Transcript [EN]: «Open AI — это пузырь»! Откровения из Кремниевой долины | Братья Либерманы

An absolutely crazy boom. This will be a world of great upheaval. We gathered in the courtyard somewhere near Altman's house. We'll place bets on when it will happen. Most are honest, go mine. This market is about 98% of them having a billion dollars in revenue a year ago. Now they have 15 billion dollars. I've seen Nvidia graphics. Oh, the Chinese. The Chinese, and it died out. Well, it died out. And why Kazakhstan? Wait, wait. We're sliding towards a world that is completely different from the one we would like to live in. Just recently, in Albania, they announced that they will have a minister. Superintendent will be available to everyone . Zero talk. Sounds great. The future is already here, but it is unevenly distributed. A robot for every person. This is your robot. It goes to work at the factory for you. Sounds provocative, but interesting. You're corresponding today, and you hope no one reads it. And they'll read it. It's funny. Your names, Elon's correspondence, are in court documents. Not funny. These networks are actually built by enthusiasts. It's all already gold. Everything has already been sawed up and divided. Huge social stratification, growing unemployment, and so on. He's changing our lives right now. Friends, hello everyone. A few facts about my guests today. Ah, they've been building companies for over 15 years. They sold one of their companies to Snapchat for $60 million. For their next company, after selling Product Science, they raised $18 million. They've also been building a fund for several years now that invests not just in companies, but in people and, accordingly, receives income from all the company's products that these people have created. In fact, this is only part of what they do. Plus, we already recorded a podcast a year and a half ago, and it has already garnered almost 1.5 million views. Actually, David and Daniil Liberman, please welcome. Hello, gentlemen. Hello. Welcome. What's interesting? Last time, we recorded an episode and talked about how our world would change, how the economy would change, if artificial intelligence really became a part of our lives. Literally a month passes, probably, and an absolutely crazy boom begins, which we are still witnessing today. And opinions differ. Some people say our world will never be the same. Basically, everything will be automated, technologically advanced, and so on. There are a huge number of skeptics who say it will all collapse like the dot-com boom in 1999. And in fact, only a small fraction of what we see today will remain. And all this is being inflated so that venture investors and banks can simply make money at this point in time. You are at the very epicenter, so to speak, of events. Firstly, it's the valley where all this is happening. Secondly, you yourself are actively involved in product development. And, in fact, you have a huge circle of contacts. Let's try to figure out what we actually have now, in your opinion. How much truth is there about a paradigm shift and a new future, and how much is there to the idea that all of this will depreciate and only a small part will remain? On the one hand, if you look at the chart of the 2000 bubble, you'll see that it no longer looks like a bubble, because the current market is an order of magnitude larger than what existed then and was considered overly inflated. Oh, Amazon was worth a lot less back then than it is now. Well, really, it subsequently fell by 98%, right? Look, maybe we can look at Bitcoin for a slightly more direct picture, one that would be more understandable to all of us. When this excitement arises, wow, excitement, then at that moment money can be attracted to projects that are nothing special , because it's very difficult to distinguish, yes, they are still very small, they all look like those that can become these giants, but it's very difficult to distinguish. And what happened in 2000 , there were several pure frauds. Literally senators participated in this process. Worldcom and Enron. These were companies that pretended to be Amazon and Google and were fooled into inflating their valuations. And then it all collapsed when their documentation, internal financial documentation, suddenly surfaced somewhere. When was this visible? This was in 2000. Yeah. There were even cases of outright fraud that spread everywhere. But now we see that not all of this was pure money, because Amazon, Google, Facebook, Microsoft, all that Anything worth these trillions is now making money. Back then, this boom was based on certain expectations. For example, it was based on the expectation that most products would be sold online. Back then, a very small percentage of products were sold online. Ah, but it was this expectation that gave rise to these gigantic valuations. Now, most products are sold online. It happened. It's been 25 years, right? It always takes longer. That's precisely the main reason for the bubble, because this excitement is based on the idea that everything will happen tomorrow, yes, just like people usually overestimate how much we can do in a year and underestimate what we can do in 10. Yes, something like that. Yes. And this will definitely happen with AI too. Ah, there were a lot of statements that AGI would happen in a year, and so on. It didn't happen through HI—it's this general artificial intelligence, yes, we'll talk about that a little later. This is the ultimate goal of the majority and companies right now—to create this universal, human-superior artificial intelligence. However, those who look more closely can no longer say that this is an unfounded expectation. I mean, the AI ​​bubble isn't just a bubble. It's clear where it really works. And what's more, people are paying. The end user is already paying those same $20 a month because they clearly understand how it changes their lives. Well, look, let me throw out some questions that are already swirling around in my head. For example, I looked at the forecasts of that same Open AI, and they're planning losses of $112 billion by 2030, I think, yes. Accordingly, that's a colossal amount of money. This is just the tip of the iceberg. If we look now, well, you'll see all this already in the investments that are happening, how they're hunting people for billions of dollars. These are simply absolutely incredible figures: a new company is opening, with seemingly endless amounts of money being poured into it. And so I immediately have a question. Of course, among the hundreds of these companies that have emerged, there will be these diamonds in the rough that will, in fact, become profitable in 10 years, earn trillions, change the world, and so on, just like Amazon and Microsoft and other companies. But I have a feeling that 98% of what we're seeing now is happening to the same thing, as you mentioned with the examples of Amazon duplicates and the like. Moreover, I personally have a question: when a company like Openi, for example, is pumped with so much money, does anyone even admit that this could simply be a mathematical implosion, that it might all just… well, the company won't break even, it will incur huge expenses, and I don't know, there will also be problems with electricity and with servicing all of this. And what will happen then? This market, in general, is 98% dying and will continue to die, as it has been for the last 30 years. That's precisely why it's so difficult to understand from the outside, because it seems like everyone made a mistake, investing in those 98 companies out of the 100 that died. But if you look at the long-term outlook and try to calculate all the money invested in ventures over that time, and then look at how much value was actually created, how much was returned to the investor, what was it? 5 times the amount invested, the total amount of results achieved. Results achieved. And in reality, it's normal that 98% die. And the main thing is that even if you try, you won't be able to distinguish which of them will actually become this huge giant. Whether it will be Open AI in the end or not, no one knows. Could it be that Open AI will disappear? Maybe, but this thesis is still based on the fact that, on average, all these attempts are justified by the statistically significant creation of such large scores. That is, it's no longer possible to look at companies like Google or Microsoft or Amazon as simply inflated cash. They have a capitalization ratio of capitalization to their actual profit. This ratio is lower than Walmart's. Yeah. So, they want companies that grow much faster than them, because these are already companies that continuously generate a very large amount of profit. Yeah. Net profit. And they justify all the investments made in a new company. And in this regard, yes, You might think that PNAI is highly valued, but a year ago they had a billion dollars in revenue, now they have $15 billion in revenue. You don't see this kind of speed; no other company has ever experienced this kind of growth. It's constantly at the top of the Android and Apple app stores. And, in fact, every new product release shakes things up. All the largest companies don't know what to do with it anymore. And so the hype around these companies and the hype around the reality of talent—you know, we're big fans of the value of talent. So, the fact that it's now become the norm that talent can be purchased for $100 million a year in salary or billions is changing the market entirely. Yes, but considering what they're creating, what they're creating uniquely—it's not like everyone can create such systems—it absolutely justifies the investment . Even though it's true, it's incredibly scary for someone who's not familiar with the market. Well, because it's incredibly scary to be wrong 98% of the time. There are experts who understand what to invest in, while everyone else understands that if they don't jump in now, they'll miss this wave and potentially miss everything they already have. They jump in, but with less professionalism. Any entrepreneur knows that risks are commonplace in business. Buying equipment, goods, and services for a business is always stressful. Everyone keeps telling you, "Check the supplier, don't transfer money upfront, be careful." And you're like, "I'll decide for myself." But sometimes, deciding for myself can lead to very unpleasant consequences. You transfer hundreds of thousands and in a second you're left with nothing if the supplier suddenly turns out to be a fraud. To secure transactions that don't depend on the counterparty's integrity, there's a reliable tool from Sberbank: a letter of credit for business. It allows you to securely conduct various transactions: from purchasing equipment and real estate to company shares or intellectual property. Sber annually processes up to 4 trillion of these secure transactions for its clients. It works simply. For example, you decide to buy equipment secondhand. You don't need to transfer money directly to the supplier. You register for the service in the SberBusiness app and deposit funds into a secure account. The bank freezes the funds and transfers them to the supplier only when you become the full owner of the goods. All documents will be verified by the bank, so you don't risk losing money or equipment and can complete the transaction with peace of mind. And if the transaction falls through, the funds will be returned to your account. The bank is responsible for reliability, making it easier for partners to decide whether to cooperate, especially if you have a young business or are entering into a new business. The result: more transactions, less downtime, and higher profits. If you are planning a major purchase for your business or entering into a new business, follow the link in the description or scan the QR code on the screen. Let's get started. Why is Silicon Valley currently experiencing the largest concentration of capital in the history of venture capital, spread across the smallest number of funds? Yeah. A huge concentration. Because, in reality, this large amount of outside capital from venture capitalists is already accustomed to them dropping in, dropping in, and constantly dropping in awkwardly. But here, okay, okay, these five are such experts that we trust them and pour all our capital into them. Moreover, if you look at funds like Andreon Horowitz, they're literally like an index now; they've invested in every company you know, although previously it was considered wrong that you should invest in just one, it's some kind of conflict of interest, and not investors in OpenA, XAI, Antropic, SSI Super Intelligent, Safe Super Intelligent, or Sutsver I and Mmir Murrati's company, they're in everything, and add at least two more startups creating decentralized AI. Basically, there are eggs in all baskets. And in this regard, and here, mm investor , no one really claims to know specifically which of them will win. Yeah. But everyone understands that this market will definitely be different and that its total aggregate value is potentially so high that tens of trillions justify all these efforts. That is, the point is that when I'm talking about expertise; it's simply about not investing in any kind of bullshit. But in everything else that's clearly created by a business's consciousness, even if it loses, money will still be invested. You don't know who will win. Let's consider a hypothetical situation. Look. Let's still draw the analogy with datacoms. It's clear that some companies remained, 98% or 99% of companies, they simply went into liquidation. Let's just imagine, you say, no one knows. There are companies like Open AI, for example, that are pumping money into them. And in many ways, if we look at what's happening with the markets now, this bubble, the hypothetical stock market bubble in general, it's largely driven by these expectations that companies will become more efficient, that there will be staff reductions, higher profits, and, in fact, expectations are growing and the markets are growing. Our stock market is simply looking at the S&P 500 this way right now. Look, let's imagine a hypothetical case. Some time passes, a year, two, three, I don't know how long. And Open AI says, "No, that's it, we understand that the math, well, guys, it doesn't add up, yeah, the math doesn't add up and that's it." And they collapse, and then, as you can imagine, a bunch of other companies collapse. So, let's draw this here. Why am I asking this? Because many people are afraid of this right now. Many people, for example, are afraid to buy the stock market, or stocks in general, because they understand that everything could go to zero, and then 90% of the time it would work out. Moreover, in contrast, we see, for example, that this is an exceptional event, that on one hand, we have the American stock market growing, and on the other, gold is growing, right? It seems like you're seeing both risky assets and gold growing. It's clear that the government is buying Bitcoin, which is still rising. So, everything is growing. And that's completely abnormal. And people who come in like this, I have, I don’t know, say, a million dollars there, I want to invest, they look at all this and think: “No, there’s something buried here. What will happen, in your opinion, in general to the US economy and to the economies of the world, if some giant like this just closes down, goes bankrupt and, naturally, drags down a number of other companies in general, and just as bubble peaks are usually unjustified, so bubble troughs are also usually unjustified, and most likely there will be a very sharp correction, especially considering that, and I just defended the companies, but at the same time, We don’t really agree with the current strategy, because you’re right that a very large amount of capital is not being invested in innovation. Yeah. A lot of capital is now being invested in scaling the current status, yes, data centers with even the current hardware. Fabulous amounts of money are simply, uh, in their reports they write down depreciation for 6 years, equipment that in 2 It should be completely obsolete in a year. But we're seeing a protest right now, using Bitcoin as an example, that, so to speak, previous ASICs are simply ineffective. Imagine your hashrate, can you imagine how much, yes, I'm talking about small numbers here, but just imagine the volume of capital, well, the model is roughly the same. And Bitcoin itself, over the 13 years of its existence, Bitcoin ASICs have increased their productivity, how many mathematical operations are produced per invested capital and per applied electricity. Yes, they've increased this productivity by 300,000 times. And in this regard, in this regard, you're really investing in innovation in this area, simply in building the current, yes, the current version of the equipment. This is indeed, from our point of view, a rather serious mistake. In this regard, too, it's being done with very precise calculations, it's being done with very precise calculations, and because now There's still a very intense struggle going on for market dominance, for who will own it, and everyone is ready to forget about the possibility of tenderness. Yes, yes, yes. Ah, but in any case, we think that this is rather the wrong strategy. You're right that if at some point fear arises and, well, such a chain fear, and because of what they're doing, then, of course, we can... for several Roll back progress for years, when for a few years, as happened quite recently, in 2002, 2000, and 2024, and because of the extremely high expectations that 2021 created. Yeah. For a few years, it was really difficult to raise money. It was absolutely impossible to raise money. Well, there were some interesting cases, and some of them, well, obviously, these are smaller analogies, but nevertheless, there's the case of Farfech, yes, when the pandemic started, they said: "We'll disrupt the fashion market and now everyone will buy online." So. And they pumped them with money, valuations soared. And then it turned out that, basically, any brand can create its own online store. And about when the pandemic ended, because people generally love stores, and they still go to stores, and the company was auctioned off for a dollar. These very expectations, they actually lead to... Come on, let's just say in this specific case, what will happen ? They'll pump the market with a huge number of GPUs, and then it suddenly turns out that, for example, there's no demand for them, or something else appears. Since all this will collapse, then what will this actually lead to? It could lead to the development of chip speeds being slowed for a while, because no one will provide additional funds for this development, but those chips won't disappear. It 's not like there will be a boom and all of AI will disappear. No, it will simply be there. There will simply be a redistribution of who owns what. Yeah. It's just a redistribution of money from one pocket to another, right? Someone will lose something, someone will be indebted, someone will buy it for a song. That's what happened with real estate in 2017. It simply changed hands, and then everyone got all their money back, like, two years later. Not all, but rather those who received all this asset returned it. At the same time, Open Aa is very smart in terms of how they raise money. Most of this money doesn't go back into the company, but to third-party companies that receive loans for building these data centers. So, OP won't even lose much. And OP's investors won't lose much either. It's more like an investor in these third-party companies with Oracle data. Not Oracle, in the sense that it's all pumped into Oraac, which is building a data center and buying it for itself. He's number one right now, yes, the richest man in the world. Well, thanks to this, Aa himself might not even wait until it suddenly turns out that all this hardware is no longer needed, and other things are needed. So, the idea is that you assume that even if this happens, it could be overvalued now, and it might also fall for a while, but it won't be a story where the market reverses and goes back up. So, it's inevitable. It's just like any crisis, it'll bounce back and, in a couple of years, return to normal and, let's say, be healthier, growing and developing naturally, right? Another 20 years from now. Well, yes, it will cost a size 10, and in that sense, on the one hand, it's simply inevitable; it's just the psychology of it, yes, it's very difficult to stop yourself when something like this happens and everyone rushes to invest at least some capital in it. And reality. But to invest in the capital of reality, you need expertise, you need to be able to distinguish where innovation is actually happening and where it isn't, for example. And again, this is all very important; this is a truly life-changing product. It's changing the lives of all of us right now, in every profession. And in that sense, it's not a fake, it's not some kind of super-bubble. So every country in the world or every company looks at this and says, "If I wait another year and this doesn't go bust, I might just end up irrelevant." Look, I'll expand on this immediately. This is probably one of the main global issues right now. Yes, we have the United States of America, which is, naturally, the beneficiary, as usual, just as it has been for many years now, the beneficiary of this entire boom. On the other hand, we have China, which we also see little about in open sources. My understanding is that everything there is top secret, conditionally, but something is being created. Meanwhile, America is trying Buying up Chinese personnel for insane amounts of money. So, we have a kind of competition going on between these two powers, so to speak. And here several questions arise. The first question is: firstly, what will happen if one of them ultimately wins, and how will events unfold? And the second point is, what will happen to everyone else? Because, as you know, it's hypothetical, well, if we draw an analogy, of course, at some point Google appeared, for example, and it took over the world. But then country-specific, yes, local networks appeared. For example, Yandex appeared in Russia, and somewhere else, something else appeared. For example, Thailand has its own search engines, Turkey has its own search engines, and they are much more popular than Google. But still, when we talk about a search engine, it involves a certain amount of resources. When we talk about e-commerce, yes, the amount of capital and resources required for this is, like, thousands. And it creates the feeling that, for example, some country—it doesn't matter which one, Kazakhstan, Russia, Albania, Brazil—they can't afford to do anything about it on their own. And in this model, there's a feeling that at some point there will be one giant that defeats everyone and, say, takes over the world, and no one can counter it after that. That's how you see this situation now—the US, China, and beyond, accordingly, the data coming out of it, you know? But what we're doing now is the result of our analysis from more than three years ago. More than three years ago, we looked at everything that was happening. And you have to understand that, as far as I'm concerned, this isn't something that comes from public sources. We're close friends with Greg Brockman and Ilya Sutskiver. We're friends with Altman and all the other players in this market. And we saw what was happening and what they were betting on. At first, around 2017, it was like, you know, we gathered in the courtyard somewhere around Altman's house in Polualta and were placing bets on when Ajai would happen. In 30 years, in 50 years, or maybe in 10 years. And it was like a joke. Yeah. But already three years ago, it was a real turning point for us. We were like, this is happening, we were wrong. We really thought that quantum computers would be needed to achieve what we're about to achieve. And we started analyzing what was happening, what was happening in politics, literally, in politics regarding this. And then there was a moment, I don't know, two years ago, two years ago, a little more than two years ago, when a small group of Open AI, Microsoft, XI, Elon, and I don't remember who else got together, and Ividi, plus some government representatives. And an agreement was made that none of you could have a monopoly on GPUs, and Nvidia had to divide all of its GPUs between you, right? What a geopolitical decision, essentially, yes, that's quite specific. So. And as soon as that geopolitical decision was made, and, in parallel, Biden's Executive Order was passed, uh, uh, which stated that this was a licensed activity, that no one could train models with more than a trillion parameters without permission from the US government. These two factors, and then the rest of the BS, which prohibits the sale of chips, despite the fact that it's a Taiwanese company, TSMC. But Nvidia is an American company, even though it produces them in Taiwan, but nevertheless, control over who it can sell these chips to exists and is determined by the US government. At that moment, it's like, "Wow, we're absolutely done, we're already, we're already at this point, we're there. Not now, not in two years, we're already at this point two years ago." That is, it apparently hasn't happened yet, but conditional agreements have already been concluded on how things will go. Well, everything was already being split and divided three years ago. And two years ago, it was recorded. And so, over these two or three years, China and the US had a certain advantage in terms of computing power, something like 25-20% or something like that. Well, that was something like that, and now the US has 90% of the members. Friends, disorganization in work communications is a tricky thing. At first, it seems like everything is under control, and then it starts. Tasks are in correspondence, documents are scattered across cloud storage, and there's constant confusion in areas of responsibility. As a result, the system disappears. And with it, the manager's peace of mind. This creates a whole host of problems for the company: important files are lost, and project correspondence worth millions of rubles simply disappears, along with the chats they were stored in. For those tired of constant chaos, there's a solution. Strive is a Russian service for team collaboration with tasks, projects, and documentation, helping you bring order to your company's operations. More than 20,000 teams and organizations have already tried it. See how it works. You create separate spaces for departments, simple yet packed with functionality. Boards allow you to create tasks and subtasks with deadlines, priorities, and assigned team members. A built-in chat lets you discuss details and attach files and links. Regulations and instructions are stored in one place, reducing the time it takes to train new employees. In addition to the web version, there's also a full-fledged mobile app. Strive replaces dozens of tools, including a knowledge base, documents, and task statistics. You can see who's online and what they're doing, where deadlines are looming, and how busy the team is. Managers gain transparency and control, while the team gains structure and convenience. Strive is currently running a special offer. Anyone who submits a request via the link in the description or the QR code on the screen will receive a free onboarding for your business. During the call, a manager will show you how your company can streamline tasks, eliminate chat chaos, and save your team time right from the start using Strive. Try it yourself to see how results change when everything is under control. Let's get started. In fact, I've been betting for some time now on completely dominating this market. And in this regard, as long as we continue along this path—and you're right, what will happen if we don't deviate from this path—there will be these two policies, and their economic power will be enormous, much greater than even today, thanks to the control that comes from being the only one who can produce such models and let businesses use them. Ah, and that's the plan for now. This plan has a very clear, well, clear calculation that most of these calculations are now done on Nvidia cards. I saw this Nvidia graph before, I just saw it, maybe even differently. It's just that before, Nvidia was known mainly because of money, yes, those who played computer games, yes, yes. But now everyone knows, because it's the most valuable company. And many years ago, it created a standard that made these calculations possible. Many, many years ago. We worked with this standard around 2002-3. And in this regard, at first everyone thought this standard: "Well, why do we need it? It's only for scientists." It was even very strange how much effort they put into it. And it seemed very... Then he switched to games and won. Standard for what? What kind of standard? A standard for how mathematics is calculated on cards, how a program task is translated into a specific operation on a specific architecture. But, in essence, this is the performance of the chip, what determines, yes, this determines your ability, your ability to even write a program that will be executed on this chip is called. Well, in fact, with the help of this, you were already writing games on these, as it were, according to these rules. Even before games, even when this had not fully entered games, we used this thing for distributed mathematical calculations. Yeah. And it is thanks to this standard that they are now very much in control. If there were no standard, we would see a lot of players, we would see that there is still capital in the world A lot, not just in the United States and China. We would see that all companies could afford, all countries could afford, some alternatives. Yeah. But not now. As you know, every trade negotiation between the United States, for example, with Saudi Arabia or the Emirates, includes how much we'll be allowed to buy. And I even saw the latest agreement, when Trump flew to the Middle East, yes, accordingly, in all these agreements there's a quantity, yes, the quantity of GPUs that we'll be allowed to buy and so on. And these are all very ridiculous figures. Yes, there are 100, 100 billion, like, Yes, it's a drop in the ocean given the current volume of things happening, I understand. And Open A and XAI are currently producing a million of these GPUs each. I've seen it. It's absolutely ridiculous, of course. Yes. That's it. But all countries understand that they need to at least get this. And very complex negotiations are underway about this. And we are actually moving in this direction for now. And this direction is actually not very pleasant for everyone else, and most likely for the rest of the world. Because it's clear that everyone else will have to pay for all these $100 billion, billions of dollars that are currently being invested in data centers. And when you have no other choice, when you don't have a cheap alternative of your own, you can't do anything but pay. And in this regard, ah, I didn't mention this to us, for three years this particular scenario has been unsettling. It's almost inevitable. Ah, but we see a small scenario of US dominance in this game. Yes. Yes. Well, it's interesting that, as you remember, DePS came out at the beginning of this year. Only a year has passed, not even a year has passed since the whole Strauss world. And then, at the beginning of the year, it was all about the Chinese, the Chinese women. Well, well, it died down, because in fact, a lot of untruths were said about DeepSky. It was all pure PR. But, but it's true. DeepSky works. It's a very good model. And rewind another year and a half to before that, we were running around trying to raise money to do roughly the same thing that DeepSky eventually did, because they had the money. Yeah. The company that made the model had $2 billion to do it. Wait a second. All this talk about it being $50 million, right? No, they had a ton of money and a lot of computers. These are very successful traders. These are traders. They had a ton of money. They bought a lot of these Nvidia cards. I'll give you another example. There's Alex Gerko, the largest private taxpayer in England. That's how Alex trades so successfully on the super-mega-robots. No, I mean mega-robots. He had 50,000 GPUs. That's right, he had a comparable number of these cards for calculations to the number needed to train GPT, but he simply used them for trading. They're a couple hundred very smart mathematicians who interview for months to get into Alex's company. Amazing. And they interview them for months to see if they're fit for purpose. And then these guys come up with models for using GPUs to trade Forex effectively. And it's the second-largest private trading company in the world after Citadel. These guys are the Chinese version of that. They had a ton of money. Like, a ton. The main thing is that they allocated a couple of billion dollars to this project. And so our point, our point three years ago, yes, two years ago, was that it was possible. Everyone was already saying, "No, we can't catch up, we can't catch up with Apple, or Google, or Open AI, or Google, we can't catch up." We were like, "Yeah, it's possible to catch up." Exactly, it's possible, it just takes a lot of resources. Yeah. The Chinese did it, and they're kind of behind, but they're, as they say in Russian, in English, choked, stifled, eh, stifled by the fact that they were deliberately pushed away from buying these chips two years ago. They're trying to buy them through every possible crack. Cards go to them through Singapore, knimkarts go through Malaysia, chips get to China through every possible smuggling channel. But it's crumbs, because 90% of these chips still end up with five American companies. Yeah. And right now, everything you're talking about is just confirmation that there will be a kind of market monopolist in the form of one country, which will then impose the rules of the game, the overall structure of the economy and the world, on everyone else. Unless we... And what's the opposite scenario, right? Unless we—and that's us, your audience, literally every one of us—don't see and invest our efforts, our resources, our time, and our attention in an alternative path. And there's a small chance, maybe, I don't know, a 1% chance, that this price will actually happen. But this alternative path is completely open source, completely decentralized, and shared resources invested in one standard and one protocol. The one that ultimately surpasses it will probably lag behind for a couple of years, maybe even. But, as I showed with DeepSky, it took them a year to catch up enough to be able to use it effectively. And an example of this alternative path already exists. We're just all looking at it through a different lens. That's right. If you look at Bitcoin, everyone's mainly discussing it as a financial instrument, yes, as the new gold, digital gold. Bitcoin makes up 10% of the gold market. Everyone's mainly interested in how much Bitcoin is worth today, how it's fallen or risen. But there's another perspective: if we look at this as an infrastructure project. Right now, as you know, Open AI, XAI, Microsoft—they're all building these big datacenters, Stargates. Some giant, yes, Kolass, he calls it, built it, and it has a million GPUs, and it's considered the fastest construction project in terms of infrastructure. Tens of billions of dollars have been invested. But if we look at Bitcoin as a financial framework for funding infrastructure, then anyone can, say, become a miner, buy some machines, plug in their own power outlet, and basically become one. Now wait a second. Anyone can... well, how would I make my own... Can you imagine the scale of Bitcoin today? Well, I understand that, roughly speaking, it's a highly distributed infrastructure. Highly distributed, but what's its size? What's its scale? 26 GW. Yeah. It's hard to estimate. 26 GW is more than Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Open AI, XA. All combined. And I said Bitcoin is the future. Yeah. Yeah. Well, Bitcoin is simply the future. Bitcoin is already established, the most real. Yeah, I said it was the future, and today it's established. It's the largest data center in the world. All over the world today, it's all over the news that Open AI or Elon Musk's XAI have each built 1 GW of data centers this year. Yeah. During the same time, Bitcoin added 5 GW. Yeah. This is incredible infrastructure, which we've achieved precisely because it's distributed, because there's no dominance based on your position or regulation. Yes, there's still a certain conglomerate of mining companies that own a huge share of it all. You need to understand that. Can you imagine there being, like, 10,000 players who've divided up this entire market? It's not a million anymore, like there were at the peak in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s. It's just 10,000 players, friends. When you go to a restaurant, the manager always greets you first and shows you to a free table. Then the waiter comes, takes your order, and gives it to the chef. But, of course, he starts preparing the dish. Everything runs like clockwork. Now imagine a restaurant where the chef himself buys ingredients, runs to tables, and prepares food. He also creates content, updates equipment and supplies. It sounds absurd, but this is exactly how a business operates without an COO, when the owner tries to be everywhere but ultimately gets nothing done. If you feel like your business is stalling due to process breakdowns, your team is disorganized, and you're wasting days on routine instead of strategy, it's time to systematize. Take the COO program from Edyuon Academy and ensure your business is sustainable, even when you're not around. What's in the course? 385 interactive lessons, 49 business cases and assignments, and 20 ready-made templates for implementation. Modules on financial, team, and risk management from Itzhak Adis and experts from Skolkovo, Alfa-Bank, and the Higher School of Economics. Support from a personal mentor, lifetime access to the course and all updates, and a professional retraining certificate. This isn't a typical course where you're pressed for deadlines. Everything here is tailored specifically for people with businesses, projects, and families. There's also the opportunity to complete an internship at Grруoup to practice your acquired skills. You can start optimizing your routine even before the course begins. After you submit your application, Edюon managers will send you a file with 30 Prompts for GPT chat that save hours on your operating system. Follow the link in the description, register for the program, and enter promo code "Sokolovsky" to get a 55% discount and a second course free. Let's go. But besides the incredible volume, simply surpassing anything centralized players have ever produced, it was also the fastest innovation in the hardware itself. Yeah, that produced the hardware. These guys, these are the conductors themselves. Back in 2012, 2013, 2014—though 2014 might have been completely out of date—bitcoins could be mined on home GPUs , either on a home computer, or Nvidia was already selling special crayfish for mining crypto. They've created a new market. And where is Nvidia in Bitcoin mining now? But you just couldn't compete with the speed of innovation that these, like, specialized bitmen came along, and so on, who started focusing specifically on this, and releasing updates every six months. A new machine, yes. Yes. And in 2010, it took 5 million joules of energy to calculate one trashesh. Now, 15 years later, one unit of Bitcoin calculation is 300,000 times smaller. Just 15 joules are needed to calculate a hash. It was an incredible innovation. If we can simply implement the same innovation, we'll simply scale the number of chips, which now burn a lot of electricity, but the number of mathematical operations performed by these chips on this entire volume of gigawatts of electricity is tens of thousands of times greater than the number of all the mathematical operations performed by the entire cloud in the world. And in this regard, this is exactly how we should be approaching infrastructure now. There was no need to buy modern equipment for these hundreds of billions of dollars. What was needed was to launch a mechanism where these skilled people around the world have a simple model, where they understand that if I make this equipment 10% better, I earn 10% more. That I don't need distribution, I don't need to negotiate with Microsoft or Google, but that I can simply plug this equipment into an outlet, and I'll be more successful. Well, yes, you see, the main idea here, mm, such a key difference, in my opinion, it's more about a certain philosophy, right, because why did Bitcoin achieve such widespread adoption? Because the idea is that it's a people's tool, and everyone, let's implement this, you know, somehow the model itself found the idea, and the consumer, as it were, also found this philosophy, but here, you see, on the contrary, they're like, "We'll do it ourselves, and you'll be left out there." As a result, people are sitting around, panicking about unemployment and wondering what will happen to them, while the beneficiaries are trying to work. I'm saying, and that's why I'm saying, our only chance now is for all of us not to be left behind, and that there will be a single center. Because even when we say these are five American companies, well, that doesn't change the essence. No, wait, wait. We're talking about five companies. Okay, there's no monopoly here. Well, sort of, they will be, but this is a matter of national security. How quickly will these companies come under US government control? They're already under that control, but how quickly will they come under complete control? Well, especially if they start taking jobs from millions of people. Then it's clear that this will be very restrictive compared to other options. And we're simply sliding into a situation where it's all in one set of hands. Completely in one set of hands. And now these one set of hands are deciding, and whether you behave well or not is enough for us to give you these resources. Yeah. And that's it. And we're sliding toward a world that's not at all the one we'd like to live in. But on the other hand, if you imagine that this alternative could make this equipment 300,000 times cheaper, I, as an engineer, am already spending about $2,000 a month on AI. Few can afford that, yes, but it speeds up my work so much that it's very difficult to compete with me, when I have a real example like you. So, you, owl, spend $2,000 simply buying subscriptions, subscriptions, subscriptions, yes, I mean monthly subscriptions. No, no, that's just one 2,000, I mean, they spend it just on programming. What about the API. And all the other subscriptions on top can probably add another 500 plus dollars. And that's out of reach for most people. Well, of course, that's understandable. Yes. And this creates a competitive advantage for me, which means other people will have less work, and I will temporarily have more work. For now, I won't have any, because, ah, Elon Musk, when he uses Xi, he uses it for hundreds of thousands of dollars, because you can always include more calculations, more variations, and... But if you divide the 2,000 dollars I spend by 300,000 by 300,000 of this optimization that can happen, it's zero. It's literally zero. You don't even need to count it. I mean, if we increase the performance of these chips by 100,000 times, then we need to divide the $2,000 it spends by 100,000, and we get zero. And that's what it is, zero, comma, something, but still zero. That's what's possible. So, for the Bitcoin network, the fact that the number of data centers and the amount of computing has grown hasn't changed the very essence of Bitcoin. Yes, it's the same, it hasn't changed at all. The same number of bitcoins, the same number of transactions per second, nothing I understand. So, if we apply this same principle to AI and computing, it could actually be a salvation from the scenario you described. That is, the AI ​​in the scenario we're describing could become so cheap that superintelligence would be available to everyone , and uncontrolled by anyone. Well, it's a model for the uniform distribution of global resources, yes, and as far as I understand, confirm or deny, these same initiatives are already underway. Firstly, there are several startups that, yes, are somehow trying to implement this idea of ​​decentralized AI. I'm not directly in the context, but I've at least seen some reports there. There. And, secondly, even, uh, your colleagues tipped me off, suggested that what was happening in Kazakhstan between Durov and, actually, the president, is also somehow connected to this. Yes, the guys are looking somewhere in that direction, what's happening now. So, uh, on the one hand, over the last year and a half, from the position that decentralization can never be sufficiently effective for such calculations, everything has shifted to the position that declaring decentralization works very well for such calculations. Well, actually, what happened two years ago was that practically everyone, uh, creators of social apps or messengers, uh, were very concerned about the GPT chat phenomenon. Yeah. It's definitely true that there weren't any social tools there yet. It's still a question of time. They all understand, yes, it's a question. They're still a single-player game. Yeah, yeah, but how many people are already communicating there, the fact that this app is constantly popping up at the top of all the App Stores, it's certainly worried everyone. Yes, speaking colloquially, I have a commensurate number of conversations on Telegram there every day. And recently, you may have heard that they've launched it in the United States. This is their social video generation app. And it's called Sora, right? What we discussed before simply added a small social feature where you can mention or not mention another person, and they'll be in the video. So, you know, listen, I haven't seen this one, by the way. Sorry, but yes, this is the main, this is the main phenomenon. They added a small social feature, and it also immediately took first place, just number one, the app is the latest, and viral spread is what everyone was afraid of, but all social app makers from Mark Zugkirch to Pablo Dorov began to fear it. But then Suckerberg, in fact, we saw it all. MTA released its similar product in 5 days or whatever, they tried to release their version, but they didn't include the video app. Whatever it was called, oh my God, I don't remember. They were so afraid of what was going on, but it's clear everyone knows who's doing what, that they released their version in 5 days, 5 days before , and now they're just in shock inside the meta because of what they They released it, but no one uses it. It's not just a joke, but everyone uses it. So, basically, if I understand your point correctly, this issue of product launches—yes, a huge meta releases a product and it's not interesting, but there's so much engagement that they release it and everyone talks about it. Yes, a technological approach. They've really figured out how to make products for messengers. Messengers, what happened? Two years ago, everyone got scared. How can they spend so much money like that? It's expensive. If our billions of people, our billions of users, communicate with each other, we'll never recoup our costs. They have a very limited budget, which they can't earn, of course. Yes. Yes. But they changed the model and pay them twenty a month. And in this regard, they allowed themselves and released all the messengers for free. So, was it with WhatsApp or was it with Telegram in terms of bots? They all released some kind of MM agents. They were all simplified. They all had simplified models. And they were so bad in quality that people used to say, "Meta will never do anything in AI, and Durov will never do anything." And everyone was just like, "Oh, we have a GPT double-double on chat GPT." As I understand it, that's where Durov and Musk's initiative, the Telegram group, came from, yes, which failed miserably, but had a good foundation. Where does it actually come from? Because Durov has an audience, but no AI. Yes. Yes. And he needs AI for his audience, but Musk doesn't have an audience, because OpenI already has the entire audience. And why doesn't Musk have an audience if there's, say, Twitter? X Because people read on a reader, so they don't come for that experience, they come to Open to chat. And this created this tension, when on the one hand, all social companies weren't ready to spend so much money on user requests, yes. And on the other hand, well, apparently, something was gradually, well, gradually eating away at their market. That is, Open was still small back then, now they have almost a billion users. They are already comparable in size to all the losers. And yet, they are growing much faster than Telegram, or 15 years, and here, say, a couple of years. Yes. And in this regard, M. Dorum and I discussed two years ago that the only alternative is de-stylization, because de-stylization can make it so, and cheap. And what can allow this to be implemented? Yes, I understand. That's it. But then Nikolai said, "De-stallization won't work. And I actually have my own ideas about how to do it." Two years later, we see that no, it didn't work, and now they're clearly trying to do something at the last minute. So. And in this regard, this is more of a confirmation that de-stallized AI is the only future, the only alternative besides these few American companies, which are currently achieving their goals primarily due to their dominant position with graphics processors. And we really love the Doro brothers and we really love Telegram. We use it every day, basically , as our main messenger. Ah, well, the approach needs to be completely different. These are completely different products. The story here is specifically about the product, about making a convenient thing with user experience, yes, with a cool twist. But AI is a completely different approach. The interface there might be completely broken, and there might be a single-window interface with one button, but the question is what's on your back end, well, yeah, and you can't draw it quickly, yeah. And then there's another thing. The amount of your computation. In fact, in any case, to simulate a model, you need a lot of computation. A lot, to catch up, you need a lot. Well, and even just to provide this to your users, you need even more computation. Every one of these companies is simply stupid, whoever we can call something like Kanvart, whatever, chatfuls, minichats, who needs LMs, who needs graphic text, and so on. There are many, many companies. We can even do anything here. Everyone needs computation if each of them fights for their piece of the GPU. But they'll never catch up with the top five. Each of which has millions of GPUs. Uh-huh. Yeah. Well, Kazakhstan doesn't have a million GPUs and never will. And it's clear that no one will give it a quota, right? Yeah. And in this sense, Durov is trying to do something for himself, because it's clear that nothing can go on without AI. Can he create an alternative for the entire world? He can't. And why Kazakhstan? Because Kazakhstan bought GPUs and they need to somehow use them, right? Ah, I get it. So, they don't understand what to do with them. They have GPUs, and they seem to understand what to do with them. I've already flown to 24 countries this year. Each country has its own thousands. And somewhere after you, I'll be thinking about what to do with them. After you, we'll meet with the Minister of AI here in Dubai. Before that, I just flew in and met with government officials from Vietnam. And before that, and before that, and before that, they all have many, many, what do thousands, thousands of GPUs mean, each of them. Everyone's wondering what to do with them now to remain sovereign in terms of their AI. Yes, but for this to be relevant, all this needs to be done, and a free protocol in which everyone is willing to participate, so that taken together it would be something significant, so that taken together it would be commensurate with the scale of the major laboratories and the scale of DeepSky. And then we need to launch this process so that innovation in chips could allow all these distributed players to overtake these big players. Otherwise, there is no other way. Otherwise, the ability, that is, open source itself, won't be able to do anything, except for an onsource. And also a similar or even identical financial framework, the same exact financial framework as Bitcoin. With the same motivation behind why money does this, you print some new currency, the value of which is determined by the market of traders, uh, speculation about whether it will have a large share of the market you're targeting. Like with Bitcoin, everyone's targeting whether it will be 10% of the gold market or not. And that was speculation, whether it will or won't. It's a skertil skerti. There's a skertil of metal, and here we have one that's primarily in electricity, which has become a derivative of electricity. And within such a framework, there could be an expectation that this coin of this protocol could serve as a subsidy for the construction of this infrastructure now. The expectation of market share was about the future. Now let's move a little bit from our imaginary fantasies into the real world. To what extent, in your opinion, is this really possible? Because, like, what happened, for example, with Bitcoin, yes, you also need to understand the context of how this model unfolded. There was a crisis in 2008. People lost money they hadn't saved their entire lives, blah-blah-blah, they were left without homes and lost confidence in the system where central banks printed money, and the dollar devalued. And then a solution came. And conceptually, I mean, it didn't happen quickly either, but conceptually, gradually, gradually, gradually, almost 20 years have passed, just a second, yes, let's not forget that. It's like, right now, it's turned into $2 trillion, yes, there you have a large decentralized network. As I listen to you now, there's zero ideological talk . It sounds great. I don't understand to what extent this can be realized and what needs to happen for it to happen, because, let's say, some proactive group of guys said, "Yes, let's make this decentralized thing." They created protocols for this, created some kind of internal motivation, that profit sharing or something like that should work, I don't know. But beyond that, that is, people need to understand the problem firsthand and, as it were, the financial model in order to want to do this. And for that, some very powerful catalyst is needed. That is, I still can't figure out how this could actually happen. And let's do it here. We can get straight to the point, because some guys have already gotten together and done it. Yeah. On the one hand, and some guys, that's you. We got together and did it. We've been writing this for the last two years. Yeah. Ah, and until we've written it and made sure it works, it's just not even We didn't tell anyone about this, and we launched it a month and a half ago, and it's working and growing. I mean, the number of participants is growing. We grew from 80 GPUs to 450 GPUs in just a month. Let's pause for a second. This is important to keep the chronology straight. So, look, as far as I understand, three years ago, I think, yes, or something like that, you actually launched Product Science. Yeah, we raised, I think, dollars in the first round. First of all, that's a pretty big round for SED. So, it's like, well, the amount is usually smaller. Secondly, if I looked at TCR correctly, it was 2012, or what year was it? 2021, yes, we raised a day. Since then, I looked at yours, you have, what's the name of the product, the one with the errors in the code. Well, and inside there's a code tuner, a code tuner, yes, a code tuner. So, you haven't raised any money since then, right? And you know what my question is? So, look, on the one hand, you're deep in the AI ​​context of what 's happening, you're in the valley, you have a reputation, blah-blah-blah-blah-blah. At this moment, there's an absolute explosion of startups in this LMA industry. Yes, startups in this field are starting to pump in crazy amounts of money. And you're not rushing around and raising round after round. Let's take this as a starting point. How did that happen? Tell us how it started and what it is. And let's move on to what we have now. Two years ago, there was this moment, yes, when we were actually already working on an AI product that worked with large companies, in short. You come in, run this thing on your code, it helps you find errors, yes, it helps you optimize. In fact, it helps you speed up your offering right to the max. It's like he's playing Tetris, finding where the code isn't optimally placed, and optimizing it is like compressing the code into a tighter density so it runs faster. And artificial intelligence does this beautifully. So, we, uh, we built this company, and it worked. Our clients were Walmart, Airbnb, large companies. That's it. But two years ago, and because of this explosion, we, uh, uh, just realized that creating such a protocol and creating this destration infrastructure, and this, on the one hand, is the only thing we need to do now, and on the other hand, this could be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to create something of this scale. Yes. And then we decided to make what's called a beer, uh, and incubate such a protocol within Product Science. And at that very moment, as soon as we decided this, we imposed a tab on ourselves, well, like, a, a restriction, uh, that we didn't raise money for this project. How are you? It wasn't with Product Science's money. It was funded by Product Science. But what's the difference? We raised money for Product Science for a completely different project than the one we later became involved in. So, we never promised any of our investors that we'd build this decentralized network with their money. And that's important. Why? Because, as you know, when you launch decentralized networks, when you launch coins, any promise to investors in advance that they'll give you money to build it in the United States—that's not allowed by these regulations. You'll immediately be considered a security. But if we want to build Bitcoin, it has to be commodity, it has to be crypto, it has to be a lithium token used for a specific product. So, we set ourselves the limitation that we wouldn't communicate with investors about this, we wouldn't raise any money, we just do it and launch. And we had enough resources at the time. And what's more, creating these systems requires a very small number of very talented engineers and products. It doesn't require, uh, thousands of employees. And we decided to focus on this, and we decided to impose a limitation on ourselves, that we don't use these, uh, opportunities to raise money. Because if we can, uh, launch this project without raising money, raising money, then it will become possible from a regulatory standpoint. And then, and then, there's an opportunity to create a phenomenon. Which won't be stopped due to any errors at the time of creation. And what are we doing? We created this protocol, and at the time of launch, we completely released it to the public domain. It's like in [the original text - context needed]. We made it open source. And we launched it a month ago. It's not controlled by us, it's already controlled by the community. We have a very strong voice in this community. And this is precisely a decentralized network, which in the future will develop absolutely only with the joint participation of all participants. And we believe that such a limitation is, although it is clear that it creates some obstacles, but this is the only way such projects can be launched and should be launched. That is, say, some Near Foundation with Ilya Polosukhin or Durov Sto , and so on and so forth. And many people now might be thinking, "Dura Sermiev." Well, well, but you remember how they launched this project, raised $1.8 billion. And the court, of course, came sec. I'm talking about all this, and that's exactly what we completely avoided with the way we made it so that it can't happen to us. When it does, everything is so pure with us. We weren't playing that game because we were playing a different game, creating a decentralized protocol, not pumping up staking in the foundation. There's no foundation. So, in this regard, our history over the past two years was built on this, and we saw that it was very important to create this. And we saw that, on the one hand, the chance of this isn't that great, yes, but this chance increases as the threat—this fear—increases. That is , more and more people are joining in over the past year and a half. You're right that it's still a niche of people who understand, but it's the same with Bitcoin. It was a niche for many years. It's not like everyone rushed in and said, "Oh, we don't like central banks and everyone rushed to buy Bitcoin." Well, no, we're talking about tens of thousands of people in the second year, hundreds in the third, and then reaching a million in the fourth. We're talking about how it's been growing for a really long, long time. If this technology now simply follows the same, I mean, same trajectory, but faster. Why faster? Because, oh, everyone's already seen Bitcoin. Well, it's a second trend. A second time. The second time, people won't want to miss out on what they missed the first time. And another thing is that right before our eyes, these five companies, plus several Chinese companies, are taking over this market at incredible speed. And it's scary, and it's only going to get scarier and scarier. Look, before we go any further, first of all, we'll definitely talk about how it works, because, frankly, I don't fully understand it yet. But look, I was talking to the guys before recording the podcast, and we discussed something similar to what we discussed last time, about what you're doing now. And this question actually came up, actually, from my colleague, who said, "Here's one story I don't understand." So, the brothers, I mean, they started working in AI a few years ago , even raised money, were essentially already in the market, had seen everything that was happening, had seen products, and so on. And when this super-megatrend, this super-megawave, this crazy helicopter money return, and so on, why are you, instead of joining these guys who are operating with huge amounts of money and currently have insane valuations, and becoming beneficiaries of this, instead of going with what you're talking about now, this libertarianism or whatever you want to call it, like, "Yeah, give it to the people, give it to society," and so on? From a business perspective, you have a reputation, you've had successful exits in the Valley, you're known, you can easily pitch, attract money, you've already built a very large sedron, and so on. So, essentially, the track could have just gone boom, and now the market capitalization is several billion. Why? Why not this vector over the last four months? We've had two offers from leading companies and laboratories, the very leading ones, to pay us over $100 million to buy us. And this decision can be understood from two perspectives. This is if we're in reality, if you listen to our previous interview with us, those People who know, know that for us, philosophy is a philosophy of thought—thinking about the world and about the world of this future abundance. For us, it's about creating tools, social tools, social innovation, that can take humanity to a completely different point of abundance. Now we can talk about AI abundance. Back then, it was still a bit crazy to talk about abundance. Well, even back then, you remember, we discussed it in general. But for us, this is a much more important thing, something we want to create in our lives. You know, how Elon Musk wants to take people to another planet—that's more important to him. It's kind of forgotten what PayPal did and everything else did—that's his goal. It's the same for us. Money is a resource for us to achieve this goal. And now, even talking about money, even talking about money, we're now talking about, I don't know, a couple hundred million dollars. What about those leading companies who make us offers , or we refuse to create our own WinSF? Yes, because we already made a product that used AI to speed up applications. And everyone will need it for another year or two . Maybe then they'll come to us to buy Product Science, but we'll see. And we could also make, well, a couple of billion dollars there for sure. Not bad. Not bad. Not bad at all. And in general, it wouldn't have any impact on the world in terms of where it's going. Well, at least there would be a resource, yes, which, you know, is temporary, to be honest, I look at all this and understand: someone makes a cursor, yes, and five leading labs will make another one, which will completely disconnect them from this channel and that's it. And then it all disappears, like a quarrel replacing TikToks, YouTubes, and everything else. Gradually, if this AI can do absolutely everything possible, then why don't they make all the products, noticing all the other competitors? Yeah, right. They'll do it, and they're doing it. And just now, Open AI released their new product with agents. There were so many agent-building startups. Now, Open AI is taking over their market, too. Now, Open AI is making an agent builder. Now, Open AI is making video generation. Now, Open is creating some kind of trend. You can catch up as much as you want, earn money, maybe even manage to reach a couple of billion dollars, but in the end, you'll lose everything and be left out of it. Or you watch and see what's really changing in the world. And we're not like, if we're great and if we manage to create exactly what we want—namely, a direct alternative that will become a major part of the AI ​​market, only a decentralized source alternative—then we, as the founders, take these 10% of the coins. Yeah, right. And if the race is to a trillion, that is, if it's like Bitcoin plus, but actually bigger than Bitcoin, we're much more concerned about that than this race in Silicon Valley with the rise of several hundred million dollars and billions in sight. We'll make hundreds of billions if we bet wisely. Now look, I've been closely following the crypto market for quite a few years now. So, let's say there were Bitcoin killers, yes, if you can say so, there were quite a few of them. And guys would come along, create utilities, say, "We have a mining model," and so on and so forth. It all ended the same way, right? So, let's say Bitcoin, as you said at the very beginning, is digital gold. It's much more mobile than gold. Plus, you can transact, plus it's more liquid, and so on and so forth. It's under the government now, yes, at least for the time being. And you're very clear on how it would apply to your specific model right now. First of all, yes, frankly, I'm skeptical, because as soon as some kind of coin appears, I immediately feel a certain skepticism. Now let's break down the protocol model, why people should be motivated by it, and why you think it even has some, yes, a small percentage, but nevertheless, the potential to become something very big. Let's draw a connection. I need a clear connection with Bitcoin. With Bitcoin, we see all these 26 gigawatts of electricity. And they're being spent on solving the problem. A mathematical operation that's in no way related to the specific function you 're talking about. A transaction. So, the transaction itself takes up microseconds. Well, obviously, mining is the main thing; it's still mining. Mining is mining—it's really just burning electricity, brute-forcing code, yes, brute-forcing code. There. That's the current state of Bitcoin. And it's enough for it, because it created the transaction function. And all this burning electricity is needed for, uh, network security. Well, so that no one becomes a majority and cheats the whole network. Okay. So, what we do, we immediately said: "No, 99% +% 99% of this computing power should be spent on useful actions and only 1% on network security, on a secure network. And this is the big, this is the main difference. Like, the protocol that we are making is like this, and the useful action in it is the calculation of existing LM models and the training of new LLM models. How does it work? I don’t fully understand how it works technically. Just give it to me. So, I took, I bought several machines from you GP, yes, in general, and on this GPU I can do the calculations, yes. And you, as in the case of Bitcoin, you installed certain software on it and connected it to the network. At this point, your machine starts communicating with hundreds of machines in the network and they begin to jointly form, and orchestration, orchestration, a single server, and, which can perform calculations. Yeah. And then and an external API. And then the same as in In Bitcoin, there's something called proof of work. Yes, you earn coins by proving that you can perform transactions. Yeah. So, in our case, your server also proves that it can perform transactions. And the more transactions it can perform, the more coins it takes every day. That's it. And in this regard, your experience is no different from Bitcoin mining. You connected, it's your machine, your work, yes. The only question is where the computing power goes. Yes. Yes. But at the same time, what happens on the other side is that developers of any application, any company, I can, for example, come and load all my calculations onto your network. And they are sent to this distributed network. Yes, and then they find out you wrote a question, it was read, and an answer came back. Also, you receive this answer only thanks to the distributed network. Each question is distributed among those who will answer it. And this answer then goes back to you. And all this is done in a secure manner, so that you can be sure... That the response you received isn't a fake response or a forged response. That is, on our side, within the protocol, there's an algorithm that ensures that the model the developer requested hasn't been modified to the extent of quantization of that model. Perhaps this isn't entirely clear. It's like the term, meaning you can simplify. This is called quantization; you can use 16 bits, 8 bits, or 4 bits. And our model determines that if you try, if you try to deceive the developer and give them a different degree of simplification, our model will catch it, and you won't receive a reward. In this regard, we really are the ones. This product isn't a competitor to Bitcoin. We're not creating new gold. We are, but on the other hand, you can try on Bitcoin, conditionally, yes, at the same time, what has happened over the past 15 years is that it wasn't just Bitcoin, there were various projects, and in particular, those projects that some created Uh-huh. For example, there's Fcoin or Fcoin. Oh yeah, it doesn't have a market cap in the billions of dollars, it does have a market cap in the trillions of dollars. Fcoin currently stores 10 million TBT of data. Yeah. In fact, as an infrastructure, it's a very successful project. 10 million TBT is more than YouTube. That is, all YouTube videos could be placed on this network. It's a distributed network. Honestly, I admit, as much as I'm ashamed, I don't know that this is a bad product. That's the whole thing. I'm hearing about it for the first time. Yeah. Yeah. And Protocol Labs made them. That's Fcoin. Uh, there's also a project called renderer, it's now, I think, valued at somewhere around 6 billion, 5-6 billion dollars. And they, uh, also distributed servers for rendering cartoons. Yeah. They're actually used. It's the cheapest way to render cartoons now, to use them online. These were all really niche markets. These were all niche markets, like file storage and image rendering. But AI is an order of magnitude larger market. Yeah. So, we're not competing to become the next gold. We're competing to see if it's possible to be a large percentage of the AI ​​market. And unlike the rest of this financial, crypto component, yes, that is, the smart contract market today is about $2 billion. Yeah. This is the limitation that, well, this is the market, it's small. The AI ​​computing market is already $40 billion today, and in 10 years, the computing market will be about $2 trillion. Yeah. So, when we say this is an eternal market, I mean, how much will they pay per year? That means we're talking about a market capitalization in the tens of thousands. It shrinks, of course. A coefficient, a multiplier. That's it. And in this regard, ah, in reality, ah, um, there is, in any case, skepticism, because you can't compare yourself to the biggest… yes, you compare yourself to Bitcoin, but Bitcoin is unique, but if you compare yourself to various existing infrastructure, crypto projects, yes, have they taken 10% of the centralized market? Yes, they have. Bitcoin took 10% of the centralized gold market. That's for now. Can we, you see, you're still talking about "for now?" Can we theoretically imagine an inside the multiverse, a cross-section of this multiverse, in which a decentralized GPU network takes 10% of this future computing market, which we just valued at tens of trillions of dollars. Yeah. And if it can, then we, when we go from today's point, today's valuation of this small network, to the point that it will grow to trillions of dollars over the next 510 years. Yep. Everything has a chance. A chance, yes. And indeed, right now there's a very high chance that the big AI labs, ah, it will be impossible to compete with them. And the American government will strangle everything, no one will have access. If you believe in this chance, you need to short the rest of the market now, because the rest of the market will not survive in this new world. But that's precisely why the demand for an alternative will grow, because an alternative is needed. No matter what happens, neither Google, nor Meta, nor O will use us. Well, of course, this is for those who can't put up a million of their own G-notes, right? But we'll be used by companies like Canva, Flo, multi-billion dollar companies that do a lot of computing, and they need it too. It's precisely for them that the risk is high, and for them the risk is high that these five companies will take over their market, making presentations instead of them, calculating human health indicators instead of them. In this regard, and just like for Bitcoin, every financial crisis was a leap, yes, and so this audience that is looking for an alternative increases. Also, every news story about how cars have completely replaced everything, taxi drivers are no more. That's it. That's another piece of news. And another piece of news. And another. Year after year, we will see that it's not happening. Do you think it will happen? No, it will happen. It's just that it should have happened 10 years ago. Not 10-20, how long is enough, right? There it is, slowly approaching. Look at the chart. And Weima is the self-driving car of San Francisco. Yes, yes, I saw it. Yes, they've already eaten up 20% of the transportation market, and it's simply an exponential growth curve. With all these technologies, they really do take longer. When, in fact, when they tell us, "You're already too late," no, we don't believe it, because this adaptation will take several years, it will take 5-10 years. But once this happens, the sector -by-sector effect on the market will be colossal, which will be visible sector by sector. Look, I have a question: I understand the model. How many GPUs do you currently have in your children? We currently have 450 GPUs. These are high-end GPUs. These aren't home GPUs, these are server hoppers and blacklists. Now I have a question. Look, how do I think from the perspective of a large company? So, let's say you have 400 now, and then it becomes 50,000, 100,000, and so on. So, if I'm such a giant company, then I can easily take your system and hack it. That is, I can take and redirect all my The computations will be put on your computing power, and all your processing power will quickly be consumed. And then, bam, the whole story ends. And what's going on in my head now in terms of control over you, despite the fact that you only become uninfluenced when you become very large. Everything before this, there are a lot of risks and potential threats that can be directed at you. How many computers did banks have? Well, one, probably, not owned by banks in 2013. Ah, well, I don't know. Could the banks banning you in 2013 have brute-forced 51% of Bitcoin? They could. And that was already the fourth year of Bitcoin's existence. Why didn't they do it? What are we seeing? I realized that as soon as this idea of ​​connecting more GPUs appears in your mind at the same time as other people have the same idea. And this is what allowed Bitcoin, regardless of the fact that Bitcoin initially only had 1,500 GPUs, yes, this is what allowed Bitcoin to never get close to the point where someone had a control network. Because as soon as someone saw the news that, damn, this exists, they watched some podcast where they talked about it, and at that moment you think: "Oh, I'll connect now." At the same time, 10 other people are thinking the same thing. If you saw this news, everyone saw this news. That's it. And in this regard, the spread of knowledge is key here. And because this spread of knowledge, it leads to the fact that every news about someone adding a GPU leads to someone else also wanting to add more GPUs. And on the one hand, it was possible to add more, it is possible, but it is very expensive equipment. Yeah. Today, it's already around a million dollars a month. Oh, yeah. You spend on equipment without connecting the network. One machine costs a million dollars. One GPU, one GPU. Its market price is somewhere between $3,040 and $50,000, depending on the model. So, renting it long-term from a cloud service wholesaler right now will cost you about two dollars an hour. So, you take $2 an hour, multiply it by 24 hours, round it up, and you get $50 a day to rent this one GPU. So, that means one GPU costs $1,500 per month. If there are 400 of them, we multiply them and realize that, so, I'm asking for this every month now. We launched a month ago and in this month we've grown to the point where, you know, we could pay for it ourselves, let's say, yes, we could. I don't know, someone says, "Why would you raise money for yourself?" No, we generally tell all the investors who come to us, "Oh, we want to invest in you." We say, "There's nowhere to invest." Buy, buy machines, mine. You can't even buy coins now. You can mine, so go ahead and mine. And they do. And VC investors come and say, "Okay, for me, this is a check of, I don't know, $400,000, which I'll invest over the next six months. Okay, how do I invest it in a startup?" That's it. And in this regard, what we're seeing is that this is simply happening naturally: the greater the faith, the more people who teach want to participate, and especially the security. Just a month has passed, and we haven't had a single moment, and when someone had more than 30% of the hashrate. Moreover, people are adding, like, 100 more GPUs, 100 more GPUs. Well, the numbers have also grown, and in this regard, we think this will continue, that there won't be a moment when someone, like now big, well-known miners, has suddenly allocated their GPUs, along with another 300 GPUs, and will add them in two steps. First 150, then another 150. So they also understand that, as they remember, it was like with Bitcoin. It's important that no one ever has a majority. But I just need to be a big part of the network so I can earn more coins. What they don't really understand about Bitcoin, regardless of the fact that it's written down right there in Satoshi's head, is that this concept is based on the assumption—and this is a very humanistic assumption—that the majority is honest. We know people who built Bitcoin equipment, but as soon as they started approaching 50%, we no longer do it. Yeah. And we waited until the spring breaker I caught up with them, because in reality, these networks are built by enthusiasts who want this future to happen. And what's more, they know that this can only happen if security is maintained. I mean, well, now no one can do 50% anymore. But yeah, that was back then, yeah. No, no, well, they just stopped themselves, yeah, they just could have, but they stopped themselves. As soon as you do it, you've lost everything you've invested in it, because you've immediately destroyed the faith, yeah, the faith in it. That's it. And it's the kind of thing where you look at it and think, "Well, no, no, humanity isn't like that, yeah, everyone's so-so and so on." There are millions upon millions of free GPs scattered around the world, 10,000 here, 50,000 there, this government has 100,000 there, that one here and there, they're scattered everywhere now , and most of them, well, are, like, half unused. Meanwhile, among the current miners of the AA network, they actually have significantly more resources, and they all still operate according to the same principle. They add. As soon as they see that arcs are being added, they add more. Then they see that... That is, in this regard, we are precisely expecting this to be a kind of natural growth. Growth doubling every month. But this doubling every month, we all know how this exponential works. That is, if everything goes as it is now, that is, our first month, well, it wasn't double, it was quadruple. Well, it's just that in the first month, we've already managed to discuss with many people and tell them how it works. And as soon as we launched, it connected pretty quickly. But in the second month, we expect it to double. Well, maybe even more, I don't know. And then I expect this doubling to continue in the next, well, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 months, until we reach 100,000 GPUs, most likely in less than a year. Yeah. It sounds provocative, but interesting. And if this whole thing works out, it's, of course, a phenomenal case. If it doesn't work, then we tried, but at least we tried, right? At least we're here, you know, there's this thing: we have money, which was involved from the very beginning, from the very beginning, since there were fewer GPUs, like Bitcoin mining works. The more GPUs, the more money is shared among everyone. Yeah, right. For example, in 2010, there were 1,500 GPUs in Bitcoin City. Each earned 1,000 bitcoins in a year. Yeah. So now it's 1,000 bitcoins in a year. Just imagine that amount now. But back then, that money was, yeah, life-changing. And in that sense, we have 100 million, yeah, it's slowly growing, yeah. And a month ago, the cost of mining one coin was 20 cents a month ago, and now it's not 2 cents, it's 10 cents. And those people who participated a month ago, they're like, this price change is very noticeable. And, ah, in this regard, we think that the more people see this as an alternative, and at first there will be a small number, at first there will be a small number right now, and now this small number will be mostly people who believe in or would like this future to happen, and they rent GPUs to install nodes on them and connect them to the network. Yeah. And the future, of course, will look different. The future will look like 10 specialized data centers, specialized chips, like access to them for years to come, buying them for billions of dollars. That's what the future will look like. Exactly like it looked in Bitcoin. And there at first there were these 1,500 GPUs, so you could connect your home computer and earn 1,000 bitcoins. And just three years later, it was all in specialized chips that you can't just buy, that require. And now you know how Bitcoin basically works? These large companies aren't even enticing themselves anymore; they've already pre-sold these coins. It's understandable, of course. Those who believe in the coin's growth, for their own sake, are taking a margin of something like 5%, and everything else is already pre-sold. And in many ways, think about it, for large funds, like the large pension funds in America, who are now entering Bitcoin. It's like for large investors: the easiest way for them to get in with, I don't know, half a billion dollars is not to buy from the market. Well, firstly, if you go and buy another half a billion dollars of Force of Bitcoin from the market, it's like a super operation – going to such a miner and buying out everything they produce over the next few months. And this market is simply completely different. It's not me who installed my machine at home; anyone on the market pays upfront for this mining. Big companies are tempting. Yeah. And it's like paying in advance for a gold excavation. Got it. You know, I have a question that involuntarily arises. In the last episode, we discussed what you actually do. At that time, you talked about your fund, about investing in people, and so on, and so on, and so on. Accordingly, as far as I understand, you've been very focused on this lately. Actually, what's going on in other companies? For example, I just went to the website, looked, and I saw that you, ah, haven't increased the number of people you've invested in, right? So, let's take a quick snapshot, an update after a year and a half. What's going on with the other projects? Plus, as far as I remember, you also have some marketing companies there, like agencies, plus you have a company that deals with, say, biotech, yes. That's basically what's happening there. Look, we have our company, which represents our future. Yes, that day, the future began with us doing this to ourselves and creating this holding company. It actually has a number of projects, some of which were very public. Yes, we talked a lot publicly about our fund, which invested people. Some were very private. Here's our company, which optimizes applications for large corporations. Well, they did conferences, but professional conferences, so to speak. Our entire marketing was aimed at selling to large corporations. And we simply talked very little about it. And in this regard, what kind of update? I think that back then, when we met, our holding company, which represented the future, was still valued at 200 million. Then we did another round, where we were valued at 400 million. And we attracted more investment from very famous names, like Venka. I'm not sure the audience is familiar with them on the VIT website. Yes. Yes. That's it. And we continued investing in people. It's a fund. And as a fund, it has a cycle: you raise money, yes, you allocate the money, and then wait eight years for your exits. That's it. The founders we invested in, the ones we've invested in, have achieved very good success. The main stage of this project now is to bring it all to exits. So, how do we get to the point with the fund where we can ultimately sell this stake in the future of these founders we bought for significantly more money than, say, the idea of ​​reselling stakes in people, right? So, again, as investors, yes, this is an investment project. No, I understand. So, your idea isn't to receive dividends from these founders, but to resell their future to other funds. The model needs to be demonstrated in order to demonstrate its power , because we receive dividends, right? Ah, but dividends, as you know, are always a very small part of a company's value. In this sense, we're patiently waiting for the market to develop. And now, literally last week, someone contacted us again. I think it was Peter Diamandis's people. I don't know, you know, he's the creator of Singularity University. He now also has one of the most powerful podcasts on technology. And they're now launching a new project where they want to use this model and, accordingly, partner with us in terms of using this model. And the idea that this is a better investment—it's just an idea that's alive. We continue to develop it. We're speaking, I don't know, at the beginning of the year we barely spoke to students. We continue to respond, keep our finger on the pulse. But the fund's cycle is about seven to eight years, I get it. Like any other fund. That's it, I get it. So, you don't have the idea of ​​investing in another 100 people there. It would be, if we showed us, as soon as we show results, we need a creditor. That's how it works with funds, What you do first, then you do the second, and then I understand it. The classic classical model. That's it, I understand. So, you need traction, you need some real exits in order to, say, open a new fund and attract money from it. We're playing the long game here, so we're waiting very patiently and continuing to move this forward. In the world of AI, this will be even more important. And our Biotech company is even more long-term. We're using, uh, the discoveries our parents made, because computing works inside cells, inside neurons. And, uh, we're preparing the entire technological base in order to build the quantum computer of the future based on this principle. Wait, first, to conduct experiments, first we prepare for a long time to think through and understand what experiments to conduct, because they will be expensive, long-term experiments. That is, quantum computers are already, well, I think there are practically no people who understand that this will work. Ah, yes, it's already kind of obvious that this is the future of, uh, computing. Ah, but everyone understands that this is beyond, uh, 20 years now. Ah, I mean, forward, 20 years. Yeah. Listen, by the way, forgive me for the preview about quantum computers. In general , regarding the crypto market and Bitcoin, yes, one of the key risks, let's call it that, is the emergence of a quantum computer that can decrypt it. But, as far as I understand, I honestly haven't delved deeply into this topic, that in general, the technological design is such that even if we arrive, well, or when we arrive at a quantum computer, it won't be like this. We wake up and it's here tomorrow. So, it will be a step. And at each of these steps, technologies will change, encryption levels will be supplemented, and by the time the computer itself appears, the encryption model itself will have completely changed. Moreover, Bitcoin doesn't... No, moreover, Bitcoin seems like it's a monolith that never changes, yes, but the Bitcoin code, that's what I'm saying, is that by that point it will have changed 10 times already, and that the model will have adapted. Of course. And you can't change the past because you'll remain, and it will already be written down, and everyone will understand it. The only thing is, the keys to the cipher will certainly change, and that means, for example, someone could potentially log into your account. That's the threat of a quantum computer for Bitcoin. Yes, I'm saying that someone could potentially decrypt it, yes, decrypt it, and try it, but I understand that this will also change. That is, the model will fully adapt afterward. But how do these distributed networks work? Adaptation doesn't actually happen immediately, because you don't have a single server that you update everything on. But as soon as there's consensus among all the participants that an update needs to be made, these updates happen. Bitcoin updates happened just, well, a year ago, and they introduced an additional [music] type of encryption for, uh, to make these shared signatures. Yeah. This feature wasn't in Bitcoin at the beginning. Ah, that is, as soon as there's very clear proof that such an update is necessary, Yeah. The community itself accepts it. So, you're really right that it's more of a fairy tale that some computer will change everything in an instant. What will actually happen? It's like you're chatting today and you hope no one reads it. But they will. But they will. Come on, come on. I said it wrong. You hope no one reads it? But they do. No, no, wait, they can't read it today. If you encrypt well, they can't read it. Well, even if... But when you encrypt, you can still record it all. I understand. Look, I have no illusions whatsoever about everything we discuss and rewrite, that it will all be read someday. Yes, it definitely will, because it's being recorded today, which means it will be read in the future. And as for bitcoin security, it will definitely be updated. There's already aaa m quantum resistance encryption. It's just that there's no point in updating it now, because a quantum computer is still far from being able to... Be practically applicable. For Bitcoin, this will also mean that the hardware will need to be replaced, yes, let's say. But wait a second, Bitcoin is exactly the kind of ecosystem in which hardware changes very quickly. Yeah. Like we, as was said, if over 15 years, productivity has increased 300,000- fold. Yeah. You can just try to imagine how many times it changed every year and how many years it takes for your current, old equipment to consume more electricity than the Bitcoin you produced with it is worth, you know? Yeah. And you're out, so you throw out this old equipment and install new equipment in its place. Anyone who asks the question: "What should I do with my old Bitcoin equipment?" Throw it out. Well, those who understand how this market works, they entered into this consciously. They know how it works. So, when the equipment needs to be modified for quantum-secure encryption, it won't be difficult at all. Oh, okay. One more topic, look, let's continue. You and I, ah, last time we recorded, we discussed problems in the economy in general, yes, and we discussed the pension fund model, the fact that young people don't get paid, they have no motivation to start companies, and all that stuff. This is getting even worse now. Now it's even worse, yeah, even worse. That's exactly what I'm getting at. That is, a year and a half has passed since then, this thing is being cultivated even more, and at the same time , we have this so-called threat from artificial intelligence. Look, so here, I also want to try to figure out where we'll finally turn this whole story. That is, there is an idea that this singularity point will arrive, where it will become at least as smart as we are, and perhaps even smarter. Well, that is, as soon as this point is reached, it will begin to rapidly, yes, there will be an acceleration in development. So. And, uh, you and I also talked about rising unemployment, which will only grow and so on, and so on, and so on, because people have no benefit in doing anything and going somewhere to work. In the current world paradigm, unemployment will grow even more. A startup in San Francisco, like with cars in Waymo, right? 10 million people, bam, just instantly disappear. And so I tried to instantly reach 10 million people in a couple of years. This is instantaneous in our time, instantly in a couple of years. So, and it’s clear that if we go back and take a kind of excursion into history, we will see that when, for example, the technological revolution was happening and certain things were happening, then, in general, yes, a person at a machine tool is no longer needed. Millions of people were left without work, automated machines arrived, but these people went to learn how to repair these machines, I don't know, or program programs to operate them, and so on. In the current paradigm, when AI does create gigantic potential unemployment, where , in your opinion, will these people convert? Let's try to simply draw a picture. Do you want to give a different answer or what? Let's ask you, am I right in understanding that you're somehow in sync, right? In my mind, what answer have you already read, what answer does he want to give? I heard him and understood and understood that he... So there are two points, and everything depends very much on the speed at which AI develops. No one knows the answer to this question, so we need to analyze two scenarios. And in both scenarios , what we're talking about will play a key role in whether this will be very bad for everyone or great. Yeah. One is that AI is developing not so quickly, and not instantly. And I, for example, say, a decade. Well, well, 20 years is what it's called. And it dramatically increases the productivity of every person who can afford to use it. Yeah. And in this world, in this world, the question of whether you have access to it, whether you can afford it, will determine whether you have a job or don't have a job, whether you're homeless or something, and in such a world, and again, there's a very high risk that this tool will be in a small number of hands, and it will be given out proportionally to your social rating. Your social rating in some way. A and a and in In this regard, for example, there's a programmer who has access to this and a programmer who doesn't, and you're simply in two different leagues. In two different leagues, you're simply second. How easy is it to justify that? Well, imagine if it's so dangerous that a person with this thing can do anything in a day, then how would people be licensed to access this thing? Is it even socially safe for society to be given access to this thing that can program a new operating system in a day or not? It's actually good to imagine this future. Yeah. And it would be good to imagine not that crazy future in which this superintelligence, which is everything, can already enslave all of humanity, but simply imagine a future in which there is artificial intelligence. This superintelligence, which can, which may still not have its own will. Yeah, it just does what you say, like the J-chat. You wrote to him: "Do this." And he does it. And like a magic wand, he can do everything. Well, that is, he has all the knowledge of humanity, the ability to think rationally, and add to that the arms of a robot, with which you can physically do anything with any level of precision. Maybe one that can perform eye surgery will cost a million, but one that can pour me a glass of water will cost 10,000 bucks. Hey, maybe even less, because now the number of competitors producing them is simply catastrophically large. We have friends of ours who have been working on robots for, well, 15 years, I don't know how many. It's just that it was very early. I have a friend who also does this, and, well, you know, Tyoma Skolova, who makes a manoid. Tyomykov made real working prototypes in seven months, yes, yes. Working prototypes in seven months. Here's the current speed, which our friends of ours were making robots a long time ago, so it was too early, so they had several waves of attempts, lost again, lost again, went to work for someone else, went back. Now he has a database of 500 companies producing robots in his own database. The competition will be insane. Well, and it will be insane if the brains of these systems are equally accessible, right? And if the brains fly away, imagine everyone makes phones, everyone makes phones, but only Apple has access to the internet, right? Who will win this market? Apple. And now, if the internet is accessible to everyone, then everyone will sell. This is the difference between these two futures. In the past, it seems like the same thing is happening: this AI, which can do everything, but in one world, it can do everything, and it is equally accessible to everyone. And then this unemployment, this tremors, they will, we should say, this world. If a robot costs $5,000, then in this world today, in today's world, there are a billion people, at least a billion people, who can afford to go and buy one right now. That is, let's say, I just come home and don't waste time cooking . I pressed the button, I said: "Make me an omelet." Zab, forget about food. It's going to work at the factory for you. It's your robot. It's your robot. It's going to control the intersection for you. It 's going to walk the dog for you. It's for you, imagine that it works 24 hours. Okay, fine. Not 24, 20 hours, four hours on charge. So it's charging for four hours and there's some kind of myth that another robot will fix it. At that moment, another robot will fix it. At that moment, it works 20 hours, divided into sectors, roughly, by a third, roughly. There, for 7 hours, it works at your home, doing everything for your home. For 7 hours, it works for you at your job, and the other 7 hours, it works for social purposes, like some kind of cooperative thing, like building roads, factories, building electricity, laying what you're talking about now. It doesn't really affect unemployment. No, it changes the essence of unemployment . You no longer need to work. You no longer need to work because your robot works for you. But this version is only valid if the brains They don't control it. If they control the brain, it doesn't look like that. So, you have a robot from Google, which they only make for you if you... It costs a million dollars, it costs a million, they rent it out to you and squeeze as much money out of you as you're willing to pay for it. So, you know, this is, uh, interesting, uh, there are now several models of self-driving cars. There's Weima, yes, you can't buy anything there at all. Everything, it's just rented out, and there's a very clear path there. They're going to kill Uber, Lif, and all the other companies now and can set any price, and then they'll set any price they want. I'm sorry, I'll remember the thought, but Uber, they had the idea that they would only become profitable when they appeared, but they simply won't. Because they don't have the real deal, yes, they just couldn't build it that way, yes, and accordingly, they simply couldn't build them. Why? Because Google sued them for allegedly having Google files there, although the supposedly proven files were a presentation from a weekend meeting that didn't actually mention anything about technology, but Google sued them and forced them to stop doing it. And in the end, they own this Weima thing, right? There's this model, and then there's this supposed alternative from Elon Musk. He's telling the same story as Dania, that every car is a machine that will be controlled by this network, this robotics, and that will earn money for you. Yes, the only thing he doesn't mention is that you don't own this AI. Even when you buy another car, you can't transfer this AI to the new car. So, as soon as your car breaks down, that's it, they won't sell cars, they'll just lease them out. And in this regard, he's now, he's even saying that robot taxis will be separate, and he has a two-trillion-dollar project to fly to Mars, so he will feel absolutely committed to humanity. I charge humanity the entire price for the taxi service I need to build rockets and fly to Mars. That is, if we don't have it , the end justifies the means, even morally justified. And if you don't have it, now he's in power, so he has all the levers to do it. All the levers are there. Therefore, there will be a shadow of an alternative, when the brain of this system is open source, open code that is available to everyone, which is calculated by a decentralized network, then this is the future. Then unemployment in reality has the same meaning, the same significance, as it has today. So. A future where everyone has a robot capable of doing any job is a future where, even if for some reason we don't get paid, we'll all get together and build everything we need ourselves, because our robots will do it for us. They know how to be a doctor, how to be a teacher, how to build a house, how to cook. The very fabric of the economy is different, I understand. But it seems to me that, like any global change in society and the economy, it will always begin with a peak, right? That is, at first, it will be like these scenarios where it's inaccessible to everyone, and so on, and then everything will gradually penetrate into the slump. Maybe, maybe, maybe not. Well, look, let's assume a scenario where it happens the way we're used to, where at first it's inaccessible to everyone, there's massive social stratification, rising unemployment, and so on. What, in your opinion, will happen to people and the economy at that point ? What will they do? I think we 'll see things a little differently in different countries. Yeah. And in the United States, it'll all be heavily regulated. And the income of these companies, which will be distributed as some kind of benefit , will only care about the citizens of the United States, America, while extracting resources from the rest of the world. If you want ours, pay up. And inside the United States, there's a kind of socialism and reality in that regard. And so, when we fly around the world and meet with ministers from different countries, they all understand this, they all understand that this is a question of sovereignty. If they don't have This resource, then what will happen in 10 years? Well, this also has a very strong impact on defense, because if you have robots, say, and another country doesn't, the issue is closed. The issue is closed. Fractional, robots, it's all sort of determined by AI, but it's all about sovereignty. If there's no alternative, then there will be countries where, well, it's good to distribute it somehow. And in general, in America, unemployment rates are quite high even today. When everyone was put on COVID-19, they were paying an extra 10,000, I think, right? Those were crazy people, they were paying crazy amounts of money there. And people weren't earning that much. I have, I think I told you about that once. My guys, uh, in New York, we have a big company that does, like, catering, and they do all the big events. They have thousands of people there, and after COVID, people simply said, "No, I don't want to work anymore, my benefits are more than I was earning with you, so to speak." And there was a huge labor shortage after that. And the effects of it are still lingering. And so there will be countries where all this won't be so depressing. And there will be countries where pension funds have invested in Open AI XAI. So, for example, we know such countries, yes. Well, even Saudi Arabia or the Emirates, they invest a lot. They understand that the oil will run out, but this, on the contrary, will remain. And they hope through this investment to get money back into this fund and distribute it among their citizens. Well, there will be countries where there will be significant... well, if you travel through Africa, people there are still using these same rakes to get their own food, and there is one car for every 10 villages. And it could actually look the same as these upheavals did in previous periods. And it will be enough, well, it will be very difficult for people to adapt. People have never actually encountered change at such a speed, and so it will even be difficult for them. Well, I mean, imagine, my idea, I can imagine very easily, so I can draw up the whole chain, how this could happen, with regulations, with restrictions, and so on. That in 30 years, right now, one robot could be produced for every person on planet Earth? Yeah. I mean, it's hard to imagine. It's unclear how this is... Look, how much time has passed, like the iPhone? That's it. No, that's not what I mean. I mean, it's hard to imagine what the world will look like at that moment. Yes. I mean, what they will produce, you can imagine. But what this world will look like, that's very difficult to imagine. And I'm kind of painting the picture we're painting, that given the choice of what we're starting, well, betting on decentralization and open source, yes, it's a completely different world. This is a world in which, uh, humanity's main problem will be the meaning of life, choice. Choice. What else do I want my robot to do for me today? Hm, it's a difficult philosophical question, because if we take it again, we can dig quite deeply into history, it's clear that this particular technological progress most likely didn't exist, at least not that we know of. Ah, and there wasn't such a direct shift. But if we simply look at the structure of people's psyches, yes, people in power, including states as such, they always favor a different outcome, for power in the hands of a single person, for total dominance, and so on, and so on, and so on. And here's your model, in which everything will be equal for everyone, open source, and people will think about the meaning of life. Honestly, I find it really hard to believe and even imagine right now, because it contradicts the way the world works. Sasha, look, here's the thing. The whole thing right now is that they're all outsiders in this sense. So we're talking about the US and China, which, like China, maybe, yes, everyone else, and the only thing left is elections. And the only thing left for the rest is elections. So, this completely changes the rules of the game. They'll all be for us to happen. They'll support it with all their might, so that it... I'm not even talking just about you, I'm talking about the whole idea. I'm not even talking about maybe 100 more people besides you who will try to create it. I'm just talking about... That this is what changes the course of history, let's call it that. And there are already examples. And in the late nineties, all servers were controlled by various proprietary operating systems. These were Microsoft, Sun, Microsystems, Oracle. You mean before a personal computer appeared in every home? No, wait, wait. When a personal computer appeared in every home by 2021, that's it, we're already in 2000, 2001, everyone already has it. Why? Because they figured that everyone had enough private computers that the total number of private computers would be greater than the total number of corporate computers. It was all controlled by corporations. But even in 2001, Linux was still less than 1% of the server market. Of the server market. Right. And today it's 75th, 75%. Oh, that is, in fact, we already have it in history , and it's just like Linux Linux, people don't understand what Linux is. Everyone, everyone, what? All Android phones are Linux. But I wanted to say something else. All the protocols that run the internet, all the protocols that run the web, the web, languages ​​in general, uh, servers, web servers, mail servers—all of this, all of this is open source. It was so successful precisely because a very small group of people back then came up with Lee Linus Torvalds in 1991, who came up with the idea that an alternative to closed operating systems was needed and decided to gather a group of enthusiasts to write Linux. And it's hard to imagine now that exactly the same situation existed back then. Five American corporations controlled all the world's servers, and all home computers were running them. And now 90% of all phones run open source Linux. Yeah, right. 75% of all the servers we use run open source Linux. The entire internet is open source. Someone might say, "Well, now all this is supported by corporations, that means, no, well, there are a lot of these corporations, and they are sort of different, centralization, but but the second change happened. Why, for example, Cloud? Why are we now talking about Cloud GPU? Yeah. In order to support AI. Why then didn't cloud computing also become decentralized, because in fact there was no Bitcoin framework? Yeah. Cloud, Amazon, Google, GCP, Microsoft's openwork. This is the beginning, this is 2008. This is what laid the foundation for this. That is, open source had these enthusiasts, but there was no model to make money, to finance the infrastructure, to finance physical hardware. And Bitcoin appeared in parallel with Cloud. And during Cloud, yeah, during Cloud's development, Bitcoin built an infrastructure larger than Cloud. Just for some coin, some incomprehensible coin, which used to It was unclear, and now it's become 10% of gold. Look, wait, I have a question. But from a purely technical standpoint, why can't we, uh, stretch the Bitcoin processing power to something like that and it will stay that way? Just shift slowly, right? No, well, you'll just have to remove the hardware. Hardware, it's not suitable for its number. Ah, that is, the current hardware is not suitable. It is suitable, listen, so what is hardware? What is jelly? Yeah, wait, wait, wait. The building is built, it's hardware. I understand, of course. The power plant buildings are built. I understand that this is a huge infrastructure. This is a huge infrastructure. Only the chips there are replaced every couple of years. And the next change in the next couple of years will lead to the fact that 10, 20, 30% of Bitcoin's processing power and data centers will be occupied not by Bitcoin machines, but by AI machines. These are the first changes that we, for example, made. That is, the first thing we made in the protocol is The fact is that in Bitcoin, the computation is a so-called hash function. It doesn't matter whether our listeners understand this, but this specific function isn't like a computation, it's different. And the computations are all very standardized, they're all very similar. Umbrella multiplication. It's specific mathematics. That's it. And so, if you build a protocol, because the hardware that does this kind of computation wins, then the same innovation will occur. It's just different computations, they're slightly different. Even now, among those people who worked on ASX before, there are specialized chips called ASX for Bitcoin, and among them... Dozens of companies have been working on new Transformer architectures and designs for the past year or two. Oh, and some of them, who are just now releasing chips, will release chips next year, are making some bold claims—how do you say "bolt" in Russian? Like, some kind of firm, some kind of harsh claim—that they're 10 to 80 times more efficient at performing LLM operations than Invidiva's top-end chips, which are already 10 times higher. And that's Bitcoin speed. If we increase it by 20% every year , that'll be 20 times—wait, not 20 times—that'll be 300,000 times over 15 years. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, it's coming. It has this paradigm shift, a shift that doesn't weaken Bitcoin's position. Well, look, we think Bitcoin has its role. This gold, it can't be moved. Yeah. So, it's just the base. Even if Bitcoin, all of it, were simply transferred to another blockchain consensus that doesn't require all that electricity, Bitcoin wouldn't disappear. Yeah. It's all gold now. But the fact that there's gold floating around somewhere on stroids, and we could soon reach it, has n't yet brought down the price of gold on planet Earth, despite the fact that there's more gold there than on the entire planet Earth. There definitely is. And we've even already seen it in telescopes and know for sure that we'll get there. But they're not polling that right now. Yeah. Well, that's understandable, because that's a certain belief of Skersity at the moment. The number of Bitcoins won't increase, even if they were transferred, say, to, I don't know, the Salan network. That's it. Rather, what will happen is that another protocol will emerge that doesn't claim to be gold, but rather claims to be the AI ​​fuel of the future. And this might not be our protocol. It might not be our protocol. But if we look at all the current alternatives to our protocol, yes, we would advise them all to reconsider the very essence of what they're doing and restructure around Proof of War, because Bitcoin was built on this model. The more work the infrastructure does, the more. And here we directly need infrastructure. And all the other projects are now in blockchain. The most famous is this one, 60% of all issued Bitter coins go to validators and subnet owners. It has a very complex structure. It's a real mess. There, you're the one who invested the capital, not the one who provided the best equipment. It's a pain. And in this regard, they don't lead to this cycle where it makes sense to expand, update, and add equipment, and that's clear. I understand, of course, the difference is very clear. And in this regard, yes, there are already existing decentralized projects, but they're more like an idea, rather than interesting conceptual projects, but they can't get the same flywheel going. And we're currently assembling a group; this will be our third trip. There's this country called Bhutan. Yeah. And there's a question about taking a step back, right? It's well-known there, not very well-known, but it's well-known in the crypto industry because it's the third-largest country in bitcoin mining, in terms of state ownership of bitcoins. Because they saw this opportunity; they have a lot of electricity, hydroelectricity, the country had a lot, and they realized that they were kind of squeezed between China and India. It's hard for them to sell to anyone other than China and India. These are poor countries that are buying up their electricity cheaply. But can this electricity be sold to the Bitcoin community? Mine Bitcoin. They signed a contract with Bitcoin, brought these specialists to Bhutan, and made it for free among themselves. Who gets the Bitcoin, and with almost free, but huge amounts of electricity, hydroelectricity, yes, they mined about $3 billion in Bitcoin and Litecoin, and for a very small country with a small population. What are you talking about? That the state is actually no longer just Bhutan, well, the whole world has already figured out how Bitcoin has fulfilled its main goal: it has educated the entire world on how decentralized blockchain technologies work. So we're gathering a group of people there, accordingly . We gathered it in February for my birthday. It coincides with my birthday there. The king, so there was a very pleasant group there, where we brought together Silicon and crypto entrepreneurs who were lured by Bitcoin to see the full scale of all these hydroelectric power plants, everything that's being built there. And the main topic there is also what the next stage of this process is, when will it be AI computing? Yeah. In order to address the very disparate ones, our next cooperation with Bhutan will be aimed at bringing together AI manufacturers, future AI chips, ASICs for Transformers, in order to negotiate this protocol. That is, the government is already moving in this direction quietly, without panic. Some are already panicking, but overall they are already moving. And this will, in fact, be quite interesting and beautiful international cooperation at some point. These are precisely the countries that have no options. Countries that have no options. And we will be surprised that almost all the large, strange countries don't have these options. Exactly. And just like this is happening right now, in the next 2-5 years, this shift will happen, because one sequence, at first you really think about, oh, this has too low a probability, rather, the probability of this scenario, where everything is concentrated, is higher. But as soon as you really imagine this future, it becomes so scary that you’re like: “Okay, I’ll at least put a little bit of my resources here.” And that’s enough. That’s it. Ah, but what’s stopping me from putting 1% of my resources into this thing? And this 1% is already enough so that, ah, growth will then go up by 2, 5, 10%, 20%. And an alternative can happen. So, if I were to very briefly summarize in three paragraphs where we will end up in the long term—I don’t know, it’s difficult to outline any horizon, in the long term of 5-10 years— what kind of world will this be, in your opinion? This will be a world of great upheaval , in that the world will change dramatically, and many people could suffer greatly from their inability to adapt. At the same time, this is an incredible opportunity to improve the general well-being of the masses, the well-being of each of us, when things that are currently only available to the world's richest people will become available to us. Even those who are already outside the market today, unable to break into it at all, those who dig the earth and have no other alternative. Even for them, this world will suddenly become a world in which they will live as well as people in developed countries. And this can be seen a little by their phones. There was a time when rich people had special phones and so on, with diamonds and gold, and now they have the same phone. And overall, it's not much different from the Android that people have, yes, the cheapest Android, which people in Indonesia have, and they earn much less money. And the same thing will happen with a robot . It can bring the same thing, only a robot and AI change your ability to earn money, change your ability to do work, create things, build you your own home, and so on. And as for accessibility, well, yes, maybe you, a rich person, will have a robot for 100,000, and it can do cool things very presciently, absolutely. And they will have the same thing, only for 5,000 dollars for one per village. And well, it will do it for them in such a way that it's the same thing, but not stylish. Their life will be radically an order of magnitude better than today. So, these two things are there. And, ah, we actually have a concern that the world is still the future, you know, as they say, the future is already here, but it's unevenly distributed, then, that anyway, what we're talking about will be uneven at the beginning, at least to a certain extent. In some places there will be major upheavals, and in others we'll see this, aa, growth in a country where people will think more about this, Bhutan and so on, yes, already in the early stages, in fact, abundance will grow significantly. Ah, but at the same time, of course, each of us today needs to spend at least 5% of our attention on this issue. What if a world emerges in which AI can produce everything I can? Produce better? Better. Cool. A quick blitz, a short question, a short answer. Let's take it one at a time. If AI becomes smarter than humans, will that be a victory or a defeat? A victory, of course. Excellent. If you had access to the future, literally for 10 minutes, what would be the first thing you would watch? I would look, well, in general, at how we live, how far we have come, how far we have come. But today, I can't imagine what our life will be like if it doesn't last, we will see the stars of the galaxy and so on. I really want to see when humanity finally got there and whether it will ever get there. And that's why usually, when people ask me: "What year in the past would you like to travel to?" I say: "No, I want to go 10,000 times into the future and see what's there." Cool. And what discovery of the last two years really changed your thinking? Oh, in the last two years, yes. I came across the company Kify. Yeah. And I saw, uh, how AI, we will influence biochemistry, chemistry, the physics of new materials. AI will literally change everything in the next two years. New drugs, new materials, new batteries at insane speed. It's all kind of already coming. It's all already happened. It's just a question of what it will be applied to in the next two years. Well, in the past two years, it's literally happened. That is, leading chemical companies, leading pharmaceutical companies have already begun ordering their new molecules from AI companies. Cool. The main skill of the entrepreneur of the future. And in general, I think that this is the main skill today, and that is the ability to understand responsibility, no, the ability to exist in uncertainty. Yeah. We all really don't like living in uncertainty. There are a small number of people who, no matter how unpleasant it is, do it. It's like pain. Some people, it seems, tolerate uncertainty more than others, while others can tolerate it. It's when you have to make a decision in circumstances of absolute uncertainty, when the possible outcomes of these events differ so greatly, and you still have to navigate them. It's about responsibility; someone has to take responsibility for making these decisions, because you're supposed to make it in this uncertainty. If everything goes badly, then you're in for it. If everything goes well, you 'll earn some money and thank them. Well, if everything goes badly, then, as you already mentioned, well, what do you need to do? How do you position yourself? How do you think about it? When someone offers you $100 million now, and you're like, "Well, we can build a different future for humanity." It's a difficult choice. And I think the ability to exist in this uncertainty and navigate scenarios that are completely unpredictable, and how they will unfold, is one of the most important parts of entrepreneurship. Cool. Thank you very much. Super interesting. I don't know, it feels like we've been talking for 2 hours straight again. That conversation had a profound impact on me in terms of my overall perception of reality and my own approaches. This one, I'm sure, will have a profound impact too, because what we discussed today is so pressing, and I think it's something that concerns many people right now. And in general, I and many people today build our perceptions through the prism of how the world will change. This is probably the most important question that any sane person has right now. So thank you very much. I had a blast, as always. I'm very happy. Great, friends, for watching us to the end. If you found this helpful, if you liked it, be sure to subscribe to the channel and give it a like. Most importantly, share your conclusions, ideas, and insights you've gleaned today in the comments. Share. It's always interesting to read and watch. Thank you very much, guys. That's it, [ __ ] great.