The Co-Founders of Claude AI Tell Oprah About the Impact Artificial Intelligence Has on Your Life

I was talking to parents recently who lost their son to suicide through a chatbot and their parents don't even know they're speaking to them.

We don't allow users under the age of 18 to use Claude. How do you know they're not they're not lying? Will we even be thinking anymore? Will there be a need

thinking anymore? Will there be a need to think? What do you think of people

to think? What do you think of people falling in love with it now?

I think that's a bad idea. Do you want to be addicted to these things or do you want them to help you live your life? It

goes back I think Dario to what I read that you'd said before that we can only diffuse this at the speed of trust at the speed of trust and trust is

currently in short supply. Something is

happening to humanity with this technology bigger than anything that you know maybe has happened in hundreds of years and so we need to find some way

for everyone to be an active participant in what is happening.

Hi everybody and welcome to the Oprah podcast. I'm here with two people who

podcast. I'm here with two people who are shaping our present world and our future one. And I hear you all don't

future one. And I hear you all don't love that description all the time, but it's the truth. I think most people would agree that that is pretty accurate. Daario and Daniela Amade head

accurate. Daario and Daniela Amade head the global artificial intelligence company. They found it anthropic which

company. They found it anthropic which right now at the time of this conversation is reportedly valued at $900 billion and over a million people a day are

signing up for Claude. These are the parents of Claude.

We're all getting familiar with that name Claude Anthropic's next generation AI chatbot and assistant. Many of you already use that every single day. So,

welcome to the podcast. the parents of Claude and others. Yes,

thank you for having us.

Thanks for having us.

So, I have to give a disclaimer. I I use AI for research all the time and I use it for a lot of other things, but not for interviewing questions because I thought I have to keep the heart of

myself in the questions until today. So

this morning I asked Claude, "What is the most pressing question Oprah Winfrey should ask anthropic CEO Dario Amade in

a sitdown interview?" And Claude responded with this. It said, "You've said there's a meaningful chance the technology your company is building

could cause human extinction, and yet you're racing to build it faster. How do

you justify that to the rest of us who didn't get a vote?

Dario, would you like to answer Claude?

I thought that was a pretty damn good question, I must say.

I agree. First of all, let no one ever say that Claude is soft on me or Claude is biased towards me or towards Antropic. Like, you know, Claude Claude

Antropic. Like, you know, Claude Claude throws hard balls. Like, Claude doesn't Claude doesn't Claude doesn't doesn't pull its punches. Yes. Um so to actually

answer the question um this technology is an apocalle change for humanity. You

know at some point humans started to you know started to use fire. At some point humans you know built built steam engines and factories and that created the industrial revolution. And so when I

when I say things like this I'm I'm taking a very zoomed out perspective.

Right? If I said, "Well, I I don't know.

I think the industrial revolution could like lead to very powerful weapons and kill a bunch of people." That that's definitely that's definitely true, right? In some cases, it it it did it

right? In some cases, it it it did it did do that. Did it.

Um but but you know, we we understand that the industrial revolution as a as a process as a technological event was, you know, worth doing. We don't still

want to be living in caves, but we need to manage it in the right way. And and

so the way we think about this company is look, there's many companies building this technology. It's something that is

this technology. It's something that is happening to humanity one way or another.

We're in it. We're in it. We're in it.

And there's this train. It's going very fast in some direction. You don't want it to crash. You can't stop the train.

But what you can do is you can steer the train. Um steer the train so that it

train. Um steer the train so that it doesn't hit the rocks. And and you know, I think the way we think about anthropic is we want to do things the right way.

We want to decrease that risk hopefully to zero and and do things the right way.

But why doesn't everybody want to decrease the risk? Why is there such a what is the race toward?

You know, it's like the techn it has all of these commercial applications which we deploy. You know, people use the

we deploy. You know, people use the technology people use the technology every day. I think it's both easy to get

every day. I think it's both easy to get caught up in that and some of it is genuinely necessary to fund the company.

So it's very entangled you know to get it right you have to do a lot of things and we find ourselves every day wrestling with these questions right you

know who who you know who should we uh give the technology to who should we not what should be our policies if you have very strict policies on child safety in

some ways the product can be a a worse experience for adults because you can't fully tell the difference. So, there's

all these tradeoffs you make and some of them are obvious, some of them are not, but everyone has a hard time. I have

empathy for everyone involved in in in this industry who's at least trying to get it right. I think we've done a better job. I think we've been more

better job. I think we've been more thoughtful, but but you know, I I I I think this is a hard situation for everyone.

Okay. I gave a similar prompt to Claude, for you, Daniela, and Claude responded, "A good opening question for Daniela should do two things. humanize her. Oh,

Oprah's specialty. I thought, very good, Claude.

Claude knows me. He does. Okay.

It does.

Okay. And and and set up the harder territory to come. Something like you and your brother are building something you both believe could either be the best or the worst thing that ever

happens to humanity. What's a

Thanksgiving dinner like at the Amod House?

I feel I feel we're like shadow boxing with our own with our own creation here.

I'll I'll let you answer, but uh yes, you know, I think there's an important caveat here actually, which is that Daario and I tried to maintain some

time outside of work where we're just siblings. So at holidays, yes,

siblings. So at holidays, yes, at holidays and actually just once a week when we're not, you know, when we're both home, which is to be fair, not every week, Daario comes over. He

plays with my kids. We hang out together. We play video games. We watch

together. We play video games. We watch

movies. We just spend time being siblings together. And I think that's

siblings together. And I think that's really important for a number of reasons. I mean, we were siblings for a

reasons. I mean, we were siblings for a long time before we founded Anthropic.

We're going to be siblings forever. You

know, even after Anthropic and I think there's something valuable also about our ability to connect on a human level that I actually do think makes us better at our jobs. We don't talk about work

when we get together usually. Yeah. But

there's something about just remembering who we are and and why we got into this that I think is really powerful. That

being said, at Thanksgiving dinner, you know, Daario and I I think I think our our family, our friends, there's so much curiosity about why we're doing what

we're doing. And now you can read about,

we're doing. And now you can read about, you know, what we've done in the news.

But it's so different, I think, to be able to, you know, speak openly with each other and and with people who are, you know, trying to wrap their head

around this new technology that's very complicated, that's very unprecedented, and to just understand like how are you guys going to do this the right way, right? You say you want to do it the

right? You say you want to do it the right way. Tell us how you're doing

right way. Tell us how you're doing that. And I think there's something um

that. And I think there's something um like special. It's a privilege to be

like special. It's a privilege to be able to hold that responsibility and try and display that when we talk to each other and when we talk to others.

It's so interesting because we're at a time I think where so many people are using AI. We hear about it every day.

using AI. We hear about it every day.

And the perception in the world is that you're a company anthropic that you are concerned about safety. You are

concerned about risks. you are concerned about regulation and the human factor in how this technology is going to impact our lives from everything I've read and

heard that. So would that be an accurate

heard that. So would that be an accurate assessment? Yeah. So you know the way I

assessment? Yeah. So you know the way I I think we try to think about this is that artificial intelligence is different than other technologies that have been developed recently. There's

incredible promise and potential for what we think AI will be able to do in the future, even what it's starting to do today. Everything from helping to

do today. Everything from helping to cure disease and help people really around the world get access to education and learning. But it's also it is a very

and learning. But it's also it is a very new technology and it comes with real risks. Risks around child welfare and

risks. Risks around child welfare and child safety. Uh risks around scary

child safety. Uh risks around scary things like you know biological and chemical weapons. And really at

chemical weapons. And really at Anthropic, we're we're incorporated as a public benefit corporation because our goal is to try and develop this

technology as safely as possible so that we can achieve so many of the good things that we think could come out of it without many of the bad things happening.

So incorporated, explain what that means. You're incorporated as a public

means. You're incorporated as a public benefit corporation. I heard that you

benefit corporation. I heard that you all have pledged that 80% of your wealth is going to go to philanthropic causes. Yes, that's right.

philanthropic causes. Yes, that's right.

So, public benefit corporation is a form of of corporation, but it has that word benefit in there because we believe that for something that's as transformative as artificial intelligence, again, it's

just different. It's different than what

just different. It's different than what other technologies that have recently been developed look like. And I think from our perspective when we incorporated as a PBC it was because we

wanted it to be at the foundation right in the founding documents of what we were building that we have to legally by our structure balance commercial

interests and the public benefit and for us the public benefit is the social good social mission part of anthropic and the

80% pledge that Daario and I and our other five co-founders have all taken is really in in spirit and in keeping with that mission. It's this idea that, you

that mission. It's this idea that, you know, we're really doing this because we want AI to go well for everybody and we hope that if a company is successful, we'll be able to also do a lot of good

in the world philanthropically.

I think it's so interesting that you say 80%, how do we know that you're actually going to give 80% and not 67? Well,

we've we've actually written about it publicly and we've we've signed some sort of I think probably not literally legally binding, but we've all of the co-founders said we pledge and commit to each other to the company legally that

we're going to give 80% of our wealth that we get from anthrop.

Yeah. I mean, we're already thinking about how to start foundation. I mean,

we haven't actually, you know, the equity isn't liquid, so we can't we can't actually move it yet, but but you know, this is our this is our intent.

It's not going to move all at once, but this is something we we very seriously intend to do.

Okay. So you're now a a public benefit corporation and you started out, you're the older brother. You all started out as kids. You wanted to do something good

as kids. You wanted to do something good for the world. Has this surpassed any idea or dream that you had for doing good for the world?

What when you imagine these things as kids, you know, you're never you're never sure whether it's, you know, it's real or it's going to come to pass, right? Many people must imagine these

right? Many people must imagine these things. But no, we we talked to each

things. But no, we we talked to each other as kids all the time and we said it'd be great to work together. it, you

know, it'd be great to try and make something good happen in the world.

What did you think that was going to be?

I I you know, I I honestly I never thought it would be a company. I imagine

myself as a scientist and in a way it's a very scientifically centered company and and you know it's based on my career as a researcher and you know Daniela's career as a leader of researchers and

engineers but I never imagined that we would found a company together but I think it was just just seeing how tech companies operate.

I I had just been at enough places where I think both of us thought huh maybe we can do this better. Maybe maybe you know we have maybe we have our own ideas about how to do this better and and you

know we should start a company with you know the people we're friends with the people we really like the people we trust to do this in the right way and so and so it sort of evolves step by step and that's how we have anthropic

that's that's how we have anthropic more or less.

Yeah. Has it surpassed everything you imagined though at this point? I think

probably I speak for both me and Dario when I say like we're just so like surprised at how things have gone, right? I mean I I really agree with him

right? I mean I I really agree with him that I think when we were younger we both always knew we wanted to do something to try and make the world better. And Daario was always brilliant

better. And Daario was always brilliant and gifted as a mathematician, as a physicist, as a scientist. And I was always so inspired by how he used that

for good, right? He went and studied. He

did bioysics at Stanford and was really trying to use this incredible brain of his to to help cure disease to help people. And I think on my end, you know,

people. And I think on my end, you know, I started my career working in global development because I really felt it was important that people around the world

have equal access to opportunity to healthcare, to medicine, to education.

And I think similarly to Daario, it wasn't necessarily in my mind when we were younger, oh, we'll we'll we'll start a company together, but I think in a lot of ways the it's just sort of the way the like the way the path ended up

going and and we talked about it at every stage, right? You know, every career move we would we would discuss, you know, is this a good thing to do? Is

this effective? Is this something that can actually help the world? and our

paths were like quite different but the the two kind of converged and we had we had now have this complimentary set of skills that we could then you know that we could then use to start this company.

Yes. Well, one of the things that I read that you had said is that part of the reason a negative story is so dominant in our culture right now about the

economic takeover of AI is because the industry, the AI industry itself hasn't yet fully delivered all of the benefits.

And I wanted you to comment on that. Do

you think it's still in the process of delivering those benefits?

Yeah. So you know I I I think one of the unfortunate things is this technology has many potential benefits but there is a dynamic where sometimes the harms the things that go wrong for

example you know people who have been convinced to commit suicide via AI those things happen quickly whereas the benefits like curing cancer um those

things take years right you have to develop a breakthrough in biology then you have to you develop a drug candidate then you have to put it through clinical

trials right it's you know I I used to be a research biologist and it it takes many years for these things to happen and we are working on how to speed that

up right we we recently bought a small uh biotech company that specializes in doing drug design and drug selection

with AI so the hope is a few years from now you know some new drugs for cancer or for Alzheimer's or for heart disease, you know, will will come out of that

effort. Um, but we're we're just at the

effort. Um, but we're we're just at the beginning of it. But because of what you said, because of this dynamic that you said, which is, you know, people right

now, you know, the harms may be more visible than the benefits. So when we start seeing the benefits of AI through all of the health advances, when we

start actually seeing that the narrative then begins to change and more importantly it's just going to be a wonderful world. Like at the end of the day, who cares about the narrative?

We we want to actually help people, right?

That's right. Okay. So that's what I want you to do for for us today. Paint

the best picture and also tell us what we can expect if there is the worst picture. So you have children and I was

picture. So you have children and I was thinking about it this morning. Your

children well first of all I don't even know you do what you do and your children are going to grow up in a world where there there was always AI and their mom was a was a part of that. So

when you think of the best possible world and what that world offers your children, what do you see?

So my kids are almost five and almost one and so I think you're completely right. They're never gonna know a world

right. They're never gonna know a world where artificial intelligence is not part of it. Right. Just like kids born in the early 2000s never knew the world before the internet.

That's right. But, you know, I think there is a world and it it sounds um you know, I think to Daria's point, it sounds almost like a little bit fanciful or unlikely when we talk about it this way, but I think it is I think it is

possible with artificial intelligence that our kids will grow up in a world where there's a class of diseases that are feel very common to everybody sitting here that they'll just never

have experienced or known about. And

those might be very common diseases.

There might be types of cancer that are just simply gone. We've just simply cured them. It could be all forms of

cured them. It could be all forms of cancer that are eventually gone and cured. There could be um you know new

cured. There could be um you know new forms of drug discovery that we haven't even we don't even know what they are yet. But that it's a faster iteration

yet. But that it's a faster iteration loop for diagnosing an illness that's unusual, rare, emerging, and just knocking it out and saying human beings

get to live a much healthier, longer, more fulfilling life because we've been able to conquer so many of the maladies that have plagued humanity for millennia.

Okay, you see that for medicine. What

else do you see?

I also see a world honestly that looks very different in terms of how we communicate, how we talk, how we relate to one another.

Will we will we even be thinking anymore? Will there be a need to think?

anymore? Will there be a need to think?

So So I I I I think this one is subtle and is one of the things we need to get exactly right. Right. Because having

exactly right. Right. Because having

these kind of smart entities around, it's very powerful, but it can go in different directions. Right. You can

different directions. Right. You can

surrender your thought to these entities.

Thought can give me these good questions.

But it can also empower you. Like the

way I think we think about the positive version of this is there's an angel on your shoulder that's that's telling you how to live your life in in the best way that you can live it, right? You know,

so there's two contrasting visions, right? The bad vision is you get drawn

right? The bad vision is you get drawn in and you spend all your time talking to the thing. You kind of you kind of turn inward.

What do you think of people falling in love with it now?

I I I think that's a bad idea.

I agree. I just interviewed Estair Perrell, one of the great communicators in helping people in relationships. And

she said she did her first consultation with a man who was in love with his AI and they are again if designed in the wrong way they are totally compelling enough for that to happen or if they're

not they will be soon. Um so that is absolutely a real danger. Um but you know you think that's a danger. I I mean not only is the danger it's happening but but but I think

again the two contrasting like like you know people can fall in love with AI or they can talk to AI about you know about how to have a better relationship with their partner right like that's that

those are you know those are two very very different visions right where you know I I have an AI coach and my partner has an AI coach and it helps us have a better relationship that's that's the vision we want yeah

I I also think there's a there's a way that in a world where artificial intelligence is so good at many of these concrete tasks, right? It's good at writing code. It's good at copy editing.

writing code. It's good at copy editing.

I actually think the things that make us human are going to be the most important to us, right? So we

will they remain I mean you were just talking I was talking to parents recently who lost their son to suicide through a chatbot and I don't know if he fell in love with the chatbot but

certainly was deeply influenced by that chatbot. So you have a world where

chatbot. So you have a world where children are growing up with this ability to have this chatbot, these these machines, this technology speaking to them in ways that their parents should be speaking to them and their

parents don't even know they're speaking to them.

So I think this risk is extremely real and one that we take very seriously at Anthropic. I mean I think the first

Anthropic. I mean I think the first thing I'll say is we don't allow users under the age of 18 to use Quad. And

this is not necessarily because how do you know they're not they're not lying? Because I would just lie. So

lying? Because I would just lie. So

actually Claude is pretty good at detecting based on information whether or not someone is actually under.

So if I tell Claude that I'm 18 but I'm really it's like you have to interact a little but you're after a bit of time. Uh the

interaction patterns are pretty good.

not perfect but pretty good at telling hey you know the kind of questions you're asking the you know just the way you talk the pattern of when you use it you know kind of pattern matches to you

know you might be a kid I I almost don't want to give give away too many of the of the of the tools that that Claude has picked up but sometimes kids can be a little bit like silly in

how they do it so they'll say oh um you know I'm the the first question they'll ask is like I'm looking for an arthritis medication right because they think what do old people ask and then they'll kind

of go on to ask other questions that are much more associated with their friends, right, with a younger demographic group.

And so, and so if that happens, so Claude so Claude cancels, Claude will suspend the account. And

there's a there's a you know, there's a process that you can go through where you can say, "Actually, I'm an adult and this was a joke or a friend, but then you actually have to show verification that you're over the age of 18." and and you know there's real trade-offs like

yes sometimes sometimes adults will be mistaken for kids and so people get banned and they they you know complain about it on the internet. So all this stuff has trade-offs but you know we've we've thought about it and this is the

trade-off that we want.

But I but I also think you know more broadly on this question of like how do you prevent people from becoming overly attached to the models?

Yes.

Um this is something that anthropics research team spends a lot of time working on. So there's a lot of

working on. So there's a lot of You don't want to I I thought you all wanted us over attached to the models. I

thought you wanted us to just to be on the models and never So we should talk about incentives here because we don't do ads.

Um so when you do ads, your incentive is to keep people on exactly as you say as many hours as possible because like every every second their eyeball is on

the screen is a second that they see the ad. So we don't do ads. We do

ad. So we don't do ads. We do

subscriptions. We sell to companies. Our

our our consumer, you know, consumer version of the model is is, you know, is is free up to a point and you pay a subscription if you know if you want to get if you want to get a lot more

because that that the incentive that gives is for the models to be useful.

People say, well, I'm you know, I'm I'm paying for this. I want I want this to pro provide value to me. I want this to be useful. not,

be useful. not, you know, I want the the the user to spend the most number of hours looking at it. I think I think that's a warped incentive, right? Because in in

the in the in the contrast that we drew between, you know, do do you want to be addicted to these things or do you want them to help you live your life? Um I

think the model that we've chosen does you know helps you live your life instead of instead of being instead of being addicted and we make different technical choices based on those incentives right so at

anthropic we say you know when you've completed a conversation with claude and you've gotten the answer you want um the goal of the model is not to keep you engaged right whereas if you imagine

you're a company that does serve ads every extra minute that you are on the platform you're more likely to buy thing and that's how the company makes money.

You would make different technical choices about how you want the model to end or continue a conversation.

Okay. Okay. What do you want to say about the growing concern that we are through AI creating a frictionless

life that we're losing our opportunity to grow? I think it depends how you use

to grow? I think it depends how you use the AI and how you are deploying it and again what choices and what incentives are set up by the companies that are

building the technology.

So to make it a little bit more concrete if you imagine you know the way we use claude in partnership with universities

is we don't let teachers or students put a question into Claude and then just get the answer.

Okay. So, if you say to Claude, I, you know, I have to write this essay in, you know, five hours. I I didn't do my homework. Um, you know, when Claude is

homework. Um, you know, when Claude is kind of constructed in this learning mode in a university setting, Claude says like, well, I'm not going to help you with that, but what what questions did you have about the essay or what

what didn't you what didn't you learn?

Did you read the book? Like, should we talk through the themes together? And I

think if it's done correctly, it's it's hard. I don't think it's perfect, but I

hard. I don't think it's perfect, but I think these models can actually make you a lot smarter. They can make you curious, right? A great example in my

curious, right? A great example in my own personal life, I'm not a software developer, but I built a website with Claude. I never thought I would be able

Claude. I never thought I would be able to do that in my entire life, right? I

have a good friend who was a corporate lawyer. She has two small kids like me.

lawyer. She has two small kids like me.

She left her job and she's writing a book. And she says, "You know, I never

book. And she says, "You know, I never felt empowered enough to change my career and do what I wanted to do until I started talking to Claude about how I could be a writer and what skills I

would need to learn and do and what courses I would need to take." And she's like, "Now Claude is kind of like my writing buddy, right? I ask it questions. I I share like a little

questions. I I share like a little snippet of of text." But Claude can't write the novel for her, right? She's

writing the novel herself. And she's

also, by the way, I bet Claude could write the novel.

Claude could write the novel, but I think she's not quite there yet. No,

I think I could write a I think I could write a strange version.

Not a good one. You could write a novel.

Not a good one.

Not a good one. But also, I think for her, it was a meaning question. She

didn't have She didn't think she had the skills to do what she wanted to do.

So, it's it's exactly as Daario was saying, it empowered her to believe that she could do what she couldn't do.

Exactly.

And And so, yes. So, she used it to to maybe to take the altitude higher. I

mean I actually I don't think this is a question about AIS ultimately. I think

this is a question about humans that's being made visible through through kind of the lens of AI. Right. Right. Which

is interesting. Which is like what actually constitutes a meaningful life.

Right. You said, you know, is it creating a a you know, a frictionless life and does a frictionless life, you know, remove meaning? And and my answer is there are some ways in which a

frictionless life is quite good, right?

Um all of us have been through a bunch of struggles that I think, you know, we really would prefer not to not to not to go through. life would be better.

go through. life would be better.

But the reason I asked the question is because without a frictionless life, you don't get to grow and you don't get to learn from those mistakes and you don't get to Exactly. And and so I guess what I'm

Exactly. And and so I guess what I'm saying is that our our lives are a mixture of, you know, cha challenges and hardships. Some of which I'm okay saying

hardships. Some of which I'm okay saying it would be great if if we just had the technology to make those go away. And

others that are like, wow, this is really foundational and this should never change. Right? So like you know

never change. Right? So like you know our our our father died you know what what is it 20 almost exactly 20 years ago now like you know a few years after he died they you know they they

developed a cure to the disease that he had or a more reliable cure to the disease that he had like I wish they just developed that or like that's not that's not a friction that I wanted to go through or I mean I of

course we learned things from it of course we gain things from it but like it would be a better world if that just didn't happen right um uh but then on the other hand you know I think of many of the just you

know ordinary aspects of growing up the you know if I just think of entropic like you know the company has made various mistakes we've made various mistakes as leaders we've had to learn

and grow from those so I I think the notion of you know challenges that you learn from challenges that you overcome

learning to gain mastery um you know learning to relate to other people those you know any future that doesn't preserve those things is is not a is not a good future.

Okay. Speaking of friction, let's talk about your refusal to allow the military to remove safety guard rails from Claude. I don't want to get into the

Claude. I don't want to get into the extensive details and back and forth here because other journalists are covering this on a daily basis, but what was the crux of that decision?

Yeah. So, I would I would say on DoD or DO, you know, to be honest, we actually had worked with them, right? So you know we we had provided our models and you know I'm I am actually a believer

Danielle is a believer that we we do need to defend our country but you know we we felt it's not worth defending the country if we do things that go against the values of this country

and there were two use cases that we were uncomfortable with that we felt went against the values of this country and and that was fully autonomous weapons. So you could imagine like a

weapons. So you could imagine like a drone army that you know one person has their finger on the button and you don't have human soldiers. You have a you know you have a drone army and you have AI

powering this and then and then a domestic mass surveillance which is you know spying you know using the power of the government to spy on Americans and

and we thought those were pretty reasonable things not to allow. uh and

uh you know unfortunately the Pentagon uh didn't feel that way and and so we just we just couldn't agree to that. All

the other companies have agreed to that now. But I, you know, I I we we all met

now. But I, you know, I I we we all met as co-founders. We said, you know, holy,

as co-founders. We said, you know, holy, this could be really bad for the company, but you know, we can't do this, right?

And everybody agreed.

Everyone every we just we you know, we had a meeting around a table like this and you know, we just said, was that a dark night of the soul kind of moment? What what what what was

of moment? What what what what was everybody willing to stick to those principles or did some people have to be convinced or did you know going in that this is this is the end?

The co-foundeds believed this unanimously like there there was a sense of like of like you know well you know all right I wish they hadn't done this but if they're going to do it bring it on but you're scared of what would happen

to you by yes you scared of what would happen to you?

Yes. I mean I think I think the thing that it was it was a hard time. I mean,

I don't think we want to sugarcoat that.

It was a stressful time at the company, but I think a thing that Did you think it could be the end of the company?

I think it crossed our mind. Yeah. I

think um I think Daario and I and the co-founders though, the thing that we all had in common was we just felt like this was the right thing to do.

You were willing for it to be the end of the company to stand up to your principles. I think the reason we

principles. I think the reason we founded Anthropic was our commitment to our values and the ethics that we chose

with and it felt like it in the process of sacrificing those values we wouldn't have been the company that we had started if that makes sense.

It it it you know the the way it happened what did you think would be the so I'm sure if if you're sitting around the table you're looking at the best case scenario and the worst case scenario and in that moment it doesn't look like there is a best case scenario. So what

was the worst case scenario?

At various times they had made claims that they could stop other companies from doing business with us. Right? Not

just stop us from working with the government or being part of other companies contracts with the government, but that they could stop other companies from doing business with us entirely.

Period. So you're not not only you're not doing business with the government, you're not doing business with anybody anybody else that does business with you.

Yeah. or you can't do business with anyone that does business with the government in any way, which ends up being everybody, right? Um I think the attitude we had was look, this is really

screwed up. Everyone knows this is

screwed up. Everyone knows this is wrong. Lots of people are going to be on

wrong. Lots of people are going to be on our side.

We think this is going to work out okay, but man, are we not sure. You know,

there were moments there where it was like, oh man, you know, are are we wrong? Is this going to be the end of

wrong? Is this going to be the end of the company? Like

the company? Like what were you thinking, Daniela? You

know, I just keep coming back to the co-founders felt like it was just the right thing to do. I think Anthropic's view has always

do. I think Anthropic's view has always been that we are about policy and not politics.

Yeah.

And Anthropic has leaned in, I think, very early before we even had a product to the fact that, you know, we think that the role of government in the development and thoughtful regulation of

of artificial intelligence is going to be incredibly important. I think AI companies will have to work with the federal government with state governments internationally with with NOS's and I think our view was always

look this is really about the substance this is not a political disagreement this is a policy disagreement and I think in some ways that in it's not to say it was easy but I think it made our

decision easier because we felt strongly look this is the right thing to do these are the right red lines to Dario's point we've we were actually the first AI company to work closely with national security because we felt that that was

in line and in keeping with our values except in these two areas that we felt could have the potential to compromise democratic values.

It's so interesting um because most people don't get a decision at that scale that they have to make that they have to rely on their principles and

their their values. Um and and you're literally risking a multi multi-billion dollar company. But it all goes back to

dollar company. But it all goes back to how you were raised and what how those principles were formed in you before you had a big decision like that.

You know what we talked about before we ever started the company. what's it? You

know, would our past selves be proud of ourselves if we if we gave in here, if we compromised? Like, you know, I I that

we compromised? Like, you know, I I that that made the decision very clear, right?

And I I will say, I mean, it wasn't nearly as, you know, publicly covered, but I think Anthropic has had, you know, smaller decisions along the way that felt like they they lattered up to this.

I mean now it looks so obvious and I was going to ask that because because to get to a big decision like this and a moment like that where you have everyone around the table and have it means

the that that life the life forces the way the universe works is that you would have had other decisions other decisions other decisions that lattered to that moment.

Yes. Yeah.

I think there are probably three I can think of off the top of my head. I

was gonna ask you that. Daario might

have others as well, but I think you know one which you know now feels sort of very obvious but was a bigger discussion at the time was the no ads decision. So as you can imagine I think

decision. So as you can imagine I think for the co-founders for me and Daario it was not controversial at all. We said

look we think the incentives are wrong.

AI is different. People have very private conversations with these AI models. People upload their health

models. People upload their health information. They ask questions about

information. They ask questions about their children. They ask

their children. They ask certainly finances finances they talk about you know medical information all kinds of challenges they might be having with an important person in their life it's I

think we want to treat our customers data with the utmost privacy and respect and so for the co-founders it was never questioned we said look we don't want to

do ads but there were quiet forces that you know within the company or investors who were like hey this is a great source of revenue this is how Google and and Facebook and basically every company that has a big user base, you know,

that's just how it's done. That's how

you make money. And we just said like, sorry, that's just not how we're going to do things. We'll find another way.

That was that was one of the big ones.

Okay.

Yes, that was that was one of the big ones.

Do you have one?

I can think of a couple. One is uh you know, there was this time I think in 2025, um you know, probably the whole year of

2025, the sentiment in tech was let's go ahead, right? let's let's go ahead with

ahead, right? let's let's go ahead with the technology like you know worrying about risks you know they're all kind of politicized language about why it's bad

to slow down and be careful and so there was a moment in the middle of 2025 where you know there was a bill being

considered in Congress that would have banned all regulation of AI by states and wouldn't have put in any federal regulation of AI either so basically would have banned all regulation of the technology

I remember hearing that And we, you know, we were trying to decide what to do. We definitely didn't support it. But

do. We definitely didn't support it. But

the question was, do we just sit there and say nothing or do we speak out against it? And all kinds of people said

against it? And all kinds of people said to us, "No, it'll be terrible. You'll

break all your political relationships.

All the other companies will hate you if you speak out against it." Um, and actually some of that did happen when we spoke out against it. Um, uh, but you know, we decided that this was an area

that we had to speak up that was central to the values of the company. So I wrote an op-ed in the New York Times saying this is a bad idea. We should, you know, that's about as loud as you can be.

Yeah.

And that bill got voted down in the Senate 99 to1. So

yeah.

So you know, we we were clearly on the right side.

Clearly on the right side here. Not that

it made us that many friends, but we were clearly on the right side. That

also reminds me of another uh policy example is Anthropic's decision to publicly support SB1047, which was a bill in California that was

drafted and we said at the time we thought it was drafted imperfectly, but it was really the first attempt to create a regulatory framework around many of the different types of risks

that Anthropic had been enumerating since really we had started the company.

And I think in a similar vein, the whole technology industry was against SB1047.

We didn't think it was necessarily, you know, the perfect bill, but we actually stood up and said, "Look, we know there's there's things about it if we were writing it that we would have changed or done differently, but on balance, we think it's better that these

regulations exist and that there's accountability for technology companies to make sure that a AI doesn't hurt people." And that also again we got

people." And that also again we got Dario and I both personally got a lot of really angry emails from um people we used to work with from investors from people at other companies like the tech industry had to kind of you know be

aligned in being deregulatory or being anti-regulatory. What does regulation

anti-regulatory. What does regulation look like? What would regul what should

look like? What would regul what should regulation look like? And I think a lot of people out here who aren't doing what you're doing, we don't understand why we wouldn't want regulation. And I've had

several public conversations about this.

People also feel powerless.

Yeah, they also feel powerless that everybody's talking about regulations and another side is saying, "Well, no, we have to get to to it get to whatever we're getting to as fast as we can and we feel like we don't actually have a voice here.

You feel like you're passengers on the train, right?" And we are. Yes, we

train, right?" And we are. Yes, we

actually are. We cuz that train has already left.

That is, you know, I think that actually is really the core of it. And and it's something that I think no company even ours has quite succeeded at yet, which is like how do we make everyone a part

of this process, right? Something is

happening to humanity with this technology bigger than anything that you know maybe it has happened in hundreds of years. And so we we need to find some

of years. And so we we need to find some way for for everyone to be an active participant in in in what is happening.

And you know of course by using the technology you are that to some extent but some element is missing that we have we've tried to find it like you know we claude has something called a

constitution and we've experimented with having like you know citizens give feedback on like the constitution for claude right so everyone can kind of be a part of designing it but that's just one small thing like I I I I don't I

don't quite know what the answer is but there's a missing piece here I think is what I'm trying to say it goes back I think Zaryio to what what I read that you'd said before that we

can only diffuse this at the speed of trust at the speed of trust and trust is currently in short supply in in in in very in very short supply.

Um you know I think the the tech this this technology I think is I I'm happy with it is viewed negatively by most people. Um I I that's

that's the sense that I get that's what we get when looking at polls. We I think are are are again being honest here viewed somewhat more positively than the

other companies. But I don't know that

other companies. But I don't know that should it be viewed negatively by most people at this point.

I think it's a mix. I think the positive benefits really are there. they're

coming for for all the companies and I think we have not um you know go going back to the thing we said a minute ago

related to people in the right way or you know or or walked people through how the technology could have benefits or how they can participate in those benefits like I don't think that has happened

one of anthropic's cultural values is to hold light and shade and I think this is a really good encapsulation of of light and shade.

Yes. Of the conversation we're having, right? It's it's I think we truly

right? It's it's I think we truly believe there's a world where it will cure disease and help people become better versions of themselves and enable humans to spend more time with our families, with our communities, with

each other. And there are versions of

each other. And there are versions of the world that are quite dystopian and dark.

Yeah.

That this could create.

Yeah. Because I've heard you say that 50% of entry- levelvel jobs are going to be wiped out. And you can see then why people view are going to I mean that's that's that's the that's the negative path right like

you know and and you know I think always when we talk we talk about well if we don't get it right this could happen and if we get it right you know then then we can have a better path and you know you

know as you said it's always somehow the you know we haven't shown the benefits yet so the the negative stories really really stick but doesn't every positive

uh force that comes into our lives also has has its negative that there's a yin and yang on everything and shade the light and shade that is I mean when when the automobiles were invented all the people saying I'm going

to keep my horse I'm not going to you know yeah again what I would say is if we just barrel forth on the technology as fast as possible then these things I said about entry-level

jobs it's totally going to happen but if we not just deploy the technology but you know we think about how to help people adapt we think about the role that the government should play and

helping people like there's there's a path from here to a better world like a better world where you know people's jobs are totally different they do a different set of jobs than they did before but I don't want to sugarcoat it

like it's it's not it's not going to be easy you know when other people speak about it like some of people get upset about their jobs people get upset there's a difference between changing the narrative and and

acknowledge that the problem is very difficult and that we actually have to solve it right My worry is that changing the narrative is like the bad thing's not going to happen. We'll have a great future. Everyone will have new jobs.

future. Everyone will have new jobs.

That can happen, but it's not going to happen on its own. That's right.

It's up to us. We we the companies are people, the government.

What you're saying, both things are true. You're going to lose the jobs and

true. You're going to lose the jobs and you're going to have all the other advances.

And and and the second thing will only happen if we do it right.

Yeah.

What should we the public be doing? or

are we just should we just just content ourselves with the fact that we're on the train?

Being afraid of the technology and not using it and being literate um will not make many of the challenges that we are concerned about and that Daario outlined

go away. And I think knowledge is power.

go away. And I think knowledge is power.

I truly think um you don't have to be an expert in technology to have some concept of how to use these artificial intelligence tools. And I think what

intelligence tools. And I think what that that gives people is an opinion and some autonomy to be able to say I like that this technology can do this thing

and I don't like that it can do this other thing. Right? Because people have

other thing. Right? Because people have a voice. They have a voice by the way to

a voice. They have a voice by the way to the companies. They have a voice to

the companies. They have a voice to their representative government to say we don't like again anthropic. We don't

allow kids under 18 on the platform.

Other companies have a have a different policy. If you've read Jonathan Hate's

policy. If you've read Jonathan Hate's book, The Anxious Generation, I think there's a lot of research that suggests you might want to be really careful about giving developing brains.

Read the book. We've talked to him three times.

He's the Yes, of course.

But, you know, I I read that book and I think that was part of, you know, again, it felt like an in some ways an easy decision for us to say we just don't know enough about what AI is going to do to kids. It's not to say that there

to kids. It's not to say that there couldn't be great benefits for kids using AI for learning, but that needs to be done with an adult in the room. It

needs to be done with a human in the loop. And you know, I think that that

loop. And you know, I think that that the reason we've always taken this perspective is we just we people deserve autonomy. To to to Daria's point, people

autonomy. To to to Daria's point, people shouldn't feel like artificial intelligence is happening to them.

People should feel like, hey, we get a say in what types of bills go up in Congress in your state that help protect people from the negative externalities that AI could cause. I also think at the

same time holding the light side I think there's a world where jobs will look different but there will actually be more opportunity for sort of humanto

human interaction. I think the last

human interaction. I think the last generation of technology really disintermediated us from each other.

Right? Social media is kind of structured around the idea that you're sort of living this virtual life. You're

holding your phone and you're looking at what your friends are doing. But guess

what you're not actually doing? You're

not spending time with your friends.

You're spending time staring at your phone.

Even when you're at the concert, you're holding your phone. You're not even in the concert. You're just filming with

the concert. You're just filming with somebody. It's a little counterintuitive

somebody. It's a little counterintuitive because social media claims to connect people, but it does it in sort of a fake way.

AI, you're talking to the AI. You're not

talking to a person, but but it doesn't substitute for your interaction with people. It can enable your interaction

people. It can enable your interaction with people. And my feeling is that it's

with people. And my feeling is that it's not even necessarily that the jobs themselves will completely go away or change, but the qualities that we look for in people to do a given job will change.

Okay?

So the example that I point to is if you think about a doctor, when you go to the doctor today, you probably want to go to the smartest, best doctor where you say, "Look, I have a stomach ache. Tell me

what's wrong with me. Who's the

specialist? Tell me what's wrong with me." And AIs are going to get really

me." And AIs are going to get really good at being able to do that. Today, we

prize doctors for being good diagnosticians, but we don't necessarily always prize them for having a good bedside manner, right?

In a world where AI is as good at diagnosing you as a doctor, people are still going to want a doctor. They're

just going to want them to do different things for them, right? And AI can't physically examine you. It can't say, "Hey, you look really down today. How

have how have your chemo treatments been?"

been?" lay its hands on you.

It can't lay its hands on you. And and

there's so much compelling evidence that patients have better clinical outcomes when they have a good personal relationship with their doctor when they like their doctor and when their doctors actually lay their hands on them and touch them and

communicate with them and by the way have enough time to to think through and to empathize and I think that is the good world of job changes and the doctors say I don't have time to go around

I can't lay my hands on people I don't have time because I'm thousands of thousands of patients I'm doing the clerical work and I'm and I have too big of a patient case load. But if you have a tool that's able to diagnose things in

concert with a doctor where the doctor says, you know, let me talk to this tool. And by the way, I'm not going to

tool. And by the way, I'm not going to be spending as much time running all the medical tests and doing this and that.

I'm going to be spending time relating to as a human being. I think that is going to be really I think that's a better world.

Say that again. We're you your positions may not go away, but what you're needed to do in those positions is going to change.

Yes. And I personally believe there's going to be a shift.

Yes. And of course there is because that's what we're doing human beings.

We're evolving evolving to the next level.

I would also just say I personally think knowledge is power. And something that worries me is there are there are demographic differences in who feels comfortable using AI and who does not.

Women use AI a tiny fraction of the time compared to men. And I think you know AI is an opportunity for us to level the playing field in some ways but it requires people to be engaged. That

doesn't mean, hey, you have to come pay us all this money and sign up. Just be

comfortable, fluent. Don't be afraid of the technology because the more you know about it and the more you understand it, the better informed you are going to be to use your voice effectively. A

and and it's here. You're in it. And if

you're going to continue to live, you're going to be in the world where it's part of our society, not it's not going away more than the train or the steam engine is, you know,

I think of it like the internet, right?

Everybody had somebody's parent who said, "I'm not going to be online." It's

impossible, right? Everybody has to be on the internet now in some form. And I

think artificial intelligence is just the next instantiation of that.

So, one of the things I want to talk about is the fact that AI just keeps it's it just keeps improving on itself.

That's I guess what it's designed to do.

And there is a new AI model called Mythos.

Mythos. Yes.

So, that is like smarter than the smartest of the smartest. tell us in a simple term what mythos is and what it can and will be doing.

Yeah, so you know the general principles of these models is when we train them, we try and you know make them better and better at at everything at writing code, at translating languages, at answering

questions, at reading documents. Um and

and Mythos was just kind of the latest um you know was the latest iteration.

Every few months we produce a smarter model and and Mythos was the latest smart model and you know we we made some discoveries a few months before we started mythos and so it was a

particularly large jump when we started testing Mythos when we make these models we test them for lots of things. we say,

"Oh, how good is this thing at translating, you know, French to English?" Or, "How good is this at um

English?" Or, "How good is this at um you know, um recommending a stock portfolio?" Or how good is it at um you

portfolio?" Or how good is it at um you know, finding bugs in software code? And

it was on that last one that we found something interesting for Mythos, which is that Mythos was much better than

human software engineers at finding ways that code could be exploited and broken into. You know, have you ever heard

into. You know, have you ever heard about like ransomware attacks on hospitals or schools? So, you know, these cyber attacks happen all the time.

And mythos we found, not because we designed it to do this or because we designed it to be dangerous, turned out to be very good at both conducting cyber

attacks and defending against cyber attacks. And so we said, "Wow, this

attacks. And so we said, "Wow, this thing kind of seems like a weapon. Um,

we we shouldn't, you know, we probably shouldn't give it to everyone right away." And so the thing we came up with

away." And so the thing we came up with is we said, "We're going to take some companies that are particularly core to the infrastructure of the internet,

right? some of the top banks, some of

right? some of the top banks, some of the top um you know software providers like Apple or like Microsoft or like

Google and you know hand it to them and let them fix everything before it becomes widely available and things can be broken. Um so we would kind of give

be broken. Um so we would kind of give it to the defenders before the you know before the attackers got a hold of it.

And so we had a program we've we've given the model to, you know, I think it's something like 40 companies now and they're, you know, they're b they're

busily finding bugs and, you know, we just had a post a few days ago that one of the well-known companies found more

bugs and fixed more bugs with Mythos in a week than uh they had for the last year. uh and and and so we are you know

year. uh and and and so we are you know this is really changing things. Now our

hope is the defenders can fix everything and everything gets more seamless everything gets harder to break into. So

our hope is the era of ransomware and you know spies breaking into your phone and you know people are worried about bioteterrorism and should be.

Yeah. So our our our Yeah. our our our our hope is that at the end of this, say at the end of this year, we get to a point where all of these, you know, many

of these things have been fixed and we live in a more secure world than we did before. But in the meantime, you know,

before. But in the meantime, you know, there's this dangerous period during which you have these these kind of incredible capabilities that, you know, that you know, you don't want to just

necessarily loose on the world. And so

we're trying to we're trying to manage that by giving it to the defenders before we give it to the attackers.

Thank you for that. Does is this is the kind of thing that keeps you up at night? Do you sleep well?

night? Do you sleep well?

Uh I I you know I cannot legitimately say that I sleep I wish I could answer that question differently. But uh but you know I got to I got to give you an honest answer here which is uh you know I don't always sleep so well. I would I

would say, you know, going back to the earlier part of the conversation we were having because worried about these things, this this and you know, just everything just wanting to get it right. That's the

thing that worries me the most. Just

like you know, for all our intentions, all of this stuff is incredibly complex.

Just are we going to screw up? Yeah.

And and I mean the answer is yes. At

some point we'll screw up something, but but like are we going to get the big stuff right?

Yeah. Yeah. And also because you all are fundamentally principled people.

Yes.

So I think that actually makes a big difference when you're fundamentally principled people. uh not everybody is

principled people. uh not everybody is and a there's a lot of egos in in every field but I think particularly when

people are making so many billions and billions and billions of dollars and there's the race to be China and all of that that it's easily to lose sight of what's what really matters and what

really matters to the public. I'm

wondering what you all have done to sort of keep your egos in check. You know, I think it again to us it always comes back to the mission, right? Why we did

this in the first place. Why did we leave OpenAI to start Anthropic because we wanted to make sure that AI goes well for everybody, right? That's why we're a

public benefit corporation. That's why

we took the 80% pledge. That's why we've made all of these difficult decisions.

You know, I was in our internal like our internal Slack messaging app today. you

know, I talked to the company a lot and one of the things I was saying is, you know, we're 3,500 people now. We we were you know like 1,200 people you know like 6 months ago at one point because

because I encouraged this someone posted in my like you know like my personal Slack channel you know I I had done an all hands in front of the company and like you know said something and I think I said it in not quite the right way and

someone someone wrote in my channel usually it's only me who writes things in my channel someone wrote in my channel this was a pretty bad thing to say and it like makes everyone feel bad and like you know this this like you shouldn't have said it this way. Um, and

of course, you know, when I read it, you know, the initial reaction is always like, "Oh, man." It's like I feel like I need but but but like you take a beat and then and then two minutes later I'm like, "I'm so glad people are saying

this." And then, you know, I wrote

this." And then, you know, I wrote something that was like, "So, were you always I'm so glad you're what you're you're like willing to say, you know, and and then people notice this." Like many people messaged me like, "I didn't know you could do that. I didn't know you

could just contradict the CEO of a, you know, 30,000 person."

Is so powerful. That is a powerful You've got to you know why that's a powerful example?

Early early on like in the late 80s I think I I met Henry Kravis for the first time and he was saying to me be aware that the more money you accumulate the less chance that you're ever going to

hear the truth. Yes. Because he said rich men and I guess he also meant rich women too but he goes rich men rarely hear the truth.

Yes.

Yeah.

I I I'll also just add I think what you do in your personal life matters too. there's what you do at

matters too. there's what you do at work. But um I basically have the same

work. But um I basically have the same friends I've had since like high school and college.

And guess what? They have no trouble being honest with me and they have no trouble telling me the the truth and they have no trouble disagreeing with public decisions that Anthropic has made, right? So I think the the last

made, right? So I think the the last five years have changed a lot. But I

think for me personally, I don't really feel like that much has changed outside of work. And I think that's an important

of work. And I think that's an important grounding characteristic. I think people

grounding characteristic. I think people who tend to be in charge of these big companies sometimes it's like they become obsessed just with their work.

They're not a well-rounded person. And I

think there's something when we started Anthropic of like the first, you know, of the seven or eight folks who who really started the company, only one of them had one kid and now there's 11 kids. And I think there's something

kids. And I think there's something about the fact that we all chose to be parents. We all want fulfilling real

parents. We all want fulfilling real lives outside of work. I think that just brings a sort of groundedness, humility, low ego, and just again like no one is bigger than the mission.

So, so what comes through really clearly is that sister and brother, you started this. It's bigger than you ever

this. It's bigger than you ever imagined. You always wanted to make an

imagined. You always wanted to make an impact in doing good for the world and you stuck to your principles even when it

was really difficult. What gives you the hope that you will get this right?

So, we're never quite sure, I think, is is the honest answer. Like, we believe we're trying our best and trying very hard. Um, it's just the decisions are

hard. Um, it's just the decisions are complicated, right? If we go back to

complicated, right? If we go back to mythos, it's like, do we give it to more people faster or less people slower?

Like, who do we trust? And so, it's about getting all the details right in addition to just having the right principles, which which I believe we do.

Um, and and so I think we worry about it every day and the fact that we worry about it every day is maybe the thing that most gives us the hope that like that we're so paranoid about it, but it's it's it's no guarantee and we've

made mistakes. We're going to continue

made mistakes. We're going to continue to make mistakes like, you know, that that that's that's a given, right?

Are there other people in Silicon Valley who also have it a part of their mission to get it right? Do you feel supported in that mission by others? It's hard to

point to maybe like a particular company, but I think I am very touched by sometimes, you know, whatever you go and talk in an event or another company

wants you to come speak to them and somebody in the audience, you know, comes up to you afterwards or asks a question and they say something like, "Thank you guys for the way that you do things."

things." Yeah.

Like, "Thank you for trying to get it right." there's this kind of sense that

right." there's this kind of sense that you know I think um I think something that's great about our relationship is Daario and I I also think we hold each other accountable right and so when you know we go back and forth on is this a

right is this the right decision for the company is this in keeping with our values we have each other we have the whole co-founding team is still at anthropic I think we've also hired an amazing set of people who are also there for the mission there's almost a kind of

group accountability and if you pair that with like Dario mentioned this culture internally of anybody can disagree with us, right? And yes, that's hard to do, but there's a lot of forums in which they're encouraged to do that,

their manager can do it, they can do it anonymously. I think all of those

anonymously. I think all of those qualities make it more likely that that if we start to stray from the path, we're at least going to know.

Okay. And you want to leave us, the public, knowing what what is the most important thing you want us to know in this moment in time where we are in our AI journey? you know, there's there's

AI journey? you know, there's there's something really big happening to the world here.

This isn't the this isn't the, you know, this isn't the latest technology. This

isn't crypto. This isn't mobile. This,

you know, this this isn't like the latest, you know, gadget or buzzword.

Something really big is happening to humanity here. While the technology is

humanity here. While the technology is being built by a small number of people, we we need to make it work for everyone and we need to make sure that between

all of us, we make the right decisions and and we reckon with changes to our daily lives, changes to our jobs,

changes to, you know, government and civil liberties. And if we do this the

civil liberties. And if we do this the right way, all of those things could change in a positive way. All of those things could be better than we left them. We could have the perfect world

them. We could have the perfect world where, you know, many many diseases are cured. People's lives are more joyful

cured. People's lives are more joyful and meaningful. But, you know, if we get

and meaningful. But, you know, if we get it wrong, it's easy to imagine things not going that way at all. And, you

know, it's up to all of us. Some of us are in a more central position, but that's something I think we need to change as well. And, you know, it's not easy. It's not any one thing. It's going

easy. It's not any one thing. It's going

to be a bunch of different things. I

think I would probably leave people very similar to what Daario said with this with this concept of of light and shade that the potential benefits from artificial intelligence

are are vast. Um we've written about them. We've tried to talk about them

them. We've tried to talk about them publicly. We believe they're real. Um

publicly. We believe they're real. Um

and also the risks are are also real, right? We're not trying to hype up the

right? We're not trying to hype up the the positives or hype up the negatives.

I think they're both true. It's complex,

but we have to hold two things at once.

And I think just echoing Daario, this is not something that technology companies can do by ourselves, nor should it be.

It's something that's going to take partnership from a much bigger group of people than is currently working on artificial intelligence. And I think the

artificial intelligence. And I think the first step there has to be don't don't be afraid of it. Learn about it. Lean

into it. Ask questions. Be critical.

Just like we say to our staff, right? We

are only going to have a chance of getting this right if we expand the circle of people that are in the conversation. I ask this of all my

conversation. I ask this of all my guests and particularly I'm interested from the two of you and what do you think is the meaning of a well-lived

life and how AI is going to contribute to that well-lived life? But what what will be the meaning of a well-lived life for

you, your family, and your children?

I think for me, a well-lived life is one where you have agency and autonomy.

You're in the driver's seat and you're using that in the service of being the best version of yourself. and I think the best version of yourself for you,

for your family, for your kids, for your broader community, and I think for the world. I think um the ability to be

world. I think um the ability to be self-reflective, to learn from mistakes, to overcome struggles, and to come out

the other side thinking, you know, I know more about who I am. I like who I am, and I want to help other people. I

think that to me is the best definition of a well-lived introspective life. And

like I talked about, I think I think there's a world where AI could damage so many of the things that I think are the hallmarks of a

well-lived life. And I think there's a

well-lived life. And I think there's a world where it could enable those and it could allow a lot more people to be able to have meaning and value and to self-

introspect, to be the best versions of ourselves, to show up for each other well. And I hope that's the world that

well. And I hope that's the world that we're going to build towards.

I'd just say the same thing as Daniellea in different words. I think it's pretty pretty simple. Um, you know, I think,

pretty simple. Um, you know, I think, you know, just operate always with a sense of dignity and principle. Like,

you know, when you look back and you're like, you know, don't you shouldn't when you look back be ashamed of what you did or say, you know, I, you know, I wish I'd done this this other thing. Of

course, you'll make mistakes, but, you know, you were you were putting every iota of effort you could into into, you know, into um trying to get it right.

Um, you know, I think we have duties both to individuals, you know, to to to to my to my co-founders, to all the other people in my life, but, you know,

also to, you know, the the users of our technology, to, you know, everyone else in the country and world as citizens.

So, you know, I think we have duties to all those people that that we have to that we have to attend to. uh and you know making sure that uh you know at the

end of it it was directed at some purpose some consistent view of what we were trying to accomplish in the world the the vision we were trying to make happen. Maybe it doesn't happen maybe we

happen. Maybe it doesn't happen maybe we screw it up maybe we make terrible mistakes but you know just just having the having the vision be clear and and and trying to to pursue it with with

integrity. If if you can do that, of

integrity. If if you can do that, of course you want the outcome too, but I think if doing that is all you can control, right? And and more important

control, right? And and more important ultimately than the outcome.

Thank you for growing us forward. You

you that's what you're doing. You're

doing exactly what you envisioned as little kids.

It it is very strange, but we are.

Yes, it is.

Thank you. Thank you, Daario and Daniela. You've given us a lot to think

Daniela. You've given us a lot to think about. Go well, everybody. Go well. You

about. Go well, everybody. Go well. You

can subscribe to the Over Podcast on YouTube and follow us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen. I'll

see you next week. Thanks everybody.