Financializing Super Intelligence, Amazon's $50B Late Fee | #235

Peter Diamandis (0:00)

Amazon makes a contingent offer to put $35 billion into OpenAI, based upon them first off going public and secondly achieving AGI.

Salim Ismail (0:11)

It's kind of incredible that we've financialized super intelligence, which is amazing.

Alexander Wissner-Gross (0:16)

The OpenAI to Microsoft definition of AGI was something like generating $100 billion in either earnings or revenue, I forget.

Peter Diamandis (0:24)

We're measuring compute in terms of gigawatts and AGI in terms of dollars, I love it. Amazon was all Anthropic for a while, now they're OpenAI.

Alexander Wissner-Gross (0:34)

At some point the circular economy becomes indistinguishable from the real economy and I think that's what we're seeing here.

Dave Blundin (0:40)

This is the entrepreneurial opportunity of a lifetime. We're talking about tens of thousands of times more capacity to create more money, more value created. Abundance is going to be absolutely rampant. Now that's the Moonshot, ladies and gentlemen.

Peter Diamandis (0:59)

Everybody, welcome to Moonshots, another episode of WTF Just Happened in Tech, the number one podcast in AI and exponential technology, getting you ready for the future, getting you ready for the supersonic tsunami heading our way. I'm here with my extraordinary Moonshot mates, Salim Ismail, DB2, AWG. Gentlemen, another week. We've gotten to a cadence of two of these per week. It's and it feels like we're always leaving so many stories on the table. But let's do our best.

Dave Blundin (1:32)

Yes, we need to we need to actually move faster and faster and faster, just like the singularity itself to keep up with everything.

Peter Diamandis (1:39)

Well, no tech company weights, no GPU weights. All right, let's jump in. Our top AI news stories, Anthropic, Google, OpenAI, Uber accelerating at an extraordinary speed of change. Our first story for today, Anthropic revises responsible scaling policy amid increased competition. This was a story I put to the top of the conversation because it's very significant. I had Jared Kaplan on stage at the Abundance Summit last year, the year before. Alex, you know Jared well. I think he was a roommate.

Alexander Wissner-Gross (2:19)

He was a year behind me in the Harvard Physics graduate program.

Peter Diamandis (2:22)

Yeah. What an amazing group of friends that you had. But here's the deal. They're dropping their 2023 pledge to not train advanced AI unless safety is guaranteed.

And Jared's point, I think logically is if everyone else is rushing ahead, then us sort of hampering ourselves doesn't make any sense. And I want to discuss this because it's concerning. A lot of us looked at Anthropic as the most responsible party out there, them and Google. Thoughts, gents.

Salim Ismail (2:59)

Safety fails in exponential races.

Peter Diamandis (3:01)

There's lots of thoughts, all of you at once.

Alexander Wissner-Gross (3:03)

This is a metaphor for something, right? We're going to race to talk about race condition. Love it.

Peter Diamandis (3:09)

Amazing. I want to open with Salim here. Salim, go ahead.

Salim Ismail (3:12)

Well, I mean, safety typically fails in exponential races. You could look at the whole thing writ large as OpenAI, cracked open and let Pandora's box out. And so this is just the same type of dynamic occurring again. It speaks to the idea that technology is going to move at its pace, and we have to move our human structures at that pace. We can't fall behind.

Peter Diamandis (3:35)

Yeah. Dave? Yeah.

Dave Blundin (3:36)

No, it's definitely history repeating itself. And so many of our MIT classmates went to Google back in 40506 when it was Don't Be Evil. Yeah. And they went there over Microsoft because everyone perceived Microsoft as being evil. And Google was going to be the force of good in all of tech. And then, you know, they bought YouTube and then they built Chrome and then they, you know, what they promised the engineers early on, the ones that I knew anyway, is, look, we will never store somebody's search history. How laughable is that in hindsight? So then they expanded out of search history. We're going to store that for five years. But we're also going to launch Chrome. Now we're going to look at all of your browsing history. Then we're going to buy DoubleClick. Then we're going to run targeted ads based on everything. Then we're going to do Gmail and read every email. You know, Microsoft says they don't read your email. But Google says, well, we'll do what we want. But we won't pry too much. But they do read your email. And so that slippery slope of competition corrupts the original mission statement gradually over time. I gave a whole presentation in Davos on how this evolves. And Dario wants nothing more than some rules. And he's actually legitimately pissed that he has to actually repeal his own ethical standards to be competitive, because there are no rules. And this is exactly how it has to evolve. Because Dario is in a position where he has to choose between being irrelevant, which doesn't help, or repealing the original pledge, which he doesn't want to do, but it's better than being irrelevant. Totally between the rock and roll.