Yat Siu: Digital property rights, AI's impact on capitalism, and the future of economic systems

Welcome to another Founder Wisdom podcast. Today we have with us we have someone quite special, Yat Siu. Yat Siu is an advocate of true digital property rights. He's a chairman of the board at Brands. He built something quite incredible. Animoca is and still is I think publicly listed >> Not on the ASX. >> Okay. It was It was, right? >> It was. That's correct.

Yes. >> Yeah, yeah. You had like such a crazy ride, man. But mostly it in the crypto space you're trained musician as well from Austria. I mean, you don't legally have like a base I think. You're like Hong Kong, Liechtenstein, Austria. You traveled the full world, right? Like you're You're truly a renaissance man, I would say. But Yat Siu, welcome to the podcast.

Tell us a bit more about yourself and how you would describe your life as as a farmer. >> [snorts] >> Well, so no, first of all, thank you very much. It's a pleasure to be here. I mean, I would say generally I think of my life as fairly blessed, right? In the sense that, you know, it wasn't easy. You know, we didn't come from money. We grew up. My mom was a musician.

And for the most part I was raised as a, you know, my my parents split when I was quite young even though both studied music. So I was raised by a single mom who basically as a musician you had to go on tour. So I lived mostly by myself. Um you know, which is also interesting because today the idea that someone who's like a, you know, like a tween would live by themselves is considered kind of weird.

But back then, you know, everyone was like, yeah, you know, what whatever, you know. So people do what they do. Uh but but I think that helped shape basically sort of my experience. Um you know, I have no regrets. Everything I look back in life are all lessons that I see that helped me sort of get to where I am today and continuing to build. Um and you know, and and without going into the full depth of my my my life story, you know, I think um I think one of the insights for me maybe there's two that sort of had a real big impact.

You know, studying music wasn't my thing, it was my mom's thing. But uh seeing how artists and creators struggled and you know, in the beginning I didn't really understand it, but I became I got to understand later on that, you know, she was incredibly talented as many people in her craft, but she didn't know anything about money. And and and that was uh you know, and growing up in Austria, nobody talks about money.

Um and in fact, in most of Europe, you know, still to this day, you don't talk about money. It's kind of dirty, you don't want to talk about it, it's uncouth, you know, all that type of stuff, right? Like the German phrase for it would be like verpönt, you know, something that you just don't you just don't don't do. Um but the problem is that, you know, uh the people who do understand money were the ones who were managing stuff for my mom, took everything, right?

Uh so, that was kind of one one experience that um and then the second experience is you know, my mom was uh you know, this is so I'm a child of the '70s and my mom used to work um basically in the Eastern German part um of uh of Berlin at the Komische Oper. So, I would, you know, basically cross the border on occasion to see my mom. Um and you know, take the train and all that kind of stuff and then basically cross the border and you would see that um you know, another part of the world, shall we say, which you know, people talk about oh, communism, you know, all these socialist and communist, they have not seen communism.

Okay, right? Like literally, when you cross the border into, you know, what was East Berlin back then, it was truly >> Poverty and chaos. >> Well, the thing is is that it wasn't so much chaos because everyone was frightened, but it was just stark because people didn't know. It was like really information control. So, like imagine going to a supermarket and you have essentially food items that are about a meter apart from each other because there was too much space.

I mean, this is unimaginable to think, you know, you know, that that when you go into a supermarket today, imagine there's a banana and an apple 1 m apart. And another banana. And maybe maybe maybe maybe maybe, you know, I don't know, a pear. Like it's it's it's mind-blowing today to think about that. And so >> The opposite of abundance. >> Exactly.

Absolutely opposite of abundance. And that sort of definitely shaped my thinking around sort of, you know, um what what isn't good and and sort of the whole issue of equity and and what that all all means. Although again, I wouldn't really know what that means later. Then I went to America because of Atari. I experienced capitalism on overdrive. And then I came to Hong Kong.

And capitalism was so extreme. I mean, so extreme where you have, you know, it's better today, but back then when I came to Hong Kong, I there was no social safety net. Zero. So, you would have 70-year-old sort of, you know, sort of senior citizens literally carry up trash, right? They're like it's it's a So so you have the complete opposite extreme from from coming from a sort of social democratic place to, you know, an ultra-capitalist place.

Right? And and so I saw that as well. I said, "Well, that's not right either." So So there were different constructions of these things that that I had experienced that helped shape my worldview. And over time, I found a lot of this to influence me in the way that I think about the world and in the way I think about about our business. >> Man, that's crazy.

So, Hong Kong in the '90s, right? Like that's the time you were there? So, you say extreme capitalism. How can that be more extreme than, let's say, New York or Silicon Valley back then? >> So, I I like to describe Hong Kong as a back then certainly Milton Friedman's wet dream. And and the reason being is that everything basically was just centered around the capitalist nature, which is basically, you know, free market competition.

And if you look at the rankings of Hong Kong, Hong Kong consistently has ranked as the freest market in the world. >> Hong Kong, right? British Hong Kong. >> was British Hong Kong at the time. But even as it moved was it was handed over to China, China, you know at the handover, China maintained very much much of its capitalistic enterprise. So a couple of things that really sort of stand out, right?

Zero capital gains tax, right? Um you know, taxes would only be paid once a year. Flat taxes for corporates, um you know, 16 and a half percent. A staggering tax basically, but maximum I think 15% or 70% whatever it is, but more importantly no dividend taxes, right? And so what you end up having is a system where people who are very wealthy, they don't pay themselves a salary, they just pay themselves a dividend, right?

Um and and but because Hong Kong has so really expensive real estate and the land is controlled by the government, a lot of its revenue comes from land sales. So it didn't really need to, you know, it didn't really need to have a a sort of necessarily a big sort of VAT or typical type of tax base. But I think the other thing also is that, you know, we have a local, let's call it gambling setup with the Hong Kong Jockey Club.

A lot of that funding goes into public works, right? Hong Kong is a very one of the safest cities in the world. Um you know, it's great, it's got nature, it's got high-rise buildings, it's very very modern. Certainly a lot of things work a lot better, you know, in Hong Kong than many other parts of the world should I say, including the Western developed countries for those who have visited it.

So it's it's a it's in that sense it's a really well-functioning system. But it also has the worst or one of the worst Gini coefficients in the world. Okay, right. So you have effectively a population around 8 to 9 million people, a million people who live um basically at the poverty line um despite the fact we're talking about a, you know, city-state that has reserves greater than, you know, some of the big names in the world in terms of US dollar reserves, fiscal reserves, and is an economic power hub and one of the major stock markets in the world, right?

So you have that kind of sort of, you know, unequalness if you will. Uh and and um and that was the '90s and the '90s was very sort of, you know, very uh flamboyant as well. I remember going in there. This was still when the airport was in um Kai Tak where you would, you know, the famous thing where you land into the city through the buildings, right?

We don't have that anymore, but that was back then. And I think it it had two interesting, you know, I'll I'll I'll liken it as a little bit more dubious as dubious stats, but let's just say those were the stats at the time. I think highest Rolls-Royce and highest Rolex per capita at that time. Um and frankly, you know, that gave rise to a lot of sort of vibrant activity, a lot of business activity, but also a lot of noise and a lot of bling and a lot of, you know, things that that maybe were not were not so good.

Now, I would say many countries that have experienced this or places, uh it goes through these cycles. I mean, I think the most recent example pre-war would have been Dubai, right? Dubai is a wonderful place, a lot of things going there, incredible enterprise, but at the same time also a lot of bling. And you know, probably per capita highest in I don't know, gold watches, whatever it is.

Yeah, right, exactly, right. So so anyway, so so you see these cycles, um and and there is um and I think it's a philosophical perspective to to to because in Hong Kong, this idea, which I think is shared amongst many people, is like, you know, taxes you know, aren't good because it takes away from people putting back into investments and so on. Um and I think there's a there's a nuance around that, right?

Because uh because I think, you know, in those places, you also have a case where unfortunately, you have a lot of excessive greed, right? And then you accumulate for the sake of accumulating, which then doesn't become productive capital either. So I think a balance needs to be struck. I think, you know, places like Hong Kong have changed. So now we do have a social security net.

You know, um there is talk about making changes, but on the other hand, I see other places like in the rest of the world, I'd say in Europe, I feel like they're going extreme on the other side, which is stifling innovation and stifling entrepreneurship. Because you would say, well, if I'm working so hard, if I'm building a business, who am I building it for, right?

So I think I think there is that counter balance and of course, the US is right in the middle of it. >> Yeah, hedonic treadmill is something to be careful of because like all your accumulations all become weight, you know, and then you're going that bottomless pit. You're like, oh, I just acquired this new Rolls-Royce, but the happiness gain was 0.3% the first day and then I realized that this is terrible and then that cost me actual happiness, right?

Rather than I don't know, going out and connecting with other human beings. I heard you mention the Gini score, right? And inequality. Um so I have a semi-privileged bias, I would say. My parents were like a middle upper class, but I I am self-made for sure. Like I I didn't rely on that and my goal was actually to get away from it as quick as possible, but I still think yes, I I question sometimes inequality, right?

Cuz folks at the bottom, if they compare themselves to the guys at the top, I think it becomes toxic. We have that in Mexico, we have that in the US, right? Like the disparity is huge, but also for for folks with the right mindset, don't you think it's an actual motivator for them to actually step up and see the possibilities if the system allows them?

I guess that's the equation, right? In Mexico, the system doesn't allow them, but in the US, the system does allow them for most people, I would argue. So is the Gini Gini really a strong indicator or is it not? >> Well, the Gini the Gini coefficient is really just a statistic, right? And you could have places that have high inequity, but you could still have sort of a degree of high hope just because you are at the bottom end of the spectrum >> Optimism.

>> doesn't mean that you don't think you can make it. And I think the problem we face in the world today is that hope itself is in shorter supply than it used to be. So, you know, and when you talk about the American dream and I sometimes joke about it, but I think it's very very true is that the American dream is uh much more alive and well in Asia than it is in the US, for example.

>> So, uh and it has a lot to do with the uh sort of idealism of, "Okay, I I I went to college, you know, I did everything I was told to do, and then I can get a job." Right? That's one. And then, "Oh, I do have a job." But then, because of, you know, I remember like back in the '80s and '90s, um sort of, you know, the money printer wasn't going the way that it is going right now, right?

Um inflation, you know, the whole thing looked different. So, you had essentially curbs on money was considered a store of value. And today, if you say money, you end up losing value because of, you know, what happens with QE and with the whole devaluation of currency. So, as a result, those who have assets end up accumulating more wealth and accumulating, you know, ultimately more power.

And no matter how hard you work, you end up basically being left behind. And I think this is the challenge also of our time because too many people are still being told that labor is essentially that true source of value, you know, and I grew up in I grew up in German-speaking uh Europe, right? And you [clears throat] know, Arbeit ist ist ist gut. Also, so the whole idea that, you know, work is good for the soul and the morale, and, you know, the whole sort of, you know, >> [clears throat] >> you know, proletarian and Protestant value system around sort of, you know, work.

And again, work ha- ha- definitely has has um has dignity um and honor. But the thing is is that if you don't know how to invest, if you don't know how to use money, then you're left out. And that's exactly That's exactly what's happened. And so, in Hong Kong, for example, even though we have a high uh Gini coefficient, we also have a very high financial literacy rate as a financial capital.

So, the consequence is is that even if you don't have that much money, you see a possibility that, "Oh, okay, maybe I invest in stocks, or maybe I do a startup, or maybe I do something, right?" Um and as a result, there's opportunity despite the gap. And to your point, it does motivate you, right? But if you don't know this, if you're somewhere else where nobody knows um you know, how to how to like like somewhere in the countryside, somewhere further away, right?

Um and you and you witness this sort of, you know, inequity and you see it on social media as well. You go like, "There is no way I can do this and nobody will teach me how I can get there." Then you have this problem. Like, you know, you will have high inequality certainly in New York and in San Francisco, right? And Seattle, you know, you'll you'll get that.

You'll get high inequality. I But do you see people really really I mean, people will be upset, but people will be motivated to work because of pure environment demonstrates it and you have tools in which you can say, "Okay, fine. Maybe I should invest in this or maybe I should understand this, right?" But then when you're somewhere else where that where your peer group doesn't do this and you have no information on how to do that, which is most of the world, then you basically just get unhappy and then you get envious and you get all these problems, right?

Um and you have tall poppy syndrome, which is a particularly an issue in places like Europe for instance, uh which basically um has killed the entrepreneurial spirit. It's almost, you know, um in in in some circles, it's almost like embarrassing if you're if you're if you're if you're successful uh to talk about it, right? Um and you can't you can't do that.

And that's hard. And then if you're a young person, you don't have somebody to look up to, either. >> Okay, my counterargument to this is that on social media, there will always be uh people, some of them scammers, right? But people uh taking care of these lower class people and be like, "Yeah, I'm going to train you." Whether it's scammy or not scammy stuff like uh MLM, uh in the worst case, it'll be Andrew Tate, right?

Um Right. Uh there there's always entrepreneurs with good intentions that are picking up these uh people at the bottom and sort of bringing them up to the second echelon. Is that true? And what do you need uh to have optimism in your mind and not become disillusioned with this system? What form of education, in your opinion, do you need? >> Well, I mean, I think the the big thing, first of all, from a tooling standpoint is that with the AI, we have a lot of tools already today.

The issue is is that most people don't know how to use it, but it is there, right? And your capacity to speak and your capacity to write is available for most people. So, I think that's the first point, right? Which is that you will now have the tools, if you wanted to, to grow exponentially. In a way, you could argue that exponential growth was only available for a familiar view.

If you were in technology, if you know how to code, if you had these contacts, you know, or if you knew about money, that's a certain thing. But in a way, AI is a great is is a great equalizer. Um first as a tool and now through a generative AI, you have the ability to basically do things that you couldn't do before and they could literally be your co-worker for, you know, basically dollars.

Okay? So, so so in the in a in in that sense, I think the opportunity is there. So, that I I think part of the big mission is to teach people that you now have the same superpower in a way that uh that, you know, everyone else in the in the top class has, so to speak. And so, the parallel I put is a little bit like, you know, in I remember in the '80s, knowledge was essentially power.

Like like in particular. Uh and if you had if you had access, if you were a wealthy family, you would have an Encyclopedia Britannica in That was right? That was That was That was power, right? Uh and others would have to go to the library and they would have to borrow a book and they could only go to a section. And And so, that that little segmentation was that knowledge gap.

And then, you know, after the internet came, we all had access broadly to more information and it actually created a certain type of equalization, right? Now, we have this equalization of basically doing, so to speak. Like, I might not be interested in finance, but you know what? My agent can help you with this and then I can make some intelligent choices around that type of stuff.

So, from an execution standpoint, I don't think we have that gap anymore. But what we do need um is uh is is is people to be inspired. And I think one of the big challenge big things about like I I I look at entrepreneurs, I look at the headlines, right? So, if you're in America and you're like an Elon Musk, you are a cover boy, right? It's like it's like the hero archetype.

When you go to Asia, it's usually the team, right? It's like it's like, you know, we're a team, we're we're we're we're we're communal but they still celebrate them, right? For the most part, right? But it's very rarely one individual. I mean, some there are, but really the way they present themselves is it's the team. It's like you know, 10 guys or three people or something like that, right?

When you go to Europe, the headline is um you know, it's like you know, the problems with AI like it becomes something negative, right? Right? And and and and those perspectives matter because that's why in America you can it's not just about it's not just about the money. It's like, "Hey, if I'm an entrepreneur, I could be like this." Right? You role model it.

If I'm an entrepreneur, I'm part of a team. If I'm an entrepreneur in Europe, I could be ostracized. Uh my friends might not talk to me. I I I I I maybe I did something wrong. And like this is the And again, I'm exaggerating a little bit. It's not true all everywhere. But if you if if media doesn't play its part to promote growth and enterprise, then what happens is is that it it self-reflects.

I mean, it's just a mirror, right? So, nothing else you can do. Uh and I do think policies need to be put forward around if you really want what's best for the country, maybe you need to talk about the successes more than about the dangers. >> Yeah, I agree with everything you said. I just want to come back to that farmer, right? Like that uses Facebook or Instagram, right?

They see ads. They see a ChatGPT ad to install ChatGPT. Can ChatGPT lead that education revolution? Because that farmer would use ChatGPT for farming stuff, right? And household stuff, but eventually may open a gate in their brains to start asking great questions and start to get out out of uh what they are. It isn't ChatGPT and AI's reading leading the education revolution in the lower classes?

>> so. Yes, I would say so. Um I mean, I would say the big thing uh and the so the counter thing obviously, the way that social media has I I think of AI as the great counterweight to the kind of frankly toxic social media that we're often seeing. Because social So, so both of them are actually leveraging something that's very innate to us as humans, which is essentially our our our thirst of knowledge, right?

To keep To keep learning, our curiosity. You know, we have this dopamine loop. When we learn something new, it's like, "Aha!" right? And the brain basically lights up and you go, "Oh, this is great," right? And that's actually why we as a species keep evolving because we are fascinated with the new learnings and we want to see the surprises and we just want to see the innovations, uh you know, in big and small format and then we keep it progressing and progressing, right?

Um what social media well is hack into that system. That same form of novelness novelty and surprise but then they just end up doom scrolling, right? Um to capture your time and attention and sell you ads, right? Um and and with the very interesting and this is a parallel cuz we come from the gaming industry, you know, one of the challenges uh the gaming industry has had A lot of people are like, "Oh, gaming, you know, it's slightly declining or not new new content." You know, it's actually much more simpler than that.

I mean, there are some demographic issues in terms of, you know, less children being born in the developed countries, but really the big challenge for gaming was TikTok. When TikTok came, it sucked all the attention from the same crowd that would normally be playing games, right? But guess what? What's TikTok scared of? AI, right? Because now the same people are spending more time on AI than on TikTok, right?

So, you have this interesting sort of thing that's happening and I actually think of it as a net positive, but we have to think about how AI is used, but then that's positive because AI is mostly a knowledge tool and they've actually created a system where I ask a question, I get an answer. That is interesting. I ask another question, I go further. And I think the next step from that is the agentic system because the agentic system is no longer passive, right?

So, ChatGPT is passive. It's like, okay, I ask a question, you give me an answer. It's a better search engine that's more precise, right? And and maybe more deeper, but it's still answering only your questions. Whereas an agentic autonomous system comes to you. So, imagine you having a conversation and then you're done and then an hour later it comes back, "By the way, um what you said before, I have a suggestion or I have a discovery or something else that completely flips the script.

A lot of people think it's not that special but it's a very small nuance that makes all the difference and this is happening right now and I actually think this is where the farmer gets engaged because he's no longer prompted by his own because the limit of the farmer should we say is not that he's not a smart person. He doesn't know what to ask. The you know, what you know, what is the most valuable thing that we have given all the AIs?

It's our questions that we ask. It's not the knowledge. The knowledge is the index. It's the question we ask. But what if I don't know the question to ask which is what the problem is generally speaking. I don't know what to ask. Well, now AI through the agent will ask the question for you. He will prompt you. You know, we're talking about sort of loop engineering and graphs and so on.

What are they really doing? They're re-interrogating the system for better results, right? And so you as a human can now witness that and you can learn from that and that's the equalizer. That to me is the opportunity. >> But aren't farmer apart, right? Like aren't most humans not equipped mentally to deal with these algorithms? Aren't they like in a forever rage bait trap?

I mean TikTok is good at dragging their attention with I don't know sexuality, bombastic comments or whatever and it will constantly re-suggest this content and even adds to some degree, right? Like target these people on these same basis. So how can they get out of that major trap? Because we talked about ads and I mean that's like one specific funnel but in my opinion and in most people's opinion Facebook has decimated humanities social construct and mental models of life.

I think most humans get stuck on these algorithms and never go nowhere, right? I think that's the main problem. >> But I think the the other point is is that like the way that we like to approach it is we want to be able to demonstrate the value of your time so that you know that if there's value and hence digital property rights, you know, your data is valuable, right?

So, if you continue to be on Facebook or you could be somewhere else or you could be doing something else and it pays you for that, would you not rather be there, right? You know, I remember the days when people used to think that Facebook and Instagram was unassailable. And then came TikTok. And then people used to say, "Oh, yeah, TikTok is unassailable." And then came AI, right?

So, so there is no such thing as a system that is forever impregnable. That's not true at all, right? They may change shape, they have to transform. Uh these corporations But I mean, let's let's look at the AI race, right? I mean, you know, uh Facebook was really behind Lama is kind of nowhere, if you think about it, in contrast to certainly Google and then OpenAI and Anthropic were generally newcomers.

Yeah, and all the Chinese models, they all look very very threatening right now, right? Um to to someone like Facebook. All right, so so, you know, um you know, will Facebook be around? Certainly. But are they going to be around with the same influence that they had before? That is much more in doubt today than ever before, certainly in the last 10 years.

So, so I I wouldn't, you know, I wouldn't say that um you know, uh it's it's hopeless as it were, because what happens is is that if I need to be competitive, this is the thing. If I need to be competitive, then I need to come forward with a proposition that is better. And the better proposition typically isn't I'm going to make things worse or we're going to make you more angry.

I mean, you know, I mean, maybe the audience that is more angry might be hanging out in Truth Social. I don't know, okay, right? You know, there's a there's a segment perhaps, you know, that basically sort of follows those models. >> Yeah, but I mean, pretty much everyone is is I mean, yeah, it's it's a tough and a complex scientific uh equation because you see all these angry comments on TikTok, but that's how many, right?

And anger is is less is more likely to trip trigger a comment. I just >> Yeah, but but I would also caution >> Yeah, go ahead. >> I would also caution, yeah, I would just also caution, you know, I was I was um you know, a part of the the board of a a sort of MIT launched organization back in the it called Cortical and they put out the study sometime ago that showed that you know rage generally amplified 10 or 12 times more and anger than sort of you know other type of pulse which is why social media would amplify that.

But what what what else is also is relevant is is is that it's the microcosm of that group of people that speak more about it. So in other words, just because they are the most vocal doesn't necessarily mean that they are actually all feeling this way, but it does become an echo chamber. And I think what you see in social media is a development of that echo chamber.

But it doesn't mean that everyone is like that and and I think this is interesting when you look at the construct of AI that when people are asking questions or using agents, um you know, the the the the feedback loop uh isn't in that vein, right? Which is more positive, right? And I think we're going a little bit back to the >> Because sometimes I go I I mean if I'm feeling pissed that day and I start venting to my AI, I prompted my AI to challenge me always and I can't go down in like rage rabbit holes.

Have you caught yourself doing that sometimes? >> you can go >> wrong is like >> I mean you can go, but you know the AIs are and this is a different different different topic, but quite relevant. Um the AIs are generally tuned to deal with it because of essentially their sycophantic. Like mine is not I'm not sure how much they fix that problem, but most will never try to go in a rage rabbit hole.

They'll they'll No, they won't. And and I think there's an interesting construct there um to think about. It's it's no different than you know, how people used to think about press freedom and press censorship, right? Because there's there's a there's a balancing act. I mean one of the things that is becoming more popular are basically uncensored LLMs, uh which is both dangerous, but also an important aspect of freedom as well, which is the ability you know, and I think the most recent open AI versus GLM sort of defense hack that happened at hugging face is a perfect example of that, right?

Where you know, you had a frontier model essentially hack into hugging face and then they had to use an open weights model to essentially defend themselves ultimately against it and fix it, right? Uh because open AI if it didn't, you know, the the standard open AI would refuse to do it because uh it it didn't didn't didn't allow it to do. So so you're getting into some interesting territory here.

Um these are all important conversations, but I do feel that um if, you know, having having AI systems that can guide you uh with a with a let's call it a cultural moral code at start is no different than us essentially giving our children, you know, approved content, right? It's same thing. Like if you're not we're not going to we're not going to have sort of, you know, give give uh you know, a 5-year-old the same kind of content that you're going to give to someone who's 25 years old and and mature about certain certain topics, right?

So exactly the same thing is probably not unreasonable. Um just a balancing act of that. >> But I would argue that sycophancy is somewhat ethical because most humans are sycophantic and it does add value to the world because humans need venting. What do you have to say about that? >> Well, so I think yes, I think it it makes sense. Um you know, the code of >> money a lot of money.

>> [laughter] >> Well, well, the code of human civilization is at the end language, right? And in the sense, right? Um what LLMs do so well is essentially manage our language as it were better and better over time. So there's a great responsibility there. I I do feel though that um you know, having them be essentially sort of guided in a certain manner is important.

And then I do also think that, you know, when you reach a certain threshold, you should have the freedom to choose. But I think the things that everything is out there, you know, broadly speaking should be the one that is let's call it rated, if you will, right? Let me just like when you watch a movie, PG-13, PG-17, PG-18. There's a reason behind that, you know, and and that is now, you know, um done through humans evaluating content and maybe now it's going to be simply an AI that rates this content.

There are some deeper questions around whether it's right or not, you know, if an AI gets to choose what to censor or not. But, I think there is a balancing act that is important. So, I generally broadly agree that for most people it's it's a good thing. >> Yeah, and ideally the AI should learn on you. Uh it should spot some cues that indicate that you're open for growth, right?

And or offer you like a toggle, are you open for constant challenging and like suggestions, right? >> I mean, if I was to look at a broader spectrum, you know, just in a simple Darwinian type of way, right? Then it would basically be survival of the species. And so, what is best for the survival of the species, right? If an AI is tuned towards the survival of the human race, for example, and what and it means that it to do so it should be sycophantic and it should be friendly and it should guide you in positive directions, then I'm all in for that.

I understand the implication on well, it's censorship. But, on the other end is, you know, what serves the greater good in this particular case, right? Um and if if we all agree that we want humanity to survive and not self-destruct, then okay. Right? So, so I think I think that's the that it's a it's a kind of depends what lens you take, right? Um I know there's some people out there who's like, you know, freedom of all costs and and sort of uh you know, basically you know, everything has to be uncensored.

Um I don't know if that's true um necessarily for all things, right? Because there is a pendulum shift between safety and security. Most common example is what you have in the US. US, you you know, you have your freedom to have a gun in most in many places. And that sounds insane for Europeans and for people in Asia. But, in America it is deeply rooted because of the culture, because of the uh sort of, you know, um yeah, American exceptionalism and individualism and its concept of freedom.

That doesn't make it wrong. It just means it's very unique to that particular culture. It is hard to understand. And so, maybe that means an American version will have to implement this thinking differently than a European or an Asian one. Uh and both of them they're they're they're all correct, shall we say, because it serves the greater good of their particular community, which is a challenge because most countries today do not have a thought around sovereign AI, right?

And this goes back again to the topic of the your property rights. Because digital property rights isn't just about your own property rights. It's about the sovereignty of where you are and and your nation and and sort of your community, right? >> Do you feel that AI is like part of us as well as a species from a Darwinian perspective? It's technology, but it's also us at like some other end of the spectrum.

And how far do you you feel we're from superintelligence? >> Well, I mean, I guess the question is what is the definition of superintelligence or AGI, right? I had an interesting conversation with some people around some some sort of frontier labs developments out there, particularly here in in in in in in the Chinese-speaking region. And their definition of AGI is very different I guess that than than maybe some of the Western counterparts.

We're thinking more a little bit more philosophical. Their point is AGI is achieved when net new GDP comes from an an an an AI. And I think >> Most of the net new GDP, most of the net new GDP. Okay. >> Yes. So, you have you have net new GDP. And if you have net new GDP generated from AI, which is frankly much more visualizable, then you have a completely new paradigm as well.

And I think that paradigm is much more near-term than say, you know, basically superintelligence that sort of, you know, sort of, you know, swallows human consciousness, so to speak. Like that to me that to me is is is is less likely. I mean, Yuval Harari has some interesting points around how AI, you know, is going to sort of basically sort of swallow society because it understands language and bureaucracy better than than humans do.

But I think in that concept it could just simply be used as as really powerful and efficient tools. I think the the notion of of superintelligence it comes down to who owns it, right? And this is kind of the part where it's interesting with the genetic AI because one of the big limiters of AI today is that it has one big limiting factor on power, which is money.

It doesn't have it yet for most AI. And this is where blockchain is interesting. Most people haven't made You know, people who are not following this aren't making the connection that basically blockchain enables agents to have their own bank account through a wallet, right? In the same way that you can have a MetaMask as a person, now an agent, you know, like all of our agents have a wallet.

Which means that they can store their own money, which means they can pay people directly. Right? And if you think about, you know, you're an Uber driver and you you get paid from Uber. What's the difference between getting paid by Uber the organization or getting paid by Uber the AI? And probably for most drivers, they couldn't give a toss, right? They'll drive.

Um and so I think we've we've hit a point where that abstraction has already happened. So we will be working for AI or AI systems. Um they will act autonomously. The question becomes, do they have legal standing of their own in the same way that a corporation has legal standing, right? Like a like a company or corporation has the ability to do things on its behalf even though it is not a human body, but the difference is it is owned by a human or humans, like shareholders.

And I think with AI it will be the same, which is that there's AIs that will be, you know, legal legal bodies because they have the ability to enact and do stuff, but they have to be owned by humans, but the format of this ownership won't be an equity structure with shareholding and an IPO. It would have to be a probably a blockchain-like structure that is tokenized and the ownership and the voting rights will be operating very much like a DAO, right?

So all these things that we have developed and looked at for the last 10 years are now coming into fruition to create sort of this this type of world that that is now only becoming possible today because of the advancement in the genetic AI. >> Yeah, thanks for coming on. Let's do a round two, maybe an hour, long version, cuz I want to uncover your story.

Um and but I knew this was going to go that route, and I I very much appreciate it. So, where can people find out more about you until then? >> Yeah, I mean, you can find me on on X. Um I'm on Y S A U on X. I do have a medium blog I sometimes update, um but it's been harder lately, less writing. Um and I like to write myself for those that posting. I don't really use AI.

Maybe I should do more of that particular stuff. I'm also on LinkedIn. Of course, you can find me there as well, but I'm on on X most most most actively talking about, you know, our view of you know, the the future of of of of digital property rights and our perspectives on better form of capitalism through stakeholder capitalism. >> All right, that was Yat and Charles.