Let’s Kill Sh*t: Axios CEO on simplifying your work-life in the AI era

SPEAKER_1 (0:01)

AI subscriptions can start to add up, and Pega knows that when AI has a meter, ambition has a limit. Instead of charging per token, Pega harnesses the most powerful AI models into predictable outcomes at a predictable cost. All so you can confidently scale your innovation, not your spend.

No token fees, no surprises. Learn more at pega.com/notokenfees.

Jim VandeHei (0:25)

Be just constantly thinking about what are the fewest number of people we need in the fewest number of meetings, jumping through the fewest number of procedural hurdles to get something done. You need to be that ruthless, constantly thinking about fewer, fewer, less, less, quicker, quicker.

Once you do that, it creates an energy of its own and others around you start doing it naturally. And I think once you get into that mentality, you'll really see a pretty appreciable difference almost overnight.

Bob Safian (0:57)

That's Jim VandeHei, CEO of influential news outlet Axios and co-author of the new book Simplify.

Jim is one of the most insightful business leaders I know, as well as a deeply sourced journalist. In today's episode, we talk first about the upcoming midterm elections and the implications for businesses. And then we quickly turn to how AI-driven change, what he calls post-processable velocity, is altering planning, expectations and habits. Jim's solution to all that disruption is to lean into simplicity through a three-part plan he calls Confront, Delete, Amplify. We talk about cognitive fatigue and how he's redesigning his personal life, plus the risks of getting into business with OpenAI and more. So let's get to it. I'm Bob Safian, and this is Rapid Response.

I'm Bob Safian, I'm here with Jim VandeHei, CEO of Axios and co-author of the new book Simplify. Jim, welcome back to the show.

Jim VandeHei (2:04)

Great to be here. Thanks for having me.

Bob Safian (2:05)

So before we get into the book, do you have a simplified view for our audience about the election session that we're moving into?

Jim VandeHei (2:13)

I think you'd probably rather be a Democrat than a Republican. I just think the fundamentals really favor the party out of power in general. The fact that President Trump's probably right around 40% popularity.

I think Democrats actually did a pretty good job on the Senate side of recruiting candidates.

They have a money disadvantage, but in general, I think Democrats should win the House. I think they have a reasonable chance of winning the Senate. I think it really depends on what is the mood of the voter, particularly around the cost of living and the war.

Because if Republicans are bummed and they don't show up, and I think that is a big concern, that hurts. But the flip side is Democrats seem much more motivated. When you look at polls of like who's super energized, Democrats seem way more energized. And when you have an energized base in a tough economy or a high cost economy, that's when you have the potential for like a landslide.

Bob Safian (3:05)

Does America have any like unified mission or goal, something that it stands for, or is reflected in this year's candidates and platforms?

Jim VandeHei (3:15)

Not that I can detect. I think both parties understand affordability matters. People don't like to spend more money. Ultimately, they want to hold somebody responsible. They tend to hold the party in power responsible, regardless of the policy. In this case, I'd say the party in power is responsible, because you can directly trace the increase in prices to the war for oil.

And then the tariffs, no doubt, have really put pressure on pricing. In the new round of fights with Canada, you end up paying more for things that you were paying less for before, and that makes people upset. They're ornery, because they're not necessarily... Wages are decent. In some areas, wages are going up, but they're not going up high enough to account for inflation, and that's the pinch Republicans are in.

Bob Safian (3:58)

Anti-data center sentiments gonna hurt Republicans? How did data centers become so politically toxic so fast?

Jim VandeHei (4:07)

I mean, I've very rarely in politics been doing this 30-some years, seen an issue become so prominent and so toxic so quickly.

Even if you went back last year, most politicians, most legislation was all kind of pro-data centers. People saw these as job creation machines, and now people hate them. Well, the truth is, 99% of people don't live anywhere near a data center. I think it's a proxy for AI. I think people are just worried. These guys out in Silicon Valley are creepy.

I worry about my job. I worry about my kids' mental health. And I think data centers are paying the price for that. Now, that might change. The companies are putting a lot of money in to try to explain that they are good economically in local communities. Maybe they'll start to move the needle. I don't think they'll move the needle that much. This week, we had this guy come out from Anthropic and warn that there's a 10% chance that their technology destroys humanity, which, I don't know, last time I checked, will be not a great sales pitch for the product that you're building.