Pascal Morgan

Instead of watching Netflix, watch Malcolm Gladwell on why success isn’t talent, it’s systems & timing.

David Kipping says something fundamental has shifted in science. At a closed meeting at the Institute for Advanced Study (IAS), top physicists agreed AI can now do up to “90%” of their work and may soon push discovery beyond human understanding. “I don’t know that I want to live in a world where everything around me is just magic.” He says the best scientific minds on Earth are now holding emergency meetings about what comes next. This isn’t speculative anymore. It’s really happening.

Matt Damon and Ben Affleck on Rogan taking about how Netflix has changed filmmaking. A major considerations is dealing with distracted viewers. To keep them tuned in, “you re-iterate the plot 3-4x in the dialogue because people are on their phones.” Then, in action films, you change the ordering of climatic fights. In traditional action films, you’d have “three set pieces” in every act (I, II, III) and each would “ramp up” (spend the big money on third set piece). But streaming has to hook viewers within 5 minute, so the incentive is to put a major battle or action sequence much earlier. Also, the directors have less incentive to make a film look great because so many people watch on laptops and phones. They do say that streaming allows for more bets on risky projects since the theatre economics are geared towards IP, sequels and super-heroes. Example: an independent film with a $25m budget would spend $25m on marketing (1:1 ratio). But since it splits box office with the theatre, the film needs to make $100m (1/2 of which is $50m) just to break even. They’re realistic about the state of film and call it a supply-demand issue. If the demand is for at-home viewing (eg. Netflix 300m+ subs), then filmmaking approach will change to feed the algo. When there’s demand for theatre, Damon will go team up with Christopher Nolan to make “The Odyssey”.

Jonathan Ross, Founder and CEO of AI chip company Groq, offers a contrarian view: AI won't destroy jobs, it will create a labour shortage. He outlines three things that will happen because of AI: First, massive deflationary pressure. "This cup of coffee is going to cost less. Your housing is going to cost less. Everything is going to cost less." He explains this will happen through robots farming coffee more efficiently and better supply chain management, meaning people will need less money. Second, people will opt out of the economy. "They're going to work fewer hours. They're going to work fewer days a week, and they're going to work fewer years. They're going to retire earlier because they're going to be able to support their lifestyle working less." Third, entirely new jobs and industries will emerge. Jonathan points to history as evidence: "Think about 100 years ago. 98% of the workforce in the United States was in agriculture. When we were able to reduce that to 2%, we found things for those other 98% of the population to do." He continues: "The jobs that are going to exist 100 years from now, we can't even contemplate." Software developers didn't exist a century ago. In another century, they won't exist either, "because everyone's going to be vibe coding." The same applies to influencers, a career that would have been unthinkable 100 years ago but now earns people millions. His conclusion: deflationary pressure, workforce opt-outs, and new industries we can't yet imagine will combine to create one outcome... "We're not going to have enough people."

human civilization is entering a phase transition where its inherited moral, cognitive, and biological architectures no longer stabilize reality. survival now requires a new integrative ethic oriented around continuity of existence across human, machine, and planetary scales.