¶1Mark Zuckerberg just published an essay about the future of AI. Abundance, bioweapons, super intelligence for everyone. It sounds awesome, but as I read it, I saw one critical flaw in his argument and I couldn't get it out of my mind. So, I sat down to make this video to get all of my thoughts out there. So, here's the essay.
¶2It is called the future is for everyone. Who will have access to super intelligence and what will we direct it towards? Will it be centralized and restricted to a few institutions or will it be a tool that empowers everyone? So you can think of on one side you have the anthropics of the world and I hate to just bash them immediately in this video but they truly believe the way to make artificial intelligence safe is by them deciding how it works. And I could not disagree more wholeheartedly.
¶3Then somewhere in the middle you have open AI and then on the very other side you have Meta. and Meta is going hard on open source and you're going to see that throughout this entire essay and it's a long essay. We propose a philosophy based on individual empowerment as the source of prosperity, invention as the primary purpose of super intelligence and balance of power as the foundation of safety. I could not agree more nor have said it better myself. Individual empowerment.
¶4Everybody should be able to have AI working for them. Invention as the primary purpose of super intelligence. That means AI to invent new things. But what they are specifically going to point out throughout this essay is that it is not job automation. And then last balance of power as the foundation of safety.
¶5Safety in artificial intelligence comes from everybody having it. And that's where the one flaw that I mentioned comes in, but I'm going to get to that in a moment. Now, Mark immediately comes from the top ropes here. I do not understand why anyone who believes that AI will eliminate most jobs and much of humanity's relevance would rush to build that future. I don't understand it either.
¶6We have Frontier Labs, again, anthropic, who Daario is quoted saying, "We're going to have a white collar blood bath." And then he just continues to plow forward building the thing that would have caused it. And so yeah, to me it also makes no sense. Why are you so pessimistic about the future and yet you are building the future? And that's like the messianic kind of vibe coming out of anthropic. Like, hey, we know it's going to destroy the world, but we'd rather be the ones destroying the world and trying to save us.
¶7It's I don't know. It's so backwards. The notion that AI is so dangerous that the only safe path is an extreme concentration of power seems inherently problematic. Again, could not agree more. Historically, hoping that an absolute power will benevolently provide for humanity if sufficiently enlightened has not led to safe or positive outcomes.
¶8And there's two quotes that come to mind. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is a saying for a reason. And then one of my favorites. I can't even say it without a with a straight face.
¶9With great power comes great responsibility. Spider-Man. No, it was his Uncle Ben, right? Uncle Ben said it. And if we look at technology historically, every single time there has been this huge technological shift, we have figured out what to do.
¶10There's been more prosperity. There has been more abundance. And a rising tide lifts all ships. So each time there is fear that people will be left behind. But each time humanity has come out with more people sharing greater prosperity, health and freedom.
¶11And so that is why I believe the future is bright. It continues and I love this invention not automation will be the greatest contribution of super intelligence. And that's really a key and I'm already seeing it inside my company. We've automated a lot of our work, but we are busier than ever. We are doing new things that we wouldn't have otherwise without AI.
¶12Without being able to automate the parts that we've been doing manually for 2 years, we simply would have just continued doing those things. And now that we can automate that, we can now invent new things to do. We can create more better, higher quality content for you and so much more. Now again, Mark keeps taking shots at other AI labs, and we know who he's talking about here. Some argue that super intelligence itself or a small set of experts who control it should decide what is best for humanity.
¶13We disagree and I agree with that. But the argument does break down and I'm going to get to that in one moment. rather than centralizing super intelligence, we should distribute it widely and give every person the ability to direct it. So that I agree with that makes a lot of sense to me. Everybody should have the ability to have super intelligence on tap and as much as they want, but it does not work that way.
¶14And if you're into entrepreneurship, if you're into building things, I'm excited to tell you about the sponsor of today's video, Zapier. If you want to give your agent all of the tools it needs to get realworld work done, you need to connect it to Zapier's MCP server. I've literally been using Zapier for over 10 years. I could not recommend them more highly, and it is now dead simple to give your agents thousands of tools instantly. I'm talking about Gmail, Google Calendar, Asauna, Notion, Slack.
¶15Any tool you use probably is available in Zapier. Zapier has been doing automation for a very long time. So all the brittleleness you've experienced elsewhere, you will not have using Zapier. You just go in, configure the tools that you want to use, they give you a URL, and you simply give it to your agent. That's it.
¶16And now your agent has access to any tool that you need. And it works with all of your agents, whether it's Claude Code or Codeex, OpenClaw, Hermes, it doesn't matter. It will just work. And you can set it all up without writing a single line of code. They have a free plan to get started and you just scale up as you need.
¶17So check out Zapier. They've been such a great partner. I'll drop links down below. Thanks again to Zapier. Now back to the video.
¶18So, here's a few concrete examples of how Mark Zuckerberg and Meta see super intelligence benefiting all of society in the future. Your agent will work 24/7 on your behalf to improve your relationships, health, career, finances, home management, hobbies, and more. It will free up time for the things you enjoy and help you accomplish more than you could otherwise. And I think this is actually a really good line right here. It will free up time.
¶19And what you decide to do with that time is going to be up to you. You can work less certainly, but there definitely will be a subset of people who just think, "Okay, I have a bunch of free time. I'm just going to work even harder now. I'm going to get more done." And you can kind of see the conflict between people who want to take more time to themselves and people who are overachievers and want to work even harder. So, this is from Inc.
¶20magazine. Meta chief technology officer Andrew Bosworth all but rolled his eyes when an employee asked if AI productivity gains should be parlayed into a revival of meta days which are like extra days off that you earn at Meta and he said stop asking about meta days it's very dumb and I hope that what we do with our extra time is do even more and cooler stuff for the users who use our products every day we got billions of people using our products every day I get an extra hour, you know what I'm going to do with it, I put it into that. And so, there's definitely going to be this divide. And totally fine. You know, if you want to go lay on a beach because you've got all this stuff done and you have a bunch of extra time, more power to you.
¶21And if you want to go work even harder and get more done, totally fine with that as well. Now, next, Mark Zuckerberg said, "It will have strong privacy and security options, so you can trust it to handle all of your personal content knowing that no one else can access your information." I have to admit there's definitely some irony with Meta saying that Meta does not have a strong track record of privacy and then also he mentions your glasses and I know a lot of people like the glasses form factor but I am not one of them. Now this next part is extremely important. I actually think the entire economic landscape is going to be changing. Entrepreneurship is going to be changing.
¶22So, everyone will have powerful tools to create new businesses and the economy will become more entrepreneurial. As an entrepreneur myself, I love this. People are starting to be able to manifest ideas themselves without having to raise money or build large teams. There's been this prediction in Silicon Valley for probably over a year that there's going to be a oneperson billion dollar company soon. Now, we haven't had it yet, but we're really close.
¶23A company with under 10 people can reach a billion dollar valuation today. Now, here's the key. Many ideas that would have been too hard or expensive to try before will now be possible. I made a video about this something like a year ago where I I argued that the total universe of problems to solve is effectively infinite. And with artificial intelligence, the long tale of problems in which the ROI to solve those problems was not there all of a sudden becomes very achievable.
¶24It becomes very real. And now you can use AI to solve those longtail of problems. And all of a sudden there's so many more problems that are solvable. And that also leads to many more entrepreneurs which I see as a very good thing. And so he concludes with more employment over time rather than less.
¶25Next he talks about having a personalized tutor and coach with a PhD in every subject. Yeah, that's awesome. I don't think anybody's arguing against that or that that will happen or kind of already has happened. Everyone will benefit from scientific advances and be able to contribute to scientific progress. Again, it's that long tail problem where, you know, if you have a hundred people with some rare disease, the pharmaceutical companies, the bioreearch companies, it just did not make sense to invest and find cures for a disease that only affected 100 people because the economics were not there.
¶26But with AI, it very much is. Now, we're going to get to the important part where I actually think the argument breaks down completely. And I don't even know if I have an answer to this yet. So, let's see. Everyone will have free or affordable access to these tools.
¶27Now, that will definitely happen. We will offer free versions that will be accessible to billions of people. For those who want to pay to use more compute, there will be a dynamic auction mechanism that will guarantee that everyone gets the lowest price possible for the intelligence and compute they're using while also ensuring the capacity is used for whatever people collectively find most valuable. This might be the most important sentence in this entire essay. Now, basically what he's saying is that there's going to be some kind of baseline of compute allocated to everybody on the free version to do with what they want with their super intelligence.
¶28But on the other hand, if you want to pay more, you can. You can pay more to buy more compute and you will get more intelligence. But those two things contradict each other because ultimately whoever can afford to buy more compute will have more intelligence, will be able to accomplish more, will be able to generate more revenue for themselves. Ultimately, compute is going to go towards whatever the most valuable use case is. Whatever the highest ROI of that compute investment is, that's where compute's going to go.
¶29And then also this is kind of the entire concept of the permanent underclass. Once AGI is here or once super intelligence is here, whatever capital you have in that moment, wherever you are from a socioeconomic perspective, that is where you will be forever because everything is relative. Everybody is competing for the finite set of compute resources. So if you have more capital and you can buy more compute, you will be able to out compete everybody else. All right, so let's keep going because this essay contradicts itself in multiple parts.
¶30Next, he starts talking about the risks of AI and he talks about job displacement and ensuring local communities benefit from data center builds, which is obviously a huge concern for a lot of people and the general sentiment around data centers right now in the United States is so negative. AI misuse related to cyber security and biorisk to avoiding government tyranny and surveillance ensuring the US and democratic countries lead and ultimately making sure humanity maintains control over super intelligence so it serves rather than endangers us. So those are all of the major risks that Mark Zuckerberg points out in this article and he goes over every single one and Meta's vision for how to solve each of them. So the conventional view is that these concerns are about technology and that if we take enough time then we can perfect or align the technology to produce a single benevolent super intelligence. I think this view of alignment is fundamentally flawed.
¶31And I agree this is very much the anthropic way of thinking. We are going to produce super intelligence. We're going to try our darnest to align it but we are the best and most capable to do so. So, we're going to be the ones to do it. Nobody else should be able to do it.
¶32But Mark points out correctly that there is no technological solution that can align with everyone's opposing interests and values at once. Any singular super intelligence would have to prioritize some values over others and in the process would be incapable of being benevolent to everyone. And again, this is the flaw in anthropics argument. This is the flaw in which they're saying we need to keep AI closed and only in the hands of a few to decide what happens with it. This is just such a bad argument and so obviously dangerous.
¶33The concentration of power with AI is my biggest fear. The counter is the best and most realistic path to building a positive AI future is by delivering super intelligence to everybody. I agree. But again, how do you do that if the model layer, if the actual intelligence is commoditized and then it's just a function of how much compute you can throw at it, how much intelligence you can actually buy for your dollar, who has the most dollars. That's really what it's going to come down to.
¶34And here they give a very concrete thought experiment. And I really think the argument breaks down completely at this point. As a thought experiment, imagine only one person had a super intelligent lawyer. They would have an unfair advantage in court. Yes, true.
¶35If you had a super intelligent lawyer who could do research and understood every single line of every single case, all of the case law out there, then yes, you will have a distinct and unfair advantage in court. And that would lead to a worse society. But now imagine everyone has a super intelligent lawyer. In this case, justice would be carried out much more fairly and efficiently than it is today when there is often an imbalance in skills and resources in litigation. And so, let's use this example.
¶36Let's say there are two opposing sides in a court case. Both of them have super intelligence. Both of them have, let's say, the exact same quality of model. Whichever team in that court case has more compute to throw at the model to allow the model to think more deeply to do more research to parallelize and get more done in the same amount of time will have a distinct advantage. So just because both sides have super intelligence does not mean that super intelligence is equal.
¶37And that's really important because who's going to have the most compute? Whoever has the most capital. And that again is the entire premise of the permanent underclass and it applies so well in the legal system example. But again this argument that he makes that once everybody has super intelligence the justice system will be fair because of that everybody was going to have equal resources and equal capabilities. It just doesn't make any sense to me.
¶38He goes on to talk about cyber security. If everyone has access to cyber security super intelligence, then all of our technical systems would become more secure than today since the widely deployed super intelligence would help harden and update every system. Once again, it's all about how much compute you have. Now, in this example, I actually think this is a good thing because I suspect the good guys, so the companies that are trying to harden our systems that are the defensive actors, the major companies all across the world are going to have much more capital to invest into infrastructure into compute to power their super intelligence to harden their systems than the bad actors will. So in this case, the difference between compute, the difference between resources with the good guys and the bad guys actually helps and makes our systems hardened.
¶39But in a court case, again, both sides hopefully would just have equal resources and win on the merits of their argument and the facts rather than whoever can argue the best or do the most research. Then we go back to another bad example where the argument breaks down. If only one business had super intelligence, that business would outco compete all others and lead to a less dynamic and broadly prosperous market than we have today. But if everyone has access to super intelligence, then everyone will have the tools to create new things beyond what is possible today. So I agree in theory that makes sense.
¶40But once again, it's really going to be about who has the most compute. If everybody has access to the same tap of intelligence, whoever gets the most intelligence will be able to outco compete everybody else. And so in this case, once again, can you imagine Meta has massive data centers and they all of a sudden have competition from a startup. They're going to be able to buy more compute. They own the compute and they're going to be able to outco compete that startup.
¶41So he keeps stating the solution is to ensure that super intelligence is broadly distributed to empower people. But he keeps referring to super intelligence in the form of the model layer, not the compute as much because the compute is really the important part and honestly energy is just as important. Compute and energy. Once open-source proliferates the intelligence layer is likely or at least a lot of it is going to become commoditized. And so it's whoever can spend more on compute at that moment will be able to out compete in any realm that they're competing in.
¶42Another dig at the competing labs. Meta is the company primarily focused on building personal super intelligence for everyone which I appreciate that most of their labs are focused on building AI for companies, governments and other institutions. So if those labs lead, then the balance of power will favor large institutions over individuals. But again, large institutions are going to be able to outspend individuals on compute. Now, he goes on to talk about job growth in the economy.
¶43This is where I come back to agreeing with him again. So, people have infinite demand for new experiences and have always found new problems to tackle. I made this argument in a video I made about a year ago. There are infinite problems to solve. It's just about the ROI to solve them.
¶44Does it make sense? And if it does make sense, companies, entrepreneurs will go after those problems. And AI reduces the cost to solve these long tale of problems, which is good because more people will have their problem solved no matter how rare that problem is. And you can think of a problem again as a disease. If somebody has a rare disease that only a 100 people in the world have, AI makes the economics work to go solve that disease for the 100 people.
¶45Okay? And I highlighted this next part in red because it literally contradicts the previous point or really the whole point of this essay of super intelligence for everyone. No matter how intelligent AI becomes, there will be always a finite amount of compute and therefore an opportunity cost for how we use it. Right there, a finite amount of compute. That means whoever has the most capital gets to dictate where that compute goes.
¶46Now, the capital doesn't just get to dictate it. It has to actually have a return on the capital. So hopefully the argument is whatever the most valuable allocation of that capital is is kind of how the economy would play out anyways. So that's where the compute is going to go. He goes on to say if people can use AI to invent incredibly valuable new things then it will make more sense to allocate it towards that rather than automating existing jobs.
¶47This I agree with. But again, let's say somebody, a startup comes up with an incredibly valuable way to use artificial intelligence, something that produces a high rate of return, then all of a sudden the company that already has the most compute, already has the most capital, will immediately see it. The barrier to entry for that company, for that massive company to come and compete directly with the startup is effectively zero. And thus it is once again whoever has the most compute will be able to out compete everybody else. So that is still my biggest fear and I really think this contradicts the entire notion of everybody's going to have super intelligence because everybody having super intelligence basically means the playing field is level on the intelligence layer and then it's how much compute can you throw at it.
¶48Now, he goes on to talk about how jobs are going to change. New jobs are going to be created. It's not going to be AI just automates everybody's jobs and everybody's out of work. I don't agree with that. I never have.
¶49And I like how he explains it. A generation ago, there were no app developers, social media creators, electric vehicle technicians, and data center operators. So, he's saying with every technological revolution, there have been new jobs created. And with AI, it is no different. In the near future, there will be new jobs that aren't common today, like oneperson product studios designing custom toys, furniture, or clothes, worldbuilders, and experienced designers creating games, stories, and adventures.
¶50Personal biologists using super intelligence to formulate personalized treatments, and much more that we can't yet conceive. I agree with everything he said here. I am very optimistic about job prospects for society. And he points to not too long ago 90% of people were farmers growing food to survive. Now it's singledigit percentages provide food for the entire world.
¶51And that is the point. We have created technologies that have allowed fewer people to gain much more leverage over this one domain and everybody else benefited and then so many other jobs were created. What did not happen is everybody who would have been a farmer is just now out of a job completely. We have new and different jobs. It's not going to be perfect and he points this out.
¶52Of course, some aspects of the way we work will change just as it did with computers, the internet, and any new technology. This means people will have to adapt and this will be challenging. Another prediction he's making, and another one that I completely agree with, is that company sizes may shrink. Just as they did in the transition from industrial giants to tech companies, although tech companies have massive labor forces, this doesn't mean fewer jobs overall, it implies a larger number of companies with fewer people each. And so, again, this goes back to that longtail ROI question.
¶53There's going to be many more companies with fewer people in each able to achieve higher levels of revenue, able to tackle problems where previously the ROI was not there, but now it is. And so I'm excited about that. But it does take a lot of people who want to be entrepreneurial and hopefully becoming an entrepreneur just becomes easier over time. So as I mentioned earlier, the sentiment around data centers and AI in general is incredibly negative right now. And so he tries to allay some of those fears and address some of the anger that we're seeing today.
¶54One example that he gives is in Richland Parish, Louisiana, Meta built a data center and because of the additional revenue that that town made from that data center, each teacher received a $50,000 bonus this year because of the increased tax revenue from our investment. And so this is the way if these big tech companies are going to be putting data centers in towns and in cities and in states and they're facing a lot of friction in doing so. The best way to remove that friction is simply to increase the quality of life there. And the interesting thing is with the $50,000 bonus that the teachers made in this town, the superintendent told us that the teachers are now moving there from across the country and they suspect they will have one of the best schools in the entire nation because of this. And we could repeat this formula again and again.
¶55Now, a lot of the arguments against data centers I hear today are around water and water usage. So, Mark Zuckerberg says, not only are their current data centers designed to be the most water efficient in the world, they are also committed to being water positive, meaning that we'll restore more water than we use in the wersheds where we operate by 2030. And in areas with high water stress, our goal is to restore 200% of the water we use. Now again, they could say this all day long. And maybe I'm naive to believe it, but I know that much of the new data centers being created, being built right now, are closed loop systems.
¶56They do not use a ton of water. It's not like the GPUs are thirsty sucking up all this water and then they it just goes nowhere. These are closed loop systems just like your home PC. If you have a water cooled PC, that is exactly how it works. Okay, so now back to the contradiction, back to where this argument really breaks down.
¶57So here he's talking about securing AI and cyber security, bioteterrorism, and more. So with AI, the defenders will also have more compute to generate significantly more intelligence from the same models. This is exactly what I said earlier. When we have cyber defenders that tend to be the biggest companies in the world, they will have more resources to harden their systems much more quickly than attackers can try to infiltrate the systems. And that is because the resources of defenders are just so much higher than attackers.
¶58But again, this exact same logic applies everywhere in society. If everybody has access to super intelligence, whoever has the most super intelligence, aka the most compute, will have a competitive advantage. He even says, and in some cases, they'll have more advanced models as well. They being the defenders. And again, the contradiction is so plainly obvious right here.
¶59The general pattern is that society ensures the defenders who keep bad actors in check must always have a greater balance of power and resources. Certainly, if defenders can have a greater balance of power and resources, it's really not the defender, it's whoever has the most capital. Here is the part that I do agree with. He goes back to the centralization of power with artificial intelligence. Restricting capabilities leads us down the path of centralization and lack of checks and balances.
¶60Restricting capabilities, he's specifically calling out companies like Enthropic who think they are the ones to create super intelligence and nobody else should. They are the ones who are responsible enough to create it well to align it and open source probably shouldn't exist. This is likely what Anthropic thinks. But then again, another contradiction. The long-term answer isn't to withhold capabilities, but to establish a balance of power where super intelligence is broadly distributed.
¶61But the balance of power is not having access to the model. It is how much compute you have. That is really what it comes down to. And actually upstream from compute is energy. He talks about reducing biological and chemical risks because of AI.
¶62This is one of the main arguments that Anthropic puts forth as to why opensource is actually really dangerous because if everybody has access to knowledge of how to build chemical or biological weapons then the world is a more dangerous place. And I just do not agree with that at all. And here's the reason. Even if you have the knowledge of how to do something, you still have to do it. And especially for something like building a biological or chemical weapon, you still need all of the physical components to do it.
¶63You still need people, researchers with the capabilities, even if they are supported by AI. You still need to have a certain level of expertise. And putting all of these physical components together is extremely difficult and we should make it more difficult. So, we should focus on limiting the physical production and distribution of harmful materials. I expect it will be easier to regulate and control physical components than the spread of knowledge.
¶64What a banger quote. Controlling the spread of knowledge has never been easy. Knowledge, truth, it generally finds a way out. But controlling physical components, controlling chemicals, controlling the facilities and the the tooling necessary to build these facilities, that is much easier. And we've seen that with nuclear weapons.
¶65The knowledge of how to build it is out there. But being able to actually get your hands on nuclear components, the tooling, the expertise, that's the difficult part. So, in the last few months, I've talked quite a bit about the race between China and the US with artificial intelligence. And here is something really interesting. Nvidia and Jensen do not believe in export controls.
¶66They believe if we stop sending our chips to China, they're going to develop their own chip producing capabilities, which that makes a lot of sense. But we do have export controls on chips today. And Mark Zuckerberg says export controls on silicon have been successful for slowing the progress of foreign labs during this critical period. So it is the right strategic move to continue those. So very interesting.
¶67He disagrees with Jensen on this point. Jensen thinks we should just ship the best chips we have because otherwise China is going to build their own. And if they're dependent on US chips, that's really good for the US. Now obviously this really benefits Nvidia but there is an argument that export controls have been working. Now he also points out that China is producing and building much more energy than the United States and campaigns for the US to get even more aggressive with building out our own energy infrastructure accelerate building both energy and data centers to remain competitive.
¶68And it seems like we're having the opposite effect right now because of the negative sentiment in the United States of AI and data centers. They're being banned across the nation as we speak. This puts us at a distinct disadvantage in the race for super intelligence against China. He also, this is super interesting, calls for distillation to just be legal. And I think a lot of you watching this video will probably agree with what he says here.
¶69For the US to lead in open source, we need to rethink our policies in several areas, including distillation and data use and training. The ability for models to learn from other models is an important principle of how the open-source ecosystem works. All AI models are derived from human knowledge. Some have tried to frame distillation as harmful, some anthropic. But I think it is important to protect the principle that you can learn from anything you can observe.
¶70This is how the world works. and the US will not be able to lead if we restrict ourselves on this front. He is basically calling for distillation to be legal, which is kind of wild. Specifically calling out anthropic. I mean, not by name, but that's who he's referring to when he says some have tried to frame distillation as harmful.
¶71But he's saying, hey, distillation is a good thing. And when you're coming from the angle of building an open- source ecosystem, distillation is very beneficial for open source. for closed source it is not and he's basically making the argument the closed source labs distilled on all of human knowledge why can't we distill on them I don't know makes sense to me I think we just need to follow IP law whatever the law is let's follow that and if we need to adjust the law to allow for distillation fine but if distillation is legal the frontier labs are going to lose a lot of their value because another company can come along distill on the frontier model that cost billions and billions of dollars to build and build a competitive model at a fraction of the price and in a fraction of the amount of time. Now, distillation does not mean Chinese AI labs can distill. I don't think that's what he's saying.
¶72I think he's saying other US companies. And so, if we want to prevent China from distilling US models, maybe that's still a solid argument to make. Next, he talks about maintaining control of super intelligence, recursive self-improvement. Because once that happens, once AI is able to improve itself and just compound on that improvement, then the chance that we're going to be able to keep it aligned and keep it under our control goes down significantly. And so his solution is as such.
¶73The simplest is that multiple labs could achieve RSI around the same time. If some or all of those super intelligences were somehow benevolent, then they could check and balance each other. So, here's the problem with this. Recursive self-improvement compounds quickly. And whoever reaches recursive self-improvement first, maybe the delta between first and second place, right when it happens, is very small.
¶74But once it happens, there's no catching up. Any gap between first place and second place only expands from there. That is the entire concept of recursive self-improvement. So I actually don't think this is true. Even if a bunch of labs all around the same time reached RSI, whoever reached it first would continue their momentum, grow their momentum, and maintain their lead.
¶75So that's it. Overall, I love the vision. I am excited about open source. I want everybody to have access to incredible intelligence, super intelligence, but I'm just struggling to see how it doesn't ultimately come down to whoever has the most compute and energy wins and any part of the economy that they want. Now, what I'm hopeful for is that the value of pointing the compute at some part of the economy is going to benefit society as a whole.
¶76Like if society needs some problem to be solved and there's many people who need it solved, then it's going to make sense for whoever holds the compute to point their compute at solving that problem. Because ultimately, if you are a hyperscaler, you have all the compute, but you're not solving problems that people actually need, then you're not going to get a return on that invested compute. Anyways, let me know what you think. I'm still thinking through this, but I just think these arguments, at least some of them, break down in some areas. And I made an entire video about why I am so excited about open source and why it is so important.
¶77And check that out right