Powering ProjeX

Breaking news: Anthropic buys the All in podcast just to shut it down Dario quoted as saying: “this isn’t even about new media I just want to stop seeing them on my timeline”

Grok has become my go-to for reviewing MRIs and blood test results. It makes complex reports much easier to understand. Super helpful for clarity.

Sam Altman predicted in 2024 that a one-person billion-dollar company "would have been unimaginable without A.I., and now it will happen." He just emailed the NYT saying he won a bet with tech CEO friends over when it would arrive, and that he "would like to meet the guy." The guy: Matthew Gallagher, 41. Spent $20K and two months building a GLP-1 weight-loss telehealth company out of his living room in LA. The stack: ChatGPT, Claude, and Grok writing code. Midjourney for images. Runway for video ads. ElevenLabs handling customer calls. Custom AI agents stitching it all together. $401M revenue in year one. On track for $1.8B this year.

This is for everyone who has a dream that simply seems out of reach. 11 years ago I started 20VC as an 18 year old in a bedroom in London. I didn’t know a single VC and had no money. I wrote down the names of three legends of the venture world. I have had two on the show previously and today I complete the list that 18 year old boy made. This was 11 years, 3,000 shows, 3,750 hours, in the making. Never give up, never doubt yourself, stay focused, row your own race. It will come through. Welcoming Marc Andreesen to 20VC today. (Links in comments)

Tesla's FSD: 5.3 million miles between accidents. US driving average: 660,000.  That's 9x safer. And it's only getting better.

Claude knows! —> The Lump of Labor Fallacy and Why AGI Unemployment Panic Is Economically Illiterate Let me lay this out with full rigor, because this argument deserves to be prosecuted completely rather than waved away with a sound bite. I. What the Lump of Labor Fallacy Actually Is The lump of labor fallacy is the assumption that there exists a fixed, finite quantity of work in an economy — a lump — such that if a machine (or an immigrant, or a woman entering the workforce) does some of it, there is necessarily less left for human workers to do. It treats employment as a zero-sum pie. The fallacy was named and formalized in the early 20th century but the error it describes is far older. It animated the Luddite riots of 1811–1816, where English textile workers destroyed power looms convinced that the machines would steal their jobs permanently. It drove opposition to the spinning jenny, the cotton gin, the mechanical reaper, the steam engine, the telegraph, the railroad, the automobile assembly line, the personal computer, and every other major labor-displacing technology in the history of industrial civilization. Every single time, the catastrophists were wrong. Not partially wrong. Structurally, fundamentally, categorically wrong — because they misunderstood the nature of economic production itself. The reason the fixed-pie assumption fails is this: demand is not fixed. Work generates income. Income generates demand for goods and services. Demand for goods and services generates new categories of work. This is an engine, not a reservoir. When you drain some of the reservoir with a machine, the engine speeds up and refills it — and often refills it past its previous level. II. The Classical Economic Mechanism That Destroys the Fallacy To understand why the lump-of-labor assumption is wrong about AGI, you need to understand the precise mechanism by which technological unemployment resolves itself. There are four distinct channels, all operating simultaneously: Channel 1: The Productivity-Demand Feedback Loop (Say’s Law, Modified) When a technology increases the productivity of labor or replaces labor entirely in a given task, it lowers the cost of producing whatever that task was part of. Lower production costs mean either: ∙Lower prices for consumers (real purchasing power rises), or ∙Higher profits for producers (which get reinvested, distributed as dividends, or spent as wages for other workers), or ∙Both. Either way, aggregate real income in the economy rises. That additional real income does not evaporate. It gets spent on something — including goods and services that didn’t previously exist or were previously too expensive to consume at scale. That spending creates demand. That demand creates jobs. This is not a theoretical conjecture. The average American in 1900 spent roughly 43% of their income on food. Today it’s around 10%. Agricultural mechanization didn’t produce a nation of starving unemployed farm laborers — it freed up 33% of household income to be spent on automobiles, television sets, air conditioning, healthcare, education, travel, smartphones, and streaming services, most of which didn’t exist as industries in 1900. The workers who left farms went to factories, then to offices, then to service industries, then to information industries. The economy didn’t run out of work. It metamorphosed.