TikTok’s Testimony, and Google’s Bard Release

Support for the show comes from Saks Fifth Avenue.

Sacks Fifth Avenue makes it easy to shop for your personal style.

Follow us here, and you can invest in some new arrivals that you'll want to wear again and again, like a relaxed product blazer and Gucci loafers, which can take you from work to the weekend.

Shopping from Saks feels totally customized, from the in-store stylist to a visit to Saks.com, where they can show you things that fit your style and taste.

They'll even let you know when arrivals from your favorite designers are in, or when that Brunello Cacchinelli sweater you've been eyeing is back in stock.

So, if you're like me and you need shopping to be personalized and easy, head to Saks Fifth Avenue for the Best Fall Arrivals and Style inspiration.

Thumbtack presents.

Uncertainty strikes.

I was surrounded.

The aisle and the options were closing in.

There were paint rollers, satin and matte finish, angle brushes, and natural bristles.

There were too many choices.

What if I never got my living room painted?

What if I couldn't figure out what type of paint to use?

What if

I just used thumbtack?

I can hire a top-rated pro in the Bay Area that knows everything about interior paint, easily compare prices, and read reviews.

Thumbtack knows homes.

Download the app today.

Hi, everyone.

This is Pivot from New York Magazine and the Vox Media Podcast Network.

I'm Carol Swisher.

And I'm Scott Galloway.

So where are you now, Scott?

Where in the world is Scott Galloway?

I'm in the city of Angels.

I'm in Hosanna.

Your favorite place, your old stomping ground.

My favorite hotel, Beverly Hills Hotel, where I'm very fancy.

I receive people.

People like to come here.

Oh, really?

Do you have a suite?

I have what's called the Michael Jackson suite.

And that is, it has a, it has a, seriously, it has a secret entry and exit way.

Why?

I wonder why they call it the Michael Jackson suite.

Why do you need a secret entrance and exit?

I don't understand.

Whenever I get here, I'm one of these total douchebags that looks at the fire map.

And if I don't have, if I don't have a big room, I call and I start negotiating for a bigger room.

Oh, I see.

Okay.

Yeah.

So they put me to the Michael Jackson suite.

One of those people.

Oh, my God.

Oh Oh, my God.

You know, we're not that far from each other.

We're only 350 miles away.

I'm in San Francisco.

Well, I did feel a little extra warmth this morning, Kara.

I should come down there, but I don't have time.

But I love Los Angeles.

Well, you know, I should come down.

You know, I'm here.

You can say, Scott, why are you here?

No interest in my life.

Oh, why are you there?

Two words.

First, Bill, second, Marr.

Yeah.

I don't want to brag, though.

I don't want to brag.

I won't say I'll be on it in a month, but okay, sure.

That's great.

That's literally the first thing they said to me, by the way.

It's like, oh, this is such good news.

Finally, we got Kara.

and i'm like okay

good that's something so happy prayer scott you can't be chomping at the bit for those bill maher people no they're it's they're very nice staff i don't agree with bill all the time but it's certainly a

oh really see i only i only i only um respect people i agree with all the time oh okay all right but what are you gonna talk about oh tick tock oh come on this is your little time to run around

what oh no this is totally my wheelhouse we're talking about um failing young men we're talking about his population decline good or bad we're doing we're actually doing almost everything but TikTok.

Oh, you've got to talk about TikTok.

But here's the thing: they send you these topics, and then

Bill just starts talking about whatever he wants.

Whatever he wants.

Yeah, it's usually, you know, aggrieved aggrievement about

culture wars.

That guy's a gangster.

I know.

But that show, you got to admit,

you got to admit, that show is more culturally relevant than ever.

I see clips of him talking about we need to be United States.

He really does tap into something

pretty.

I constantly see his stuff everywhere and people just, yeah,

the writers there are amazing.

Some people like what he's done, some people don't.

It's good.

It's good.

Whatever.

That means he's saying something.

That's true.

Well, maybe.

Yeah.

I mean, yeah.

It's just, it's an interesting time for the show like that.

And it's, but listen, you, you go on that long.

A lot of people can't, you know, a lot of people have fallen by the wayside and he has and he keeps going.

Well, he's further proof that, you know, there's both opportunity and an existential or a threat to the species of people called moderates.

I don't think you're a moderate sometimes, but that's okay.

We're not going to debate that.

We're not going to deal with that.

What do you think?

I'm too far left.

No, I just think that you bang on that culture war drum a little too long.

There's other really issues in this country that are much, it's just this whole woke thing is exhausting.

I'm all about culture wars.

That's a perfect description.

No, but you know, the woke thing, and you can't say what you want.

And

I would like, just like people, the Republicans.

You mean the state of America?

No, but it's not.

Most regular people are worried about the price of gas.

And we're not going to go to this.

I just want to.

And you're one with the regular folk.

No.

No, but I have many more relatives than you do.

Don't.

This climate bill is going to.

You're not taking my lawnmower.

Yeah.

You're very much the regular.

No, no, you're not going to.

This is your business.

You're just a downhome lesbian in San Francisco finishing your book.

You try to do this whenever I make the point that people go bang on about woke is not what people are concerned about.

You don't have to be of that group to understand that this is bullshit.

Like, and this is what you do.

You always have to point out I am an elite, which you are even more an elite when you want to disagree with them.

You never make an actual argument.

You just have to say, oh, you'd know.

Yeah, I would know.

I can talk to people.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

Let's unpack that.

You never make an actual argument.

How soon after saying that did you realize that's not true?

No, it's not true.

You go, listen, let me just say, whenever I point out that this woke stuff is exhausting and most people have bigger concerns than that, you always say, oh, you're an elite lesbian.

That is what you go to every single time.

And so I don't really think that's okay.

So it makes me unable to hear people or read or let me actually make an argument, which you accuse me of never doing.

Okay, that we on the left shoot ourselves in the foot because we're under the impression that the Americans have elected us to be the police for cultural issues.

And as a result, we turn off moderates and people with weird, dangerous ideas get elected.

So we have adopted a strategy that has not worked.

Yes, but I don't, I think it's that they have adjusted that over time.

And I think the Republicans gone further right.

And you can watch it through everything they're doing around this Trump arrest.

It's nothing to do with anything else.

I think many on the left have adjusted this.

I think many have said, yeah, you're right, and stuff like that.

I don't think they're doubling down on it.

That's for sure.

But I do think the Republicans are doubling down on crazy.

And so, okay.

I mean, this is something, look, Biden's moved much closer to the center recently.

And obviously, you know, he's got his progressive wing, but he's moved.

I mean, mean, you're

a fan of Bolivia.

There's lots of columnists who've written about this, about this issue.

And so that's what happens.

I think the woke thing is not nearly as important as the crazy.

And that's,

it's a problem, but it's not what's happening, you know, in states

across the country around trans things around.

Well, one is naive and one is mean.

It's beyond mean.

It's something else.

It's trying to legislate all kinds of things that we shouldn't be legislating.

But, you know, like I'm looking at these things, like there's a really good piece, and we'll get, let's get to what we're actually going to talk about today, but there's a great piece about what's going on in Iowa and

the governor there, who I think everyone focuses on Kerry Lake.

Kim Reynolds is very savvy and is really playing into and passing all kinds of legislation that's really

like anti-trans, not just anti-trans, it just goes on and on and on.

And so I think this is

actual legislation in action versus telling someone they don't like when you don't use they them.

I don't know.

I just find there's a big difference.

Yeah, but then the question becomes careful.

Well,

how is that happening and how do we best combat it?

How do we be more thoughtful?

And the thing that always shocks me is we're always in a state of outrage over

what are

justifiably upsetting things, and yet we always seem to figure out a way to let it happen.

And my attitude is, why is it, why are these ridiculous mean laws that are ineffectual and just inflame people, why do they always seem to get traction and we seem to get outplayed on the left?

How How come McConnell's always able to outsmart everybody?

Voting.

I think voting is one.

I think people don't vote.

I think people just sit around and don't vote.

Now, they did in Kansas, right?

They did around the abortion thing.

And so the numbers, when you look at the numbers,

the group that's very much liked is get out and vote.

And then the others just don't.

And then they're like, oh, and then they have to clean it up.

And that's the ultimate thing when you look at those numbers.

Anyway, we shall not argue politically anymore today.

I hope you have a great time on Bill Maher.

So someone's struggling with their last chapter.

That's how I'm going to say.

Today, Mr.

Chu goes to Washington.

TikTok's CEO gets an earful on Capitol Hill.

Also, Google enters the AI race at last and will take a listener question on getting paid in stock.

All right, but first, President Trump is still a free man.

It looks like he was incorrect about being arrested on Tuesday.

He's, as we tape on Thursday, the grand jury weighing whether or not Trump will be indicted.

And the Stormy Daniels case was unexpectedly given a day off on Wednesday.

As a reminder, Trump told followers he would be arrested on Tuesday and called for protest.

There were about five people in front of Trump Tower, by the way.

It's going well for him.

This weekend, Trump will hold a rally in Waco, Texas, on the 30th anniversary of the siege of the Branch Davidian compound.

His lawyer has been ordered to turn over documents in the classified document case.

It might be impactful.

Apparently, there are tapes.

He's just an ongoing, exhausting

wart on the ass of society.

What do you think?

Trevor Burrus, Jr.: Well, again, a president is supposed to de-escalate.

And

what happened in Waco is so

upsetting.

And there's probably so many people whose daughter or grandkid

was perished in that thing.

And then you have a guy coming down there to remind you of it for his own political purposes.

A very anti-government protest, by the way, but go ahead.

What was happening in Waco.

You know what I mean?

It was like sort of this idea of the government coming in and taking our guns.

It was a version of that.

God, I forgot about just how horrible that was.

And that trigger that

feeling of this is this is, there's no good from this, are emotions that are part of the fabric that is Donald Trump over and over.

Over and over.

It is.

It's been ongoing.

This kind of, what happened at Waco has been ongoing.

But it brings me back.

There were several different events.

That was one,

the Heaven's Gate cult members.

Remember when that was 97?

Was that the one with the Black Nikes?

Yes, the Black Nikes and the Comet.

Remember the Comet?

I I remember looking at the comment, and then that happened.

Like, these are very dark parts of the U.S.

psyche, and he keeps like poking it and like unearthing it over and over again.

It doesn't mean we shouldn't look at it and discuss it and everything else, but it's really,

you know, just in order to get out of like in order to get out of this Stormy Daniels case, which was about a porn star, right?

That's really, you know, it's just the way he pokes at the darkest parts of our psyche is really fucked up on so many levels.

We'll see.

And of course, they'll probably elect him the candidate.

They'll probably make him the candidate.

I tried to sign up or register for tickets.

I figured that's my contribution.

You know, you can get tickets online.

Oh, really?

Yeah.

Interesting.

Like, you know, we're doing that whole

no-one will show up thing.

Oh, yeah.

Oh, well, we'll see.

The teens, I think, tried that, but, and it worked in one place.

You know, he'll have a group of people that go see him all the time.

It's like, that's what he's going for: is the diehards and emphasis on die.

Anyway, another thing, the markets are reacting to the Fed's latest latest interest rate hike, matching last month's hike of a quarter point.

Fed Chairman Jerome Powell, who is tiptoeing, it sounds like, said the process of getting inflation back down to 2% has a long way to go and is likely to be bumpy, you think, Mr.

Powell.

The SP 500 is up 1% since the news, and the ongoing bank uncertainty continues with First Republic down 50% in the last five days.

The stocks of these banks don't matter, but it's the nervousness of

spooking people, I think.

So is this the right move?

They had to not, they couldn't not do it, correct?

Yeah, this was the Goldilocks raise.

And that is, I thought, okay, you have this banking crisis that in some part

was due to what was a historic increase in interest rates.

Interest rates, or the Fed funds, is the

highest it's been since 2007, but we haven't raised rates 475 bips since 1979 within like a 12-14-month period.

So, I thought, oh, he's because of the potential for contagion in banking, he's going to tap the brakes and not do a rate hike.

Ed Elson, my analyst at Prof G, said,

actually, he probably will raise, and he got it exactly right, he said, a quarter of a point because Powell doesn't want to spook the markets by giving them the impression he spooked.

He still wants to show that, look, folks, inflation is still

the monster in the room.

And

the other one, you know, that's in the closet, maybe, maybe comes out, maybe doesn't.

That's not my biggest concern.

And

it was sort of like trying to say, we're still fighting inflation, but we're also cognizant of what's happening in the banking sector.

Yeah, it's 100%.

I think your panelist was spot on about that.

And we'll see where he goes from here.

But inflation is the biggest problem.

But, you know, banks,

inflation is a long-term pain, and a bank run is terrifying to people, I think, in a lot of ways.

I mean, there's just some really frightening things here.

There are so many people out there, especially younger people, who have have done taking some action to try and prepare, either buying supplies or thinking about their go-route,

whatever it might be, preparing for doomsday.

I'm watching The Last of Us too much, I guess.

That's right.

And there's also when

the most famous, well-resourced, and quite frankly, the impression, most intelligent people in the world are all hardcore, like go bag people, it doesn't create a sense.

It's like, if these people are worried, shouldn't I be?

Yeah.

And it creates, and what's what's and also their actions, think about what they do with their professional lives.

We need to figure out a way to inhabit another planet.

We need, I want to take you into another universe.

It's very nihilistic.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Well, it's like assuming all hell will break loose.

That's there is that assumption here, 100%.

Yeah,

I think it's frightening.

Do you have a go bag plan, Scott?

I doubt it.

I think these go bags bags and these bunkers are going to have the same effectiveness as if a nuclear flash goes off and all our kids duck and cover.

Yeah, yeah.

We were told that all we needed to do in case of nuclear attack from those roosties was duck and cover as soon as we saw the flash of light and we would be just fine.

Well, guess what?

No.

You guys duck and see how that works for you.

I know.

If shit gets really real, because they're going to find you.

I told you what my plan was when they all had their plans and they're like, what's your plan?

I said, said, I'm gonna find you, beat you up, take your things.

That's like, what do you think my plan is?

And steal your shit because I know you'll be well.

Thanks.

Yeah, I agree.

I think it's there's no getting out of it.

There's no, no one's getting out of this life alive.

Well, why, why wouldn't we

why wouldn't we take all of this money and genius and try and figure out how to make it make this place more habitable?

Yeah, well, just in case, Scott, just in case, have those gold doubloons that you put on a belt and carry around and lose the weight.

I do like the idea of rough-cut gems being stuck up my ass.

Let's go.

Let's go.

No, no, let's not have it.

We should have it like a place we go, but then we'll be stuck together.

It's like a Twilight Zone episode, you and I in a bunker.

Okay.

Would that be like, I'm trying to think, would that be 10 minutes or 10 hours before?

We say, you know what, I really like you, but let's kill each other.

I would kill you.

You'd be dead.

Who do you think would win that one?

Oh, my God.

You'd go weeks.

I'd be minutes.

I would yellow jacket this motherfucker.

I'm like, look, it's been good.

If you run into my kids again, tell them I love them.

We need to plan what we're going to do with my body.

I would immediately start planning.

Cook it for dinner.

What are you talking about?

No,

I am not getting caught in a bunker with anyone.

named Kara Swisher.

I'm going to yellowjacket the situation.

Anyway, last thing, Ford's EV business lost over $2 billion in 2022.

Not a surprise.

The loss was offset by $10 billion in profits from the Automaker's internal combustion and fleet business.

Might be just the beginning.

The company expects a loss of $3 billion for its EV unit in 2023.

They got to spend the money.

I don't know what to say.

This is what Elon did with Tesla.

You got to spend the money to get to this new business.

It's the way it is.

That's the way it is the new business.

It's really fascinating.

It's sort of, I feel like everything comes back to the streaming wars.

Almost every business that how the streaming wars is laid out, if you really understand it,

you can kind of predict almost any market where there's an excess of capital or excitement.

And there's enormous justified excitement around EVs.

And the innovator's dilemma kicked in hard here in that, as they said, similar to how a lot of people didn't take Netflix seriously for a long time, all the automakers looked at the actual gross size of the EV market, looked at how expensive it was, looked at the fact that their shareholder base wouldn't tolerate the type of investment required to be competitive in EVs, all of the things that were present with Netflix versus traditional linear TV.

And then finally, they're all of a sudden, this is like Netflix or the streaming market and I don't know, call it 2017, 18.

They're all like, we have no choice.

We've got to go all in here.

Yep.

And this, yeah, and they're, and just similar to Netflix, anyone, I don't care if you're Disney with an unparalleled library or, you know, Hulu, any of these guys, you had to make uncomfortable, staggering, irrational investments.

And there's just no way these things are super expensive.

They'll get to scale.

The exciting thing is there will be a Moore's Law here.

They will come down.

The government's helping with the Infrastructure Act to bring down prices.

But everybody is going all in and it's super expensive.

And for the time being, you know, and the same thing will happen.

What's happening in streaming now?

Consolidation will probably happen

in three to five years.

I don't think I'm not sure Tesla will be an individual.

Well, actually, it's too big to be acquired, but some of these guys will have to get rolled up.

Polestar, lucid.

This is money well spent.

They have to spend this.

They have to spend this.

There's no choice because this is where the market's going.

It's where everybody's going.

It's where the states are going.

They can't pull pull this back.

So this is the loss they need to have.

So that's the way it goes.

And they should have done it earlier, the way Tesla did.

He put, you know, he created the manufacturing stack, and that's why he's way ahead for now.

Okay, let's get to our first big story.

TikTok CEO Sho Chu testified before an overwhelmingly hostile House committee on Thursday as his company hopes to fend off a potential U.S.

ban of the app.

Good show, show, but it's not going to work.

GOP Representative Kathy Morris came out blazing in her opening remarks.

Let's listen.

We do not trust TikTok will ever embrace American values, values for freedom, human rights, and innovation.

TikTok has repeatedly chosen the path for more control, more surveillance, and more manipulation.

Your platform should be banned.

I expect today you'll say anything to avoid this outcome.

Mr.

Chu, for his part, largely dodged complicated questions, but fired back with comparisons to American tech giants.

I don't think ownership is the issue here with a lot of respect.

American social companies don't have a good track record with data privacy and user security.

I mean, look at Facebook and Cambridge Analytica.

Just one example.

Representatives accused TikTok of being lax with safety and cozy with the Chinese Communist Party, but they occasionally took the opportunity to ask Chu probing questions like, does TikTok access the home Wi-Fi network?

Chu also also pointed out that his network doesn't accept political ads and claim that it doesn't sell data to brokers, but he didn't rule out doing so in the future.

I mean, what do you think here?

It was kind of

cooked, don't you think, the whole thing.

Yeah, I mean, the House Energy Committee here, they chose violence, but they chose it before he showed up.

Yeah.

We knew this was going to be ugly.

I actually found it very cathartic and relaxing to watch this panel because it was the first time I could think of in a long, long time

you would see the representative from some very conservative place in Georgia echo the comments of his colleague from, you know, a Democrat from Maine.

I mean,

there is more bipartisan agreement here than on the Russian invasion of Ukraine and how to respond to it.

Yeah, absolutely.

So it's, it's just, it's shocking to me that 180 or how just much this is the narrative here has changed.

What did the CCP do today?

They came out with the mother of all stupid comments and said, we will not

tolerate or agree to a spin, which by virtue of them saying that says we're in charge of this platform.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

So it was,

they basically, they poured honey on this guy and sent him hunting for baits.

Yeah, I know.

This guy, I feel bad because he was sort of like, he's in the middle of the squeeze here and he's getting squeezed.

I mean, mean he's absolutely correct about u.s companies come on like they're not the chinese communist party but they're really bad and of course none of our representatives have ever dealt with that that they can't deal with but when it comes to a chinese company they're doing to this company what they should have been doing to all these companies for years but they aren't but they aren't but they aren't because it's good for you know to to to to shake the american flag for everybody and you know which is fine look does the ban look more or less likely after this hearing what is your take after this more to me i'm going to say more

i think you've you've been right on this.

And I'm going to pick up the flag of talking about how awesome we are.

When we said seven or eight months ago this thing should be banned, we were called a lot of names.

And here's where this thing is absolutely going to be banned.

It's already happening.

I think we're serving as a beacon.

I think you're going to see more Western nations find their backbone around banning this thing.

And

I do believe that there's so much money here that they will, on the eve of the banning, decide to spend it.

We'll see.

There are those considerations.

It is a, you know, I honestly, I still don't think that she appears with Putin helped the matters any.

He looks like he's against the U.S.

And so it's very easy to do this.

You know, it's not, it wasn't a good showing.

All these people are dying in Ukraine.

He looks like an opportunist.

And it seems like Senator Warner was like, oh, let's get through it with the ban.

Let's go.

Let's stop.

Stop this nonsense, which, you know, he's, he's usually pretty reasonable.

But I mean, if a ban comes, it's going to be, I mean, everyone's going to pay a price.

It's a great service.

My urologist is on TikTok.

It's called Dick Dock.

That's good.

That should be banned.

I'll tell you, I have a ban on that crap.

Ban on dad jobs.

That's pushed them over the edge.

It's a ban is coming.

Let's ban Scott Galloway.

That's my feeling.

Anyway, Chu had a unique proposal for federal oversight of TikTok.

He said the company has formed a subsidiary called USDS to manage U.S.

user data.

In prepared remarks, Chu wrote that, quote, USDS employees would report to an independent board of directors who would be approved by a fiduciary duty to the federal government.

Ooh, that's a little scary.

To be clear, he framed the idea: it's an idea, something that could happen, not exactly something that will happen.

The CEO also reiterated claims that user data is safely stored on Oracle's servers and that the Chinese government has never requested user data.

Okay, sure.

How do you think TikTok's critics will respond to this proposed U.S.

government-approved board?

That makes me nervous.

U.S.

government-approved, but go ahead, go for it.

I think his argument has the nuance that people aren't going to investigate.

They're not going to try and figure out, well, what would a board do or not do?

I also think it's like one of these, okay, you want us to have a Facebook oversight board, but our impression is these boards don't really have a lot of teeth.

And what do we do?

I mean, it's all about incentives.

It's not even about supervision here because the supervision is near impossible.

There's an easier solution, by the way, rather than this,

I don't know what this is, another chur ducking, ducking, right?

And you believe that easier solution is a spin-off.

Spin-off.

That's it.

Why are we trying to do this?

Like, oh, my God, so many First Amendment things here.

It's like, who gets on it?

What do they do?

Is it like a blue-ribbon panel?

It's just how do they track data?

How about spinning it off?

How about that?

That might work.

That's exactly right.

If the U.S.

successfully forces a sale, it'll be problematic for U.S.

tech companies abroad, except there aren't any in China.

So I'm not sure what they're going to do to us.

Like, what?

Like, Apple.

How are they going to reciprocate?

What are they going to do?

Stop making kick Google out, kick Meta out.

Oh, did that?

Did that?

Kick Twitter?

Did that Apple and Tesla actually are the two companies there?

The two big.

I just don't think that they're so important to their economy.

It's just,

it's a very difficult situation for the Chinese.

And, you know, they'll find other ways to, like meeting with Putin, for example, to reciprocate.

There was a really good article in the information about who owns it and who's done different things.

A lot of U.S.

companies, some have left, some have sold off.

Everybody sees a payday here in some fashion.

And so to me, that's what everyone should be focusing on instead of this argument is there's a payday here.

This is a product everybody loves.

And every day they don't settle this is a bad day for TikTok because the government, they aren't focusing on their product and what they're doing.

Their executives are here testifying in front of Congress.

And the ban, I don't think the U.S.

wants this either because a ban is very hard to do.

You know, people will find their way around it.

It'll be a big mess.

And then in the end, this very good product will be decimated, which is, you know, Facebook's probably doing a little jig over in Mountain View nearby me right now.

There's just got to be,

there's 300 billion reasons to figure this out.

And that is agree to the spin.

It's just, I mean, there's some really power.

Isn't Sequoia and General Attic Partners in here?

There's a whole bunch of people.

I forget, but there are quite a few American companies in here,

investors in here.

And has always been,

it's always been the case.

And of course, you know, the the issue is: are the Chinese going to let this happen from a you're not pushing us around?

That's really the focus, right?

It has a decent geopolitical overlay here, and that is we say we're going to ban it.

And unless you spend it, and they say we're not spending it, you know, how about it?

That will further the chill, right?

That will

be seen correctly or incorrectly.

That'll be seen as an offensive move furthering the distance.

I think Americans, in my opinion, correctly say, look,

at its base level, we're doing to one of your firms what you've done to every media firm for the last 30 years in China.

So you don't really have a leg to stand on from

an equivalent standpoint or whatever, a trade policy.

But if they say, no, this is,

we're shutting it down, you try and keep us out of the U.S.,

it's going to be, it'll, again, take the temperature down in a bad way, you know,

make the frosting worse, whatever it is, increase the chill.

So it's got geopolitical overlay here.

I hope, I hope it seems like everybody wins in a spin because look at it this way, 300 billion, say that the Chinese government or Chinese economy registers 10 or 20 percent of that just in terms of taxation or incremental wealth creation for Chinese shareholders.

I mean, you know, they can build an aircraft carrier with that money.

There's real money.

This is so much money that there's

actual governmental reason to hold on to it.

Yeah, they don't have a lot to attack.

I mean, they have very limited options.

Apple and Tesla, they have had bad publicity and consumer anger.

But, you know,

these are important companies and they'll relocate to India and Vietnam, which they're already going in that direction.

It'll, it could really hurt the Chinese economy.

They could do things like raid them and scrutinize them and this and that, but they have not let us in there.

We have let them in here and we have a lot more ability to fuck with them in that regard.

There are other places it could play out.

I think this is one that the U.S.

has correctly assessed they could win.

People just don't believe them.

The government, this is just such a good political issue.

And right now, with them, him standing next to Vladimir Putin,

that's not going to help him.

It's not helping him.

Right?

Like, he's standing and like yucking it up with that murder.

You know, we're catastrophizing the banking thing, the contagion.

And the most dangerous thing that happened, hands down, in the last month or three months is that meeting between she and Putin.

I mean, it's truly frightening.

That's kind of the real, if you want to be worried about something, folks,

that's, you know, that's, that's got pretty poor and broad implications across the entire West.

But I wouldn't say it's unrelated to this.

Like, it's the show of power.

These are all these shows of power that she is doing.

You know, people, even though everyone's like, oh, she's running your thing, everyone in power is always a little bit not in power.

You know what I mean?

There's always a threat to them.

And so to me, when he did that, I was like, Hi, I wonder what trouble you have at home going on that you have to be.

He's really shown his muscle a lot, and so it always makes me okay.

Why does he need to show his muscle so much?

It's a really interesting thing.

Also, one of the things, the ad revenue in the U.S., by the way, let's go back to money because I think that's the most important thing here.

Ad revenue is expected to reach 6.83 billion this year, up from 780 million in 2020.

Oh my God, like the money, and you know, no matter

tenfold, just crazy.

And of course, course these these ad firms are are are like well uh you know and this project texas that tick tock is doing to to protect it just nobody believes it by the way meanwhile our homegrown businesses are doing stuff like this at the same time but it's they have this china thing is just too much they're gonna they're gonna ban it they they did they thought we wouldn't we will and that's where they are so they gotta now next move china i would just love to see all the meta lobbyists who are like we love big government and the government intervention is warranted here.

I mean, they're literally

reverse to forward so fast around government intervention.

Well, speaking of, Scott, let's go on a quick break.

When we come back, we'll talk about Bard AI and take a listener mail question about bonuses.

Support for this show comes from Robinhood.

Wouldn't it be great to manage your portfolio on one platform?

With Robinhood, not only can you trade individual individual stocks and ETFs you can also seamlessly buy and sell crypto at low costs trade all in one place get started now on Robinhood trading crypto involves significant risk crypto trading is offered through an account with Robinhood Crypto LLC Robinhood crypto is licensed to engage in virtual currency business activity by the New York State Department of Financial Services crypto held through Robinhood Crypto is not FDIC insured or SIPIC protected Investing involves risk, including loss of principal.

Securities trading is offered through an account with Robinhood Financial LLC, member sipic a registered broker dealer

support for pivot comes from linkedin from talking about sports discussing the latest movies everyone is looking for a real connection to the people around them but it's not just person to person it's the same connection that's needed in business and it can be the hardest part about b2b marketing finding the right people making the right connections but instead of spending hours and hours scavenging social media feeds you can just tap linkedin ads to reach the right professionals according to linkedin they have grown to a network of over 1 billion professionals, making it stand apart from other ad buys.

You can target your buyers by job title, industry, company role, seniority skills, and company revenue, giving you all the professionals you need to reach in one place.

So you can stop wasting budget on the wrong audience and start targeting the right professionals only on LinkedIn ads.

LinkedIn will even give you a hundred dollar credit on your next campaign so you can try it for yourself.

Just go to linkedin.com/slash pivot pod.

That's linkedin.com/slash pivot pod.

Terms and conditions apply only on LinkedIn ads.

Scott, we're back with our second big story.

We're going to talk about Google's new product called Bard.

Google released its new AI chatbot BARD to the general public this week.

So far, it's only available to some users in the US and UK.

Google says the bot is, quote, an experiment and frames it as a companion to Google search, not a replacement, although that's precisely what it is.

I'm sorry, Google, but you have to upgrade your search and that's this.

CEO Sudar Pachai told employees in a letter that quote things will go wrong with the bot.

Meanwhile, AI ethicists are taking issue with the quote experimental label.

And one says the company is trying to offload accountability if things do go wrong, and they certainly probably will.

One of the things that did go wrong is someone asked Bard who should prevail, the Justice Department or Google in antitrust lawsuits, and it sided with the Justice Department.

And I think the Justice Department will probably have to call Bard as a witness when they're going forward.

That's funny.

So what's happening here?

What do you think?

I think we need to be, I mean, this clearly, this technology is just as chips or, I don't know, Internet or communications, whenever, or vaccines, whenever there's been a pretty seminal technology in terms of potentially shifting the sounds of the plates of power, power, I think it's important that we are out front.

And part of that is to encourage companies to experiment and face the market.

We just need to be thoughtful about what is actually going on and watch it very closely and work with the right parties to, you know, not only encourage them, but also to ensure we have the regulation in the teeth to make sure this thing doesn't get out ahead of us in a very bad way, as we did with the internet.

But I'm for launch things.

Let's get, let's, i.e., American business in America get really good at this because I worry,

the genie is out of the bottle here.

Yeah.

And I don't think you can stop technology, but, and I think a certain amount of breaking some glass is worth it here for American companies and industry to get, to become the number one,

have more domain expertise.

That's the argument they're making.

I do buy that argument.

Some people think this is an arms race that's going too fast and the move fast and break things mantra.

Some people think it should be in-house longer.

OpenAI, for example, who's just the leader here, shut down ChatGPT this week after a bug let users see other people's chat titles.

It came back online, but users couldn't see their own chat histories.

Bard is going to roll out with some limits they put in place.

It won't give medical advice.

It capped a few responses per session.

Microsoft had similar limits.

Let's listen to, I did an interview this week.

I did two AI focus, one with Reid Hoffman earlier in the week, and then who was on the board of OpenAI.

He's now off it because he's working on his own project, AI project, with one of the DeepMind founders.

But I spoke with OpenAI's Sam Altman for my other podcast, The Joe Rogan Experience.

I talked about the risk and competition that's going on with Carris Wisher, actually.

It's not Call Me Daddy.

No, it's not Call Me Daddy.

That's yours.

So I asked him about it.

Let's listen to what Sam had to say.

What do you think the most viable threat to Open AI is?

Honestly, I mean, I try to pay some attention to what's happening.

with all these other things.

It's going to be an unbelievably competitive space.

Like this is the first new technological platform in a long period of time.

The thing I worry about the most is not any of those, because I think we can, you know,

there's room for a lot of people.

And also I think we'll just continue to offer the best, the best product.

The thing I worry about the most is that we're somehow missing a better approach

and that this idea, like everyone's chasing us right now on large language models kind of trained in the same way.

I don't worry about them.

I worry about the person that has some very different idea about how to make a more useful system.

That was an interesting answer.

Of course, he's worried about the guy in the garage.

That was what he was essentially saying, that they may not be doing it the right way if everyone's trying to copy what OpenAI is doing, which is what it seems like, correct?

I will actually listen to that interview because there are few people who are more important right now than Sam Allman.

And it's not for the reason you think.

People think, well, he's going to shape the future of AI.

I actually think the reason he is probably the most important person in terms of where he will be right now versus in a year is that he's going to be positioned as the the next tech icon.

He's going to join kind of the altitude, you know,

he's going to run in the same altitude as a Bill Gates or an Elon Musk or even maybe a Steve Jobs.

And these individuals, their views on work, on culture, on society, on government, on politics, carry an enormous amount of weight in the public.

And I'm just very curious to understand him.

I hope that he's, quite frankly, a kind person who's more patriotic than some of these other people who get a ton of influence because this is what's going to happen.

He's going to be positioned as our next Jesus because he understands technology and is doing these amazing things and creating a ton of shareholder value.

And every young man across the globe is going to model his behavior.

Yeah.

Well,

he's very curious.

I have good news.

He's a good guy.

Well, I know him as a good idea.

Well, that's actually very encouraging.

I've known him since he did Looped, which was a company that failed.

It was a social network that had location at its heart.

And then he went to Y Combinator, very thoughtful, very

willing to say

no to people,

including Elon.

They had a back and forth about OpenAI.

Elon didn't like the Microsoft deal, but he has an answer to it.

So he's got a backbone.

I've never had anything but thoughtful discussions with him.

That's encouraging.

He's quite quiet.

He doesn't want a lot of attention paid to him necessarily, although a lot of attention is.

You know, of course, he's got an eagle like everybody else, you know, here, but he's very thoughtful about the safety of this.

I don't know if he's right.

I think he has the possibility he can get run over by more venal people.

I think that's one of the things I worry about.

I think he may not be able to be at the front as these people put so much stuff into it.

Obviously, Elon's going to do something.

Reed Hoffman is.

I'd rather have Reid Hoffman doing it than Elon.

Some of his answers surprised me in a positive way, actually.

He is of the feeling that the stakes are low now, and this is when we should do it.

He also

understands there's liability attached here.

It's not protected by Section 230, that there will be liability.

He believes that

there should be liability, depending on what's made out of this technology, because you don't know the companies that are going to come out of it, right?

He doesn't defocus on the negative.

He doesn't love talking about all the negative things, I think, like a lot of people, but he doesn't defocus that he's aware of it.

He also likes to focus on the positive.

Like Bill Gates, and I think he talked about this, Sam talked about this too, said, AI could serve a doctor to the world's poorest people.

This is it will be in the phone and will tell you things and help you along with all kinds of very minor things that often turn major.

He issued a letter this week, Gates, outlining his hopes for tech.

He said AI may be able to address inequality.

But Gates wrote, market forces won't naturally produce AI products and services to help the poorest.

The opposite is more likely.

He's correct.

There's a lot of possibility here for tutors.

I think Sam talked about tutors on the phone, that the phone becomes less a time suck than a time helper, right?

If that makes sense.

So it's, you know,

there could be a lot for good here.

But just an example, one of the things you said about BARD, that it won't be giving medical advice.

I would like to see it in a controlled,

you know, tons of disclosures everywhere, get very aggressive around medical advice.

I think if you look at America,

if you're in the top 10%, if you have money and you get really sick, there are a few places you'd rather be than a teaching hospital in the United States.

Our health care, like everything else in America, has slowly but surely been more and more increasingly optimized for the top decile of income earners.

And for those top 10%,

there's nothing like it.

I mean, the procedure you had done, there was nowhere in the world you would rather have it done.

Right.

But as we have optimized for the top 10%,

slowly but surely the outcomes and the consumer satisfaction for the bottom 90% have been, okay, healthcare in the United States can be described as expensive, but bad.

I'm paying a lot, indirectly or directly, and I don't have the same outcomes as other nations.

So, and as always, it makes sense when you first hear, oh, it's not going to give medical advice.

Well, you know who doesn't want to give medical advice?

The medical industrial complex, the pharmaceutical industry, the health insurance market.

Because here's the thing: if we finally get good at distributing preventive health care out to the masses, and maybe they have less diabetes and become less valuable to the pharmaceutical industrial complex, maybe we figure out ways that they can, in a low-cost way, handle things and identify them and not end up in the emergency room.

So you can bet the healthcare industry is nodding and going, yes, you should absolutely make sure that our existing arcane, administratively, financially burdensome method maintains

the disbursement of medical advice could be an enormous unlock for people who are too intimidated.

That was the idea behind phones in your hands, but this is different because it really does tell you and it does reason.

and so one of the things that's important here is

here's the positive story okay ais in these phones they can tutor they can give medical advice really good medical advice in a in a real way versus a searching on google search on google is 10 years ago i said i don't understand why typing into a box is the way we think is the top of technology it was so neander tall to me and so this is like okay here's what you're looking for this is why it's so attractive it's search on steroids really and it's search that makes sense it's search that's that's easy to understand.

Same thing will happen with medicine learning and things like that.

I think the worries are it's going to track you, but they're already tracking you.

So that's already happening.

That it has much more information and control over you because it's a much, it's not just a box.

It's a your friend.

It's like it's AI will tell you what to do and where to go and will track you and know what you're asked about and have a relationship with you in a much more significant way.

But these people are not getting everybody, not just these, not just bored people, everyone's getting bad information from these phones.

And so how could we make it better?

How can we bring it?

I think those are very laudable things.

And I think Gates is right to say, you know, what's going to turn out to be?

It's going to be like sex bought AIs.

It's going to be, what do rich people need?

Like, you know what I mean?

Like, that's what the companies that are being formed will look for how to make money.

And we did, Sam and I did talk about that.

How do you make money at this?

Well, he and I talked, and this is something I think you'll find interesting, about how the real original sin of the internet is moving moving to advertising before subscriptions, as you've talked about.

And that this is an opportunity to make subscriptions work, right?

Subscriptions or not advertising-based technologies.

And there may be advertising here.

There certainly could be.

But that subscriptions are, I think they have 100 million users, not all pay subscriptions, obviously, but they're doing very well with the subscriptions.

And maybe there's ways for all kinds of creative companies to come up with

that you pay a little bit, micropayments or whatever, as you use these things.

And so I think we can all agree that there can be a better business plan here that

doesn't lead to bad outcomes that the Internet has.

This is the key decision that is hopeful so far, and that is the majority of AI.

So, for example, Adobe just released their

design or image generator.

And the difference there, the market's already evolving, is it's IP friendly.

It's only feeding images into the machine model that it either has copyright on or don't have a copyright.

Whereas you're seeing the other guys, the image or design engines, are being sued because Getty Images says you are clearly, you have clearly used our images without paying us.

And so it's kind of a pretty smart move that Adobe has these assets and it said, okay, we're going to be IP clean if you use our stuff.

But the key decision here that's really helpful, and it's very basic, and that is the person whose fingers are typing the query into Chat GPT

is your end consumer.

You have a vested interest in adding value to that person's life and work and getting a monetary compensation from them, as opposed to just getting in exchange for an amazing service, your attention.

And we then turn you into the product.

That's right.

That is the primary distinction here that so far the AI business model is pursuing.

And it's very hopeful and should avoid a lot of the real noxious emissions that have come out of the internet.

It just depends on who's making it, right?

Like, this is not, this is the bait.

This is like the internet.

Now, who's on top of that, right?

And who makes things?

And so, how do they do businesses?

There's no liability is going to be a big issue here, which is good, right?

There'll be liability if you make bad things.

And Sam was talking about, I was like, well, who should have the liability?

He goes, probably the last person who touched it that created the problem, right?

That's who, you know, the one who's offering a service that has problems.

That's where he would put it, obviously, not on his stuff.

But that was interesting.

There's liability too.

It could be a subscription base and not advertising base.

That's great.

And then the last thing is that, you know, so we've got liability and we've got incentives not to take your stuff.

And I think what the government has to do is, where's the privacy elements to watch very carefully around copyright?

This week, the Writers Guild of America proposed a rule that allows screenwriters to use AI as long as they don't have to share credit or residuals with the technology.

That it's used as a tool tool and not a weapon is every possibility that when it could be a weapon

has to be shut down pretty quickly and people should pay for it.

The problem, I think Sam did say, is they don't know what people are going to make with this stuff, right?

That's the issue.

And right now, Stanford, just a bunch of Stanford researchers or people there did a version of this that cost $600.

And so, you know, it's like cloning technology.

Like, who knows what some bad person's going to do over

the last time it happened bad, it was in China, actually.

But there has to be an idea that you want to make good stuff here.

And then those who cross that have costs for crossing that line.

So we'll see.

Could be magical thinking.

Yeah, it'll be interesting to see what kind of regulatory body they come up with, whether it'll be a division of an existing regulatory body or something different.

There might be a separate one for this.

Yeah, I think which would probably make sense.

But I was at the

Adobe conference yesterday in Vegas, and

the

I just literally lost my train of thought.

I'm in the bunker with you.

I'm about to go hunt.

You're up to eating.

I'm about to go hunting.

You're about to become dinner.

A mutated deer to feed all of us.

And you scream, take your fucking culture wars with you and see if that brings back a deer, you

bunker bitch.

And I'm like, that's it.

All right.

This is the day.

I will put another topic.

One of the things that was the most interesting thing he said, I think, of the entire time.

Hello, Edibles.

Who took edibles?

All right.

I'm sorry, go ahead.

The most interesting thing he said, and I think you will have a comment on this, was this was the

reason they, I said, why did you, you know, Elon was complaining that they went from a nonprofit to a profit.

He said, we couldn't get money.

We couldn't get people to give us money to do it as a nonprofit.

The only way to do this was to have this capped profit model that they have with their investors, which is interesting.

But he said, I said, well, who would have given you the money?

He goes, well, in the old days, the government.

This should have been a government thing.

This should have been like the space program, like everything else that was the government, like the internet, it should have been a government program, but that's not happening now.

And so we have these publicly important tools that private tech companies for profit are innovating.

And so that to me was really an interesting exchange.

And I think

he does think the government probably should have been the one to do this, but it ain't happening in this world, except in China, except in other countries that want to use it for more nefarious means.

Yeah.

So, the question that was presented to me at this conference was:

what should we be investing in to take advantage of AI?

And I said, I don't have any feel for the pure plays.

And it seems highly speculative.

And the mania has, you know, we're already sort of in, if we're not in peak hype cycle, we're in strong hype cycle.

And I said, I don't, you know, I don't have a feel for, you know, someone said, if you could invest in ChatGPT right now, would you?

And I'm like, $29 billion.

I don't know.

But what I think a better investment strategy is just trying to figure out what companies across every sector seem to be really serious about this and show initial signs of experimenting with it and leveraging it.

Because even if it doesn't have any tangible impact, if you can be the beauty company that's doing cool stuff with AI, it'll do wonders for your brand.

Similar to how like early digital innovation, whether it was that tangible or effective or not, was like the ultimate branding strategy about 15 years ago.

But there will be, there will be substance, I think education, health, anything, writing, it could like everything, just like the internet, it's everything.

And so we'll see where it goes.

Except crypto.

Crypto.

No, it doesn't.

It's not going to solve everything.

But this is actually very creative and much more democratic.

Crypto is just,

I don't see, the people I see involved here are quality people.

So hopefully they will stay that way.

And it's not the

ones I find more distasteful.

Sam Altman is, listen to the interview.

I'd love to know what you think.

Okay, Scott, let's pivot and listen to the Reed Hoffman one too, because he was deeply involved in Open AI too.

Okay, Scott, let's pivot to a listener question.

You've got, you've got, I can't believe I'm going to be a mailman.

You've got mail.

This question comes from email.

I'll read it.

Hi, Kara and Scott.

Have you ever noticed they always go Kara and Scott?

Just making a note of that.

Yeah, yeah.

Well, what I love is whenever they introduce us, including on the show notes, Kara Swisher and Scott Galley, which is not alphabetic.

I mean, it's literally like,

I am such the bottom here.

No, I'm just saying, I'm just noticing people write to us, just pointing it out.

Anyway, hi, Kara and Scott.

I work for a publicly traded internet company, and they recently announced they're changing their annual bonus program from cash to stock.

I don't have a problem with this, but I'm wondering what are the general reasons why a company would make this type of change?

Oh, this is a good Scott Gallery question.

But I'm also curious if that implies anything about a company's current financial situation and how the board might view our outlook going forward.

Love the show.

Listen to every episode.

Thanks, Dom.

Scott, answer this question.

I have no idea.

Tell me, tell me, tell me.

I'd like to know.

Well, it's a non-cash charge.

It's dilutive to shareholders because they have to issue new shares, but

it doesn't immediately hit their treasury.

And also, but the primary reason I think they probably do it is they're hoping a lot of employees don't sell the stock and feel more of a vested interest in the success of the company.

I mean, one of the basics of management is that you want people to act like owners.

You want people proofing the document beyond their hours.

You want them thinking about the business.

You really want them emotionally invested in the success of the company.

You want them to act like owners.

And the bottom line is: the only way to make someone act like an owner is to make them an owner.

And the way you make them an owner is by giving them shares in the company.

So it's more of a cultural attempt to do that.

Even if it's a de minimis amount, it works.

If it's not like, you know, a lot of them are very small.

One of the things we've done at every company I've started is we've given equity to every full-time employee because even if it's

what seems like a little to us is actually a lot lot to most people, or not a lot to most people, but a lot to some people.

And it's meaningful to say, okay,

I have five, 10 grand worth of stock here.

And if things work out, it's meaningful to me.

And they feel a sense of just at the end of the day, a sense of all.

They feel riskier.

You're not worried about them feeling like cash is cash.

They can take it and buy a car or whatever.

Well, they can sell the stock.

It's up to them.

And I like stock that doesn't have restrictions.

Usually awards like options have vesting periods, but options essentially is a tax-efficient way to give away equity.

But more companies are doing RSUs.

That way, if the stock goes down a little bit, they still have something.

But giving away equity is a kind of a best practice.

When I was growing my companies, I just didn't have the money to pay people market.

We were bootstrapping them.

We were starting strategy firms.

We needed really qualified, intelligent people who had a lot of options in the marketplace, very certified, you know, great certification.

And I used to say, okay, this is my model.

I pay you 10 to 20% below market, but I'm going to give you triple the equity you would get it anywhere else at this size of company.

And when someone owns,

I mean, that's your weapon as a small company.

You say to people, okay, I used to bring in our top 10 or 12 people.

And I realize this isn't aspirational, but I generally believe the top 10% of employees add 120% of the value and the rest are minus 20%, but you can't figure out who it is.

You identify those people.

You bring them in, you sit them down and go, okay, you own 1.5% of this company.

These are our revenues.

This is our plan over the next five years.

These are the multiples on exits for companies like this.

This means you, by the age of 29, are in line to make X dollars.

And which is better than cash, which is better than just giving you it grows.

The thing about equity is:

say you get $100 every year for four years, but you're given $400 in equity.

You might pay tax on it then, but then if you hold on to it, it grows tax deferred.

You don't get taxed on it every year.

It's very difficult to get economically secure with current income.

Current cash.

What's the bad?

Let me give me the bad thing.

Does it imply that they don't have money to give you or that this is just a better way of them to manage their

doubt it?

I mean, I've been in situations.

This is a publicly traded company, so they can look at the financials and make their own snapshot decision around the snapshot of the company.

It's a best practice.

I have done what you're talking about.

I have done, I've been in situations where I'm like, okay, these are consultants.

We've had a great year.

We did $10 million in top line, $2 million in EBITDA, but we're investing aggressively, opening our European office.

And I'm bringing senior management in and I'll say, you are going to get $150,000 bonus.

You can have that bonus.

Or I'll give you a quarter of a million dollars in stock

to save me the cash.

Do you want to go kind of all in on this?

And you know what?

The majority of people who join a firm like that say, yeah,

I'm in.

Or, you know, depending on their personal or their own personal financial situation, it is very difficult.

You always want to to figure out a forced savings, a means of forced saving, whether it's a mortgage or 401k or things that you've just taken out of your check right away, or you want some sort of equity participation that grows in a tax-deferred way.

Because as humans, this is what we always do.

We always raise our spending to the level of our current income.

You have to have a lot of discipline not to do that.

Your little holiday bonus is gone on something stupid.

So I like this, but you don't want to.

The only piece of advice I would say is if the stock gets ever, say, more than 30, 40% of your net worth, which is a good problem, diversify.

Diversify, yeah.

Diversify.

Yeah, don't worry.

People in Lehman Brothers, the smartest people in the world in 2008, and these are some of the smartest people in the world, there were hundreds of them, partners who had their entire net worth in layman stock and had lost it overnight.

Only been there 20, 30 years.

Yep.

Yep.

That happened at lots of companies I've written about.

And you really should diversify.

That's the smartest thing.

It's not an insult to your company to do that.

It's just smart planning.

Anyway, that's a great answer.

That was a very good question, too.

Thanks, Dom.

We really appreciate it if you've got a question of your own you'd like answered send it our way go to nymag.com slash pivot to submit a question for the show or call 855-51 pivot all right scott one more quick break we'll be back for your prediction

avoiding your unfinished home projects because you're not sure where to start thumbtack knows homes so you don't have to don't know the difference between matte paint finish and satin or what that clunking sound from your dryer is?

With thumbtack, you don't have to be a home pro.

You just have to hire one.

You can hire top-rated pros, see price estimates, and read reviews all on the app.

Download today.

This month on Explain It To Me, we're talking about all things wellness.

We spend nearly $2 trillion on things that are supposed to make us well.

Collagen smoothies and cold plunges, Pilates classes, and fitness trackers.

But what does it actually mean to be well?

Why do we want that so badly?

And is all this money really making us healthier and happier?

That's this month on Explain It To Me, presented by Pureleaf.

Okay, Scott, let's hear a prediction.

A prediction.

Yeah, I'm boring here.

I'm going to just pimp my show.

I'm in Bill Maher tomorrow night, so my prediction is it's going to be an outstanding show.

I'm going to be.

Yeah, you've you've done great.

You know, without taking off your shirt, you've done excellent on those shows every time.

Well, I just had an idea for tomorrow.

Honey, I'm going to find the mutated deer.

No, let me just tell you something.

You do really well on that show.

And people are always like, who is this Scott Galloway fella you've been hooking up with?

Like, they really do.

I discovered his ass.

I discovered his ass.

You do really well.

He's my bunker mate.

He's my bunker mate.

He's my bunker mate.

For a short time.

David Sedaris is the

man guy.

What?

Really?

Oh, my God.

I love him.

He's good, isn't he?

Yeah, I never met him.

I've been to so many of his concerts.

I mean, he has concerts where he just reads and they're hysterical.

I wrote, I love his book, Me Talk Pretty One Day.

I remember it having an impact on me as a young person.

And then I'm with

Annie Lowry.

I don't know.

Oh, she's wonderful.

She's an amazing writer, and she's written all kinds of amazing stuff on topics.

And she's just, she's terrific.

I always get freaked out.

They're going to pair me with some crazy conservative rand culture.

Oh, that's for me.

That's what they're going to be saving for me.

I get nervous, so I immediately looked up her stuff and I'm like,

it's not going to be a very exciting panel.

I mean, I'm going to say, like, I'll let you know when I disagree with something.

Well, I'm sorry to tell you, but she's just like me, a liberal.

Like, I think she is.

I think she's pretty liberal.

Well, you know, you've got me figured out.

I'm somewhere between Ted Cruz and Marjorie Taylor Greene.

I'm just so conservative.

Yeah.

Yeah.

She writes about money and inequity and the future of working and all kinds of things.

Yeah, I know.

She's very talented.

She had a book in 2018 called Give People Money.

It was about S.

Yeah, she's a big UBI person.

UBI, yeah, UBI was interesting.

That was a great book.

I think I had her on one of my podcasts.

And she's just, she's really terrific and beautiful writer.

So that'll be fun.

Oh, good.

She has much more throughput than I do.

I'll tell you that.

She'll be able to shut you down if you say anything bad.

So we'll see.

But who gets you radioactive free water out in the wild?

I would literally, you would decide, I would be so useless.

You'd be like, okay, we've decided that we're going to eat you.

Scott, I'm going to eat you.

That is what's happening.

No, I mean, actually eat me.

You'd figure out, okay, he's got to have some utility.

Let's kill him.

I literally just said I'm going to yellow jacket you, which is one of the most popular shows right now.

It's about a group of girls that are cannibals, essentially.

And then what happens?

Oh, my God.

Yeah, exactly.

A group of girls that are cannibals?

Yeah, you got to watch that show.

Is it on Cinemax?

No, it's on like Paramount.

You don't even get that joke.

Oh, I get that.

I get it.

It's a dirty joke.

I get it.

But let me just say, you better start to watch that show and and see because it's going to be what's happening to you at some point in the future.

We end up with a bunker together.

Anyway, I'm excited to see you.

Mr.

Mann.

I should have said that.

Mr.

Mann.

That's what's going to happen to you.

No.

Dad.

Yeah, that's what's going to happen to you.

You're going to be tasty.

I'm going to put you a little Chianti and some fava beans.

Yeah, Louis's going to season me.

Yeah, Louie's going to cook you up.

He'll make it delicious.

Anyhow, Scott, good luck for the short life that you have left to live.

And good luck on Bill Maher.

You're going to be great.

I'm sure you're going to be great.

Thank you.

Okay, that's the show.

We'll be back on Tuesday with more Pivot.

Scott read us out.

Today's show was produced by Lara Neyman, Evan Angle, and Taylor Griffin.

Ernie Intertot engineered this episode.

Thanks also to Drew Burrows and Neil Silverio.

Make sure you subscribe to the show wherever you listen to podcasts.

Thanks for listening to Pivot from New York Magazine and Vox Media.

We'll be back next week for another breakdown of all things tech and business.

He does go foraging and he's funny and tells dad jokes.

Let's eat them.

Bundle and safe with Expedia.

You were made to follow your favorite band and from the front row, we were made to quietly save you more.

Expedia.

Made to travel.

Savings vary and subject to availability, flight inclusive packages are adult protected.