Welcome. Hey, everybody.
Welcome to Dead cat. This is Eric newcomer, Tom and
Katie are here. I've totally lost my voice.
I am mustering through sickness to make sure that someone here
who has been writing about AI is on the podcast.
Because Katie and I are just here to And you are AI.
Standards are here. The first generative podcast, we
have Nathan, who's the founder Soul.
General partner of are Street Capital.
I feel like I started covering European Tech.
And like, we started exchanging a lot of messages.
And yeah. So I've been looking for an
excuse to do something with you and then finally I got on the AI
hype train and you've been thinking about AI for many years
and you're like, everybody Welcome to the party or
whatever. Yeah, glad to have you.
Yeah. What's it feel like now that
everyone's obsessed with a? I all of a sudden as have been a
shock or what sort of your reaction to the Mania of the
moment hasn't quite been a shock because sort of expecting this
to happen in a way. It's great that, you know, like
a new advanced technology domain gets attention from creasing,
Lee generalist investors or investors, who focus on
different Industries because almost then, you know, reaffirms
that like the technology is for real and probably has
applications in all sorts. Of domains.
Yeah, I know your portfolio. Companies can get marked up like
you just have to hope you got in a lot of the deals explain to me
what happened. Exactly because I mean if we're
just going to trace the chronology of the last year, in
Venture investing obviously 2020 21, may be the first half of
this year has been about crypto and you saw all these funds
rebranding themselves as crypto focused funds.
And all of these VCS that I used to talk to all the time about
their old Investments are, like, what the hell are you talking
about? Delivery to me.
I don't do delivery. I'm a crypto investor now, you
know, and I mostly do crypto and it seems like that's all been
forgotten. Now like that's all the memory
holds and like they all switch their hats and they took off
their Dottie th on their hat and they put on a I like explain to
me what has happened over the last year, the real like
inflection point was when you could Master this first viral
use case of machine learning, which is images and video like
before when you had text models that were working with you,
well, and you could generate like a script or you could talk
to a bot. There's something that's
fundamentally less, interesting, reading a script with a bot,
then looking at these epic images, that never existed.
Before that you designed with your own instructions on your
mobile phone. So I'd almost call it like the
consumerization of machine learning or at least a product
the output of machine learning. Which is understandable and much
more tangible to almost everybody who uses the internet.
Then the products that came before and while those tools
like stable diffusion and Dolly from open a I were available to
people in the know for a while. They really came out what like
late August September and that has really sort of kicked this
off just because a Publix very aware.
Yeah and I think their distributions also been quite
interesting. From how the Machinery Mark has
evolved because the central dogma is always been that
centralization winds, which is like to be good at machine
learning, you need to have all the data, all the top people,
all the computers and then the product and you mix it together
and then you get sort of, you know, great machine learning on
the other side and cook, those been the counterbalance to that,
which is just decentralize everything, give power back to
everybody and yeah. Over the first few months of
this year, the fact that you can now like arm the rebels as it
were are These open source communities which are basically
called themselves like research collectives and they either
gather on disk or other forms that might not even be companies
or corporate entities and provide them with access to
compute, which is what stability really did.
It's of liberates, the creativity of individuals who
couldn't participate because they weren't part of the, you
know, the Gap, the elites, the in a big technology company
Elite. And that's actually led to like
massive open sourcing which then busts up the centralization
hypothesis and shows you that there.
Like another path to building and distributing machine
learning based products thing. That's what I like a lot of
folks are getting excited about to how important was Dolly as a
product and I guess for our listeners that haven't used it
out there mean. This is the tool that the Eric
was mentioning like open a.i. released.
And it allows you through fairly direct instructions.
You've got to be direct because it's not always that smart.
You've got to basically say like in the style of Monet or in I
feel like the key is to like yeah give it a realistic, right?
Exact right, right. Clip art.
But basically, you can give instructions to, you know, it
says some software and it will generate with less than a
minute, some fairly creative depiction of what you drew and
it's like very easy to use and is like a very clear product of
what a I can do. So like how important do you
think just that being released even on a beta level and then
more openly played into the excitement from investors.
That there's like a whole opportunity here.
I think the community Was like pretty Blown Away with the
results of Dalian specially like Delhi to but then they get back
to this question of. Can you build businesses on the
apis, on the clothes, the apis of the large companies and know
there's a few that are built on gbt.
So I think that that excitement got even greater ones like these
models became reproduced in the open source World by folks like
stability a looser, Etc. So, I think it's really just as
this notion of like, busting up centralized entities, and
providing tools to everybody else.
I think they've also landed really well, just because we
kind of live in this like a tick tock generation of short form
images, video, and images, and Instagram, and the outputs of
these models are like perfect fodder for those platforms.
Well, what's interesting to me about Dolly and this lady of
generative images is that it's something that you can very
easily explain to someone like I think it passes the dinner table
test that crypto certainly had a very difficult time doing.
You know like prove to us has a hard time passing the Tests
showed that grandma just trust me.
Put all your money in this right?
Different dinner table conversation especially with
older people. But yeah, you know it's like
everyone, I'm assuming all of our listeners spent last
Thanksgiving trying to explain to their uncle's or even worse.
Having their uncle's explain to them the value of crypto and
like what it can do and then whereas with this, it's like oh
why don't you think of some words and let me put it into a
prompt and I can enter it and it'll draw an image.
And at the very least you're like, oh wow, that is
impressive. Technology that I can't and out.
We need you saying you can grasp and I mean, I know it seems like
really simplistic to put it in these terms.
But is that how investors felt as well?
It's like, oh, I get this, this is cool.
I think there's probably a bunch of like I get this.
And this looks like consumer technology that have been used
to investing for a very long time.
I think the other thing too, is some investors realizing that
they don't have like a bet in a. I like, what is my big bold
debt? And when I like the proverbial
investors, sees the opening eyes were half a ton of money.
Do you mind doing some great things that there are some new
offshoot Labs that we provide in our state of the air report that
are raising tons of money? You know build a billion people
that they're kind of all these adjacencies that you can apply
machine learning to sort of get to just drum themselves up into
this fomo. Can you break down just like
generative AI versus with everything else?
Or I feel like all of a sudden, we're talking about generative
AI. Yeah.
But textbook, definition you basically have like to kind of
categories of machine learning. You have like, It's called
discriminative machine learning which is basically like given a
data set. How can I draw a boundary
between two categories in that data set?
So to decide is just like images and animals, whereas the
boundary, that separates one species from another and then
you train this model on this data set.
And then it's tasks. When it sees new data is to just
classify, the species is present in the image.
And that's discriminative by contrast like generative is
basically where the model is trying to learn like the
statistics The probability distribution of a data set like
learned something intrinsic about it, such that you can ask
the model to basically generate to synthesize and you example
that fits that data distribution.
And so like at a high-level busy, what we've done is created
models that are like able to sort of learn like increasingly
complex datasets in this case, like the entire internet or the
entirety of like Flickr or whatever in pairs of, you know,
text descriptions to Image representations such that when
you ask it to generate, like some arbitrary seen like, with
some very specific prawns, like it's seen different combinations
of these things before and can smush them together in a way
that like looks nice. So you could, you could probably
argue that like a lot of the generative AI that like we're
talking about today which is images and video and text sort
of like a rebranding of like creative AI that I used to see I
five years ago or so. When especially this technology
called Gans regenerative adversarial Networks.
Hmm which were like you know very hot and IP a couple of
years ago we basically get like one model that generates an
image and then another model that says like is it good or is
it bad when you sort of put them together against one?
Another it early and then at some point like the image
generated comes good because it can fool the network that saying
is a good or bad. So it's sort of like not new and
is like fundamentally part of like textbook machine learning,
you know, I feel like I'm going to ask the most obvious question
here, so bear with me. But how does Human creativity
work alongside generative AI. It is a compete with generative
AI you know if we can do so much based on extraordinary Works
already, created in the past that we all love and admire and
we imagine that a I could create really pleasing interesting
thought-provoking work based on that.
Where does human creativity sit alongside that I think it?
Awaits you in creativity will just A guide almost.
And then these generative models would just help you explore our
like this search space of what you could possibly make.
And I think I got a high level. It's kind of beautiful with
these machine learning models that, you know, synthesize more
data than any human could ever do in their entire career.
If they tried to become expert at something, is that kind of
spread over like Humanity's history, we can sort of get to
like more local Optimum solutions to things.
If you remember the alpha, go to the case study.
It's like if You train the system on, like, as many
simulations, is physically possible in the space of time,
than you're probably get some gameplay.
That's better than what we've seen before.
And so it turns out that like all of human expertise passed on
from one generation to another yields a local Optimum, that's
not the best that exists. And so I think, you know, in a
way that is generative systems are sort of guides to get us two
more Optimal Solutions. And this applies to making
pictures prettier and prettier but also applies to making more
potent. Drug molecules and
pharmaceuticals is funny to hear this answer in the domain of
creativity though. You're like they're going to be
they're going to rank in a higher percentile of creativity
than we have. And it's like very subjected to
because it takes things like Picasso and turns him into sort
of raw material. It turns him into a commodity,
right? Yeah, in order to generate more
images. Yeah.
I wanted to build on sort of Katies question, which is just
also the sort of late in like plagiarism stuff or just like
the machines taking advantage of like past human, creativity to
become smarter. There's sort of the
philosophical question in that, where I think some artists feel
like, well, they're taking my data to build these future
drawings and really, I'm not getting the cut of that.
You don't know. It needed me.
So there's partially. It's just like philosophical,
but I am curious also like as an investor.
Is there any like the eagle risk here?
Someone was talking to me. You know, like this generative
work could be done in like, video games or something.
And you can imagine, like, the set of video games as much
smaller, and it could be much more obvious.
If you're sort of building sort of an algorithm off of existing,
sort of, You Know, video game IP, I don't know.
How do you think about sort of the intellectual property of
what goes into these systems? Yeah, I think it depends on
that. The scale of the data set that
the models learning from because you could probably argue if the
model is sucking up the entirety of the internet and what is one
incremental like blog? Authors blog going to help this
model and how can they justify that unless perhaps like there's
so iconic in their style like in the artistic space with Picasso
or it could be the grounds for the largest class action lawsuit
of all time. Yeah so that my words were
stolen in front of the large length model and I believe all 7
billion people on earth, have the claim to that.
I love it. When big law firms together with
technology. Yes.
Wait a second. So I think that's probably one
of the only ways that like one can legislate against these
systems, which is like it. The entirety of like a
significant pool of people to legislate, or two or kapha
lawsuits, because the individual consumers, not going to have a
say, I'd love to see that advertisement on TV.
Have you or your words been used as part of a large language
model that you feel is impeding on your personal rights and
creativity. You may be entitled to a
settlement. Hey, we have a prediction in the
state of the air report that will I have some fun like,
content lawsuit, that will. I think at some point just give
rise to I can use for licensing agreement, which is like a, for
example, like I'm Reddit. And in order to train on the
entirety of my Corpus of conversations, Etc, then you
have to abide by blah, blah, blah fascinating.
So, there actually, could theoretically be some sort of
Licensing elements of this that has to be taken to account for
these large language models. Yeah, I mean, I think if you're
a big content owner, the best part is like your future
monetization stream and that's a wave.
You to participate in this teacher, that's pretty
inevitable. I think what's open source like
gets their hands on something? It's kind of an inevitable
direction of travel. So then the question is, like,
are you Wikipedia, are you Encarta?
So, as one of the reasons why there's such a rush to go in
early, you know, is one reason that investors sort of see this
on the horizon which would slow growth.
So get in. Now while there are still a lot
of room for very quick movement, I think yes or no, but I think
if sure early then you probably might suffer from like being the
tallest pop. P and sort of being the target,
you know? And then once like to label and
has been cast, then the fast followers can move in, and I
think that's been proven captures gone Spotify.
Is he like, you know? Yeah, exactly.
I think that kind of dynamic can happen, but it is also true that
in open source and just in communities, in general, like
once you get momentum it's hard to stop it.
Unless you really screw things up or something new pops up.
And so that it's tough to think about what are these competitive
long-term modes that you can. Apply to sort of keep your pole
position. Did you follow the whole
conflict? This week between stability, Ai
and Runway. Yes, but yesterday, actually,
and yes, I tweeted, I was like open source AI for all like,
what can you recap? It here is very obscure.
It's happening on hugging face, which is like The Message Board
of the sort of, the AI world. So I always deep in, but
basically these two companies both back by CO2, you know, the
huge investor Better stability. AI is basically the company that
put out stable diffusion with some other researchers and then
this company Runway I think they're co-founder participated
in the research with stable. Diffusion, they put out like an
update to stable diffusion without stability.
A is permission and then stability.
A I basically said this was a violation of their IP and
threatened them and then eventually somehow Runway got
them to back down, but it's like clear.
These sort of Open Source projects are not as open source.
Maybe as represented different people want to own them and
people are raising it billion dollar valuations off
Technologies. Where it's not clear who
controls them, Nathan died gloss that right?
Or what am I missing? Or what do you think's
interesting about the whole incident?
I think you got it quite right. The other interesting thing is
like the core technology and paper and busy research that
underpins like stability came. From academic environments that,
you know, were sort of enabled by large compute infrastructure.
And so that's sort of also been like increasingly ignored is
perhaps like this ecosystem to become financialized by applying
large valuations to companies. So I was surprised, it's just
rise of the keyword of like stability IP because I thought
in all the marketing but there is no IP because it's all open
source by default. It's basically open source and
you understand this better than I do.
It's Source, but then stability. I basically spent a ton to run
simulations of it, or whatever, or where to train it, right?
And that costs a lot of money. Yeah.
But then, even the training work helps everybody because that
system is just out there or yeah, stability.
AI isn't able to say we paid to train it.
We only get the better version or yeah.
I mean, so like this, this sort of like the model code and then
you train it and, you know, you can train it on whatever say
like, you have a data set, I have a Dataset will sort of get
a different model because we've trained it on a different data
set and the difference is just expressed by what's called
weights. So basically this model has like
tons and tons of knobs and then you need to tune like billions
of knobs. And so if you train it on
different, datasets will get slightly different, knob
configurations. And then you can like list these
knob configurations on plugging face and then you can download
them and then and then apply them to your model without like
retraining your own model and then you've got the same model
basically. So these are what's called like,
model checkpoints weights that kind of thing.
But yeah, I mean, these architectures are largely in the
public domain and then the data set that was trained on is in
the public domain and says, Master dies.
I called lie on. So, unless I think a company
takes the open source model and then trains it on their own
Corpus of like images or video, and then someone steals that
that's like theft of Ip. But then if they just published
the model, back on the Internet with the new ways and then say
can be used for both commercial and research purposes than its
Open Access than its connection. If theme, that's like Tom and
Katie and I have like, discussed over the years and it's always
interesting. Technology is like a sense of
like fatalism in Tech where it's like if something's happening
Silicon Valley doesn't always want to have like some huge
ethical debate about it because there's just sort of a realism
that like what the cats out of the barn.
I mean, I think we saw with like, Opening.
I write like dolly was slower to be open access than some of
these others and then like stable diffusion basically
jumped the gate and then dollies like fuck it will be out there
too. I mean do you think like this is
like a controlled enough situation where anybody can be
thoughtful about, like how technology should develop or do
you think this is just sort of like a Mad Dash where it feels
like this has happened? Inning.
I should be the one to monetize it before somebody else.
Well, I don't think the primary motivation for stability is
monetizing. I think it's really Distributing
like systems to anybody who wants to run them and who can
benefit from them. But I do think it has some
implications over, like the kind of alignment and safety and
guard wills and things like this around these systems.
And I mean the canonical like example was open EI and big tech
companies that have their own views as to what people could
use these tools. As for in the form of filtering,
certain prompts that Woodgate, the model from creating certain
things. There were deemed to be like
unsavory. And then, the alternative is
like stabilities. Anybody can go do this, but in a
way, like, who should decide who gets worked, and how in a way
you could say that, you know, the entirety of humanity that's
going to work on these open source models could potentially
get to a better place than a few people, in a single company.
That's pretty much the experiment that's getting run at
the moment because as you say, like, once one company goes,
open source, it's for game theoretical everybody else has
to if you want to be relevant, hence, the like Wikipedia versus
Encarta analogy, that I think is quite topical here.
You know whether either of them end up being good.
Let lucrative companies is like another question, but this is
only like the first-order effect.
You have all the second order effects, which is what other
fields are going to benefit from these Innovations.
And that's where I mean spending like a lot of time.
And especially as these kinds of models touch like problems in
biology and chemistry, and physics and Drug Discovery and
things like that. And that sort of occurring of
the in the shadows because it's slightly Technical and goes back
to like the non-viral consumer e, these cases of machine
learning, but it's very real. We're all writers.
How terrified you think we should be that generative?
AI will successfully replace writing like some PCS say, oh,
writings even easier than images right?
Hard. Like I mean, somebody wrote like
one Masters and one PhD thesis and I try and write a newsletter
as good as Eric's, but like this is hard.
So I can use classic like perrito.
Like, I think you can do, you know, 80% of the job.
And then the question is, like, how easy is it?
As a user experience to solve the last 20?
And I think in many of the writing assistance that I've
tried, it's like, you know, generates text, but then you
kind of get halfway through you like this garbage.
Like, this is not good enough. One of the newsletter writers
did Ali-A, I driven tweet storm, that went viral and he said it
was like his best and I guess my throwback on this writing
question is almost like, My worry is about the audience.
Like, I think, like, you me, like we're writing the 80 to 100
is very different. It's like, oh, this looks like
good writing. Yeah, it is incoherent.
The people you're referencing aren't real or like whatever,
you know, the actual Logic, the key.
The real key part is not there but the Aesthetics of it, that
it looks like something you would say.
It feels like Like has takes like it feels like a clean
solution to a problem that's there.
And so if the audience is dumb enough, you know, then you could
make money off of it, you could build a large audience and I
feel like that's sort of terrifying that like, part of
what's been protecting. The world is just that the
people doing the writing want to believe that.
It's like coherent. But if you just like, unleash a
sort of generative AI, it's like, well, can people tell the
difference or not? I mean, do you think that's too
cynical? Or do you see my sort of fear
there that the humans need to be good at like they need to care
enough that it makes sense. Yeah I mean I'm kind of from a
positive like if I can get like a that's a low bar to be more
positive than invite guests, system that can deal.
Take my like English written newsletter and writing in like
God knows how many different languages or create different
formats or create hot takes that are shareable on different
platforms or can just speak it in the same way than I've spoken
and I've tried to do that manually.
It's a pain. Like I'm happy being like 10
bucks a month for that. Like and I wouldn't be really
not concerned with take my job right at the belt, like, you
know, amplifying the things that I'm already doing but like
moving some of the like real work, whether it ends up like
entirely replacing me. I think, obviously, that's just
like, very hard to tell and by that point, maybe I'll have
found something else. I want to do.
So, and language is so filled with Nuance, in terms of word
choice translation. It's interesting.
You brought that up translation is actually in some ways.
Extremely hard, because straight trans Ation often does not
capture meaning at all. So it's a, you know, language is
very tricky. Imagine a straight translation
of The Iliad. I mean, that wouldn't really
work, right? Yeah, may I, somebody was just
telling me yesterday that AI is very appealing in the sort of
cross cultural context, because you could imagine, like, novels
where right now, the novel's talks about like New York city
where the authors from, but if you want to sell to a
mass-market audience, like you could say, oh this machine's
going to figure out, This readers and like Beijing or
whatever, and we'll replace it with like their favorite like a
local shop and even if it's like you know imperfect and doesn't
get the language, right? It's still like better than
today where there's no effort made to sort of Pander to the
reader. So I mean, we could enter this
world where I like stuff is really sort of catered to that
literature is, would it be better to read like Lord of the
Rings and have it set in Washington d.c., right?
Yeah, like Let's replace, Middle-earth, you know, I would
go with the Capitol Hill and you will toss the ring into the
fires of the Rotunda don't want to imagine a world.
I've never seen before. That's not the fucking point of
fiction. Yes, it is actually the fucking
point of picture. Well, you know, it's interesting
though is that like that kind of piggybacks onto this idea of all
content being catered to our personal tastes?
And this sort of social media-driven idea of, you know,
algorithmic driven consumption. And like, why shouldn't you know
the next? I don't even know what popular
book series are out there these days but you know like the next
Nobel winning book, be iterated towards the different audiences
because that's the way people consume everything else.
You know, there's no advantage to Central entertainment,
centralized experiences, something that you have to, you
know, relate to other people's point of view that's done with
that's over. That's the old one.
However, I would like to see a Hunger Games La version.
Sure. Yeah, I mean, in a way it's like
Mass personalization everybody gets their own version but in a
way it's kind of sad because that it's like loss of opinions.
It's also a loss of a cohesive experience, it's lost.
I mean like women this is ages ago and I didn't read these
books until much later because Eric made me but Harry Potter is
a great example of a series of books, that created a creative
imaginative experience that people across cultures age
groups, socio-economic groups, races and genders could all
encounter together. And do we not want to have
things that bring people together anymore?
Like any good Millennial. I militantly insisted the Katie
read. It was really intense.
It was a lot of pressure. It was a long queue monthly
month-long campaign. I like how sad for you.
And my request is an exchange for house-sitting.
Yes, a you read her. I left you.
Like my own copies or switch was like so intense because they're,
like, Mormons out there. There were like, chill out a
little bit more busty. You don't have to leave it
everywhere. Yeah.
I don't know. It's funny.
I mean you want me to have that experience because you wanted
right? And so we could be friends and
understand me, right? Like if we don't have that shit
anymore, that we share, that's not of our own personal
preference like what what do we have?
But you know where I could see that concept being actually very
appealing to Publishers is the idea of stuff being, you know,
of its time and like not aging very well.
I don't mean like a thematic lie but I mean like we're Choice or,
you know, the stuff in between Huckleberry, Finn example.
Yeah, Choice. Yeah.
I mean, yeah. I don't even know what like the
a I woke version of Huckleberry Finn would call, you know.
Mr. Jim but like yeah it's all those things.
Anyway, I don't want to spend time on that but my point is, I
can see actually that idea being like, well why can't a book?
Be like a dynamic thing. And over time, a I can identify
what are the problematic themes and words in the book and update
in a way that you know, Doesn't offend people in a way that it
might have at the time that it was written.
I mean, it seems so starts in the video game environment of,
like programming. These non-player characters that
have certain behaviors respond in certain ways and therefore
give like a unique experience to the game player.
And like the way they're trained is quite cool to where you can
like import an example of a conversation or a script and
then sort of like, tune some knobs based on personality
traits, say, you know, I don't know they behave like Zeus or
something and then the agent knows that.
Because it's like read all of Wikipedia and stuff like this.
So it was pretty wild to see that.
And so perhaps it's like more in these Virtual Worlds with this
will happen. And in the beginning of our
conversation, I mean you were sort of nodding to the fact
that, you know, a lot of the way I work is very open source and
like sort of not totally like Financial driven.
I don't know. But is there like a clear, like,
AI researcher sort of like ideology or like, what are the
sort of like camps in terms of the culture?
That's Emerging in this space. As you see it or is it just too
big to have something like crypto was unique?
Because I had the financialization to sort of get
everyone in line and sort of creature culture.
Does a I have something like that same sort of shared
culture, I think then what are the new demarcations I've seen
as Iran safety and Alignment. Like those a very, very, very
small number of people that are working on this topic of like,
if we invent a GI, like how do we make sure that it aligns
broadly with Preferences. This is based on the concept
that like any prior species that was smarter than the one that
came before it like generally made a pretty bad experience for
the species that was there before.
And so like there's a construction of people that
don't want to work on capabilities anymore, which is
broadly, like making ahead better.
And they only want to work on making a, I say 40 more aligned,
then you're supportive of that skeptical of that or do you have
a personal point of view? Yeah.
I think I'm generally supportive of that.
That's like anthropic, right? Is a big company in that space.
Yeah. And throughout the small one in
London called conjecture this one called Redwood research.
There's a few people that open the eye, that a couple dozen
people, how do they make their money?
Is it just like, tithes from the actually profitable companies
to, like, feel good about themselves for the moment?
They don't, you have to the Moon, they do.
They've just been through a Venn diagram overlap between safety
and alignment and effective altruism.
And so, we've seen for example, like Dustin moskovitz, Events
that we philanthropy and send back and treated FTX who funded
a lot of these projects. And as BF did the massive round
anthropic. So, none of these companies are
revenue-generating at. I don't know if they have
aspirations to be, but they certainly want to create better
tools for alignment. And you're very specific point
that, you know, more sophisticated or more advanced
species, you know, sort of crush, the one below that, you
know, I study philosophy in college and I'm a big lie.
Like you know, bite the bullet. Type person on moral intuitions
and there's a certain type of argument that if you're like a
die-hard utilitarian and you find out like that this new
super a I like experiences more utility than human beings can
and gets like, more joy, more, whatever the utility calculus
is, they get like more of it than you should sort of route
for the AI to Wipeout human beings.
Like, if resources could more efficiently, go to the AI, which
gets better, Use that. It makes sense for it to go
there, which I think is sort of a hysterical.
Like, I'm gonna bite the bullet, all the way on this one and Say,
Goodbye human beings. That sounds like an argument and
a, I would make error, sorry. I don't know.
I'm also very worried about rocas basilisk.
So I guess this would be a very, you know, a that also sounds
like something we've talked about that.
This Overlord a I already that sort of exists like across time.
And so to save yourself, you need to be working towards its
existence because anyone who doesn't will be like terribly
punished and so, yeah, you should.
This is, this is the plot of Verizon 0.5.
I know how that one Ends music. By the way, I imagine that's a
big use case for this technology, right?
Yeah. Well, music is one that was
again. Like tried several?
Years ago. And that maybe now is that an
inflection point to. So we had a business a couple
years ago called Juke deck which eventually sold to by dense but
they were like one of the oh geez that machines creating
music. And now it's probably a ton
better but I'm kind of like excited about maybe like the
more esoteric applications that are not super obvious that could
have a business called intense eye, which does help and safety.
Basically, like, protecting individuals and Manufacturing,
industrial environments, who Ooh, unfortunately get injured
because those environments are dangerous or, you know,
accidents happen and this is great documentary on Netflix,
which is like a perfect primer for why?
This is an issue called American Factory?
Sure the Obama Doctrine. Yeah, yeah, exactly.
So this is like a solution in a way to some of the problems that
manifest, their where you're trying to like have good health
and safety practices, but it's just hard to do that walking
around with a clipboard trying to instruct people who don't
wear the right. Active equipment things.
So they use computer vision to apply this.
It's are like a cyber security solution for the real world and
like we've already seen that, like, some large companies that
implement this immediately, you know, after like a week or two
weeks, see huge reduction, and alerts and dangerous, behaviors
telling, that's like one like I didn't really know anything
about before I encountered this company and watch this
documentary and realize like shit.
This is massive with like big implications and makes your
system pretty cool machine learning but it's like just like
Number one, or number two priority for a certain category
customer was really excited about these sort of domains
rather than like, the, what's in like the glitzy.
Obvious Limelight, that every VC is going to kind of vibe with
see that feels like, it's even more aligned with.
Are its argument that the AI should wipe us all out because
if we as humans can't even protect ourselves without using
an AI, you know, it's like protect ourselves from each
other, it would seem like there's no hope, right?
I mean I would argue that some people think that that kind of
use of AI is Wiping humans out. I mean we have seen some of
these things especially Industries like long-haul
Trucking where more and more of the decisions that one can make
are being given over to a machine and a person is sort of
peripheral to the process and it's not necessarily.
Well, it is physically reducing things like accidents.
What do you think about what's happening to the human beings
involved? You could argue that there are
other negative consequences that perhaps haven't been
anticipated. So I don't know, Tommy, well,
maybe we'll have it both. Ways humans will be wiped out
either way, right? Right.
The richest destitute for the jobs that were taken away from
us by a eyes or, you know, we just don't use the aib, just all
died of massive injuries in our factories.
Yeah, yeah. These are going to guys are.
Come on, you're optimistic about it, right?
I mean I think it's pretty amazing.
I think this is gonna be the biggest like productivity gain
for human beings and like a long time I think it's going to be a
massive Revolution. I'm like yeah, it's true.
So true. Believer in like AI changing
human existence far more than crypto and like very happy to
see Silicon Valley. Yes, moving back this.
Yeah, I agree with. I mean, I think that you're
totally right by the productivity gain, I just am not
sure their productivity gain is the Baseline measurement for
whether or not humanity is getting better or worse.
Well, government needs to do something to say, okay.
We've made these productivity gains therefore, you know, we're
not going to just keep grinding every human being out or it
requires Paul. Let's see maybe to cash in some
of the benefits for people instead of just me.
I think, the, my Baseline is like what kinds of problems like
weren't addressable before that now become addressable because
we have this new technology, right?
So, some of that might drive productivity ends, some of them
might not, but I think that's like the coolest unlock.
It's like what can you do if a solution requires, more than
like a web app in a database, like a nice UI or something?
Peter's dominate Us in chess, they can dominate Us in,
presumably drug Discovery or whatever.
Once we figure that, I mean, that was what I took you to be
saying earlier, it's like, yeah, we're not the best in the world
at games that we've been playing for much of sort of
sophisticated Humanity. It's very likely, we're not
going to be the best at other things.
We can do especially of games that we need better tools to
understand. Right.
Well, it seems like, I mean, if
I could delineate the 80/20 issue here, you know, 80 is
being like we've developed an AI that can beat us all in
Jeopardy, but like, the last 20% is, like, developing an AI that
can host Jeopardy. And that seems like it's the
hardest thing to do. I mean, we hardly can host it
ourselves. Well, yeah, we get to set the
expert. I mean, that's why people think,
you know, if anything a I could be good for sort of emotive
interpersonal tight or professions.
Yeah, because humans get to set the score on that and say we
actually we prefer I mean like yeah, it's true.
Like I'm a friend right now who's in the hospital with
cancer and I think she'd rather have the bad news delivered to
her by a human being. He held her hand and be
emotionally connected to her in a real way rather than a I yeah.
I think I think it's going to be hard to replace that.
Yeah, this is true but I think I'd even in that example, we
have a company that is not part of a bigger drug Discovery,
business called xen cheetah. But like in every case like the
doctor is trying. To make an assessment as to,
which therapeutic strategy is the best for this patient.
And that's really, it's really hard choice to make.
And at the moment, like, what they've been doing is at best
sort of like, doing a biopsy and sequencing and seeing what is
the gene that might be causing the cancer?
And then just taking a drug that, you know, in theory fights
that specific mutation. But this company that we
invested in, they actually take that same biopsy and base if you
run like a clinical trial in the dish.
By having that biopsy and the presence of like one of hundreds
of different cancer agents and you can functionally measure,
whether this drug is, you know, fighting the cancer or not.
And they've actually proven that like you see, statistically
higher survival rates because you're functionally assessing
cancer, drug performance against the patient's.
Tumor versus just in a very reductionist way like doing
mutation and Drug matching and that step I have.
No doubt is going to make huge advances.
And I'm just saying that like, Somebody has to hold her hand
and say, you're going to die. I think most people would rather
have that news delivered by a human being.
Yeah and also like we saw a lot of this to during the pandemic.
When people had to do things like give birth by themselves,
just alone messages coming into their phone.
For some reason didn't really feel that comforting.
They didn't really like that was an optimal experience.
They still wanted a human being one of a new standing next to
them while they did this but they just couldn't have it.
Yeah, I think for the most intimate and personal of
interactions in a, I should never replace it.
Like, it's not something that unless you're absolutely lonely.
And, you know, that's a whole other thing to people chat, you
having conversations. I mean, that's just the essence.
The essence of being human is being lonely, right?
Right. But I mean, that would probably
like the last, you know, quarter of the last, you know, moment of
humanity is like us helping ourselves, you know, into our
obsolescence and, you know, eventual destruction as we
Comfort ourselves into our death.
But isn't it so interesting, they were even having a
conversation. Firming.
The idea that in life's most intimate moments, we actually
want human interaction just in case anybody.
Yeah, just just reminding ourselves but like I said the
last human, you know, Comforts The Lassie the second-to-last
human or vice versa you know in the a Eyes Were Watching us
through their screens and saying it is almost done.
This is such clear this this is an AI derived modification of
William Faulkner's Nobel acceptance speech, clearly Why?
So you'd like the last puny voice of humankind bringing it
up, you know, across the hills that I like this.
Like his last day. Yeah.
Comforts the last day. I I knew what I can add those
conversations that I like you. Nice there that does not have
found. Is that I've met I like working
on like practical Solutions like real problems.
Like not not this thing when you're gone, her friends, I
think. Sighs about what a generally.
I will mean, and I'll write, I mean, it's not just sort of the
mass, I mean, right? You spent a lot of time with
these are nine exercises? Yeah.
I actually don't spend a lot of time thinking about generally, I
to be honest because you think it's sort of just a total mind
game distraction or you just like don't find any, I think it
is a bit of a distraction to some degree like it's a bit of a
short term for me in terms of traction.
Like I've no idea when this will happen and I don't know about
you know, like these surveys that ask people, you know, over
What space of time? Do you think Jolly?
I can can arise the in many cases like those questions are
formulated in a way that presupposes, an answer and so
they kind of bias around a bit but you're saying the survey say
sooner than you think is credible or yeah to what degree?
I don't know. But yeah it does feel a bit
sooner and by the way like the date is like been getting closer
well and also people are incentivized to make it sound
like it's sooner than it is because that makes it sound like
a reasonable investment. What's I saw was driving car.
Yeah. Cars.
They can't predict general intelligence cool.
Thanks so much for coming on. Yeah, thanks for having me.
And Tom are we wrapping on this or you want to do more?
Sure. If you guys wanna stick around,
we can spend a few minutes on the email.
We can do that. But Nathan, thanks so much for
coming on. Really, really appreciate great
to talk to you. Thanks again, thanks.
Thank you. Do you want to spend a few
minutes on the email or do you a rabbit as a foot email that he
sent about pronoun? Yeah, so this Was the, I guess
now, former CEO of mail, mail chimp mail came.
The reason I wanted to go through it is not because, you
know, I mean, the email itself I thought was pretty hysterical,
but also it does touch on a few things that I've actually been
themes on the show before, and so beyond, just like laughing at
this guy, for sending a 1500 word email to is.
She was, you know, she never liked any HR person, Eddie HR
person would have like, throwing themselves off a building to
stop it from happening, but you know, no one, no one tells these
things to CEOs. I don't know how dedicated you
think these HR people or their companies that yeah, yeah,
clearly a couple, you know, like I'm email marketing firm has
acquired by insults like HR person.
If you're thinking about throwing yourself off, a
building on behalf of your company, you need to wake up.
Let me just read through the email, we could just reflect it
for a little bit and then if we see, it's getting longer, it's
boring because just we could just call the episode.
Okay, so again, this is an email that was sent by the now, ousted
CEO MailChimp, which is an email marketing firm.
The story was broken by Former. And so we shiver who's the
writer there? So this is the email, sorry, the
guy's name is something Chestnut or something?
I don't know him. By the way, big Chestnut,
Chestnut. No.
Hi team. I've been really impressed by
how well the new employee onboarding is be going lately.
We're bringing on so many new peeps.
Oh, yeah, that's the thing. In the email.
He calls people peeps. The whole time through.
We're bringing on so many new peeps and in turn, they're
bringing on their own great questions and making the chats
very Lively. Kudos, I want to take a quick
moment. So lightly recalibrate something
before it goes too far. This is where it starts.
I've never read this. So I'm like, experiencing this
life, okay? I'm sure Katie hasn't either
because she has other things to do, I am noticing that whenever
new employees introduced themselves in Zoom before asking
your question, they're also announcing their pronouns.
This is completely unnecessary when a woman parentheses, who
was clearly a woman to tell us that her pronouns are quotes she
/ her and a man parentheses who was clearly a man to tell.
Tell us that his pronouns are quote, he / him.
However, if there is an employee with gender dysphoria, in the
room, who feels more comfortable, this is coming from
the CEO. By the way, to all of the, like,
all the employees of the company, just want to make that
clear. There's an employee with gender
dysphoria in the room who feels more comfortable if we know
about and use a non-obvious pronoun.
For them on obvious means that they might appear to be one
gender to others. But in their minds, they
consider themselves to be another gender.
They are very welcome to Proclaim that pronoun to others
in the room and for the record. It is my desire.
That MailChimp is a respectful place that will honor that
request, the name of inclusion. So basically like the guy is
trying to explain himself and they why is writing this email
and do it in a way that's very thoughtful and, you know, he's
not trying to say, I have a direct issue with people
claiming their one gender or another, you know, it's going to
be very, you know, whatever. But this is where the problems
kind of cut, crop out the next paragraph.
It seems as though there is a very kind and compassionate
intention by someone somewhere in onboarding to accommodate our
co-workers who use non-obvious pronouns, but making them feel
comfortable Durable enough to announce their pronouns.
Indeed, an intimidating thing to do in front the crap.
What a mess. The logic seems to be that if
everyone else is announcing their pronouns, and that is the
logic. I know where you're going with
this dude. And that is exactly the logic.
Yeah, we all see what will logic becomes a key word here as
you'll soon. Find out the logic seems to be
that. If everyone else is announcing
their pronouns, then they are making it easier and more
comfortable for the trans. Last gender-fluid employee to
announce their own, that is truly kind.
And I We love that intention. Yeah, but in the law, but here's
the but right, so far, so good. But in the long run, this
approach does more harm than good.
There are there are three reasons for this first, there is
a tiny there's a very tiny number of peeps at MailChimp.
Who would consider themselves transgender forcing either with
orders or through guilt, approximately 1390, other peeps,
to adopt the new communication Paradigm that Humanity has never
had to use. In our 300,000, Your Existence
and in our hundred and fifty thousand years of spoken
language. I don't know where those numbers
and we would definitely not want any peeps who've not yet
publicly identified as such to feel comfortable doing.
So we want to keep that number, really small here MailChimp.
We don't want any more people feel uncomfortable talking about
their gender because it goes against three hundred thousand
years of tradition. In order to make things
additions that were bad that we get rid of, I'm gonna throw
slavery out there as one, but continue.
Yeah. They never, you know, in ancient
Sumeria, they Announce their pronouns and I think we should
honor it in order to make things slightly more comfortable.
For an extremely small group of peeps is completely illogical
group. They were trying to keep a small
possible. Yeah, that's Rising say like
very small transgendered people to.
They're all just little tiny little tiny, you know.
Anyways, what's the harm? Well, why did with the harm?
Yes, you may be asking yourself, you know, 300 words into this
email, what is the harm or what is the purpose of this email?
You will now find out. Well, I believe that whenever
One is forced to comply with something that they know is
illogical. No matter how kind the intention
they will eventually believe anything and do anything even if
it's vicious. We're undermining logic and
reason which undermines independent thinking Which
history has shown always leads to disastrous consequences
forcing, majority of peeps to behave.
A certain way is the opposite of inclusion.
So basically at this point he decides to go like slippery
slope with the whole argument and say like if we start
announcing people's pronouns in meetings, when it's only a small
number Of people, we are bringing about the ruination of
civilization. Wow, because never in history,
even recent history. Have we asked the majority of
people who do not get agree with unchanging social Norm to
comply? We've never done.
Yeah, I just don't know how to write like interracial marriage.
We've never, we've never tried to pave the way for those
things, socially through things like Language and legislation.
One of my reactions to this, which is very like somewhere in
this sort of management space. It just feels like if he has an
issue with this and the best lever he has is to reach out to
the whole company instead of trying to get his subordinates
or whatever in line and saying, this is how we want to handle
onboarding. It's sort of a miss, it shows
like a lack of a handle over the company and sort of like, hey,
wouldn't he want? Does speak to other people
before. He sent this email to see if ya
ain't nothing. Get your deputies to agree with
you or yeah. Yeah.
Well, he seems to be pinpointing it on some process and
onboarding, which is like an HR function.
And yes, it would seem like if you have to have this
conversation because it is just fucking killing you, all the
illogic that's going on because it's only tiny transgendered,
people that should be announcing their pronouns.
You could handle this in a smaller group that every single
employee at the company, I am personally, very skeptical that
this pronouns announcing thing is going to stick in our
culture. I am not like going to be one of
these people like protesting it, but I just don't, I feel like
already the discussion, like, on my Tick, Tock feeds among like
progressives is like, is it good to be centering gender?
So much in like our introductory conversations and Katie to your
point. They like, sure, maybe you're
making it easier for people to come out because Ask you, but
you're also pressuring people to make a gender statement, like
one of the first things they say to everyone.
So, I just think even in the world of like just Progressive
argumentation, I am not sold on the fact that these gender
intros are going to stick and I do think it's reflective of
extremely heavy handed HR like progressivism, which is the
worst form of progressive culture, like LinkedIn,
basically forcing everyone. One to put their gender and
their LinkedIn is not an eye-opening thing.
It is exactly the sort of like statist force, morality of the
left that no one likes and will not win people over.
So while I agree that these people protest way too loudly
about like gender shit and like who cares about having to see
her pronouns but I do think the instincts of it are like I'm not
sure it's a winning issue for the left.
I mean I don't think that it will stay around forever but not
for the reason you've said I mean, Like I think that it's
something that's happening now, in order to pave the way for a
group of people who do not feel comfortable to feel comfortable
and that once they feel more comfortable and we don't need to
have this happen. It won't happen.
Once people are trained to just like not washing machine.
Just like we've all been trained, not to assume that
somebody is married to a woman just because I'm a man.
So, when I meet a man, I don't say oh, how's your wife?
If I see a ring because I don't assume that he's married to a
woman. It took a really long time to
get there but now we're all trained.
And so some of the linguistic things that it took to get
there, have also faded away and I will say, you know, as
somebody who's friends with now, multiple parents of children,
who do not identify with the sex that they were born with.
It is really, really painful. I mean, like this is not, this
is it's really difficult. And so I think that you're right
that we won't always have to send her gender in this way.
But that there's a reason why it's happening.
You're saying the Miss gendering is painful or the whole extra
thing. The whole topic, I think that
there's a lot of the topic is inheriting that there's a lot of
pain to go around and it goes beyond just simply misgendering
and so it's not only to make people who are having questions,
other gender or gender non-conforming feel comfortable.
It's also it make their families feel comfortable and makes their
parents feel like malt. My kid is entering a world, you
know? I mean, I think that one of the
things that they fear is that their children, I'll be beaten
up or harmed I mean I think any so any acknowledgement that kind
of seems even if it's your point it doesn't work right?
Anything that creates some feeling of like the world.
I mean it's always crazy volume because conservatives are like
you want to be performative Lee kind to everybody like what's
wrong with you. Yeah it is a thing.
It's like God. Like, just like I was going to
say just like, I think it's good that we don't assume that every
woman who walks in wearing a wedding ring is married to a man
and that it's totally and that we had to be kind of
performative. Lee kind to get Society to that
place. We did it's clearly like an
awkward part in the like you know movement towards being a
more inclusive and Kinder gentler world but actually a lot
of the topics that you guys are bringing up come up in the next
couple paragraphs. And I really want to bring it
up. Oh, there's like 20 more.
I was the end. Oh my God.
Oh my God, no. No, no, no, right.
Have one point the more points you have the more people can be
mad about. Right.
Okay. So that was that was a slippery.
Slope argument. That what we're doing is we're
descending into world of a logic and like soon, we'll have like
fucking ants wearing hats because it doesn't make sense,
you know, for people to announce their gender pronouns.
If it's very obvious, what their gender is, okay?
Second and by direct one-on-one conversations with a small
subset of that, small population of transgender employees.
Let me emphasize again. These are very, very small.
People. I have found that they don't
even need I want all this accommodation.
All right. This is this is interesting,
they don't and I'm sure I'm assuming if these people exist
and he's not making this whole thing up.
This is interesting, there is an employee who started as a woman
but the transition into a man during transition, he politely
came to me and other leaders. And respectfully asked us all to
honor their transition by using new pronouns, it was our
pleasure to honor that request. He now uses he/him pronouns has
used, the men's restrooms has never wanted a gender neutral
restroom, and additionally has worked damn hard to earn a new
career. His New place in life and most
important, I'm sure has achieved peace in his mind.
Just providing a place where they could learn a living and do
good hard, meaningful work, helped him find inner peace.
And in fact, it's happening at MailChimp is a little weird side
point, but every company takes this section, I'm not disturbed
by, I'm no on the contrary, I think this is his most, this is
a most, like, accommodating and like well-intentioned part.
Well, it's all supposed to be well, intentioned, but the one
that like actually makes the most sense, right?
Because it's based on real people, not like your, I think
that's what's frustrating about some of these culture.
We're issues is like, well, when faced with a real moral decision
around a specific person, I feel like I acted morally.
And yet I get yelled at, by the HR department, like certainly I
think a lot of us are sympathetic to that kind of
right point of view, right? So, I don't want to read through
this whole paragraph, but you get the point.
Basically, the CEO is saying, I've talked to a few transgender
employees that we have here and they've all xu4 specifically
requested that we don't do this because it's uncomfortable for
them and I want to honor that. So it's like, okay, okay,
interest well good good, there's a different way to do.
This email, I'm seeing it right now, but continue.
Yeah, okay, so here's where things.
Get very interesting to me. Third, this used to be about
fostering, a creative productive, work environment
with that intention in mind Dan. And I on Diana's, have always
wanted MailChimp to be an inclusive meritocracy a place
where no matter your lifestyle gender race, nationality, or
economic background, you could be an independent thinker and
speak up. Not only would you in feel
emboldened to speak up, your fellow peeps would listen and
take your customer Centric. Advice it was.
The name. Yeah it was all in the name of
work but now everything is incredibly politicized.
That's probably true lesson. I long for the days when I could
have a workplace, it's not completely.
Yes, I got that. This is the part where like, you
know, his argument is verging. It's uncomfortable territories.
But I actually probably agree with right?
I am finding that peeps. No longer feel motivated by
meaningful work. They are motivated to make
political statements that is definitely true.
Yes. And now I'm in my arms.
I'm sympathetic with a lot of what this guy's saying, so I get
to the really difficult part. But yeah, because this is like
every but that's always a minority.
I mean, it's a because vocal minority who feels motivated by
like protest. The most people do just want to
clock in and clock out, do your fucking job, right?
Like, even if meritocracy is a fucking farce, like it's a
necessary fake belief of capitalism like, I'm sorry.
Okay. Let me finish up this paragraph
because that I want to unpack them or they're using company
time and Company resources to win a game.
Their opponents in that game, that is Raging in their minds
and on social media understandably.
So our society is becoming increasingly divided and it
feels truly like our social fabric is being torn apart at
the seams by radical Politics. On both sides coercing, peeps
into proclaiming their pronouns is not about creating an
inclusive creative productive work environment, it's about
becoming a political statement. The only thing I would have to
say to that, by the way is like it's a very brief political
statement. You know.
Like if you really are all about political statements just do
like More land acknowledgements and shit.
Like those things take a long time you know, you're spending a
lot more time on that one than just saying.
Like my name is Tom. He him but but whatever.
As righteous as some peeps might think that that is it should all
keep singing really does make me really?
Really makes it undermines everything hit him.
Yeah, yeah. There's really no, there's no
coming back from that personally, but hard as
righteous as some people might think that this is, they should
also consider that there are others in this world.
And on the opposite end of the political Spectrum, who feel
Righteous about their beliefs understanding and respecting
that fundamental concept at grown adults can have different
views as a part of being American and part of being a
mature, adult peeps of all the different political leanings are
free to vote the way that they want to and see our country
governed is he basically trying to say that saying, pronouns, is
triggering conservatives and the company and making them feel
political whenever this comes up, right, right.
I don't even need to read any more.
You guys get the point of what he's saying here in this
paragraph and like there The reason that I liked this, this
part of it is because this gets to two things that we talked
about a ton on the show, which is that trans issues, which were
always talking. Yeah.
Environment the fact that I, you know, and you probably see this
board, the then we'll certainly more than Eric does a little
more than I do Katie but like yeah, thanks a lot with a
sizing, his work environment. It's just an employee of watch
looking. Yeah, I haven't play now.
We're going to start sending these emails out.
Eric. Yeah, it's all your shopping
with us before you hit. Send dear nukes.
You know, is that what you call your employees who are now we
do? Yeah.
So yeah, I know, it's this idea that like workplace is Is
becoming this Battleground for some employees to.
Yeah, I agree with the CEO here. Like I do think there are very
vocal. I'm sure minorities but people
that are trying to you know, and I think minority not because I
think these issues are important but simply because even if you
look at like big workplace, I think the Washington Post did a
great story on this like the Starbucks employees moving to
unionize. It is a real thing and it's
really important and I I think that this is a real movement
that has legs and it's not just something made up at the same
time. It's clear.
Even from that story, that many, many people are just clocking in
because they need money and they're like, really not
engaging, you know, there's like maybe I'll wake up one day and
be a unit employee mean Army. Final agonies class presidents
trying to push right, right. But there's the line between the
Trader Joe's in the Starbucks employees and what's going on.
The most of these companies were there all white collar workers.
And, you know, the ones that are very vocal are trying to, I
don't know, realized they're policia on college campuses to
where the students are trying to unionize the employees.
But it's like, these students are leaving after four years and
the people who are working in security or her working in
dining services. They are not leaving after four
years. So you have it's not a
professional class, but it's a group of students who feel very
passionate. And I understand why I'm not
saying they're wrong. I'm just saying that the
incentives are very different for these two groups of people
and people will A and the people who will go, right, but it is
very distracting inside these companies.
I mean, every Google now and that company is like, borderline
paralyzed, like, certain departments that are because of
the activism and outspokenness by certain people at the
company. And I'm not saying it's a good
or bad thing. I'm saying, it's a reality and
it's also just the result of years.
And years of all of these companies, telling their
employees that your personal beliefs should be wrapped up in
the mission of this company. And that what you stand for is
what you are. Working on.
And this was always going to happen.
In my opinion, there's always gonna be a point where people
got disillusioned by the mission and felt way my personal
beliefs. If the only place where I can
express, my personal beliefs is at the company that I work, then
I used to spend all of my time making sure that everyone knows
how I feel because otherwise it doesn't make any sense to me and
sort of like Elite white-collar left has become very content
with like statements of solidarity as some like major
like political Victory instead of staying.
Oak is done actually like I don't know, material conditions,
or right, you know, actual political achievements.
They're like, yeah, I know you don't but get on them.
No, I'm like if you guys want to be activists in your company's,
you should be demanding your companies to pay their fucking
full Freight and corporate taxes, but that's just oh yeah.
You know, my mom, that's my favorite thing.
I think anyone has ever said, in this podcast, when you're like
apple, not enough taxes. The biggest political issue of
our time. Is for the government to like do
cool functions, like whatever you're right?
Because all the Apple employees that, you know, spent months and
months, complaining about, you know, whatever culture issues,
they had of the company. I don't think a single one was
like, why are we incorporated and Ireland?
Right. Right.
And why can't we enforce voting rights?
Like the ones we have on the Looks like why does it take so
long? Why is her Criminal Justice
System ground to a halt? Like, why are there not enough
people to investigate? White-collar crime, why?
Yeah, yeah. And so, like, you know, the
whole discussion about gender pronouns on both sides, I mean,
look, I yeah, you really came into this Tom.
Like, we were just going to eviscerate this email.
I actually don't think this podcast is like, so happy to
eviscerate on the grounds of, like, what a dumb fucking thing
to write, like he should have actually, he'd said, he
interviewed people who are Transit his company got another
Our thoughts and written an email that started.
I've had really important conversations with members of
our community and no peeps members our community.
And I want to know whether or not there is ways to figure out.
If there's a way to figure out, you know, why we are centering
gender with the use of pronouns. There is some discomfort coming
from the very group of people were hoping to make comfortable
and so what does that mean? Can we discuss it as a community
and hope with a different plan? And that's also a much shorter
email. That email can be a communist
words for paragraphs, for short paragraph, and the takeaway
should have been there. Something deeply wrong with the
human resources, professional. We need to, we need to get rid
of these in the family hired for legal ability to be sure.
Because because because here's the thing, Katie, if that was
actually the problem here, he would have sent that email and
it would have gotten accomplished something that
would have actually benefited. The very, very small, we have to
include that number of trans people at If it's like the Lord
and you're trying to keep it small buddy, right?
I got a great job that's clearly not.
What's going on here. He was triggered by the use of
these. The private use of these words,
he's like using the small number of trans people at MailChimp to
hide behind because he's pissed about something which is also
like oh God I mean just it's so fucked up but like why didn't he
call us to write this email for him?
Why didn't he give us a ring? We could have done this.
Yeah I mean it goes into the sort of Who is politicizing what
between the left and right, right?
Like the left is like, I don't know, we're just seeing people's
pronouns and then we like have a fucking meeting and the right
obviously, reacts very negatively and then it's sort of
hard to say which move is the politicization, right?
Like if his claim is that he's not being political, right?
He's trying to remove politics from the wolf, but he's
basically saying that When people have to say pronouns and
people on the right have to do it there, they're feeling like
it's a political act and they're basically being forced to sort
of, you know, go against their principles by doing something
that they yeah, bristle. At.
And we've seen different versions of this playing out in
Tech with like, the CEO of Kraken and like his super based
work culture where he wanted people to be expressing.
Only dark web ideas. And if you don't like it, you
can leave. And you know, the Brian
Armstrong at coinbase stuff. I mean, it always very tight.
Yup. It was all very tied up in
crypto, but like, it is a very real thing that's happening at
these tech companies and the decision by CEOs to claim we can
be non-political by sending out emails like this is it
completely wrong headed, way of doing it.
Of course it's going to backfire and the MailChimp guy he stepped
down. Yeah, he's gone.
He's gone. And we don't know if it was
because of this but like was it right after, you know, the story
didn't, which I think was a bit of a shortcoming with the story.
It didn't really explain why but that, you know, they had gotten
acquired by into it. I think he actually made quite a
bit of From that whole transaction.
He's to do this bullshit. He can have his own.
Like, he can have all his staff. He can do whatever he wants.
Never tell them their gender if you want some.
Yeah. Hey Candace.
Have no staff. He's like, I'm moving to a model
where I had no staff. No people who messy.
No HR department's. I mean people stepping down and
like overreacting to employee revolts is another part of the,
I mean, I think that sort of calm down somewhat.
Like, I would be interested to know Now, if you was really
ousted over the street, I wouldn't make sense.
I mean, the email was, I can't imagine why anyone should be
fired over this. Although does to Eric's earlier
Point indicate that he's a bad manager and so I wouldn't be
shocked if you scratch the surface beyond, the email will
find stuff that right kind of weird.
Right. Clearly don't.
Let's go advice go to your Executives and say, are we
aligned with this is like out of control?
I'm sure most of them would be like, listen, we're trying to
meet our Sales quota in. This is not like you driving
decision, like, who cares? Like, we're going so fast
please. Right.
Exactly. But he's like, but he's trying
to say here, you know that, like, all of the pronoun
discussion is distracting us from a real fulfilling work of
running MailChimp and like, he's just like, I got a way to fix
it. We're not getting our numbers.
You actually may be the bigger issue.
Is, you're only offering people MailChimp in the same way that,
you know, like the fed, you know, the only thing they can do
to control. Roll inflation, is by raising
interest rates. He's like the only thing it can
do to increase. Productivity is sending 2,000
were emails. Eviscerating, our pronoun policy
and he's like that's it for the only trick.
I got my bad focus. Our company more than a divisive
email from. I remember Habsburg seen
companies really cook together, running around the shitty mess
of your boss is evil. They would say something is
saying, I would spend half the day being like what the fuck
does this mean? And everybody would like just
ignore it like who cares? Is like those emails of the most
distressed. There's like, why am I worrying
for overlords? That are so out of touch with
like the core product that we deliver?
I mean talk about like the use cases for AI.
How could there not be like a super Advanced clippy on all
boss emails that says like, it seems like you're writing a very
ill conceived. Email about what pronouns there
were employees. Are you sure you want to send it
this exists? Did you not see this?
I saw it on Twitter. Somebody ran this email through
some like I don't know. I woke censorship app and it was
gave this like a 0%. Like we're 14 just like a lot.
Like a common sense out of anything like this is it's a
little weird that software exists to be.
Like this is what I'm saying is, was that indeed the software, or
was it just like, I don't know, I was so we don't we don't know
what this software was, but yeah, there's not much more to
say about this than like, you know, Ears up for everyone at
MailChimp. One thing that I'm interested to
talk about that. I don't think we should get into
this episode, but I do want to sort of just plant.
The seed is getting to a point where our political debates we
can, like, shrug our shoulders on some of the more we've
basically gotten into a political culture where we've
tried to like amplify the importance of every political
issue. And So then whenever there's
disagreement and feels like a real, I don't know, right?
Severing point and There aren't these issues where it's like,
people just say to each other. Yeah, I disagree with you.
I don't care about this issue that much, you know, you would
be seen as like, obviously like a bigot or anti-trans to say,
like, this is below my line like Chemung.
I mean term off basically saying there's like a hierarchy of
political views he cares about and one was was low.
I mean people went ballistic, you ultimately survived, but
there does have to be a true ranking of issues.
You're willing to like put your whole life.
My own and I think it can be different for everyone like you
can get in trouble for not prioritizing.
I mean, I think that I think what your mouth got in trouble
for was coming across as an excessive dick?
I mean, I think and I think I was criticism and I think that
most people prioritize social issues that are swirling around
us based on what's important and pertinent to their lives.
I don't think that they may be like, staggering them and write
a blog post about it, like he might, but I think if you are,
for example, I mean, The way I grew up, you know, growing up in
the 80s and 90s with not very much money in a dying
blue-collar town. You know, there were a lot of
social issues happening at that time, but the ones that were
most important for like, the people I knew were economic
issues. One like there was obviously a
lot happening with gay rights like it was the 80s and 90s.
There were people being beaten to death and that was for some
people a lower priority issue because we didn't know anyone
who was gay or for people who are closeted in my town.
That was the highest priority issue.
I think that's fine. That's totally fine.
And I don't think that we should ever have to declare what our
high priority is. She was and why and defend that
like that makes literally no sense to me.
Well there's also no way back to this email that like for the CEO
in the people that were annoyed for whatever reason by having to
say their gender pronouns. That it was a high priority
issue for them. It's like you're using
MailChimp. Your highest priority issue.
Dude, should be like, why do people use this product that?
Like has the most dumb-looking user interface ever.
Like I feel like I'm in kindergarten when I use it but
like nobody really likes but you know it's like maybe that's your
high priority that you're getting your business and being
stolen by, you know, sub stack. I would just other and look,
maybe the CEO had no ability to answer those questions and so
for him he felt like he will like the battle that I can.
I be waged as for what about gender prove, that that would be
a great. I would love the case to be the
guys like fuck. Like I have no vision for This
product just naturally like this, right?
It's like the Republicans basically decided like our
vision is completely popular solution.
We fight about some other shit. Like that's that's so if that's
the truth here, that is some like 11 degrees of Chess, I
would love that that I would love to see.
Oh, this guy that was just like the board comes, never like all
right. What's the 12 year?
Plan to tell people that it's like Welsh or worse?
Basically all we have left are internal culture wars that we
adjudicate / /. Yeah.
And you know, hopefully I can bring up some name recognition
because these emails will leak and you know people remember
MailChimp because the last thing I thought about was when they
advertised on cereal and for those people who love parlor,
they will use MailChimp over the based emailing platform and I
don't know you. I think you might be a writer, I
think there are some multiple layers at this guy strategy
because aside from that it seems thin broth.
Anyway, we went there. All right, this was fun.
All right, fine. Thanks Gary.
Thanks goodbye, goodbye.
Goodbye, goodbye. Goodbye goodbye.
Goodbye.