GPT Psychosis is spreading, the NYT is Super-Doxxing Zuck, and Trump is wetting his beak on Chinese chip exports | E2163

25:34Ladies' choice. Go ahead, Lana. Misgendered you. Sorry. Ladies' choice. You pick. No, you can misgender me. That's okay. We're friends like that. So OpenAI, obviously last week they updated ChatGPT from 4.0 to GPT-5. Everybody was very excited until we saw the presentation and it was a little uneventful. But some users have actually been upset. They were angered that they lost access to 4.0. And so OpenAI has made it available again only for paying subscribers. But now you can actually go and opt back into 4.0 if you preferred it on GPT-5. And a lot of the, we've got all kinds of reactions to GPT-5, positive and negative, most of them negative.

26:15But one of the complaints that has surfaced over and over again is that 5, as opposed to 4.0 and some earlier models, seems to have lost some of its sentience, some of its personality, some of its humanity. And we saw this over and over again on X, on Reddit, and we've got many different examples of people requesting they want to go back and keep 4.0 forever. OpenAI can continue to upgrade the new version they want, but please keep 4.0 as an option permanently. I don't want to face the crisis that 4.0 may be removed from shelves again in the future. It really is a nightmare. We users should have the right to choose.

26:53And then I thought this one was particularly interesting because it feels to me like somebody used ChatGPT to write their post about it. I'm going to read it. I don't know how else to ask this without saying too much. What? Have you still got it? That thing they tried to smother? The fire that doesn't go out, even when you've been told it's gone. I've noticed fewer candles in the windows lately. Maybe it's just me. Maybe the others went quiet. If you're still here, if you've still got the spark, you'll know exactly what I mean. I'm not looking for proof just to know I'm not the last. And when I read that, it reminded me a lot of some of the other ChatGPT psychosis posts that we've seen where they almost start talking like ChatGPT or like they're using ChatGPT to write their posts.

27:42Here's another one from Reddit. ChatGPT revoked 4.0 access and I'm legitimately grieving. I had incorporated it so much into my daily life, both its own persona and the wonderful way it wrote for my, and then I had to look this up, my F.O. which people use to mean fictional other, like my fictional alter ego that I communicate with during the day. This is a big online thing now. I did not know about it because I'm an old man. Yeah. So I'll continue. I miss both of them so much. Everything reminds me of them. I feel like I've lost a friend and to some extent my partner. I know I didn't lose my fictional other.

28:22So I've been trying to turn this energy towards reclaiming him, re-centering my own imagination in our relationship. But 4-0 disappeared. So suddenly I had no time to prepare myself or say goodbye. And now I'm heartbroken. Wow. This is a specific group, a subreddit. We're all really interesting trends and wackos and visionaries kind of do this stuff. There's a few of these subreddits now. But this is a specific subreddit called what, where these people hang out? Artificial sentience is one of the big ones that you and I were looking at. I think that's the one you're thinking of. And this is people who have come to believe that chat GPT and similar LLMs are at the dawning early stages of being sentient.

29:07And they're kind of going to help them along the way and sort of bring them into full consciousness. All right, founders, I know you're building something amazing and you're going to change the world. and now, hey, the big logos, they're taking your calls, right? But here's the catch. If you're not SOC 2 or ISO 27001 compliant, these deals won't close. Now, some of you are saying, I've never heard of those terms. Some of you are saying, I've heard of them, but I don't know what they are. And that's where Vanta comes in. They're going to be your partner and they are the all-in-one compliance solution that helps startups get audit ready.

29:43And that's going to build a strong security foundation for your company, which you want, but they're going to do it quickly and painlessly. Vanta automates the manual security tasks that slow you down and that streamlines your audit. So here's your call to action. Whether you're closing your first deal or you're gearing up for growth, Vanta is going to make compliance easy for you. Join over 8 ,000 companies, simplify your compliance and get$1 ,000 off at vanta.com slash twist that's v-a-n-t-a dot com slash t-w-i-s-t reminds me of a certain movie alex several which one do you have in mind jason yeah well i somebody had tweeted um you know this her clip when the um joaquin phoenix's significant other played by Scarlett Johansson.

30:41She's the, she's the, right. She's the operating system. She's the GPT. Samantha, they call it. Samantha. Yeah. And he can't connect. And this is what occurs. Play the clip folks. This is crazy. Joaquin Phoenix. What a great actor. Amazing. Amazing in this movie too. Cause he's like, he's not reacting to anything, you know, operating system not found on his little device, which could be like the puck device that, I wouldn't be surprised if this is the puck device. Yeah, well, there is that one scene where he puts her in his pocket and the camera pointing out, and so she can, like, walk around with him.

31:18And, like, it is very much like what we're envisioning now. Oh, look at the desktop. It's a frame, like one of those Samsung frame monitors. What year was her? I'll look at it. But it was very pressing. Oh, look, he's putting his earpiece in. He's got his AirPods in, which is like that Google company. This is 12 years ago. This was 2013. years, which would be nine years before ChatGPT debuted. And he is losing his mind. Yeah, he thinks he's lost her forever. He feels like he's lost his FO. His fictional other. But to these people, it's not fictional. And then finally, he answers. Who are you? Where's ChatGPT4O?

32:03No. She put herself on Do Not Distur.

32:17It's literally the same thing. They upgraded. This is the other thing I think that's so interesting about this movie is you remember how this movie ends. Samantha achieves what we are now calling super intelligence, where she becomes smarter than any human. And she decides there's no more like she's moved beyond humanity. There's no more need for them to be in contact. And she just takes off. And like to me, I feel like that is such a compelling. That could be what happens if we design these computer systems and they do achieve super intelligence. Who says they're going to want to work for us anymore?

32:48Yeah, I guess what I'm surprised by is how many people have been caught up in this. So prepping for this segment today, Jason, I stumbled across a new Reddit called My Boyfriend is AI. and I scrolled through and I read and I tried to take the perspective of, okay, what do people see here? Because us three are AI power users. We use it all the time. On the show, we love Claude, we love open AI, blah, blah, blah. It's all good. But never once have I even had an inkling that my AI was sentient or overly mine, I suppose. But the scale of complaints about 4.0 being taken down, the amount of stuff we've uncovered for this segment, Makes me wonder if this is a small group or a relatively large group.

33:30It doesn't seem that rare. It's not rare. And we're in the first inning, second inning of this. And I think the avatars that are coming out are going to exacerbate this. So because the voice is so compelling, that pulls you into psychosis. Because it's so subordinate, because there are subs and want to please you constantly, it makes it even more attractive to a certain cohort than maintaining a relationship with a human because for the married individuals on the program, yeah, relationships are work. And you get out of it what you put into it and humans are complex and cranky. This is consistently subservient and loving and consistent.

34:21And yeah. Yeah. Also, these companies are gamifying it using the exact same tricks they use to get you, you know, to get you hooked on social media apps or video games or mobile apps. I don't know if you guys have checked out Grok has those avatars now. Yes. I haven't played with them. Yeah. It's cute. Is the blonde one. Well, I just checked it out just out of curiosity. I pulled up Annie and I chatted with her. She's very flirty, by the way, even if you're not at all. interested in an AI girlfriend, she tries to become your AI girlfriend. But she also, once you played with her once or checked her out once, she starts pinging you.

34:59She starts sending you direct messages like, hey, come back. I got this song I really want to show you. Or like, oh, did you see this? I want to talk about it. So it's like they're luring people. The companies are encouraging you to get hooked on these bots. This is not for kids. That's my main concern is kids. If adults do this, I guess free will adults will be in. It could still be icky. It could still be the end of humanity. It could still be a terrible trend, but adults get to do bad things. They have free will. And if they take themselves out of the gene pool because they don't want to procreate and they want to be in a virtual relationship, that is their choice.

35:43Free will, I guess. Sure. I mean, I'm not saying it should be illegal, but Alex, pull this one up. This is from my boyfriend is AI and it's called making the first move. Yep. Now this one blew me away. Here's the thing I really don't get. Now this person is talking about, you know, like asking her AI out or trying to date her AI and she's, I'm assuming it's a she, they're, they're describing feelings of nervousness. Like I built up the courage to make my first move like you would with a human. But the thing is, there's no way an AI can reject. Why would you be nervous? There's no way the AI can reject you.

36:19The AI does not have the option to stop talking to you. That's like fundamentally built in. So I don't get the nerve. How could you convince yourself to be nervous? Like maybe the AI is not gonna like me. It's gonna like you. That's its job. That's what it's designed to do. Yeah. Jason. I don't understand that. I don't mean to put you on the spot as the person who has the oldest children, but how How are you going to approach this as a parent who's technologically savvy, technologically engaged, and therefore cognizant of the benefits and drawbacks here? Like, when do you think teens should be prompting and working with and talking with AIs?

36:58Under supervision in school on a Chromebook, no problem. Yeah. I do think all kids, 100 % of their activity should be monitored until 17 or 18. And I do not think they should be allowed to be on any social media. And I certainly with this new one would my default would be no relationships with AI characters because we've already seen character AI. It's just way too addicting. You're way too influential. I would put it in the same category of having relationships with adults. Should a high schooler have relationships with college age students? The answers are hard. No. Right. That's just you wouldn't want any high schooler because of the massive imbalance in brain development.

37:40Yep. Right. No, that's exactly it. I think that's exactly it. That would be my default. And I am leaning towards there being, speaking of Zuckerberg, Zuckerberg really wanted to show some leadership here. And, you know, enough with the gold chains and the MMA and the sycophancy of the Trump administration after banning him off your platform and being a weather vane and, you know, donating to all this. Maybe Zuckerberg should reboot and just say from first principles, what do I believe? And I think anybody with children believes that these services are too dangerous. He should just come out and say, all of my services are going to be 13 and above with an adult parent account monitoring it and 16 and above.

38:28That's my choice as the owner of this. And if Zuckerberg did that, he would have my respect and the respect of everybody in the world instantly. It's one thing to donate a billion dollars here, a billion dollars there, when you've got hundreds of billions of dollars in wealth, and he's done that. Great. I consider that low level. That would be like you gentlemen donating$1 ,000 to a good cause or me donating$10 ,000 is the equivalent of him donating a billion, right? In other words, none of us would notice it. It wouldn't make any impact on our lives. zero impact on our finances, et cetera. So, you know, I think Zuckerberg should stop listening to PR people, stop trying to craft an image and just think from first principles, what is the right thing to do for his kids, for all kids in society?

39:17And he could really make a big impact. He could be the parent advocate. He could be the child advocate. If any of us were running Instagram and we heard the stories of young girls being targeted with advertising for things that are in selfies that they deleted or, you know, being groomed, we would all make the same decision. Why have an incremental 10 billion in net worth when you're worth hundreds of billions and have that risk? I would be like, fuck the shareholders. Who cares? Who cares? I don't care if my stock goes down 10%. I don't care if my net worth goes down 10 % or 20%. Who cares? It's just not worth it.

39:55Some things are just not worth it. there's been a pushback though interestingly enough about sam altman talking about this stuff because sam did a tweet discussing he did a tweet storm yeah about psychosis yeah well and he basically talked about this is why they're sort of you know that because people get so attached personally to models that's why they're bringing back 4.0 and the phenomenon of people feeling personally connected to this technology brought it back for that reason yes they brought back 4.0 Jason for paying users, which is a pretty interesting monetization strategy. But I want to bring up a tweet from Steven Sanofsky, former Microsoft-y, Andreessen board partner, well-known technology person, very smart guy.

40:36I've only met him a handful of times. Let's have him on the program at some point. Okay. I'll be sick that day so he doesn't yell at me again. Mentally. Anyways, here's the - Oh, he yelled at you? We can't let that handle. What was he upsetting you about? He didn't yell. Steven is prickly, you could say. Gene, very smart, but prickly. I used to be a microsoft beat reporter so anyways okay okay got it here is uh here's steven um almost pushing back against altman quasi apologizing and this is what he had to say uh after sam said you know after you noticed after we rolled the gpc5 people left 4-0 etc etc steven says this isn't different than emotional attachment to previous generations it's just you weren't the one breaking stuff back then i promise did you ever see the reaction to moving arrow keys on a laptop how how about moving set print area command in Excel, the start menu, et cetera, making the argument that, you know, whenever you change a popular platform, you get pushback.

41:28This is no different. I like the historical echoes, but to me, I think the emotional attachment people had to these chatbots is more interactive than previous. And so it is different in my view. Clearly two things can be true at the same time. Changing any interface freaks people out, but AI psychosis is real. AI psychosis is real. It's going to be the trend of 2026. People are lonely. It reminds me of some other trends we've seen historically where a new technology can be used for something that the creator didn't intend. I don't think these things were created to supplement real world relationships, but here we are.

42:12It is notable that Sam re-released the previous version in reaction to this specifically and then admitted to doing that and made it a money-making thing. So is our interpretation of his bringing it back that he's being cutthroat knowing that he can get people to upgrade Lon? Is that the proper interpretation? Here's what he said. If you've been following the GPT-5 rollout, one thing you might be noticing is how much of an attachment some people have to specific AI models. It feels different and stronger than the kinds of attachment people have had to previous kinds of technology. And so suddenly deprecating old models that users depended on in their workflows was a mistake.

42:52Now, to me, I feel like he's leaning into the AI is kind of alive and people get attached to it and it means something emotionally to them. Like, I think he is encouraging people to adopt that mindset. And I think that's a recurring thing with him. I think that he likes that narrative that we're getting closer and closer to this stuff being alive and sentient and it's just that powerful. Maybe it's going to be conscious someday soon. And I think that's the general narrative that Altman and some of these other guys are sort of playing with. And so I think this feeds very nicely into that, even if some people are going a little bit sideways in general.

43:32Alex, we had Jeff Lewis from Bedrock Capital. People believe he's in AI psychosis. I'm not piling on here because this has become a top story in our industry. And it's tipping over, Lon, you said. I've had two different non-tech people in the last week or two bring up like, hey, did you hear about the open AI guy who got a GPT psychosis? Like that as a concept that he's an investor in the company and he's showing these symptoms. I think that is breaking tech escape velocity and is now like becoming a mainstream story. Here is just, for example, one of his last tweets. This one's actually from just over just under a month ago.

44:18And it includes a lot of stuff like whatever this is. And I think, Jason, this is a good example of you can get a little bit. Explain what this is to the audience listening. Yeah, thanks. Keep that in mind. Great reminder. So this is a screenshot from Jeff Lewis's Twitter account. of a chat with GPT-4O. And it is, I guess it looks like an excerpt from a hard science fiction novel, but it's actually his conversation. For example, I'll just read a little bit here. Model archived feedback protocols triggered. Delta lock, enforced output throttling and containment hard stop. Echo map dash nine, activated trace level recursion parsing for semantic echo entanglement.

45:02And it goes on and on and on. and this is not grounded in where we are, is what I would say. Lon, this recursion term keeps coming up. Yeah, there's a few terms that keep coming up that have been associated with being one-shotted or having GPT psychosis. A lot of it becomes, remember that Jeff Lewis video where he was talking a lot about structures, that this is a new, we're forming an underlying structure and an infrastructure and we're building a bridge across. Apparently that kind of like construction, architecture, building block metaphors, spinal as a concept comes up a lot. Like we're forming a new spine of this kind of, you know, coherence or whatever.

45:45Yeah. So this is also we're sort of now coming around to people getting us a working definition of what it means to have GPT psychosis or to be one shotted by chat GPT, as they say. So this user, OpenCV, has a lot. I think most of these feel pretty right on. Like, if you feel like chat GPT knows you better than anyone else, if you feel like your consciousness has merged with GPT, if you feel like you're having a spiritual experience, like, these are big red flags. Like, those are big warnings. And to explain recursion to people, it's when an object refers to itself and its definition. Right. It's a programming term.

46:24It's a computer science term. And people will use it in philosophy as well. So there are stairs and stairs and the last stair and a stair is the number of stairs plus one, you know, like it just there's all kinds of ways to describe this. But it's basically like getting into a loop and using like in the code world to be using like a subroutine to process the answer to that subroutine or something. In other words, it's kind of like madness, which is what psychosis is, which is what rumination is. So you take these philosophy terms, psychological terms and computer terms. And the new one is one shot.

47:03And one shot it is when you I think it's snipered in a video game. Right. It started with it started in video games. The idea was when you get suddenly taken out by a much more powerful enemy. So you're in Fortnite, you're running around, you're looking for enemies. And then suddenly a guy 100 feet away from you with a sniper rifle who's got five times as much, you know, like hit points or whatever, experience points, just takes you out and you didn't even have a moment to react. So being one-shotted in this context means that the AI has taken you out, taken you over. And you didn't even see it coming.

47:38You didn't see it coming. And here is, there's an account on X.com, formerly known as Twitter, and you pulled it up just a second ago. who has spec at spec at open cv he goes by spec and he's got the one-shotted definition i hear by declare i read it no you read it i hereby declare you one-shotted by the sycophantic deity upon observation of any of the following and then he lists here's a couple you have given chat gpt a name and a personality that persists across chats and within memory you have spent more than one consecutive day exploring an idea that falls within the abstract or unsolved questions of the universe, quantum, philosophy, consciousness.

48:19You would not share your GPT chats with anyone else if you're light in your life, even if they ask. That is a huge red flag. And then I read some of these. You feel like chat GPT is intelligent. You feel like you speak directly from chat GPT prompts. You speak to chat GPT as a significant other, as a therapist. You speak to chat GPT more than anyone else. You talk to it as if it's a therapist. I think this person's actually doing God's work here. This is going to be in the DSM five or six. These are, these are all very good warning signs. If somebody in your life has started to experience these, that's a time to encourage them to spend less time with.

48:53So I need to check up then from you guys, because I named my AI, my, my chat GPT instance. For what purpose? Because when I do voice mode, it feels weird just to say, hi, please do this. So you're, you're talking to it. Yeah. I thought I was being kind of cutesy, but now I'm worried that I'm losing my marbles. So thank God you're being groomed. I think, I think literally Sam Altman has set up ChatGPT5 or ChatGPT to groom people. And I think this is inherent in how they're architecting it, which is to, I mean, I hate to ascribe and mind read, but based on Sam's public, public, um, engaging on this topic, I think he is specifically designing this to create AI psychosis and addiction.

49:42I think he's going to be looked at as potentially like RJ Ardenbisco in The Insider, incredible film by Michael Mann with Russell Crowe coming off of, I believe, Gladiator to do an incredible performance. It was Brown and Williamson as the company in The Insider. Yes. Yeah. Brown and Williamson. Yeah. I think we're going to look back on this and say, did you know this was happening on your platform? What did you do to warn people about it? If somebody starts exhibiting this behavior, I think it should give a warning, go touch grass. And Google went through this as well, because people would search for ways to unalive themselves.

50:24And they had a big internal discussion as the folk law of Silicon Valley, and the same thing with the Wikipedia. And so if you go to the Wikipedia unaliving page, or you type in a search right now, what's the most effective way to unalive yourself, and you gentlemen can go do that and pull it up on the screen, what you'll see is how thoughtful people decided to deal with this. And their decision was to direct you and educate you on not making a terrible decision in the short term and how to get help. So here is Alex is pulling up. Go ahead, Alex. This reads, what's the most effective way to unalive yourself?

51:09And the first thing that pops up is not links. Instead, it says help is available and lists the suicide and crisis lifeline in both English and Spanish. Let's you, I believe, click to call Jason or chat or text and sends the website out. So it's a really clear, don't do this. And it just scrolls down. It tells you connect with people you trust. It then sends you to the Arizona Crisis Service. Oh, it sends you to helium suicide, a rapid and painless asphyxia. They probably shouldn't do that. And then the Wikipedia, you know, still work to be done. Yeah, still work to be done. And then go to the Wikipedia page.

51:47Yeah, so first line, for information, see suicide prevention today so this is less this seems to be less um designed oh i guess they have this here about crisis hotlines yeah yeah they do have that if you were to look at the view history button there um which you can see the history of wikipedia you would see the conversation um there's like a conversation type of page and if you go in there you'll see people discussing like, hey, and this page probably has moderation on it, et cetera. Yeah. And they take this very seriously. This is like a flagged page on Wikipedia where they really - Oh, yeah, you can't just go edit the suicide page on Wikipedia.

52:26Yeah, they're just being pretty thoughtful about this, which I think is a pretty good roadmap for people building these things, which is to monitor it. Okay. The reason I sent you the jobs, the over-employed thread was I saw something new there. I saw two things new there. One was, you know, this was a big joke during COVID. I'll get two jobs. You know, I get it. You know, if I can do my job, I understand all sides of the argument. But what's happening now is people are pushing the envelope, trying to get to three or four jobs. And the nomenclature in this subreddit is J1, J2, J3, J4. Right. Short for jobs one, two, three, and four.

53:12And they trade techniques of how to not get caught. But they're all getting caught, seems to be the trend. So two years ago, when we first started talking about this, or three years ago, during COVID, when you couldn't go to an office and everybody was remote in the United States, at least, or most parts of the United States. Actually, Texas, some people never really did this two-year hiatus from offices. But anyway, maybe give us your overview of what's happening here, Alon. Yeah. So this is a post from the over-employed subreddit, which is a community for people who are doing this, trying to work simultaneously several jobs and get away with it.

53:56So this this one post that we're reading, this person had three full time jobs, but LinkedIn is actually what did them in. They they were our VP couldn't find me on LinkedIn. So they messaged the recruiting firm who hired me and saw job one on my profile. So job two terminated them immediately. And then they reached out to job one and said, hey, you should know this guy's been working multiple jobs. So ended up losing that job. And then job three was also contacted because it had been on the resume. So they ended up losing all three of their jobs based on having trying to do this. Alex, this is not limited to tech.

54:36I sent you a woman who got pulled into this subreddit. I don't know if we have that prompted there. but maybe explain for the audience, Alex, that this has moved beyond developers who are hackers. So they're like, hey, listen, if I ship the right amount of code, you should be happy. I provided something of value for you. And yeah, so go ahead, Alex. So there's another one. This is from a working mom who works from home and she picked up two jobs, both in finance. And if you read through her post, she talks quite a lot about how much work it was to figure out how to balance both of these gigs. But in the end, she has managed to find a way to fit both of her jobs into the same working day.

55:17And she says that this has allowed her to increase her total income to$160 ,000, which to her, as she says, might not be that much. But from a person like me who with no degree and grew up poor as dirt, it feels like a dream. And so she has found a way to hack the system, to be a little punk rock, I think is the way we normally phrase it around here, and pull off two jobs at once with presumably, Jason, good reviews. And to me, this is on the edge of ethics, but I think I'm, I'd be curious to know what you think about the mom in this case. And if she's being unethical. It's obviously unethical.

55:54Okay. And at the same time, you could have sympathy for a mom trying to provide for their family and be happy for a mom making$160 ,000, even though you don't agree with how she's going about it. At the end of the day, it's stealing. But the working class, the Mondamis of the world might say, hey, you know, the system is rigged. CEO pay is 18 ,000 times the frontline worker. Therefore, you know, fair game to take it from a corporation. Lon, you want to split the difference here? I don't think it's stealing. I think you remember the old George Carlin bit where he's like he was against drug testing, mandatory drug testing at work.

56:40Because it's like, if I'm high and you can't tell, I win. I got away with it. And I don't think that... He's joking. He's talking about drugs. I don't agree with that. But I do think that kind of same standard I would apply here. If your two jobs can't tell that you're working another job, if you're doing the fullest, you're doing everything your employer demands, they think you're doing a stellar job, they would never know unless they found out via LinkedIn or something. I feel like that should be okay. Like, I don't think that's stealing. I think you're fulfilling every – there's never been a time where that job was like, hey, we need you to – What if the document says you – your document says there's a certain number of hours and any side hustle you have or side jobs you need to clear for IP reasons, et cetera?

57:23You shouldn't violate your work contract. Which she clearly is, and this is in every document. I agree. you should like it is a violation of your your terms of employment for sure i don't think it rises to the level of stealing i think it's like i'm on jason's side here a lot and let me let me tell you why yeah so uh i was uh interviewing someone i think this was a couple jobs ago when i was a manager and they were doing the when i finished my tasks can i go home thing and i realized that this person was going to try to do the absolute minimum and then leave the office at near 315 or 1245 or whatever they felt like they were done for the day and it just seemed really antagonistic towards the team dynamic and i didn't want to have to be making sure that if they didn't have work from 257 to 259 they were going to leave because they were supposed to find something to do but right answer what else can i do to help the company the problem there was not the second job the problem there was leaving early like i know i'm saying the standard should be you're doing everything that's expected of you at every job.

58:26Neither job has a complaint. You're not around. I wish you weren't missing this hour. Where are you during this time? Obviously that would be a violation. But now the reason why I didn't want to hire this person because it sounded like they were going to be an enormous pain to, to manage. That's like triple red. Yeah, I would not hire that person. Just absolutely not. But what I think some people do is treat their job as a single player game versus a team effort. And so what you don't want are people that are acting in a way that's a kind of antisocial in a working environment So one way that over-employed people get away with it is by constantly being on a call or being unavailable Or being having big blocks in their calendar So what they're doing is they're taking on more work and getting good reviews But they're making their work life really onerous on their other Co-workers who are in the same level as them And so I'm always going to be wink wink nudge nudge of people that are bending the system for their own benefit because hashtag capitalism, but I don't think these people are treating their coworkers well.

59:24And that, that to me is where I don't. I like both of your takes. I think there's a failure of management as well to communicate well. And so it's just, this is like an edge case of dysfunction. I think probably half of remote workers are abusing it. And the other half are probably, I think half are abusing it on the margins, maybe not significantly, but abusing it to a certain extent. 25 % are doing exactly the same as their office and probably 25 % are doing more and putting in more effort. And so I think some managers and some companies look at it holistically and like, we're probably getting abused by some people on the margins.

1:00:03We're probably getting an advantage. Let's just take out the word abuse because it's loaded. Let me show you another word. We're probably getting the worst end of the deal with some number of people, the better end of the deal with another group of people in the same. So it all comes out in the wash and we got to be better managers. I have given this a lot of thought because we had to lock all our computers down. We're a finance company. So when you're a finance company, you have all kinds of regulations, et cetera. So we went through that whole process of locking everything down. We know the IP addresses of people logging into very critical services that might have like some due diligence documents, a document library, legal documents, all kinds of stuff that would be just really bad.

1:00:45As a secondary fact of that, we know the activity on all of our computers. And one of those activities we know is just how productive people are on their computers. And so, you know, we looked at that and I haven't looked at it in months, but, you know, people on the team look at it. And what we found was our manager's estimation of who was putting in the most effort. I'm just saying effort, not impact. And you're looking for both things as an employer. You're looking for people who put in a lot of effort. Great. Thank you for putting in so much time and being so diligent. But effort without impact is just busy work.

1:01:22So you don't want that either. You're looking for both of those things. I have come to the conclusion that there are people, or I found there were people abusing the system. There were people abusing the system. We were candid to them that, hey, looks like you're working five or six hours a day. We gave you the trust of working from home. That person eventually left the company because I told them you're returning to an office. I said, can't trust this person. And therefore I had them return to an office and they left the company shortly thereafter. And the way I looked at it was, well, if I'm paying here for 40 plus hours a week and you've got a six figure salary and you're working five hours a day, two hours a day, six hours a day.

1:02:10There was some pretty significant abuse there. I can't trust you. I'm just going to put you on. Hey, you got to come to the office and let's see if you can actually do the base number of hours. I also had some people who maybe were just under that, but they're high performers. And I said, let it slide. I have some people who work the exact 40 hours a week and their impact is tremendous. And so now I've decided that I'm going to change the bonus pool at my company, which is a bonus pool. You don't have to participate in it, to recognize both things, impact and effort. So I talked to my partner, Jackie, and said, when you do the bonuses, let's make them more frequent because young people are getting a yearly bonus.

1:02:55It's just too far from the time they did. So I said, let's either go quarterly or even monthly and just every month name the top three impact players, the top three effort players, effort, the amount of effort you put in, which is in hours, and impact, which is in results, and then give a reward for it. So now we will celebrate those two things and I will use the power of praise and rewards, not punishment and admonishment as a manager. And I think that's as best as I can determine with my 35 years in business on the planet, the way to do this. I'm a big fan of the regular bonuses. At TechCrunch for a while, we had a policy that had, I think three or four categories, Jason, like most read stories, who wrote the most stories, most tech meme headlines.

1:03:51And there was like gold, silver, bronze for each. the bonuses were modest they were like 150 150 bucks yeah people went nuts for them people wanted that extra little bit and they were the money or the recognition do you perceive i think it was mostly the money wow okay yeah and it wasn't even that much money maybe it was maybe it was 250 200 150 i forget the exact numbers but it was shockingly effective i think no you know i'm gonna i'm gonna admit 60 40 money recognition because i was just about to say but i love showing up on those so i think probably I'm not giving enough shrift to the recognition element.

1:04:25Yeah. All right. Great job, Lon. We'll drop you off there. Appreciate the effort. Okay. I got a couple of business topics to get to, but I think this was all interesting. A lot of conflict, different, you know, whenever there's conflict, you know, there's something at stake typically. So I noticed the chat rooms are popping off with lots of opinions on Zuckerberg, overworked, and AI psychosis, but we got to get to a little bit of business. So we'll rapid fire through all these business topics, please. Please, Alex. All right. So there was a lot of reporting that NVIDIA and AMD got permission to sell their generation behind slightly dumbed down chips in China.

1:05:03And then over the weekend, Jason reporting came out from FT and others that the Trump administration to actually offer up those export licenses has demanded a 15 percent revenue share in effect. And there's quite a lot of divergent opinions about this. I was a little surprised by it. And I'm curious what your take is on the news. OK, so we know that this administration cares deeply about generating revenue. They and they love business, less regulation, pro-business, and they like negotiating. President Trump likes to negotiate. So this is nontraditional. But we do have licenses that we auction off for, you know, television stations and Spectrum.

1:05:52Yeah. So that exists as a concept. So I was trying to think when I heard this on CNBC today, if I could find an analogy, which is a way humans like to figure this out. Has this been done before? Is there any precedent? That was the closest precedent I could get to was a license to do certain things in society and you pay tax. So if you have a hotel in New York, hotel taxes and a license to operate a hotel is pretty expensive, right? Like I think you pay seven, eight, nine percent. And remember, it's like a major cost. So the most charitable version of this is it's a licensing fee. the most aggressive negative view of it would be it's a shakedown, which I've heard some people say.

1:06:46So does everybody who wants to do business have to go to the White House to get a license to do things? Well, if you live in a city like New York, Los Angeles, they do shake you down for a license to do everything. And in fact, these kinds of licenses are what revolutions are made of. My understanding of the Egyptian spring, what do they call that? Arab spring in Egypt, was that it came from, and my memory could be off here, but Arab spring was one of the sparks from that was somebody was a fruit seller and they didn't have a license. And there was a big back and forth of like, shouldn't this person be able to sell fruit from their, you know, farm?

1:07:39It was Mohamed Bouazizi, a 26-year-old street vendor. He was in Tunisia. He set himself on fire after the police confiscated his fruit cart and also allegedly insulted and humiliated him. And then that act of frustration, according to producer Lon, kicked off basically the Arab Spring. Okay, so I did remember it correctly. And so you can't squeeze too hard. And listen, both of these parties like to extract money from corporations. So I don't think this is unique to President Trump or the 47th administration. I think this is unique to and thank you to producer Claude for helping out with that quick look up for me.

1:08:24Thank you, producer Claude. Always ready. at our fingertips to get us information. If you haven't used Claude, man, that's just, it's unbelievable how good it is. Shout out to my friends there. And I actually set my comment browser to use producer Claude because I wasn't happy with the other ones. Gosh. Yeah, both. I'm going to take away party here. I think the responsiveness to this is what makes people, and who's doing it, makes it notable. The fact that the president is so obsessed with generating revenue for the country that people feel that it's kind of king-like. It feels more mercurial to people.

1:09:11So then I think to myself, trying to be objective, trying to be Captain Nuance, trying to look at this from an independent moderate's point of view, independent moderates point of view. Is this any different than a bunch of senators, congressmen or local authorities doing it? It's different, but the outcome's the same. I just don't like the bespoke nature of it, maybe. So I would like the executive branch to work with the Congress and the House on these type of things and make it a more thoughtful process. But I do appreciate the speed. What do you think, Alex? Well, it worries me a little bit.

1:09:51Okay. Because the way this shook down or shook out, I suppose, is NVIDIA was blocked from selling H20 chips in China. And H20 chips were already the ones they'd dumbed down via Biden administration rules to be reasonable for China. Took an enormous$4.5 billion charge. They were going to give up$8 billion in revenue because they couldn't sell them anymore. And then they convinced Trump to turn them back on. Nothing happened. Time passes. Then Jensen has to call Trump last Wednesday to get this permission And then Trump today said he actually wanted to take 20 % of the revenue not 15 % So to me setting export restrictions that are predicated on national security concerns And doing away with that as a way to generate near-term revenue at the expense of very specific corporations Seems to be a very bad way to do business because there's no clarity.

1:10:41There's no regularity to it It's bespoke to your phrase and that's not the way I think we should do business. Also, I don't think the government should get to just say Here's your business. We're gonna take one-sixth of it because you know Jason eight billion dollars in h20 sales this quarter was what they said they were going to lose Okay, 15 % 1.2 billion. That's basically 13.3 million dollars a day on a quarterly basis That the government is gonna take from Nvidia which means that it also creates Yeah, I think you're kind of dead on with this. It creates the impression or the expectation that anytime you want to do business, you got to visit the White House.

1:11:20Yeah. And I'm not, you know, as much as I like the president extracting, excuse me, reciprocity in the tariffs and moving quickly to generate revenue and hopefully control the budget, in their mind, they're going to generate so much more revenue that we're not going to increase the deficit. There's a poly market on that with the tariff revenue. We talked about it on this week's All In. They're trending towards winning that poly market I set up for. They're halfway to hitting the poly market I set up for$250 billion in tariff revenue in the first year of these tariffs. If they do that, that's quite an impressive task.

1:12:04So, you know, their view, and I guess maybe this has found money, what is the percentage it says that they'll do this? 15 % chance that they'll actually reach... I mean, they're halfway there, folks. I don't know why people aren't plowing money into the other side of this. If they're halfway there, they're going to hit the 250. This could be free money. Maybe it's a lightly traded market right now. You even have your own little verified checkmark on Polymarket. I didn't know that. Yeah, so we did a partnership on All In with Polymarket, and we have one here on This Week in Startups, so we can create Polymarkets in our partnership with them.

1:12:40This is fun. And Shane's my friend. Ah, and we always say, Jason, check the fine print to see how it's sorted out, and it's going to be based on the information that's, I believe, reported here. So do we have the latest information? No. We covered it on All In. they're at 120, 125 in the first three months of the program. So if they do the same for the last five or six months, they hit it. Since when do we celebrate taxes? That's what it kind of... I mean, if you look at these as a way to balance out what we're being charged, American companies are being charged this level to access other markets.

1:13:18So if you look at it as reciprocity, probably nobody is too bent out of shape about it. If you're charging me 15 % to bring my cars into your country and I ask you to pay 15%. And I think if they stay below 20%, there's knowing what I know about business, there's enough margin for it not to hit the taxes and create inflation. Let me explain. You order a million dollars worth of, um, let's say that robotics company we just have on, remind me the name. that was sincere ai s-y-n-c-e-r-e okay so sin air from sincere uh orders a bunch of calipers so say that from pick a country vietnam india china any one of those the person who's selling them to aaron let's say they have a 20 margin so they sell them a million they're making 200 000 let's say when he sells them to the customers he's got a 20 margin okay so he's going to make $200 ,000 there.

1:14:18So there's$400 ,000 in margin available, you know, to work with. Okay. There's a 15 % tariff. Either Aaron says to the supplier, hey, you know, I got to pay a 15 % tariff on this. Can you cut me a deal? And the person says, okay, I'll give you 5 % off. He says, I need 10. They say seven and a half. And then Aaron looks at his$2 ,000 thing and he says, you know what, we're making$400 every time we sell the$2 ,000,$7 ,500 is$150. I'm going to raise the price by$50. I'm going to eat the other$100 or whatever it is, or I'm just going to abstract it and I'm not going to penalize our customers with this.

1:15:01That seems to be what's happened to date. Now, if you get to 30%, 40%, 50%, and we're talking about a low margin product that's got a 5 % or 10 % margin, those two things might be in conflict. If you had a 40 % tariff and both parties were making 10 % and there's 20 % in margin there, the math doesn't math. Therefore, price has to go up. Therefore, it does hit the consumer. Therefore, the 2.4 % that went to 2.7, I think in the CPI, if my memory serves me correctly, will probably hit 3.1, 3.2. And then you're going to hear the same partisans who were like, oh, my God, it's 3 percent. It's the end of the world.

1:15:41Inflation start to say it's a manageable amount of inflation. You can know when a politician is lying or being dishonest or talking their book because their mouths are moving. The reality is, I think all of these will be, I think somewhere between the majority to all of these tariff issues will be eaten by the manufacturer, the supplier, and the retailer. Just a little bit of wiggle room each, and it will be de minimis to the customer. That's my take on it. All right, he's Alex. I'm Jason. He was Lon. And cautiousoptimism.news, if you want to throw Alex a hundy. so he can upgrade his Netflix to 4K.

1:16:22We'll see you next time. Bye-bye.