A (6:32)

Because you were going to be talking about it.

B (6:34)

Yeah, 100% got to be talking about it. But I just find it really, really fascina. And I know one of the reasons why I bring this up is because I know, Preston, you and I talk about this a lot when we're in person, Just how we show up, how we think about supplementation, how do we support our bodies in the best way possible. And so I just wanted to kind of bring up technology from a health standpoint is advancing so rapidly that we can start to have more personalized care. Because I think up until now we look at the body as this kind of like, singular thing that is just like, oh, people need this, this and this. And it's just like, well, that's not necessarily true. Some people need more of this and less of this. Some people may have a deficiency in this. And so I think having a personalized healthcare approach is going to change the way I think we view health.

A (7:17)

Yeah, so he's a major voice in the health longevity space. He's the guy that's wearing like the weighted vest around all the time, if I'm correct. Is that right, Seb?

B (7:27)

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

A (7:29)

So the first thing that comes to mind as you mention all this, is just tracking all of your DNA data and ingesting that into some database and then running AI on it in order to get, you know, insights that we've never really been able to understand before. AI and its ability to pattern recognize, you know, so much complexity. So that's the exciting part, obviously, from a technology standpoint. I know we have a lot of privacy folks that listen to the show through the bitcoin community. And one of the things that immediately comes up when you start down this path of taking your raw code, your genetic code, your unique genetic code, and putting it into these models and running it on somebody else's servers, people have concerns as to how that could maybe be used also in a very nefarious way and could be captured by. I know this 23andMe was one that was doing DNA testing and keeping track of all of those records. And then they were procured by different parties and like, what happens in the business of collecting biometric data. And I think it's an important counter talking point to some of this stuff because like you, I am super excited and super fascinated by like what this could mean, what it could mean for adding years to your life, because now you're finally getting custom treatment. I mean, I think when you look at what you're bringing up, Seb, which is this custom DNA like audit and then treatment based on that is where all of medicine is going in very short order in the coming five to 10 years. And I think it has the potential to lead to some like, serious longevity results. I just, I don't know how you possibly go about it in a way that protects the privacy of the people or that, you know, encrypts the data and you know, that the person's data is Protected or whatever. Right. Like, it gets to be somewhat concerning and a lot of people don't want to talk about that side of it. But I think it's an important additional note. I'm curious if you would agree or if you just.

B (9:32)

Oh, I, I couldn't agree more. And you know, to share some of my naivety on privacy. Previously, when 23andMe was hacked, I was lucky enough one to download my data before 23me was hacked. I used 23. So you did 2018, maybe 2019. I think I used 23andMe purely from the perspective of, oh man, I wonder if there's any answer, like any relatives of mine the area and reach out to them. And I found it interesting, but ultimately it didn't really give me much information. It was a little more broad. And so I would say that what I found really fascinating though is before I went down the privacy route, I took all of the downloaded data, put it into chat GPT. I probably shouldn't have, and now I regret doing this, but I put it into chat GPT and then I started interrogating my own genetic information.

A (10:21)

Okay.

B (10:21)

And that was really, really fascinating. And so what did you learn?

A (10:24)

What did you learn?

B (10:25)

What's. I was able to ask it, like we've got. And I'm meaning I can't remember off the top of my head. It was something like 14. It was a Word document and it was 14,000 pages if I remember correctly. It basically just completely jammed my computer. My computer couldn't process this much information. But once I put it into ChatGPT and started interrogating the data, I was able to say, hey, at the moment, Gary Brekker. I basically made a Gary Brekker bot. And I said, I want you to be able to look through my genetics from the perspective of Gary Brekker. I want you to go and try and find the MTHFR gene, the MTR gene, the MTR gene, go and find and see if there's a mutation because one of the things he talks about is take the MTHFR gene. If you have a mutation on this MTHFR gene, then you can take, if I remember correctly, as one of the B complex, like B12 vitamins. And all of a sudden it can massively improve your methylation pathways so you're able to process nutrients. So I went through, looked, found out I did have this mutation, which I think a large portion of the population do. And just by taking B12, I noticed a huge difference in my health. Huge difference. Like, so you're so one of the.

A (11:31)

Biggest differences, you are so much further down this path than me. I. I'm really interested in this stuff. But dude, you are way down the path. That is fascinating. And so it found, when you ran into the AI, it found that for you based on. Wow.

B (11:46)

And I think that you're able to in this, and I should preface this by there's probably doctors listening to this and just being like, you're probably interpreting this information wrong. And I think that I'm looking at it from a naive perspective, but they don't know either.

A (11:58)

They don't know either.

B (12:00)

I found it really interesting that when you have this information, I went in Chat GPT and first off, I removed all my personal information from it. So it didn't know that it was necessarily me. I was saying, hey, I'm looking at this data for this person. Are you able to let me know is this gene mutated? What do you, what are you able to grok from this gene and such? And so I started interrogating the information. It can also, there's a lot of other genes that give us insight into do we have a prevalence of certain cancers, certain other issues, and we can go and interrogate our own genetics. So I think that's really, really fascinating. What would be nice to see in the future is more privacy focused AI models where people can go interrogate their own information.

A (12:37)

I'm laughing and I can't get the smile off my face because I'm thinking this doctor is probably like pulling out a notepad and asking, you know, to take notes on what you're doing in order to like go and do something similar. That's fascinating, dude. Kudos to you. You know, I'm concerned about, you know, ingesting the data into Chat GPT, but we'll put that aside. We'll put that over here. By the way, great business idea there at the end.

B (13:01)

Totally.

A (13:01)

Right.

B (13:02)

You know what, Like, I've seen a few people go into their doctor's office, they go and ask them, hey, I've been having these symptoms or hey, I've been having this issue. And up until what, April or whatever it was of 2023 when Chat GPT came out, the doctor was giving you their interpretation. Yeah. Now, I've heard of countless individuals walk into their doctor's office, they ask them a question. The doctor's like, oh yeah, give me one second. Types into ChatGPT, ChatGPT gives it an answer and then it feeds it back to the person. And so I think a lot of the Doctors now are starting to use Chat GPT because the ChatGPT is able to analyze just such a wider array of data. And a doctor has a very specific narrow view, a field view.

A (13:42)

Yeah, yeah. The AI is training us at this point, man. I was, as a, as a funny side note, I was watching the Jerry Seinfeld standup comedy routine on Netflix and he went on this bit where he was like, you think that you're taking the cell phone around and all? No, he said, the cell phone's taking you around, that cell phone is dictating where it's sending you. It's just like this really funny bit. But anyway, I think that when you start going down this path of like the AIs and like all these human interact, relying on the hope that what it's feeding it because you need a fast answer. That's really kind of the, the crux of the issue here is you don't have all day to go find a hundred different resources to prove it wrong. You just kind of need a quick answer. And it doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be kind of good enough. And like, as the whole world continues to like push that easy button, like we're creating data, but it's data that isn't necessarily human generated. I mean, you see these numbers coming out of Google and others and the amount of code that's being generated on these platforms and what, 70, 80, 90% of the code now is coming from AI and not even humans. So it's getting weird, dude.

B (14:55)

And you know, like, as you're saying that, it makes me think about when I wrote the Hidden Cost of Money, my book. I feel really lucky that I wrote it pre AI and I wrote it from the perspective of I looked at my note taking app and I had hundreds of books that I've taken notes on. So when I started to write it, I'd already ingested all of this information and then I started writing the book. But now it wouldn't surprise me if we were to have a look and I haven't done this, but if we were to have a look at the amount of books written and released every single year, pre AI versus post AI, we see this hockey stick when people are releasing these books. But it doesn't necessarily mean that the information in these books has validity or has been deeply ingested and thought about. Because I can go to AI and say, hey, you know what, I want to write a new book on this subject. Can you please give me the 12 chapters and the key points now can you please write these out and can you provide sources? But I never went and read all of these sources and most people don't go and read the sources from these outputs from AI. And so I think one of the challenges is like we're putting increasing amounts of trust into this thing and we're not actually looking at the validity of the information being produced.

A (16:01)

AI slop. Let's take a quick break and hear from today's sponsors. Have you ever been interested in mining bitcoin? As a miner myself, I've been using simple mining for the past few months and the experience has been nothing short of seamless. I mine with the pool of my choice and the bitcoin is sent directly to my wallet. Simple Mining, based in Cedar Falls, Iowa offers a premium white glove service designed for everyone from individual enthusiasts to large scale miners. They've been in business for three and a half years and currently operate more than 10,000 bitcoin miners based in Iowa. Their electricity is over 65% renewable thanks to the abundance of wind energy. Not only do they simplify mining with their top notch hosting and on site repair services, but they also help you benefit financially by running your operations as a business. This approach offers significant tax advantages and enhances the profitability of your investment. Do you ever worry about the complexities of maintaining your mining equipment? They've got you covered for the first 12 months. All repairs are included at no extra cost. If you experience any downtime, they'll credit you for it. And if your miners aren't profitable at the moment, simply pause them with no penalties. When you're ready to upgrade or adjust your setup. Their exclusive marketplace provides a seamless way to resell your equipment. Join me and many satisfied miners who have simplified their Bitcoin mining journey. Visit SimpleMining IO Preston to get started today that's SimpleMining IO Preston to get Started Today With Simple Mining. They make it simple.

C (17:36)

When you're running a small business, hiring the right person can make all the difference. The right hire can elevate your team, boost your productivity and take your business to the next level. But finding that person can feel like a full time job in itself. That's where LinkedIn Jobs comes in. Their new AI assistant takes the guesswork out of hiring by matching you with top candidates who actually fit what you're looking for. Instead of sifting through piles of resumes, it filters applicants based on your criteria and highlights the best matches, saving you hours and helping you move fast when the right person comes along. The best part is that those great candidates are already on LinkedIn. In fact, employees hired through LinkedIn are 30% more likely to stick around for at least a year compared to those hired through the leading competitor. Hire right the first time. Post your job for free@LinkedIn.com studybill then promote it to use LinkedIn Jobs new AI assistant, making it easier and faster to find top candidates. That's LinkedIn.com studybill to post your job for free. Terms and conditions apply. You know what sets the best businesses apart? It's how they leverage innovation to turn complexity into growth. That's exactly what Amazon Ads is doing. Powered by AWS AI Every day Amazon Ads processes billions of real time decisions, optimizing ad performance across a $31 billion advertising ecosystem. The result is campaigns that run 30% faster and deliver measurable business impact at scale. And this is how Amazon itself drives growth. Their agentic AI transforms marketing from a resource heavy process into an intelligent autonomous system that maximizes ROI and empowers marketers to focus on creativity and strategy. Amazon Ads is proving that AI driven advertising isn't just the future, it's the new competitive advantage. And better yet, every enterprise can apply the same innovation playbook that Amazon perfected in house. See the Amazon ads story@aws.com AI R story. That's aws.com AI R story.

B (19:51)

Alright, back to the show.

A (19:53)

Let's go to the next topic. Okay, so and you didn't have anything else? Sep you good on the phone? Okay, let's go to this next topic. So I'm going to play a clip and this is, this is interesting stuff. This is, this is out there. That's probably why I'm playing it. It's fun. Okay, here we go.

B (20:12)

I mean over time at Google we.

A (20:14)

Are always proud of taking moonshots. You mentioned way more earlier.

B (20:17)

You know that's been over a decade in the making.

A (20:19)

You're working on quantum computing. In that spirit, one of our moonshots.

B (20:23)

Is to how do we one day have data centers in space so that we can better harness the energy from the sun that is 100 trillion times more energy than what we produce in.

A (20:34)

All of Earth today.

B (20:35)

So we want to put these data centers in space closer to the sun. And I think we are taking our first step in 27. We'll send tiny racks of machines and have them in satellites, test them out and then start scaling from there. But there's no doubt to me that a decade or so away we'll be viewing it as a more normal way to build Data centers.

A (20:57)

Okay, so Elon Musk retweeted this. This is the CEO of Google that you heard talking. And Elon Musk retweeted that video and with just text that says, interesting as the SpaceX, you know, founder and operator. Okay, so what in the world is all this about? So I have to. I have a confession. So I was out in Lugano, Switzerland, for this Plan B conference, and we did this, like, Shark Tank thing where we were, like, hearing different pitches. And I was fortunate enough to sit on one of the panels, and a gentleman came up and he presented bitcoin mining in space. And I was just kind of like, right off the bat, immediately I was like, this is just such a bad idea. Like, I just couldn't understand why anybody was seriously pitching this, because it was the first time I'd heard of this kind of idea. And when I was going through the slides, one of the things that really stuck out to me was the cost that to make this even viable, the cost for a space transport to get the hardware just into space had to drop 10x. So if it's $1,000 to put whatever up there, you got to drop it down to 100 before this would even be viable to even begin doing this for real. And, you know, they were pitching us for investment in this company that was trying to do it with Bitcoin miners, not GPUs, which is what was being. Or TPUs, the Google ones being sent up in the space. And so in preparation for this, after I watched that clip, I went and I remembered that 10x number from the Lugano pitch. And so I put it into AI. And I was like, hey, what would the cost have to be a drop for Google to really kind of execute on this? And this is called Project Suncatcher is what this is called at Google. And sure enough, the numbers came out that it needs a 10x drop even for the TPUs that they're trying to put in the space. So he's calling it a moonshot. I would agree. This is definitely a moonshot. This doesn't seem like this is, like, right around the corner. So they're doing this test run. Let me just read through my notes here for people so they get it. Google unveiled Project Suncatcher in early November 2025, with plans to launch two prototype satellites by early 2027. So we're basically a year, year and a half out to test AI hardware in orbit, partnering with Planet Labs for the initial mission. You know, they're saying that here's another Stat. It's eight times more efficient than on Earth for them to harness the sun out in orbit than to be doing it down here on the crust of the Earth. Initial thoughts, Seb, what do you think of some of this?

B (23:31)

It's interesting because you sent me a text just with a little snippet of what you were going to talk about. And so I was thinking about it a little more and the first thing that came to mind was also my understanding of bitcoin mining and why bitcoin mining in space. There may be issues with it around latency. So depending on where you place this data center, this bitcoin miner, from my understanding, like when you're using say fiber optics and stuff like that, we are capped at obviously the speed of light in terms of moving data. And so low Earth orbit, it takes like 2 to 10 milliseconds to get information like back to Earth geostationary orbit. I'm not even sure what this is, is like 240 milliseconds.

A (24:11)

So geospatial. Yeah, Geospatial is satellite will stay over the same spot of Earth. So as Earth is rotating that it will stay right over that same spot the whole time. So you have to go out at a certain radius in order to get that. And geo synchronous orbit has like, there's a very small band in order to make sure that it stays synced with the Earth. So it's a very popular distance from the Earth and very cluttered distance from the Earth.

B (24:38)

Wow. Yeah. So that says 240 milliseconds and then you've got the moon, which is two and a half seconds. And if you're out in Mars, it's like five to 20 minutes. And so the issue is, from a bitcoin mining perspective, if you mine a block in space, by the time you actually propagate that block or push that block to the blockchain, someone on Earth may have already found a block and everyone builds on obviously the newest block. And so you've got a disadvantage already just by being in space. And so I was thinking about it like, well, how does this relate to being a data center in space? And I think that it probably works for certain types of information, but it doesn't work for other types of information. So any anything that is dealing with real time interactions, millisecond responses, like high frequency trading, multiplayer gaming, blockchain mining, I don't think would be using that for the space. But I think that anything that is dealing with kind of some of these bigger ideas of like, AI model training, large scale simulations, and like batch processing, huge amounts of information. I think it could be profound. That's kind of what came up as you sent that over to me in a text.

A (25:42)

So I interviewed an astronaut. Oh, my goodness. Bunch of years ago, Tim Kopra. And one of the interesting things that Tim told me, I don't know if he told me this on the show or told me this privately. Him and I attended a Berkshire Hathaway shareholders meeting many years ago, and he's told me a bunch of stories throughout the years. One of the things I remembered that stuck in my head is when they were working on the International Space Station, they would go out, he did a spacewalk. And he said that when you went out and did a spacewalk and came back in and you're in the chamber taking off all the gear and you have a hammer, you have all your tools, like all those things, you had to be very careful that you didn't bump into, call it the hammer when you came in. And the temperature, I forget what the threshold of the temperatures are. It's hundreds and hundreds of degrees in both directions of hot and cold. And the temperature is changing every 45 minutes because that's how fast you're going around the planet. At least at that distance for the issuance, they might be 45 minutes in the sun, 45 minutes on the dark side of the Earth, and then 45 minutes in the sun again. And the temperature of the tools and all of your equipment is swinging by hundreds of degrees in both directions every 45 minutes. And so my question when I was in Lugano was I remembered this from Tim, and I'm thinking from a reliability standpoint, the hardware, could you imagine just that hardware cycling through those temperature changes every 45 minutes? And like, what that would do to the hardware from a reliability standpoint, I would think would be disastrous. So I asked this guy that question, and he said that there's orbits that you can put the satellites in that will keep it more in the sun than it's cycling every 45 minutes on, 45 minutes off. So that was his answer to me during the thing. But I guess for me, I'm also looking at it just from a reliability standpoint. Maybe it's not as harsh, maybe this is a better environment. I don't know. It's a fascinating discussion, but the point that I could never get over was the reliance on the price reduction going down by 10x just to get it into orbit. And then it's got to work. And the reliability and all these other things that are completely secondary to this massive hurdle. And I mean, he's calling it a moonshot. I think it's really fascinating that they're doing a test run on this, but as far as the actual viability and like, whether it's actually going to happen, I just, I don't know. It seems like it's just so out there.

B (28:08)

It's. As you're saying that I remember reading something years ago and I think I was just looking up on Google. I think it's called Kessler Syndrome. And it's this idea that the more stuff we send into space, like we obviously already see on Earth, like the amount of solar farms, all you need is a giant hail storm and you've just decimated like millions of dollars of solar, basically solar equipment. Well, what happens in space when an asteroid belt kind of comes, I don't know, flying through and just kind of like decimates a whole bunch of this material. And then you've got all of this space junk flying around at speeds in excess of tens of thousands of kilometers an hour, and they're just nailing into all of these satellites. Like, is there a point where by us sending all of this stuff up into space, we're impeding our ability in the future to be able to go further afield and such?

A (28:54)

Yeah, it's. Evidently, it must not be too much of a concern because I don't think that they would be going through any of these hoops if they didn't think that it was a very viable path, if they could overcome some of those hurdles, like the 10x reduction in the space cost for launch. Let's go on to the next one. And if you are a person who's tracking this and you want to share some information, I would love to learn more. I find this whole thing, this whole idea, just super fascinating. Okay, you wanted to talk about custom learning, is that right, Seb?

B (29:22)

Yeah.

A (29:23)

Okay, let's do this one.

B (29:24)

Yeah. So, long story short, someone ended up posting a lady called Stephen S T E H U T and she was asking about, like, what does AI do for the world of learning? And this one here I find really, really fascinating. So I was kind of digging around and I was just like, huh, I wonder where is AI in the world of learning right now? And even from my own personal learning, being able to have this AI bot feed me information about my curiosities has helped me understand the world from such a different lens. So anyway, as I kind of did a little bit of digging it turns out that I think it was back in September, Google released something called Google's learn your way Now. In essence, this is basically like a living, dynamic tutor that's tailored to each individual's kind of pace, their interests, their background. And so it can take and ingest these like static, one size fits all textbooks. And it's able to take that material and convert it into basically depending on your grade level, your interests, your learning preferences. It's able to create mind maps, audio lessons, narrated slides, interactive quizzes. And so the way that I'm seeing this is this could profoundly change our educational systems at the moment. When we think about like what is the school system when you go all the way back? We've come from like a bit of a Victorian era where we were trying to create a labor workforce. We want people to do very specific tasks and when the bell rings, you move on to the next task. And it didn't really incite curiosity. And so what's really cool about this is I think as AI is taking over a lot of kind of the knowledge worker space, as robotics in the future is going to take over potentially some of the more the manual labor space, I think where humans thrive is in more of the creative space. So I think some of these, like AI tutors are going to profoundly change the way kids are able to be curious. Because imagine being in a classroom, but essentially having a one on one teacher at all times being able to support you. And so if you're getting a question, I don't know, a math question or a physics question or a biology question, and then they're able to phrase it in like, in line with your interests, that is hugely going to increase your ability to learn. And so already in like very early tests, it looks like students are, they're increasing their recall rates by like 11% plus just on recall tests. And to me I was like, well, that's quite low. I was expecting it to be like hundreds of percent. But I also believe that that is only going to increase as this technology becomes far more efficient and kids are able to communicate in a way that gets information that is in alignment with their level and their understanding and such. But I'm curious to hear your thoughts on it.

A (31:56)

Let's take a quick break and hear from today's sponsors.

C (31:59)

Imagine scaling your business with technology that understands your customers literally. That's the story Behind Alexa and AWS AI. Every day, Alexa processes over 1 billion interactions across 17 languages, all while reducing customer friction by 40%. It's not just about making life easier. It's also about transforming customer engagement and generating new revenue streams behind the scenes. AWS AI powers more than 70 specialized models working together to create natural conversations, proving how enterprises can deploy AI at scale with confidence and security. Alexa's AI capabilities were battle tested across Amazon's massive operations, delivering real, measurable impact at scale. These same innovations now give other businesses a proven framework to boost efficiency, unlock new revenue streams, and gain a lasting market edge. Discover the Alexa story@aws.com AI R story that's aws.com AI R story it's the new year, which means that it's the best time to finally start the business you've been dreaming about. Just a couple years ago I launched my own e commerce business and Shopify was exactly the tool I needed to get started. While many people continually push off their dreams until the next year, I am here to tell you that now is the time to capitalize on the opportunities right in front of you. Shopify gives you everything you need to sell online and in person. Millions of entrepreneurs, including myself, have already made this leap from household names to first time business owners just getting started. Choose from hundreds of beautiful templates that you can customize and use their built in AI tools to write product descriptions or edit product photos. And as you grow, Shopify grows with you every step of the way. In 2026, stop waiting and start selling with Shopify. Sign up for your $1 per month trial and start selling today at shopify.com WSB go to shopify.com WSB that's shopify.com WSB hear your first this new year with Shopify by your side. Startups move fast and with AI, they're shipping even faster and attracting enterprise buyers sooner. But big deals bring even bigger security and compliance requirements. A SOC 2 isn't always enough. The right kind of security can make a deal or break it, but what founder or engineer can afford to take time away from building their company? Vanta's AI and automation make it easy to get big deals ready in days. And Vanta continuously monitors your compliance so future deals are never blocked. Plus, Vanta scales with you backed by support that's there when you need it every step of the way. With AI changing regulations and buyers expectations, Vanta knows what's needed and when, and they've built the fastest, easiest path to help you get there. That's why serious startups get secure early. With Vanta, our listeners get $1,000 off@vanta.com billionaires that's V A N T A.com billionaires for $1,000 off.

A (35:27)

All right, back to the show. I think the big breakthrough on all of this is going to be just the AI's ability to sense how the child learns. Just look at your kids. Anybody that's got kids, you know, between one and the other, they learn very differently. Some have to go through examples, some have to, you know, everybody has a different way of learning. I'll give you an example. I love audiobooks. I prefer an audiobook over the physical. I actually, I prefer reading to me as I'm flipping the pages ultimately. But if I had to choose one over the other, I would actually prefer the audio version because I just kind of learn that way a little bit better. And it's different for everybody. And so just as an example, the AI is going to learn these different techniques that people have for that's most optimal for them. The best way to frame it. As a funny example, when I was a student at the military academy at West Point, we would always have these tests that were framed from like, if you're in a math class, it was like you have an artillery round and you're gonna shoot it at whatever. And it was like always framed for some type of military example. And we would always roll our eyes, be like, oh my God, can you just give us a normal question? And not some military type question. But I use that as an example to frame the framing of the thing. Let's say your kid is, he loves football or, you know, your daughter loves dance or whatever. Like, the examples could always be framed in a way exactly what they want to hear and how they want to think about it. Right? So I think that that's going to be huge. Now the part that I think is still lacking. When we went through Covid, the kids had to do online zoom call, like classes. And to be quite honest with you, Seb, it was disastrous. Like, it was just, it was a train. Anybody who's gone to in person education versus, you know, learning through a computer screen, like, there's some advantages for the computer screen, but there's a lot of advantages to like in person. And I wonder if once you start getting into, you know, I don't know that everybody would agree with this, but, like, maybe the humanoid robot AI is going to maybe have a difference because you're having like a in person interaction. And so where are we in 10 or 15 or 20 years with respect to some of these ideas with AI learning? You know, once you put something into the physical environment and you could go over to A chalkboard or you could go on a field day and you could see whatever. I don't know. I think that the learning kind of takes on a whole new level when you start incorporating it into physical space versus just always looking at something on a computer screen. And maybe you can do that with a VR environment. I personally don't like these things on my face. I find them to be highly annoying. But, you know, some people might like it or learn that way as well.

B (38:16)

I think you're spot on. And I think that's a really important point to kind of mention, because I think that when we're talking about any of these points in any of these tech podcasts we do, we're kind of talking about what is the newest technology and how is it impacting us. But there's always going to be pros and cons to everything that kind of interacts with us and our world and how we show up and, and what I think about when I think about education is that the knowledge is one aspect of it. But when we're in school, when we're around our peers, when we're interacting with our teacher, there is also the human connection. And I think part of during our developmental years while we're in school, we're also learning how to regulate our nervous system. And so we're co regulating with the teacher. The teacher when the calm and grounded, that helps us learn. And so what does that do when we're replacing these physical beings with this digital entity? Is that digital entity going to be able to be emotional? Are they going to have that empathy and that capacity to support them? Or can you just completely not replace that with a digital entity? Like, there's far more from a resonance perspective that we're interacting with. And that's, that's what I find really interesting. I wholeheartedly agree.

A (39:19)

I tell you, my wife hearing me say, oh yeah, you're gonna have an AI humanoid robot like teaching that, she would just be disgusted by such a comment. And I think that there's a lot of people out there that probably would be like, oh my God, that sounds like an absolute nightmare of a future. And hey, maybe it is a nightmare, I don't know. But I can see the demand for some of these things taking place because I think that the customized education that you're going to get out of that is so far superior than some teacher that is an expert in history and everything comes with a history lens. And maybe the student that they're teaching hates history, can't stand history, and then Everything is flavored with history for an entire year as you're sitting there with 30 other students. And so I think that when we look back at the education that you and I, you know, grew up with, it's going to be so archaic to where I think a lot of this is going. Whether people like, totally.

B (40:17)

And yeah, there's that famous. I think it's the Buddhist quote which is like, you shouldn't judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree. And it's just like, I think the school system, I was 100. The fish, yeah, probably even less so. A fish as a rock just laying on the floor. There was no way that I could climb a freaking tree. And so I think that school, to me, I never felt like I fit in. But once I left school and I was able to find audiobooks, I was able to find my ability to find how I learn.

A (40:42)

Amen.

B (40:42)

Oh my God. It was, it was profound.

A (40:44)

Amen.

B (40:45)

So I think that how do we find this balance between. I think the biggest question is, it's like, how do we find this balance between, like personalized learning while also having human connection? And I think, I think that's something that we really haven't found that balance yet.

A (40:57)

I have conversations with people all the time and they ask me, oh, what kind of student, where are you present? And to be honest with you, Seb, I hated school. I hated it because I didn't feel like I was ever learning something that I actually had an interest in. I was always being force fed this stuff that I had no interest in. And it was never framed in a way that interested me. Yeah. And same experience after I got out of college, I just started reading things that like, I wanted to know more about. And then I just loved it because I was focusing on things that I wanted to learn about and just truly never had that experience the whole time in high school. And I mean, I enjoyed the engineering classes I had in college, but beyond that, like all the other stuff that I literally had to take a poetry class in college with a bunch of, you know, how old were we? 18, 19 year old dudes all standing in, you know, a classroom reading Shakespeare to each other. Like, good God, shoot me. Like, it was the worst, it's the worst experience ever because I don't like that stuff. I'm sorry. If you love, if you love that stuff, I'm sorry, I don't like that stuff. And that's, that's to the whole point of this learning thing is like people can lean into, finally lean into Things that really interest them and like, I can't even imagine what that's going to do from. If you start that out early and you do it for 20 years, where the person is being led down a thing that actually interests them and you're being taught by the world's greatest teacher on subject X, Y and Z that that person's interested in. I cannot even imagine what those results would look like by the time they're, you know, 20 years old.

B (42:29)

That's the thing though, it's just trying to find that balance. I wholeheartedly agree. And it's just like, how do we achieve that? How do we find this balance? The human touch and technology. It's a challenge one. There's always a given a take.

A (42:39)

Yeah, I have a couple AI topics that I wanted to bring up. The first one and I'm going to put up here on the screen. This one's from Andre Karpathy, the very famous AI. He was head of AI at Tesla for a little bit and then he was one of the founders at OpenAI. To be quite honest with you, of the YouTube videos I've watched of people teaching AI, he is probably my favorite of anybody on the Internet. He is such a great teacher and he makes things so accessible. And he had this tweet and I just think that it's kind of really interesting tweet and I think it's worthy of highlighting here. He says don't think of LLM's large language models as entities, but as simulators. For example, when exploring a topic, don't ask what do you think about X, Y and Z? There's no you. Next time try what would be a good group of people to explore X, Y and Z? What would they say? The LLM can channel simulate many perspectives, but it hasn't thought about X, Y and Z for a while and over time and formed its own opinions in the way we're used to. If you force it via the use of you, it will give you something by adopting a personality embedding vector implied by the statistics of, of its fine tuning data and then simulate that. It's fine to do, but there's a lot less mystique to it than I find people naively attribute to asking an AI. So his big point here is don't say, what do you think he's suggesting? People say, who would be the best group of people to have an opinion on this? And then ask the AI, what would this group of people think? I find that to be useful and important and it gets to the heart of a person who's literally like programmed these things, he's getting at something that is showing you a bias that will give you a cleaner and more accurate answer that you're going after. So I think that that's important for people to understand. Any comments?

B (44:28)

There's. So we may talk about this if we have time. And it's around kind of this idea of. It was a Diary of a CEO podcast that both of us have listened to and something that he mentioned in there that I thought was really interesting that kind of is in alignment with this is this idea that if we go on social media, our algorithm is giving us information based upon our interests. It's not necessarily giving us the objective information. And what. He also discusses this idea that if you go and ask AI, what does it think about maybe this controversial subject depending on your location, if in one location they have very different views, it's going to give you that answer. If you're in another location, it's going to give you a different answer. And so I think the thing that is interesting is that you've got to figure out how to prompt AI to give you the most objective answer. And so this is something that I've personally found and I'm curious to hear your thoughts. As I've been using AI being able to give the AI a Persona, so saying like, hey, I want your perspective. If you were, say, an expert developer that has a knowledge in X, Y and Z, I want that perspective. And so being able to look at it through a specific lens. And I don't think people ask AI to look at something through a specific lens. And with that in mind, it's just going to give us what it thinks we want to hear so that we're just more attentive to AI.

A (45:46)

Yeah, yeah. And we are going to play a couple clips from that interview here later on in the show. But yeah, outstanding comment. This next one's a little political and I'm just, I'm bringing it up because I, I find it kind of an interesting topic. The president has recently come out and he's trying to take away the state's rights. So we have 50 different states here in the US and they all seem to be coming up with their own AI laws and rules. And the president is now trying to say that there's going to be an executive order on AI this week that forces all of the states to kind of fall under the federal level AI mandate of, like, how we're going to go about this as a country and As a person that firmly believes in states rights and pushing responsibility as much out of the federal government and down to the state level as possible, this one pains me. But at the same time I'm also looking at it and I understand the logic that we're in a global race and you're up against some other superpowers that are moving out and not in a situation that you know one state is advantageous, the other one is not. Then the big tech companies set up shop and the one that's advantageous, but they also are concerned about the whims of that local government shifting and changing. And then they have to move all of this infrastructure to another state that now looks like it's more advantageous for doing business there. And I think what I suspect what's happening is the president is getting pressured by the big tech companies to have something that's unilateral across the board. So they never have to think about my words getting rug pulled in state XYZ so that they have to then move all of this huge amount of capex into another state and the cost and expense and most importantly the time to make that conversion over to a different state. So they're. I think what they're doing is they're lobbying him to do this. I'm curious what you think about some of this. I know this is a US topic except US politics, but I don't know I can understand why the tech companies are doing this. They just were trying to minimize risk to them. I suspect they're the ones that are pushing on this. But if you have any comments.

B (48:05)

This regulation is something that I'm so torn on and I think that going down the bitcoin rabbit hole, I think a lot of bitcoiners find themselves in this position where they're like, you know what, let's deregulate. We believe that the free market knows what is best. And ultimately if you want to move towards a society with growth, you don't want to impede that information making it to the free market. And I think the thing that I really struggle with is I don't necessarily think that it is black and white. It's either no regulation or regulation, it's somewhere in between. And like a perfect kind of example to me is something around the lines of you can have a corporation that can be capitalizing off the destruction of the environment and they don't have to front that cost. And so then does a regulator have to put something in place where there is going to be a financial burden for Them capitalizing off the natural environment because they're making profit from destroying forest, extracting minerals, extracting XYZ from our natural environment. And so I think that a lot of these corporations, if their bottom line is obviously profit and there's no regulation they're going to complete, they're going to continue to extract from our natural environment. And so I think the same thing is true for kind of a lot of these AI entities. Like if their goal is how do we build the fastest learning, most powerful AI engine, even if there is a risk at destroying the human race, we're just going to keep doing it. And so it's just like, does it need to be regulation in place? Because the free market doesn't have the capacity to push back on something like that. And I'm not sure I don't have a fully formed opinion on it because I can kind of see it from both sides. I don't know what your thoughts on it.

A (49:41)

Yeah, from a states rights standpoint, one of the advantages is it creates competition between the states in that if. And let's not use AI, let's just use, you know, oil. Like let's say you're an oil refinery. Let's say that citizens of one state just really don't like it because of what it does to the environment. What it does, just from a aesthetic standpoint, whatever, doesn't matter. Okay. And then another state is like, oh no, we're, we don't care. We want all that business to come in here, we want all that commerce. So we're going to be, you know, pro regulation around that particular industry. So let's, and this is very hypothetical, just kind of illustrate the pros and cons. The company or the state that allows this to come in and just proliferate everywhere. Let's just say that it's over the top and it's just one of the ugliest states in the world or in the United States that live where the other one that was more restrictive is a much more beautiful state. And if you're the type of person that doesn't want to be looking at that kind of stuff, well then you'd move, you'd vote with your feet and move to the other state in the one that's more desirable for you. Let's say there's a bunch of tax advantages in the one that, that is pro oil. Right. You don't want to be paying more money than you have to, so you move into that state. So in that scenario you're creating competition for people to migrate to the state that aligns with what it is they want out of their ecosystem that they're living in the most. When it comes to AI, where this is a little bit different is the product that's being built here. I don't know that it has a benefit or a negative for that state. Over another one would be kind of the argument of why, hey, this is different because you're literally building intelligence. I think you could make the argument from a data center standpoint in the footprint that the data and that that would be the argument is the data center and the footprint and the size of that footprint and the energy consumption of that footprint would be concerning from state to state. Some people might not want all of those data centers in their state for whatever reason. Some might love it because of the energy infrastructure that' going to be built out to service at all. So those are, you know, it's a hard one.

B (51:45)

Interesting point because I think the physical infrastructure, I don't believe that should be regulated on a federal level. It's just like if a state wants to open up jobs, if they want to kind of have more data centers, for sure, by all means, it's the kind of, that's their choice. However, when the benefit or the negative effects of a technology not only impact that state, but they potentially impact humanity or the nation, all of a sudden it's just like a state could be making a decision that impacts far more than its locality. That's the thing that I find really, really interesting. And so at what point do we need certain regulation? Because people are making decisions that are far more detrimental on a bigger scale. And then the question is, who is. And this is, I think, what gets to the heart of regulation. It's just like, cool, okay, this is great if we can have perfect regulation. But you've got to ask who is actually creating the regulation and who is regulating the regulators to ensure the regulators are being fair and where's the money coming from to help fund this regulation? And many times, like if you look at, I don't know, the pharmaceutical industry, the pharmaceutical regulating agencies are funded by big pharma. So it's just like there's these conflicts of interest and so that's where it gets so convoluted.

A (52:55)

And again, we're going to talk about this Tristan Harris discussion later in the show. And if you want to go down the regulatory policy path, and if you like this particular topic, then I would highly encourage you to listen to that entire interview because it gets very heavy in this, in this domain as to whether you should or shouldn't I. And it's a very biased point of view by the person being interviewed, which is Stephen Barlett. I'm sorry, Stephen Barlett's doing the interview of Tristan Harris. Tristan obviously has a very strong opinion in that. But I think that it's good just for a person to kind of hear that counter argument or that argument and whether it's, you know, something that they agree with or not. So let's go to the last one that I have on just the AI topics here. I'm going to put this up on the screen and this is interesting because we're talking about Google's Titans. This person had this post here and so like what is this? Titans is a Google's new architecture type that gives language models something like a real long term memory while the model is running. And so they have a chart up here and they're showing how it's ingesting 10 million tokens and it's still maintaining around 70% accuracy, which I guess is insane. And it has some of the other models and what they do with 10 million tokens. And it's nowhere close to what Google has uncovered here with Titans. This one I found interesting because I find myself wanting to just put really large documents into a really long context window, asking it to still perform. And it gets laggy. And clearly there's something missing when it comes to long term memory. So this paper came out in 2025. It didn't come out this past week, but it did come out. And the title or the subtitle of the paper is Learning to Memorize at Test Time and some of the token sizes that you're putting through this thing. I was playing around with it, trying to understand how it works, and I got this paragraph that I'm just going to read for folks to kind of like think through how it's doing this. Imagine you're scrolling through your social media feed and most posts are usually stuff like memes or friends, lunch pics. Your brain, like the AI, expects that junk and mostly ignores or forgets it to save space. But suddenly there's a post about a surprise concert ticket giveaway for your favorite band. That surprise grabs your attention so you remember the details like the entry deadline and rules, while letting the boring posts fade away. In Titans, the AI uses a similar surprise signal from calculations based on gradients to spot unexpected or important info in the huge stream of data. Deciding to store that useful bit in its long term memory. This way it keeps the what's valuable for later tasks like answering questions without cluttering up the irrelevant repeats. So my immediate follow on question for that was, okay, so then how does the AI know that that concert ticket or that particular band is a surprise in the feed? And what I got back was it's just looking at the sheer amount of training data that it was trained on, which is the whole Internet. And as it's going through said document that, you know, has these millions and millions of tokens in size, it is finding something that is unique in reference to the entire data set that it was trained on. And that gradient is what's allowing it to say, oh, that was different than what I would have predicted or expected. So then it remembers it and what I find so fascinating. So years ago I interviewed the author that covered Claude Shannon. And when we were covering information theory, I distinctly remember him saying, preston, it's just surprise. Like his algorithm, his mathematical algorithm is just looking for surprise. And when it was going through this Titans thing, I was just like, wow, this is literally just like information theory in order to do like long term memory, which is just mind blowing, right? It's fascinating.

B (56:57)

Dude, it's. What was it? There's that word in information theory, which is if I send a letter to you, there's going to be a lot of noise in that letter. Ultimately, you're looking for the surprise, the new piece of information. And it was kind of the inverse of information. Information is noise. What we're looking for is the signal in that noise. And so it's kind of like if you've got a block of marble, you're cutting away all that excess to find the statue inside. And I've got blank on that. But what comes to mind as you're talking about this is there's one of my favorite TED talks I've ever listened to, and I think you've read the book is by a guy called Donald Hoffman. And he talks about, do we see reality as it is?

A (57:38)

Yeah.

B (57:38)

And he gives the analogy and I highly recommend anyone going out and listening to this just type in TED Talk, Donald Hoffman, do we see reality as it is?

A (57:45)

So good.

B (57:46)

And he mentions there's this, it was like a dune beetle in Australia and this doom beetle has been around for something like 300 million years. So you would assume if it's been around for 300 million years, of course it seized reality as it is. But then the Australians started throwing this, these beer bottles, these brown stubby beer bottles into the desert. And all of a sudden this doom beetle nearly went Extinct because it had effectively created a hack, a rule of thumb in its brain that is, hey, the bigger the browner, the better. And it just goes and tries to mate with these brown beer bottles. Nearly went completely extinct. So the Australian government had to step in. Bam. Beer bottles. And all of a sudden that beetle started to kind of recover. But what I find really interesting about this talk and what he's trying to kind of get at is this idea that we are not optimized to see reality as it is. We're actually optimized for survival of the fittest. And so what we do is we take in all this information, we discard all the noise, and we try and create these rules of thumb to basically maximize our chances of survival. So if there's a train coming towards us, we're not processing all this information being like, what is this thing? I wonder how fast it is going, at what velocity is it going to hit my body? And we ignore all that data and we're just like, train's coming towards me, I need to get out of the way. We've created a rule of thumb to recognize that this is dangerous. Now, the reason why I say all of this is because AI, what is surprise to the AI? What information, when it's looking at 10 million tokens, how does it know what is valuable? What is it actually optimizing for? Because we're optimizing for survival of the fittest. What is it optimizing for? And so that's where I think I'm curious to dig deeper into these models and try and understand, like, what are they trying to pull out? Because either a developer has had to code that in, this is the type of information that we're actually looking for, or it's figuring that out itself. And is that actually relevant? And I'm curious to hear your take or your thoughts on that.

A (59:35)

I don't know that I have enough information on how these gradients are determined. I do know that I've seen posts by Elon Musk and others that really speak to the idea that the training data set, like using the entire Internet, every single thing that you can get, isn't necessarily leading to the best model for task X, Y and Z. Is it going to train? Is it going to do really well for understanding English or the language? Yes. Is it going to be most optimal if you're trying to understand, like a medical discussion? No. So then you got to get into like, okay, so we have an AI that understands the language perfectly or near perfectly, and now we're Going to apply that to a different model that then is more focused on the training set as to, like, what we're putting in it. But all of that is way outside of my depth of understanding as far as, like, how much research I've done on it. I have seen a lot of conversations by heavy hitters in the space talking about curation of the data set and making sure that you don't just put everything in there because it's somewhat disastrous or how competitive it'll be in particular tasks.

B (60:48)

I think that this is really an important point, which is that I think it still falls on the individual to determine what is valuable and what is not. And I think that you can have this huge, huge research study that you kind of or research paper that you're looking at and it's spitting out a whole bunch of information saying, this is valid, this is valid, this is valid. And to the average individual maybe like, cool, this is rad. But to a scientific researcher who understands the subject, he's able to again, filter through that again and separate out the signal from the noise. And I think that's where ultimately humans aren't going to be replaced anytime soon because specialists in their field are able to see what is valuable and what is not. It's just how, as bitcoiners, we can see when there's a newspaper article or a New York Times post or whatever that says, oh, man, bitcoin is consuming more energy than Argentina. It's just like, well, that's misleading and that's not necessarily accurate. And so I think that you still need to be a specialist and deeply understand the topic to understand the validity of the output from a lot of these models.

A (61:45)

Yeah, Seb, let's go to our last topic for this show, and we're running a little long, so I think we're gonna have to schedule another one to put some other topics in there because I don't even think we're going to get to this Tristan Harris discussion. But you wanted to talk about long distance haptic touch. Go ahead and take this topic away.

B (62:03)

Totally. So this is something that. Oh, man, it blew me away. I didn't even know this existed. Essentially, I stumbled upon this post by Mario Norfeld. I wonder if I can even open up the post and I'll show you guys. So I was kind of scrolling Twitter the other day and I stumbled upon this post by Mario. And basically what scientists have kind of created are these long distance haptic touch. And so for those that aren't familiar with this word, haptic it's basically, it's like, how do we create flexible patches that bring touch into virtual reality, augmented reality and such? And so it gives a little bit of information in this post, but I started to dig a little deeper and I found the original scientific study which kind of dove into this, the actual scientific study you can find here. And it was basically called Skin Attached Haptic Patch for Versatile and Augmented Tactile Interaction. And so this is basically the abstract kind of says the first little bit. It's like wearable tactile interfaces that can enhance immersive experiences in virtual augmented reality systems by adding tactile simulation to the skin, along with visual and auditory information delivered to the user. And so to me, what I found really, really fascinating about this is these little haptic touch patches, essentially they are, if I remember correctly, they're 1.1 millimeters in size and they can. They're extremely powerful for their size and they're able to create both pressure and like high frequency vibrations. So if you were to wear a glove with these haptic touches on your fingers, you would be able to. If someone else was, say, wearing the same glove and they went and touched textures, shapes, edges, letters, 3D surfaces, you could feel what they are feeling through these haptic touch sensors. And so what does that do? I think we could use this in so many different ways. Either you could basically have an interaction with someone, let's say through zoom. You and I are talking right now, and if we went to hug or we went to communicate in a way that we wanted to involve touch, I could feel what you were feeling and have a much more like three dimensional, detailed interaction. But we could also look at it from the perspective of like virtual reality and augmented reality, where you'll be able to wear certain things, whether it's gloves or a suit, and you'd be able to wear VR goggles. You'd be inside a simulation and you could be interacting with the simulation not just from the visual sense, but also from the physical touch sense. And that, to me, I think, is mind blowing. So I'm curious to hear your thoughts on, from kind of this haptic touch sensor.

A (64:33)

Yeah, so while Seb was talking there, for people that are just listening to the audio, I put up a video of a company that. It's called Fluid Reality. And the company is putting these haptic sensors. And the way that they're using that particular company is doing is they're trying to give the humanoid robots better sensing of how they're feeling different objects and whether they should be Squeezing an apple very hard or very lightly as they're interacting with it. And then you can see up on the screen right now, if you're seeing the video of a person that's wearing a glove that's training one of these humanoid hands with the sensing capability that Seb was describing. And when we just look at the robot's ability to do certain tasks, like let's say it's doing laundry or it's doing whatever, you can very quickly realize that the amount of pressure that it's applying to the objects that it's interacting with become really important. It becomes important from a power management standpoint, from just not breaking the object that it's holding or damaging it. And I think that haptics are a huge part of humanoid robots and where a lot of that's going to be going. And this is something that is definitely worth paying attention to. And I have a couple more videos here I'm just gonna quickly put up on the screen for people to see. And this is the Tesla robot for people that are just on the audio showing you how like, like crazy accurate the hand gestures and the mechanics in the hands are. And I don't know where they're at from a haptic pressure feedback standpoint on this particular humanoid robot, but by the looks of the hand gestures, it looks like it has a lot of sensitivity built into it.

B (66:14)

Yeah, I think this is one of, from my understanding, haptic touch is one of the biggest hurdles I think robotics is trying to overcome right now. Because it's one thing to have a robot that is a forklift truck that is just going around doing its own thing, picking up containers, moving those containers, dropping those containers. But it's another thing to have a robot that, say, operates in the kitchen and can pick up an egg without crushing it, or to be able to do more pressure sensitive things like use a screwdriver and understand when it's starting to strip the screw, or starting to do things like surgery or sewing and cooking and things where ultimately I think there's a lot more fine motor skills than we really take into account as humans. Like, we are being given so much information through our hands, through our sensory touch, and making decisions on that information that we're doing autonomously and being able to bring that into the robotic world. I think we're still a little ways away because from my understanding, a lot of these haptic touch sensors can cost anywhere from like 10 to $50,000 for a set of hands that are able to do things like this. So we're a long way off having this available to everybody in their household. But to your point earlier, if we get a 10x improvement, attend like a 90 reduction in price, and all of a sudden you can be doing this for a few thousand dollars, I think it's going to be far, far easier. But again, I just think it's so fascinating, both on the robotic side of things and on the individual side of things. And so, one thing that I just wanted to kind of bring up, and I'm curious to hear your thoughts. We had a. When was it in March of this year. We were skiing in Jackson Hole together and we ended up having a conversation, I don't know if you remember, on are we in a simulation? We were kind of sat at a table and we had this conversation of, are we in a simulation? And this idea of is AI and say, some of the robotics we're using today, is it being created or is it being rediscovered, as in, it already exists. Yeah. And so when I think about haptic touch, what comes to mind is the movie Avatar. And I think about, as humans, we want to feel a part of community. We want to create value, we want to feel like we've got purpose. And so what do we do? We start to create products, we start to create technology, we start to kind of create companies, and we go out into this world in response, we create advancements in productivity and efficiency and such, and we start creating technology that starts to replace us. So all of a sudden, when we start to replace ourselves, we're losing that sense of purpose, we're losing that sense of community where we feel like we're creating value. And so at that point, if society is degrading and all of a sudden there's rising rates of depression and suicide and substance abuse and all of these things, what do we do as a community? Well, if technology is advanced enough, you could create a simulation with haptic touch like Avatar, where we're able to step into a world and move back to a much simpler time and back to that simpler time where we can start to create value again. And then we go and do it again and again, and it's like, how many times have we stepped into a potential simulation? Now, I'm not necessarily saying this is what I believe, but I think it's an interesting thought because we are at a point where it wouldn't surprise me, from the next 30, 40 years, we're able to create simulations that feel unbelievably realistic, and we can't differentiate between the physical world and more of These simulations.

A (69:29)

It's one of Elon Musk's biggest talking points. When this topic of simulation theory comes up is exactly what you described, Seb. But we'll leave you with that thought experiment. I don't know, right? I, I don't have an opinion, but I do find it to be a fascinating thought experiment and fun to kind of just tease out because how would.

B (69:51)

We know the pace?

A (69:52)

Well, and the other thing that I, that I find fascinating are all these AI environments that are just kind of ad hoc, making like they're showing videos of these things. I don't know if we've ever put it on the screen of one of the podcasts, but maybe we did earlier. But it's just making up this environment and you're watching this video of somebody like walking down a street and it looks completely real and it's just being made up on the fly by AI. And then there's a bit of a memory component that if you turn around and that you saw a tree just, you know, a couple minutes ago, that if you turn around and start walking back the other direction, the tree will still be there for a certain amount of time. And yeah, like, it's just that environment's being made up. And so I can't imagine in 20 years where this is. And then the memory recall of like, what's been experienced in this made up world that somebody's going around and sensing in virtual reality. And I guess I say all this because it's teasing out this idea that you bring up, which is like, how do you know what is real and what you're experiencing is reality? Because, you know, you go into any of these theoretical physics conversations and they'll tell you that what you think, you know, is not that at all. It's very, very, very different from a quantum mechanics standpoint.

B (71:06)

But anyway, absolutely, and we've spoken about it on previous episodes where Nvidia is creating, I think it's cosmos, which is their like simulation so that people are able to test robotics and simulated world before they enter the physical world. And these simulated worlds are getting so realistic now. They have fluid dynamics, they have gravity, they're able to apply all of these very various, like, physics pressures and such. And so I think that the world we're living in is really, really fascinating. We're at a point where we're kind of joining the physical and the digital world to the point where it's just like, are we going to be able to separate them? Because I do think that there's this teenagers there's kids that are growing up in this new world, and sometimes they get confused between what is real and what's not because of that constantly interacting socially, digitally, everything emotionally in the digital world.

A (71:55)

Yeah. All right, guys, we're going to wrap here. I hope you guys enjoyed the conversation. Seb, we'll probably do this again in like two weeks to kind of COVID the other topics that we didn't even get to. Most importantly, we want to cover this Tristan Harris discussion on the Diary of a CEO Stephen Bartlett's podcast. A couple different topics that were brought up there we want to discuss on the show in addition to more tech topics. If you guys are loving this, let us know in the comments. We're having fun. Hopefully you're having fun here in some of the different topics that we're bringing to you. And if you have any recommendations of things you want to hear, bring them to us on X and we'll be sure to try to incorporate it into the next show that we do. So, Seb, give people a hand off to your book or anything else that you want to highlight that's out there, and then we'll go ahead and wrap.

B (72:39)

Absolutely. And again, like, we really appreciate anyone who just kind of takes the time to give these episodes a lesson. So. So if at any point you're just like, oh, man, I'd love to hear you guys perspective on this technology or that technology, feel free to just share it in the comments. And yeah, we really want to talk about what's happening in the world today and just kind of share our perspective. And yeah, you can find me at sebunny and that's B U N N E Y on Twitter and my book the Hidden Cost of Money, or B is for Bitcoin. But again, appreciate everyone giving us a listen.

A (73:05)

Thank you for listening to tip. Make sure to follow Infinite Tech on your favorite podcast app and never miss out on our episodes. To access our show notes and courses, go to theinvestorspodcast.com this show is for entertainment purposes only. Before making any decisions, consult a professional. This show is copyrighted by the Investors Podcast Network. Written permissions must be granted before syndication or rebroadcasting.