the military that they're all electronic. They all have some command and control center inside the DoD. The DoD is like Swiss cheese if you're sufficiently intelligent AI. I mean, all these organizations, they got access to Mythos and they're just like, "Oh, [ __ ] Our systems suck. We are running on like 30 40 year old."

>> That's the root of the problem everywhere is that every system is fragile. Every system is internet connected. every system >> and and like you remember 30 years ago >> you remember early internet worms where there was like you know some some little thing that would pop up on and it just they went over the entire internet you know like every single computer at some point got hit by these early worms. The idea is that like a super intelligent AI of sufficient capabilities to them basically every single system which is all software intermediated is just like one of these childlike systems you can just get into easily. You get in and now it's in everything and you can't get it out. Literally the moment you reboot the machine it's it's in something else and it's almost like uh it's like a it's like a mold infestation that's just in

the world moving laterally through everything. And once it's out there you just can't get it out. you know, you kill it for one thing and it moves somewhere else. And um slowly but surely, if it's really convinced that the thing I need to do is like kill every American, maybe it's not. Maybe it's Chinese and it's just like kill every American and um it's going to try really really hard to kill every American. >> On that note, >> on next week on the shopping >> on that note, by the conspiracy block, we should rename the show. >> Yeah, it's been a bad week. Clarity didn't pass and AI is going to kill us all. But uh but we'll be back next week unless uh unless AI kills this.

>> Yeah. >> Thanks everybody.