Category Archives: transcripts

Transcript for Tucker Carlson: Putin, Navalny, Trump, CIA, NSA, War, Politics & Freedom | Lex Fridman Podcast #414

This is a transcript of Lex Fridman Podcast #414 with Tucker Carlson.
The timestamps in the transcript are clickable links that take you directly to that point in
the main video. Please note that the transcript is human generated, and may have errors.
Here are some useful links:

Table of Contents

Here are the loose “chapters” in the conversation.
Click link to jump approximately to that part in the transcript:

Introduction

Tucker Carlson
(00:00:00)
… he said very specifically, “Depending on the questions you ask Putin, you could be arrested or not.” And I said, “Listen to what you’re saying. You’re saying the US government has control over my questions and they’ll arrest me if I ask the wrong question. How are we better than Putin if that’s true?” Killing Navalny during the Munich Security Conference in the middle of a debate over $60 billion in Ukraine funding. Maybe the Russians are dumb. I didn’t get that vibe at all. I don’t think we kill people in other countries to affect election outcomes. Oh wait, no, we do it a lot and have for 80 years.
Lex Fridman
(00:00:39)
The following is a conversation with Tucker Carlson, a highly influential and often controversial political commentator. When he was a Fox, Time Magazine called him the most powerful conservative in America. After Fox. He has continued to host big, impactful interviews and shows on X, on the Tucker Carlson podcast, and on tuckercarlson.com. I recommend subscribing, even if you disagree with his views. It is always good to explore a diversity of perspectives. Most recently, he interviewed the President of Russia of Vladimir Putin. We discussed this, the topic of Russia, Putin, Navalny, and the War in Ukraine at length in this conversation. Please allow me to say a few words about the very fact that I did this interview. I have received a lot of criticism publicly and privately when I announced that I’ll be talking with Tucker.

(00:01:32)
For people who think I shouldn’t do the conversation with Tucker or generally think that there are certain people I should never talk to, I’m sorry, but I disagree. I will talk to everyone, as long as they’re willing to talk genuinely in long form for 2, 3, 4 or more hours. I’ll talk to Putin and to Zelensky, to Trump and to Biden, to Tucker and to John Stewart, AOC, Obama, and many more people with very different views on the world. I want to understand people and ideas. That’s what long form conversations are supposed to be all about. Now for people who criticize me for not asking tough questions, I hear you, but again, I disagree. I do often ask tough questions. But I try to do it in a way that doesn’t shut down the other person, putting them into a defensive state where they give only shallow talking points. Instead, I’m looking always for the expression of genuinely held ideas and the deep roots of those ideas. When done well, this gives us a chance to really hear out the guest and to begin to understand what and how they think.

(00:02:40)
And I trust the intelligence of you, the listener, to make up your own mind to see through the bullshit, to the degree there’s bullshit and to see to the heart of the person. Sometimes I fail at this, but I’ll continue working my ass off to improve. All that said, I find that this no tough questions criticism often happens when the guest is a person the listener simply hates and wants to see them grilled into embarrassment. Called the liar, a greedy egomaniac, a killer, maybe even an evil human being and so on. If you are such a listener, what you want is drama, not wisdom. In this case, this show is not for you. There are many shows you can go to for that with hosts that are way more charismatic and entertaining than I’ll ever be. If you do stick around, please know I will work hard to do this well and to keep improving. Thank you for your patience and thank you for your support. I love you all. This is a Lex Fridman podcast To support it. Please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here’s Tucker Carlson.

Putin


(00:03:53)
What was your first impression when you met Vladimir Putin for the interview?
Tucker Carlson
(00:03:58)
I thought he seemed nervous, and I was very surprised by that. And I thought he seemed like someone who’d overthought it a little bit, who had a plan, and I don’t think that’s the right way to go into any interview. My strong sense, having done a lot of them for a long time, is that it’s better to know what you think, to say as much as you can honestly, so you don’t get confused by your own lies, and just to be yourself. And I thought that he went into it like an over-prepared student, and I kept thinking, “Why is he nervous?” But I guess because he thought a lot of people were going to see it,
Lex Fridman
(00:04:39)
But he was also probably prepared to give you a full lesson in history as he did.
Tucker Carlson
(00:04:46)
Well, I was totally shocked by that and very annoyed because I thought he was filibustering. I mean, I asked him as I usually do the most obvious dumbest question ever, which is, “Why’d you do this?” And he had said in a speech that I think is worth reading. I don’t speak Russian, so I haven’t heard it in the original, but he had said at the moment of the beginning of the war, he had given this address to Russians, in which he explained to the fullest extent we have seen so far why he was doing this. And he said in that speech, “I fear that NATO the West, the United States, the Biden administration will preemptively attack us.” And I thought, “Well, that’s interesting.” I can’t evaluate whether that’s a fear rooted in reality or one rooted in paranoia. But I thought, “Well, that’s an answer right there.”

(00:05:39)
And so I alluded to that in my question and rather than answering it, he went off on this long from my perspective, kind of tiresome, sort of greatest hits of Russian history. And the implication I thought was, “Well, Ukraine is ours, or Eastern Ukraine is ours already.” And I thought he was doing that to avoid answering the question. So the last thing you want when you’re interviewing someone is to get rolled, and I didn’t want to be rolled. So I, a couple of times interrupted him politely, I thought, but he wasn’t having it. And then I thought, “You know what? I’m not here to prove that I’m a great interviewer. It’s kind of not about me.”

(00:06:20)
I want to know who this guy is. I think a western audience, a global audience, has a right to know more about the guy, and so just let him talk. Because I don’t feel like my reputation’s on the line. People have already drawn conclusions about me, I suppose to the extent they have. I’m not interested really in those conclusions anyway, so just let him talk. And so I calmed down and just let him talk. And in retrospect, I thought that was really, really interesting. Whether you agree with it or not, or whether you think it’s relevant to the war in Ukraine or not, that was his answer. And so it’s inherently significant.
Lex Fridman
(00:06:52)
Well, you said he was nervous. Were you nervous? Were you afraid? This is Vladimir Putin.
Tucker Carlson
(00:06:57)
I wasn’t afraid at all, and I wasn’t nervous at all.
Lex Fridman
(00:07:01)
Did you drink tea beforehand?
Tucker Carlson
(00:07:02)
No. I did my normal regimen of nicotine pouches and coffee. No, I’m not a tea drinker. I try not to eat all the sweets they put in front of us, which is… That is my weakness, is eating crap. But you eat a lot of sugar as you know before an interview, and it does dull you. So I successfully resisted that. But no, I wasn’t nervous. I wasn’t nervous the whole time I was there. Why would I be? I’m 54, my kids are grown. I believe in God. I’m almost never nervous. But no, I wasn’t nervous, I was just interested. I mean, I’m interested in Soviet history. I studied it in college. I’ve read about it my entire life. My dad worked in the Cold War. It was a constant topic of conversation. And so to be in the Kremlin in a room where Stalin made decisions, either wartime decisions or decisions about murdering his own population, I just couldn’t get over it.

(00:07:52)
We were in Molotov’s old office. So for me, I was just blown away by that. I thought I knew a lot about Russia. It turns out I knew a lot about the Soviet period, the 1937 purge trials, the famine in Ukraine. I knew a fair amount about that, but I really knew nothing about contemporary Russia, less than I thought I did, it turned out. But yeah, I was just blown away by where we were, and that’s kind of one of the main drivers at this stage in my life. That’s why I do what I do, is because I’m interested in stuff and I want to see as much as I can and try and draw conclusions from it to the extent I can. So I was very much caught up in that. But no, I wasn’t nervous. I didn’t think he was going to kill me or something, and I’m not particularly afraid of that anyway.
Lex Fridman
(00:08:38)
Not afraid of dying?
Tucker Carlson
(00:08:39)
Not really, no. I mean, again, it’s an age and stage in life thing. I mean, I have four children, so there were times when they were little where I was terrified of dying because if I died, it would have huge consequences. But no, I mean, at this point, I don’t want to die. I’m really enjoying my life. But I’ve been with the same girl for 40 years, and I have four children who I’m extremely close to. Well, now five, a daughter-in-law, and I love them all. I’m really close to them. I tell them I love them every day. I’ve had a really interesting life.
Lex Fridman
(00:09:16)
What was the goal? Just linger on that. What was the goal for the interview? How were you thinking about it? What would success be like in your head leading into it?
Tucker Carlson
(00:09:22)
To bring more information, to the public.
Lex Fridman
(00:09:22)
Disinformation.
Tucker Carlson
(00:09:26)
Yeah, that’s it. I mean, I have really strong feelings about what’s happening not just in Ukraine or Russia, but around the world. I think the world is resetting to the grave disadvantage of the United States. I don’t think most Americans are aware of that at all. And so that’s my view, and I’ve stated it many times because it’s sincere. But my goal was to have more information brought to the West so people could make their own decisions about whether this is a good idea.

(00:09:59)
I mean, I guess I reject the whole premise of the war in Ukraine from the American perspective, which is a tiny group of dumb people in Washington has decided to do this for reasons they won’t really explain. And you don’t have a role in it at all as an American citizen, as the person who’s paying for it, whose children might be drafted to fight it. To shut up and obey, I just reject that completely. I think, I guess I’m a child of a different era. I’m a child of participatory democracy to some extent, where your opinion as a citizen is not irrelevant. And I guess the level of lying about it was starting to drive me crazy.

(00:10:38)
And I’ve said, and I will say again, I’m not an expert on the regional, really any region other than say western Maine. I just don’t, I’m not Russian, but it was obvious to me that we were being lied to in ways that were just… It was crazy, the scale of lies. And I’ll just give you one example. The idea that Ukraine would inevitably win this war. Now victory was never, as it never is, defined precisely. Nothing’s ever defined precisely, which is always to tell that there’s deception at the heart of the claim. But Ukraine’s on the verge of winning. Well, I don’t know. I mean, I’m hardly a tactician or military expert. For the fifth time, I’m not an expert on Russia or Ukraine. I just looked at Wikipedia. Russia has a hundred million more people than Ukraine, a hundred million.

(00:11:24)
It has much deeper industrial capacity, war material capacity than all of NATO combined. For example, Russia is turning out artillery shells, which are significant in a ground war at a ratio of seven to one compared to all NATO countries combined. That’s all of Europe. Russia is producing seven times the artillery shells as all of Europe combined. What? That’s an amazing fact, and it turns out to be a really significant fact. In fact, the significant fact. But if you ask your average person in this country, even a fairly well-informed person of good faith who’s just trying to understand what’s going on, who’s going to win this war? Well, Ukraine’s going to win. They’re on the right side.

(00:12:09)
And they think that because our media who really just do serve the interest of the US government, period, they are state media in that sense, have told them that for over two years. And I was in Hungary last summer talking to the Prime Minister, Viktor Orban, who’s whatever you think of him, he’s a very smart guy, very smart guy, smart on a scale that we’re not used to in our leaders. And I said to him, off camera, “So is Ukraine going to win?” And he looked at me like I was deranged or I was congenitally deficient. Are they going to win? No. Of course they can’t win. It’s tiny compared to Russia. Russia has a wartime economy. Ukraine doesn’t really have an economy. No, look at the populations. He looked at me like I was stupid.

(00:12:52)
And I said to him, “I think most Americans believe that because NBC News and CNN and all the news channels, all of them tell them that because it’s framed exclusively in moral terms, and it’s Churchill versus Hitler. And of course, Churchill’s going to prevail in the end.” And it’s just so dishonest that it doesn’t even matter what I want to happen or what I think ought to happen, that’s a distortion of what is happening. And if I have any job at all, which I sort of don’t actually at this point, but if I do have a job, it’s to just try to be honest, and that’s a lie.
Lex Fridman
(00:13:20)
There is a more nuanced discussion about what winning might look like. You’re right a nuanced discussion is not being had, but it is possible for Ukraine to, quote unquote, “win” with the help of the United States.
Tucker Carlson
(00:13:31)
I guess that conversation needs to begin by defining terms. And the key term is win. What does that mean?
Lex Fridman
(00:13:39)
Peace, a ceasefire, who owns which land, coming to the table with, as you call the parent in the United States, putting leverage on the negotiation to make sure there’s a fairness.
Tucker Carlson
(00:13:53)
Amen. Well, of course, as A, and I should just restate this, I am not emotionally involved in this. I’m American in every sense, and my only interest is in America. I’m not leaving ever. And so I’m looking at this purely from our perspective, what’s good for us. But also as a human being, as a Christian, I mean, I hate war. And anybody who doesn’t hate war shouldn’t have power, in my opinion. So I agree with that definition vehemently a victory is not killing an entire generation of your population. It’s not being completely destroyed to be eaten up by BlackRock or whatever comes next for them.

(00:14:37)
So yeah, we were close to that a year and a half ago, and the Biden administration dispatched Boris Johnson, the briefly prime minister of the UK to stop it and to say to Zelensky, who I feel sorry for by the way, because he’s caught between these forces that are bigger than he is, to say, “No, you cannot come to any terms with Russia.” And the result of that has not been a Ukrainian victory. It’s just been more dead Ukrainians and a lot of profit for the West. It’s a moral crime in my opinion. And I tried to ask Boris Johnson about it because why wouldn’t I? After he denounced me as a tool of the Kremlin or something, and he demanded a million dollars to talk to me. And this just happened last week. And by the way, in writing too, I’m not making this…
Lex Fridman
(00:15:23)
Just for the record, you demanded a million dollars from me to talk to me today.
Tucker Carlson
(00:15:27)
I didn’t. And you paid. No, I’m of course kidding. And I said to his guy, I said, “I just interviewed Putin who was widely recognized as a bad guy.” And he did it for free. He didn’t demand a million dollars. He wasn’t in this for profit. Are you telling me that Boris Johnson is sleazier than Vladimir Putin? And of course, that is the message. And so I guess these are really… It’s not just about Boris Johnson being a sad rapacious fraud, which he is obviously, but it’s about the future of the West and the future of Ukraine, this country that purportedly we care so much about. All these people are dying, and what is the end game? It’s also deranged that I didn’t imagine, and don’t imagine that I could add anything very meaningful to the conversation because I’m not a genius. But I felt like I could at the very least, puncture some of the lies, and that’s an inherent good.
Lex Fridman
(00:16:23)
Vladimir Putin, after the interview said that he wasn’t fully satisfied because you weren’t aggressive enough. You didn’t ask sharp enough questions. First of all, what do you think about him saying that?
Tucker Carlson
(00:16:34)
I don’t even understand it. I guess it does seem like the one Putin statement that Western media take at face value. Everything else Putin says is a lie except his criticism of me, which is true. But I mean, I have no idea what he meant by that. I can only tell you what my goal was, as I’ve suggested, was not to make it about me. He hasn’t done any interviews of any kind for years, but the last interview he did with an English-speaking reporter, Western media reporter, was like many of the other interviews he’d done with Western media reporters. Mike Wallace’s son did an interview with him that was of the same variety. And it was all about him. I’m a good person. You’re a bad person. And I just feel like that’s the most tiresome, fruitless kind of interview.

(00:17:21)
It’s not about me. I don’t think I’m an especially good person. I’ve definitely never claimed to be, but people can make their own judgments. And again, the only judgments that I care about are my wife and children and God. So I’m just not interested in proving I’m a good person and I just want to hear from him. And I had a lot of… I mean, you should see, I almost never write questions down, but I did in this case because I had months… Well, I had three years to think about it as I was trying to book the interview, which I did myself. But it was all about internal Russian politics and Navalny. And I had a lot of, what I thought, really good questions. And then at the last second, and you make these decisions, as you know, since you interview people a lot, often you make them on the fly.

(00:18:04)
And I thought, “No, I want to talk about the things that haven’t been talked about and that I think matter in a world historic sense.” And the number one among those, of course, is the war and what it means for the world. And so I stuck to that. I mean, I did ask about Gershkovich, who I felt sorry for, and I wanted Putin to release him to me. And I was offended that he didn’t. I thought his rationale was absurd. “Well, we want to trade him for someone.” I said, “Well, doesn’t that make him a hostage?” Which of course it does. But other than that, I really wanted to keep it to the things that I think matter most. People can judge whether I did a good job or not, but that was my decision.
Lex Fridman
(00:18:44)
In the moment, what was your gut? Did you want to ask some tough questions as follow-ups on certain topics?
Tucker Carlson
(00:18:52)
I don’t know what it would mean to ask a tough question.
Lex Fridman
(00:18:54)
Clarifying questions, I suppose they would-
Tucker Carlson
(00:18:56)
I guess. I just wanted him to talk. I just wanted to hear his perspective again. I’ve probably asked more asshole questions than any living American. As has been noted correctly, I’m a dick by my nature, and so I just feel at this stage of my life, I didn’t need to prove that I could be like, “Vladimir Putin, answer the question.”
Lex Fridman
(00:18:56)
For sure. For sure.
Tucker Carlson
(00:19:21)
I think if I had been 34 instead of 54, I definitely would’ve done that because I would’ve thought, “This is really about me and I need to prove myself and all that stuff.” No, there’s a war going on that is wrecking the US economy in a way and at a scale people do not understand. The US dollar is going away. That was, of course, inevitable ultimately because everything dies, including currencies. But that death, that process of death has been accelerated exponentially by the behavior of the Biden administration and the US Congress, particularly the sanctions. And people don’t understand what the ramifications of that are. The ramifications are poverty in the United States. So I just wanted to get to that because I’m coming at this from not a global perspective. I’m coming at it from an American perspective.

Navalny

Lex Fridman
(00:20:08)
So you mentioned Navalny. After you left, Navalny died in prison. What are your thoughts on just at a high level, first about his death?
Tucker Carlson
(00:20:20)
Well, it’s awful. I mean, imagine dying in prison. I’ve thought about it a lot. I’ve known a lot of people in prison a lot, including some very good friends of mine. So I felt instantly sad about it. From a geopolitical perspective, I don’t know any more than that. And I laugh at and sort of resent, but mostly find amusing the claims by American politicians, who really are the dumbest politicians in the world actually, “This happened and here’s what it means.” And it’s like, “Actually as a factual matter, we don’t know what happened. We don’t know what happened.” We have no freaking idea what happened. We can say, and I did say, and I will say again, I don’t think you should put opposition figures in prison. I really don’t. I don’t, period. It happens a lot around the world, happens in this country, as you know, and I’m against all of it.

(00:21:09)
But do we know how we died? The short answer? No, we don’t. Now, if I had to guess, I would say killing Navalny during the Munich Security Conference in the middle of a debate over $60 billion in Ukraine funding, maybe the Russians are dumb. I didn’t get that vibe at all. I don’t see it. But maybe they killed him. I mean, they certainly put him in prison, which I’m against. But here’s what I do know is that we don’t know. And so when Chuck Schumer stands up and [inaudible 00:21:42]. Joe Biden reads some card in front of him with lines about Navalny, it’s like, I’m allowed to laugh at that because it’s absurd. You don’t know.
Lex Fridman
(00:21:49)
There’s a lot of interesting ideas about if he was killed, who killed him, because it could be Putin, it could be somebody in Russia who’s not Putin. It could be Ukrainians because it would benefit the war.
Tucker Carlson
(00:22:02)
They killed Dugan’s daughter in Moscow. So yeah, that’s possible.
Lex Fridman
(00:22:06)
And it could be… I mean, the United States could also be involved.
Tucker Carlson
(00:22:10)
I don’t think we kill people in other countries to affect election outcomes. Oh, wait, no, we do it a lot and have for 80 years, and it’s shameful. I can say that as an American because it’s my money and my name. Yeah, I’m really offended by that. And I never thought that was true. And again, I’m much older than you, and so I spent, my worldview was defined by the Cold War and very much in the house I lived in Georgetown, Washington DC. That’s what we talked about. And the left at the time, I don’t know, the wacko MIT professor who I never had any respect for, who I know you’ve interviewed, et cetera. The hard left was always saying, “Well, the United States government is interfering in other elections.”

(00:22:53)
And I just dismissed that completely out of hand as stupid and actually a slander against my country, but it turned out to all be true or substantially true anyway. And that’s been a real shock for me in middle age to understand that. But anyway, as to Navalny, look, I don’t know. But we should always proceed on the basis of what we do know, which is to say on the basis of truth, knowable truth. And if you have an entire policymaking apparatus that is making the biggest decisions on the face of the planet, on the basis of things that are bullshit or lies, you’re going to get bad outcomes every time, every time. And that’s why we are where we are.
Lex Fridman
(00:23:33)
Does it bother you that basically the most famous opposition figure in Russia is sitting in prison?
Tucker Carlson
(00:23:40)
Well, of course it does. Of course it bothers me. I mean, it bothered me when I got there. It bothers me now. I was sad when he died. Yeah, I mean, that’s one of the measures… It’s one of the basic measures of political freedom. Are you imprisoning people who oppose you? Are you imprisoning people who pose a physical risk to you? I mean, there are some subjective decision-making involved in these things. However, big picture, yeah. Do you have leaders in jail? It’s not a politically free society, and Russia isn’t, obviously. And as I said, a friend of mine from childhood, an American actually was a wonderful person, lives in Russia, in Moscow, with his Russian wife, and I had dinner with him. He’s a very balanced guy, totally non-political person, and speaks Russian and loves his many Russian children and loves the culture.

(00:24:35)
And there’s a lot to love, the culture that produced Tolstoy. It’s not a gas station with nuclear weapons. Sorry. Only a moron would say that. It’s a very deep culture. I don’t fully understand it, of course, but I admire it. Who wouldn’t? But I asked him, “What’s it like living here?” And he goes, “It’s great. Moscow is a great city indisputably.” He said, “You don’t want to get involved in Russian politics.” And I said, “Why?” He said, “Well, you could get hurt. You could wind up like Navalny if you did. But also, it’s just too complicated.”

(00:25:03)
The Russian mind is not exactly the same… It’s Western, it’s a European city, but it’s not quite European. And the way they think is very, very complex. Very complex. It’s too complicated. Just don’t get involved. And I would just say two things. One, I’m not sure. I mean, I don’t know, but my strong sense is that Navalny’s death, whoever did it, probably didn’t have a lot to do with the coming election in Russia. My sense from talking to Putin and the people around him is they’re not really focused on that. In fact, I asked one of his top advisors, “When’s the election?” And she looked at me completely confused. She didn’t know the date of the election. Okay. She’s like March.

(00:25:46)
And I asked a bunch of other people just in Moscow, “Who’s Putin running against?” Nobody knew. So it’s not a real election in the sense that we would recognize at all. Second, I was really struck by so many things in Moscow and really deeply bothered by a lot of things that I saw there. But one thing I noticed was the total absence of cult of personality propaganda, which I expected to see and have seen around the world. Jordan, for example, I don’t know if you’ve been to Jordan, but go to Jordan. In every building, there are pictures of the king and his extended family, and that’s a sign of political insecurity.

(00:26:25)
You don’t create a cult of personality unless you’re personally insecure. And also, unless you’re worried about losing your grip and power. None of that. It’s interesting. And I expected to see a lot of it, like statues of Putin. No. There are no statues of anybody other than Christian saints. I’m not quite sure. I’m just reporting what I saw. So yes, in a political sense. It’s not a free country. It’s not a democracy in the way that we would understand it or I don’t want to live there because I like to say what I think. In fact, I make my living doing it. But it’s not Stalinist in a recognizable way. And anyone who says it is should go there and tell me how.
Lex Fridman
(00:27:08)
I mean, this question about the freedom of the press is underlying the very fact of the interview you’re having with him. So you might not need to ask the Navalny question, but did you feel like, “Are there things I shouldn’t say?”
Tucker Carlson
(00:27:23)
I mean, how honest do you want me to be? I mean, when I say I felt not one twinge of concern for the eight days that I was there. Maybe I just didn’t… And I feel like I’ve got a pretty strong gut sense of things. I rely on it. I make all my decisions based on how I feel, my instincts. And I didn’t feel it at all. My lawyers before I left, and these are people who work for a big law firm. This is not Bob’s law firm. This is one of the biggest law firms in the world, said, “You’re going to get arrested if you do this by the US government on sanctions violations.”

(00:27:57)
And I said, “Well, I don’t recognize the legitimacy of that actually, because I’m American and I’ve lived here my whole life. And that’s so outrageous that I’m happy to face that risk because I so reject the premise. Okay, I’m an American. I should be able to talk to anyone I want to, and I plan to exercise that freedom, which I think I was born with.” And I gave them this long lecture. They’re like, “We’re just lawyers.” But that was… Let me put it this way, I don’t know how much you’ve dealt with lawyers, but it costs many thousands of dollars to get a conclusion like that. They sent a whole bunch of their summer associates or whatever.

(00:28:33)
They put a lot of people on this question, checked a lot of precedent, and they sent me a 10-page memo on it, and their sincere conclusion was, “Do not do this.” And of course, it made me mad. So I was lecturing on the phone and I had another call with a head lawyer and he said, “Well, look, a lot will depend on the questions that you ask Putin. If you’re seen as too nice to him, you could get arrested when you come back.” And I was like, “You’re describing a fascist country. Okay. You’re saying that the US government will arrest me if I don’t ask the questions they want asked, is that what’s you’re saying?” “Well, we just think based on what’s happened, that that’s possible.” And so I’m just telling you what happened.
Lex Fridman
(00:29:11)
So you were okay being arrested in Moscow and arrested back in-
Tucker Carlson
(00:29:15)
I didn’t think for a second… I mean, maybe. Look, I don’t speak Russian. I’d never been there before. Everything about the culture was brand new to me. Ignorance does protect you sort of when you have no freaking idea what’s going on, you’re not worried about it. This has happened to me many times. There’s a principle there that extends throughout life. So it’s completely possible that I was in grave peril and didn’t know it because how would I know it? I’m like a bumbling English speaker from California, but I didn’t feel it at all.
Lex Fridman
(00:29:48)
But the lawyers did.
Tucker Carlson
(00:29:49)
Yeah. I mean, it scared the crap out of people. You’re going to look… And you have to pay in cash. They don’t take credit cards because of sanctions. And you have to go through all these hoops, just procedural hoops to go to Russia, which I was willing to do because I wanted to interview Putin because they told me I couldn’t. But then there’s another fact, which is that I was being surveilled by the US government, intensely surveilled by the US government. And this came out, they admitted it, the NSA admitted it a couple of years ago that they were up in my signal account, and then they leaked it to the New York Times. They did that again before I left.

(00:30:21)
And I know that because two New York Times reporters, one of whom I actually like a lot, said and called other people. “Oh, he’s going to interview Putin.” I hadn’t told anybody that, like anybody. My wife, two producers, that’s it. So they got that from the government. Then I’m over there, and of course I want to see Snowden, who I admire. And so we have a mutual friend. So I got his text and come on over, and Snowden does not want publicity at all. But I really wanted to have dinner with him. So we had dinner in my hotel room at the Four Seasons in Moscow, and I tried to convince him, “I’d love to do an interview, shoot it on my iPhone.” I’d-
Tucker Carlson
(00:31:00)
… just do an interview, shoot it on my iPhone. I’d love to take a picture together and put it on the internet because I just want to show support because I think he’s been railroaded. He had no interest in living in Russia, no intention of being in Russia. The whole thing is a lie. But anyway, whatever, all this stuff. He just said, “Respectfully, I’d rather not anyone know that we met.” Great. I didn’t tell anybody and I didn’t text it to anybody, okay, except him. Semaphore runs this piece reporting information they got from the US Intel agencies leaking against me using my money, in my name, in a supposedly free country, they run this piece saying I’d met with Snowden like it was a crime or something. So again, my interest is in the United States and preserving freedoms here, the ones that I grew up with. If you have a media establishment that acts as an auxiliary of, or acts as employees of the national security state, you don’t have a free country and that’s where we are.

(00:32:07)
I’m not guessing, because I spent my entire life in that world, 33 years, I worked in big news companies and so I know how it works. I know the people involved in it. I could name them, Ben Smith of Semaphore, among many others and I find that really objectionable, not just on principle either, in effect, in practice, I don’t want to live in that kind of country. People externalize all of their anxiety about this I have noticed. So it’s like Russia is not free. Yeah, I know. Neither is Burkina Faso, most countries aren’t free actually, but we are. We’re the United States. We’re different. That’s my concern. Preserving that is my concern. They get so exercised about what’s happening in other parts of the world, places they’ve never been, know nothing about, it’s almost a way of ignoring what’s happening in their own country right around them. I find it so strange and sad and weird.
Lex Fridman
(00:33:00)
So the NSA was tracking you? Do you think CIA was? Is people still tracking you?
Tucker Carlson
(00:33:06)
Look, one of the things I did before I went, just because the business I’m in, all of us are in, and just because we live here, we all have theories about secure communications channels. Like signal is secure, Telegraph isn’t, or WhatsApp is owned by Mark Zuckerberg, you can’t trust, well, okay. So I thought before I go over here, we were having all these conversations, my producers and I about this, and I decide I’m just going to actually find out what’s really going on. I talked to two people who would know, trust me, and it’s all I can say. I hate to be like, oh, I talked to people who would know but I can’t share who. But I mean it, they would know. Both of them said exactly the same thing, which is, “Are you joking, nothing is secure. Everything is monitored all the time.”

(00:33:55)
If state actors are involved, you can keep whatever the Malaysian mafia from reading your texts probably. You cannot keep the big Intel services from reading your texts, it’s not possible, any of them, or listening to your calls. That was the firm conclusion of people who’ve been involved in it for a long time, decades, in both cases. I just thought, you know what, I don’t care. I don’t care. I’m not sending a ton of naked pictures of myself to anybody.
Lex Fridman
(00:34:24)
Not a ton, just the little?
Tucker Carlson
(00:34:25)
Not a ton. I’m 54, dude, probably not too many. The guys travel with three people I work with, who I love, who I’ve been around the world with for many years, and I know them really, really well and they all got separate phones and I’m leaving my other phone back in New York or whatever. I just decided I don’t care, actually. I resent having no privacy because privacy is a prerequisite for freedom, but I can’t change it, and so I have the same surveilled cell phone. I do switch them out. There it is. Because if you have too much spyware on your phone, this is true, it wrecks the battery.

(00:35:16)
No, I’m serious. It does. It was, I don’t know, five or six years ago we went to North Korea, and my phone started acting crazy. I talked to someone on the National Security Council, actually who called me about this, somehow knew that your phone is being surveilled by the South Korean government. I was like, “I like the South Korean government. Why would they do that?” Because they want more information, they thought I was talking to Trump or whatever. But I could tell because all of a sudden the thing would just drain in like 45 minutes so that’s a downside.
Lex Fridman
(00:35:50)
You keep switching phones, getting new phones for the battery life. That’s good.
Tucker Carlson
(00:35:54)
Yeah. I try not to do it. I’m kind of flinty Yankee type in some ways, so I don’t like to spend $1,000 with the freaking Apple corporation too often, but yeah, I do.
Lex Fridman
(00:36:04)
You say it lightly, but it’s really troublesome that you, as a journalist, would be tracked.
Tucker Carlson
(00:36:10)
Well, they leaked it to Semaphore and they leaked it to the New York Times. Well, there’s nothing I can do, so I have to put up with everything, but I would probably not be actively angry about being surveilled because I’m just so old and I actually do pay my taxes, and I’m not sleeping with the makeup artist or whatever so I don’t care that much. The fact that they are leaking against me, that the Intel services in the United States are actively engaged in US politics and media, that’s so unacceptable. That makes democracy impossible. There’s no defense of that. And yet NBC News, Ken Dilanian and the rest will defend it, and not just on NBC news, by the way, on the supposedly conservative channels too, they will defend it and there’s no defending that. You can’t have democracy if the Intel services are tempering in elections and information, period.
Lex Fridman
(00:37:05)
So you had no fear. Your lawyer said, be careful which questions you asked. You said, I don’t have-
Tucker Carlson
(00:37:13)
Well, no, he said very specifically, depending on the questions you ask Putin, you could be arrested or not. I said, “Listen to what you’re saying. You’re saying the US government has control over my questions and they’ll arrest me if I ask the wrong question. How are we better than Putin if that’s true.” By the way, that’s just what the lawyer said. But I can’t overstate, one of the biggest law firms in the United States, smart lawyers we’ve used for years so I was really shocked by it.
Lex Fridman
(00:37:42)
You said leaders kill, leaders lie.
Tucker Carlson
(00:37:45)
Yeah. I don’t believe in leaders very much like this whole, “Oh, Zelensky’s Jesus and Putin’s Satan.” It’s like, no, they’re all leaders of countries. Grow up a little bit you child. Have you ever met a leader? First of all, anyone who seeks power is damaged morally, in my opinion. You shouldn’t be seeking power. You can’t seek power or wealth for its own sake and remain a decent person. That’s just true. So there aren’t any really virtuous billionaires and there aren’t any really virtuous world leaders. You have grades of virtue, some are better than others for sure. In other words, Zelensky may be better than Putin. I’m open to that possibility. But to claim that one is evil and the other is virtuous, it’s like, you’re revealing that you’re a child, you don’t know anything about how the world actually is or what reality is.
Lex Fridman
(00:38:43)
That’s quite a realist perspective, but there is a spectrum.
Tucker Carlson
(00:38:46)
There’s a spectrum, absolutely. I’m not saying they’re all the same. They’re not.
Lex Fridman
(00:38:48)
And our task is to figure out where on the spectrum they lie and the leader’s task is to confuse us and convince us they’re one of the good guys.
Tucker Carlson
(00:38:59)
Of course. Of course. But I actually reject even that formulation. I don’t think it’s always about the leaders. Of course the leaders make the difference. A good leader has a healthy country and a bad leader has a decaying country, which is something to think about. But it’s about the ideas and the policies and the practical effect of things. So we’re very much caught up in the personalities of various leaders, not just our political leaders, but our business leaders, our cultural leaders. Are they good people? Do they have the right thoughts? It’s like, no, I ask a much more basic question, what are the fruits of their behavior? I always make it personal because I think everything is personal. Does his wife respect him? Do his children respect him? How are they doing? Is the country he runs thriving or is it falling apart? If your life expectancy is going down, if your suicide rate is going up, if your standard of living is tanking, you’re not a good leader.

(00:39:51)
I don’t care what you tell me. I don’t care what you claim you represent. I don’t care about the ideas or the systems that you say you embody. It’s dogs barking to me. How’s your life expectancy? How’s your suicide rate? What’s drug use like? Are people having children? Are people’s children more likely to live in a free or more prosperous society than you did and their grandparents did? Those are the only measures that matter to me, the rest is a lie. But anyway, the point is we just get so obsessed with the theater around people or people, and we miss the bigger things that are happening and we allow ourselves to be deceived into thinking that what doesn’t matter at all matters, that moral victories are all that matters. No, actually, facts on the ground victories matter more than anything. You certainly see it in this country. Black Lives Matter, for example, how many black people did that help? It hurt a lot of black people, but in the end, we should be able to measure it.

Moscow


(00:40:52)
How many black people have died by gunfire in the four years since George Floyd died? Well, the number’s gone way, way up and that was a Black Lives Matter operation, defund the police. So I think we can say as a factual matter, data-based matter, Black Lives Matter didn’t help black people and if it did tell me how. “Well, these are important moral victories.” I’m over that. That’s just another lie, a long litany of lies. So I try to see the rest of the world that way. But more than anything, I try to see world events through the lens of an American because I am one. And what does this mean for us? It’s not even the war, it’s the sanctions that will forever change the United States, our standard of living, the way our government operates. That more than any single thing in my lifetime screwed the United States. Levying those sanctions in the way that we did was crazy. For me, the main takeaway from my eight days in Moscow was not Putin. He’s a leader, whatever. None of them are that different actually, in my pretty extensive experience, no, it was Moscow. That blew my mind. I was not prepared for that at all and I thought I knew a lot about Moscow. My dad worked there on and off in the 80s and 90s because, a US government employee. And he was always coming back, “Moscow, it’s a nightmare,” and all this stuff, “no electricity.” I got there almost exactly two years after sanctions, totally cut off from Western financial systems, kicked out of Swift, can’t use US dollars, no banking, no credit cards. And that city just factually, I’m not endorsing the system, I’m not endorsing the whole country. I didn’t go to Lake Baikal. I didn’t go to Turkmenistan. I just went to Moscow, largest city in Europe, 13 million people. I drove all around it and that city is way nicer, outwardly anyway, I don’t live there, than any city we have by a lot.

(00:42:46)
And by nicer, let me be specific. No graffiti. No homeless. No people using drugs in the street. Totally tidy. No garbage on the ground. And no forest of steel and concrete soul- destroying buildings, none of the postmodern architecture that oppresses us without even our knowledge. None of that crap. It’s a truly beautiful city. That’s not an endorsement of Putin. By the way, it didn’t make me love Putin, it made me hate my own leaders because I grew up in a country that had cities kind of like that, that were nice cities that were safe, and we don’t have that anymore. How did that happen? Did Putin do that? I don’t think Putin did that actually. I think the people in charge of that, the mayors, the governors, the president, they did that and they should be held accountable for it.
Lex Fridman
(00:43:33)
I think cleanliness and architectural design is not the entirety of the metrics that matter when you measure a city.
Tucker Carlson
(00:43:41)
They’re the main metrics that matter. They’re the main metrics that matter. The main metrics that matter are cleanliness, safety, and beauty, in my opinion. And one of the big lies that we are told in our world is that, no, something you can’t measure that has no actual effect on your life matters most. Bullshit. What matters most, to say it again, beauty, safety, cleanliness, lots of other things matter too, a whole bunch of things matter. But if I were to put them in order, it’s not some theoretical, well, actually, I don’t know if you know that the Duma has no power. Okay, I get that. Freedom of speech matters enormously to me. They have less freedom of speech in Russia than we do in the United States. We are superior to them in that way. But you can’t tell me that living in a city where your 6-year-old daughter can walk to the bus stop and ride on a clean bus or ride in a beautiful subway car that’s on time and not get assaulted, that doesn’t matter.

(00:44:41)
No, that matters almost more than anything, actually. We can have both. The normal regime defenders and morons, John Stewart or whatever he’s calling himself, they’re like, “Whoa, that’s the price of freedom.” People shitting on the sidewalk is the price of freedom. It’s like you can’t fool me because I’ve lived here for 54 years, I know that it’s not the price of freedom because I lived in a country that was both free and clean and orderly. So that’s not a trade off I think I have to make. That is the beauty of being a little bit older because you’re like, no, I remember that, actually. It wasn’t what you’re saying. We didn’t have racial segregation in 1985. It was a really nice country that respected itself. I was here. I think with younger people, you can tell them that and they’re like, well, 1985 you were selling slaves in Madison Square Garden. It’s like, no, they weren’t. You’re going to Madison Square Garden and not stepping over a single fentanyl addict.
Lex Fridman
(00:45:34)
It is true, there doesn’t have to be a trade off between cleanliness and freedom of speech, but it is also true that in dictatorships, cleanliness and architectural design is easier to achieve and perfect, and often is done so you can show off, look how great our cities are while you’re suppressing-
Tucker Carlson
(00:45:54)
Of course, of course, I agree with that vehemently. This is not a defense of the Russian system at all. If I felt that way, I would not only move there, but I would announce I was moving there. I’m not ashamed of my views. I never have been. For all the people who are trying to impute secret motives to my words, I’m like the one person in America you don’t need to do that with. If you think I’m a racist, ask me and I’ll tell you.
Lex Fridman
(00:46:18)
Are you a racist?
Tucker Carlson
(00:46:20)
No. I am a sexist though.
Lex Fridman
(00:46:22)
Great
Tucker Carlson
(00:46:23)
Anyway. No, but if I was a defender of Vladimir Putin, I would just say I’m defending Vladimir Putin now. I’m not. I am attacking our leaders and I’m grieving over the low expectations of our people. You don’t need to put up with this. You don’t need to put up with foreign invaders stealing from you, occupying your kid’s school. Your kids can’t get an education because people from foreign countries broke our laws and showed up here and they’ve taken over the school. That’s not a feature of freedom, actually, that’s the opposite. That’s what enslavement looks like. I’m just saying, raise your expectations a little bit. You can have a clean, functional, safe country, crime is totally optional. Crime is something our leaders decide to have or not have.

(00:47:10)
It’s not something that just appears organically. I wrote a book about crime 30 years ago. I thought a lot about this. You have as much crime as you put up with, period. It doesn’t make you less free to not tolerate murder. In fact, it makes you unfree to have a lot of murders. But it makes me sad that people are like, “I can’t live in New York City anymore because of inflation and filth and illegal aliens and people shooting each other, but I’m glad because this is vibrant and strong and free.” It’s like that’s not freedom actually, at all.
Lex Fridman
(00:47:50)
Your point is well taken, you can have both. But do you regret-
Tucker Carlson
(00:47:55)
Had both. That’s the point, we had both, I saw it.
Lex Fridman
(00:47:57)
Do you regret to a degree using the Moscow subway and the grocery store as a mechanism by which to make that point?
Tucker Carlson
(00:48:06)
No. Look, I’m one of the more unself-aware people you will ever interview. So to ask me how will this be perceived, I literally have no idea and kind of limited interest. But I was so shocked by it. I was so shocked by it. To the extent I regret anything and to blame for anything, it would be not, and I’ve done this a lot, not giving it context, not fully explaining why are we doing this. The grocery store, I was shocked by the prices. And yes, I’m familiar with exchange rates, very familiar with exchange rates and I adjusted them for exchange rates, and this is two years into sanctions, total isolation from the west. So I would expect, in fact, I did expect until I got there that their supply chains would be crushed. How do you get good stuff if you don’t have access to western markets? I didn’t fully get the answer because I was occupied doing other things when I was there, but somehow they have and that’s the point. They haven’t had the supply chains problems that I predicted. In other words, sanctions haven’t made the country noticeably worse.

(00:49:22)
Okay, so again, this is commentary in the United States and our policymakers, why are we doing this? It’s forcing the rest of the world into a block against us called bricks. They’re getting off the US dollar. That will mean a lot of dollars are going to come back here and destroy our economy and impoverish this country. So the consequences, the stakes are really high. They’re huge and we’re not even hurting Russia. What the hell are we doing, one. On the subway, that Subway was built by Joseph Stalin right before the second World War. I’m not endorsing Stalin, obviously. Stalinism is a thing that I hate and I don’t want to come to my country. I’m making the obvious point that for over 80 years you’ve had these frescoes and chandeliers, maybe they’ve been redone or whatever, but somehow the society has been able to not destroy what its ancestors built, the things that are worth having, and there are a lot. Why don’t we have that?

(00:50:17)
Even on a much more terrestrial plane, why can’t I have a subway station like that? Why can’t my children who live in New York City ride the subway? A lot of people I know who live in New York City are afraid to ride the subway, young women especially. That’s freedom? No, again, it’s slavery. If Putin can do this, why can’t we? What? This is so obvious. I’m a traitor? Okay, so if I’m calling for American citizens to demand more from their government and higher standards for their own society, and remember that just 30 years ago, we had a much different and much happier and cleaner and healthier society where everyone wasn’t fat with diabetes at 40 from poisoned food, I’m not a traitor to my country, I’m a defender of my country. By the way, the people calling me a traitor, they’re all like, whatever. I would not say they’re people who put America’s interest first to put it mildly.
Lex Fridman
(00:51:16)
There’s many elements, like you said, you don’t like Stalinism. You’re a student of history, central planning is good at building subways in a way that’s really nice. The thing that accounts for New York subways, by the way, there’s a lot of really positive things about New York subways, not cleanliness, but the efficiency, the accessibility, how wide it spreads. The New York network is incredible.
Tucker Carlson
(00:51:44)
It is.
Lex Fridman
(00:51:45)
But Moscow, under different metrics, results of a capitalist system. And you actually said that you don’t think US is quite a capitalist system, which is an interesting question itself.
Tucker Carlson
(00:51:55)
That’s for sure. We have more central planning here than they do in Russia.
Lex Fridman
(00:51:57)
No, that’s not true.
Tucker Carlson
(00:51:58)
Of course it is.
Lex Fridman
(00:51:59)
You think that’s true.
Tucker Carlson
(00:52:00)
The climate agenda, of course. The US government has, in league with a couple of big, companies, decided to change the way we produce and consume energy. There’s no popular outcry for that. There’s never been any mass movement of Americans who’s like, “I hate my gasoline powered engine. No more diesel.” That has been central planning. That is central planning. You see it up and down our economy, there’s no free market in the United States. You get crossways with the government, you’re done. If you’re at scale, maybe if you’ve got a barbershop or a liquor store or something, but even then you’re regulated by politicians. And so, no, I actually am for free markets. I hate monopolies. Our economy is dominated by monopolies, completely dominated in-
Lex Fridman
(00:52:43)
What do you mean?
Tucker Carlson
(00:52:43)
Google. What percentage of search does Google have, 90? Google’s a monopoly, by any definition. Google is just rich enough to continue doing whatever it wants in violation of US law. There’s no monopoly in Russia as big as Google. I’m not, again, defending the Russian system. I’m calling for return to our old system, which was sensible and moderate and put the needs of Americans, at least somewhere in the top 10. Somewhere in the top 10. I’m not saying that standard oil was interested in the welfare of average Americans, but I am saying that there was a constituency in our political system, in the Congress, for example, different presidential candidates are like, “No, wait a second. What is this doing to people? Is it good for people or not?” There’s not even a conversation about that. It’s shut up and submit to AI. No offense. And so I’m just-
Lex Fridman
(00:53:33)
Offense taken. I’ll write, “We will get you.” When it’s strong enough-
Tucker Carlson
(00:53:38)
I have no doubt.
Lex Fridman
(00:53:39)
… you’ll be the first one to go.
Tucker Carlson
(00:53:40)
Well, as a white man, I just won’t even exist anymore.
Lex Fridman
(00:53:42)
Right, so much to say on that one.
Tucker Carlson
(00:53:44)
I bet when you Google my picture 20 years from now, I’ll be a Black chick. A hundred percent.
Lex Fridman
(00:53:50)
Well, I hope she’s attractive.
Tucker Carlson
(00:53:52)
I hope so too. It’d probably be an upgrade.
Lex Fridman
(00:53:57)
So, well, the central planning point is really interesting, but I just don’t know where you’re coming from. There’s a capitalist system … the United States is one of the most successful capitalist system in the history of earth. So just-
Tucker Carlson
(00:54:13)
It’s the most successful. I’m just saying that I think it’s changed a lot in the last 15 years and that we need to update our assumptions about what we’re seeing.
Lex Fridman
(00:54:21)
Sure.
Tucker Carlson
(00:54:21)
And that’s true up and down. That’s true with everything. It’s true with your neighbor’s children who you haven’t seen in three years and they come home from Wesleyan and you’re like, “Oh, you’ve grown.” That is true for the world around us as well. Most of our assumptions about immigration, about our economy, about our tax system are completely outdated if you compare them to the current reality. I’m just for updating my files and I have a big advantage over you because I am middle aged, and so I don’t-
Lex Fridman
(00:54:47)
You’ve called yourself old so many times throughout this conversation.
Tucker Carlson
(00:54:50)
I don’t trust my perceptions of things so I’m constantly trying to be like, is that true, I should go there. I should see it. I guess just in the end, I trust direct perceptions. I don’t trust the internet, actually. Wikipedia is a joke. Wikipedia could not be more dishonest, it’s certainly in the political categories or things that I know a lot about. Occasionally, I read an entry written about something that I saw or know the people involved, and I’m like, well, that’s a complete lie or you left out the most important fact. It’s not a reliable guide to reality or history and that will accelerate with AI, where our perception of the past is completely controlled and distorted. I think just getting out there and seeing stuff and seeing that Moscow was not what I thought it would be, which was a smoldering ruin, rats in a garbage dump, it was nicer than New York. What the hell?
Lex Fridman
(00:55:46)
Direct data is good, but it’s challenging. For example, if you talk to a lot of people in Moscow or in Russia, and you ask them, “Is there a censorship?” They will usually say, “Yes, there is.”
Tucker Carlson
(00:55:56)
Oh yeah, of course there is. Well, I agree. Just to be clear, I have no plans to move to Russia. I think I would probably be arrested if I moved to Russia. Ed Snowden, who is the most famous openness, transparency, advocate in the world, I would say along with Assange, doesn’t want to live in Russia. He’s had problems with the Putin government. He’s attacked Putin. They don’t like it. I get it. I get it. I’m just saying, what are the lessons for us? The main lesson is we are being lied to in a way that’s bewildering and very upsetting. I was mad about it all eight days I was there because I feel like I’m better informed than most people because it’s my job to be informed. I’m skeptical of everything and yet I was completely hoodwinked by it.

(00:56:46)
I would just recommend to everyone watching this, if you’re really interested, if you’re one of those people, and I’m not one, but who’s waking up every day and you’ve got a Ukrainian flag on your mailbox or whatever, your Ukrainian lapel pin, or this absurd theater, but if you sincerely care about Ukraine or Russia or whatever, why don’t you just hop on a plane for 800 bucks and go see it? That doesn’t occur to anyone to do that. I know it’s time consuming and kind of expensive, sort of, not really, but you benefit so much. I could bore you for eight hours, and I know you’ve had this experience, where you think you know what something is or you think you know who someone is, and then you have direct experience of that place or person and you realize all your preconceptions were totally wrong. They were controlled by somebody else. In fact, I won’t betray confidences, but off the air we were talking about somebody and you said, “I couldn’t believe the person was not at all what I thought.” Well, that’s happened to me-
Lex Fridman
(00:57:42)
In the positive direction.
Tucker Carlson
(00:57:43)
In the positive direction. By the way, for me, it’s almost always in that direction. Most people I meet, and I’ve had the great privilege of meeting a lot of people over all this time, they’re way better than you think, or they’re more complicated or whatever. But the point is, a direct experience unmediated by liars, there’s no substitute for that.
Lex Fridman
(00:58:04)
Well, on that point, direct experience in Ukraine. I visited Ukraine and witnessed a lot of the same things you witnessed in Moscow. First of all, beautiful architecture.
Tucker Carlson
(00:58:13)
Yes.
Lex Fridman
(00:58:14)
This is a country that’s really in war. So it’s not-
Tucker Carlson
(00:58:17)
Oh, for real,
Lex Fridman
(00:58:18)
… for real. Where most of the men are either volunteering or fighting in the war, and there’s actual tanks in the streets that are going into your major city of Kyiv and still the supply chains are working-
Tucker Carlson
(00:58:32)
Yes.
Lex Fridman
(00:58:32)
… just a handful of months after the start of the war. Everything is working. The restaurants are amazing. Most of the people are able to do some kind of job, like the life goes on. Cleanliness, like you mentioned.
Tucker Carlson
(00:58:49)
I love that.
Lex Fridman
(00:58:49)
Security, it’s incredible. The crime went to zero. They gave out guns to everybody, the Texas strategy.
Tucker Carlson
(00:58:58)
It does work.
Lex Fridman
(00:58:58)
When you witness it, you realize, okay, there’s something to these people. There’s something to this country that they’re not as corrupt as you might hear.
Tucker Carlson
(00:59:06)
Right.
Lex Fridman
(00:59:06)
You hear that Russia is corrupt, Ukraine is corrupt, you assume it’s just all going to go to shit.
Tucker Carlson
(00:59:12)
I haven’t been to Ukraine, and I’ve certainly tried. They put me on some kill him immediately list so I can’t. I’ve tried to interview Zelensky. He keeps denouncing me. I just want an interview with him, he won’t, unfortunately. I would love to do it.
Lex Fridman
(00:59:22)
I hope you do.
Tucker Carlson
(00:59:23)
I do too. But one of the things that bothers me most … I love to hear that, what you just said about Kyiv, but I’m not really surprised. One of the things that I’m most ashamed of is the bigotry that I felt towards Slavic people, also toward Muslims, I’ll just be totally honest because I lived through decades of propaganda from NBC news and CNN where I worked, about this or that group of people and they’re horrible or whatever. And I kind of believed it. I see it now, we can’t even put the word Russia at Wimbledon because it’s so offensive. Well, what does the tennis player have to do with it? Did he invade Ukraine, I don’t think he did. Stealing all these business guys yachts and denouncing thing was oligarchs, what do they have to do with it? Whatever.

(01:00:08)
Here’s my point. The idea that a whole group of people is just evil because of their blood, I just don’t believe that. I think it’s immoral to think that, and I can just tell you my own experience after eight days there. I think it’s a really interesting culture, Slavic culture, which is shared by the way, by Russian and Ukraine, of course, they’re first cousins at the most distant. I found them really smart and interesting and informed. I didn’t understand a lot of what they were saying. I don’t understand the way their minds work because I’m American, but it wasn’t a thin culture, it’s a thick culture and I admire that. I wish I could go to Ukraine. I would go tomorrow.

Freedom of speech

Lex Fridman
(01:00:49)
I think after you did the interview with Putin, you put a clip, I think on TCN, your analysis afterwards.
Tucker Carlson
(01:00:58)
It wasn’t much of an analysis.
Lex Fridman
(01:00:59)
No, but what stood out to me is you were talking shit about Putin a little bit. You were criticizing him.
Tucker Carlson
(01:01:04)
Why wouldn’t I?
Lex Fridman
(01:01:05)
It spoke to the thing that you mentioned, which is you weren’t afraid. Now, the question I want to ask is, it would be pretty badass if you went to the supermarket and made the point you were making, but also criticize Putin, right? Criticize that there is a lack of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
Tucker Carlson
(01:01:23)
In the supermarket?
Lex Fridman
(01:01:25)
Yes.
Tucker Carlson
(01:01:26)
Oh, you mean if I also said that? Well, yeah, of course I think that. I guess part of it is that because I have such a low opinion of the commentariat in the United States and the news organizations, which really do just work for the US government, I really see them as I did Izvestia and Pravda in the 80s. They’re just organs of the government and I think they’re contemptible and I think the people who work there are contemptible. I say that as someone who knows them really well, personally. I think they’re disgusting. I’m a little bit cut off kind of from what people are saying about me because I’m not interested. But-
Tucker Carlson
(01:02:00)
Cut off kind of from what people are saying about me because I’m not interested. So I try not to be defensive like, “See, I’m not a tool of Putin.” But the idea that I’d be flacking for Putin when my relatives fought in the Revolutionary War, I’m as American as you could be, it’s like crazy to me. Anne Applebaum calls me a traitor. I’m like, “Okay.” It’s just so dumb. But no, of course, they don’t have… No country has freedom of speech other than us. Canada doesn’t have it. Great Britain definitely doesn’t have it. France, Netherlands, these are countries I spend a lot of time in, and Russia certainly doesn’t have it. So that’s why I don’t live there. I’m just saying our sanctions don’t work. That’s all I was saying.

(01:02:43)
We don’t have to live like animals. We can live with dignity. Even the Russians can do it. That’s kind of what I was saying. Even the Russians under Vladimir freaking Putin can live like this. No, it’s not a feature of dictatorship. That’s the most, I think, discouraging and most dishonest line by people like Jon Stewart who really are trying to prepare the population for accepting a lot less. He is really a tool of the regime in a sinister way, always has been like, “How dare you expect that? What are you, a Stalinist?” It’s like, no, I’m an American. I’m a decent person. I just want to be able to walk to the grocery store without being murdered. Is that too much? “Shut up, you don’t believe in freedom.” It’s really dark if you think about it.
Lex Fridman
(01:03:28)
So there is a fundamental way which you wanted Americans to expect more.
Tucker Carlson
(01:03:33)
You don’t have to live like this. We don’t have to live like this. You don’t have to accept it. You don’t. Everyone’s afraid in this country, they’re going to be shut down by the tech oligarchs or have the FBI show up at their houses or go to jail. People are legit afraid of that in the United States. My feeling is, so? Show a little courage. What is it worth to you for your grandchildren to live in a free prosperous country? It should be worth more than your comfort. That’s how I feel.
Lex Fridman
(01:04:02)
We should make clear that by many measures, you look at the World Press Freedom Index, you’re right. U.S. is not at the top. Norway is. U.S.’s score is 71.
Tucker Carlson
(01:04:15)
Norway is.
Lex Fridman
(01:04:15)
Same as Gambia in West Africa.
Tucker Carlson
(01:04:22)
Really? So let me just ask.
Lex Fridman
(01:04:22)
Hold on a second. Hold on a second. Hold on a second.
Tucker Carlson
(01:04:22)
Now you’re making me laugh.
Lex Fridman
(01:04:23)
Ukraine is 61 and Russia is 35, the lower it is, the worst. Close to China at 23, and North Korea at the very bottom, 22.
Tucker Carlson
(01:04:33)
Didn’t ukraine put Gonzalo Lira in jail until he died for criticizing the government? How can they have a high press?
Lex Fridman
(01:04:38)
Yes. That’s why they’re 61 out of [inaudible 01:04:40].
Tucker Carlson
(01:04:40)
What I’m saying, look, I don’t know what the criteria are they’re using to arrive at that, but I know press freedom when I see it. I try to practice it, which is saying what you think is true, correcting yourself when you’ve been shown to be wrong, as I have many times, being as honest as you can be all the time and not being afraid. Those are wholly absent in my country, wholly absent. People are afraid in the news business. I would know since I spent my life working there. They’re afraid to tell the truth. They’re under an enormous amount of pressure and a lot of them have little kids and mortgages, I’ve been there, so I have sympathy.

(01:05:14)
But they go along with things. You are not allowed, if you stand up at any cable channel, any cable channel in the United States and say, “Wait a second, how did the Ukrainian government throw a U.S. citizen into prison until he died for criticizing the Ukrainian government? We’re paying for that. That’s why it’s offensive to me. We’re paying for it. That happens all the time around the world, of course. But this is a U.S. citizen and we’re paying the pensions of Ukrainian bureaucrats. We are the Ukrainian government at this point. If you said that on TV on any channel, well, you’d lose your job for that.

(01:05:53)
Norway is at the top. Really, Norway? If I went to Norwegian television and said NATO blew up Nord Stream, which it did, NATO blew up Nord Stream, the United States government with the help of other governments blew up, committed the largest act of industrial terrorism in history, and by the way, the largest environmental crime, the largest emission of CO2, methane, could I keep my job? No. So how is that a free press?
Lex Fridman
(01:06:17)
Well, we don’t know that. I mean the whole point of this-
Tucker Carlson
(01:06:18)
In Norway?
Lex Fridman
(01:06:19)
Yes.
Tucker Carlson
(01:06:19)
Well, as a Scandinavian, and I can tell you they would not put up with that in Norway for a second.
Lex Fridman
(01:06:19)
It’s been a while.
Tucker Carlson
(01:06:24)
You’re deviating from the majority, no.
Lex Fridman
(01:06:26)
Well, deviating maybe is frowned upon, but-
Tucker Carlson
(01:06:31)
Frowned upon. Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(01:06:32)
But do you have the freedom to say it if you do deviate? That’s the question.
Tucker Carlson
(01:06:36)
Can you keep your job? That’s one measurement of it.
Lex Fridman
(01:06:38)
Can you keep your job, yeah.
Tucker Carlson
(01:06:39)
Yeah. It’s not the only measurement. Obviously being thrown into prison is much worse than losing your job. I’ve been fired a number of times for saying what I think, by the way. It’s fine. I’ve enjoyed it. I don’t mind being fired. I’ve always become a better person after it happened. But it is one measurement of freedom if you have the theoretical right to do something, but no practical ability to do it, do you have the right to do it? The answer is not really, actually.

Jon Stewart

Lex Fridman
(01:07:03)
You mentioned Jon Stewart, the two of you have a bit of a history. I don’t know if you’ve seen it, but he kind of grilled your supermarket and subway videos. Have you got any chance to see it?
Tucker Carlson
(01:07:13)
I haven’t seen it, but someone characterized it to me, which is why I pivoted against it early in our conversation about how the price of freedom is living in filth and chaos.
Lex Fridman
(01:07:24)
Yeah, that was essentially it. So in 2004, that’s 20 years ago, Jon Stewart appeared on Crossfire, a show you hosted. That was kind of a memorable moment. Can you tell the saga of that as you remember it?
Tucker Carlson
(01:07:40)
I mean, for me, as I was saying to you before about how it takes a long time to digest and process and understand what happens to you, or at least it does for me, I didn’t understand that as a particularly significant moment while it was happening. I just got off a plane from Hawaii. I mean, I was out of it as usual, and I was very literal as usual. So from my perspective, his criticism of me, to the extent I remember it, was that I was a partisan. Well, he had two critiques. One that Crossfire was stupid, which it certainly was. In fact, I’d already given my notice and I was moving on to another company by that point.

(01:08:17)
Crossfire was stupid. Crossfire didn’t help. Crossfire framed everything as Republican versus Democrat, whatever. It was not helpful to the public discourse. I couldn’t agree more, and that’s why I left. So that was part of his critique, fair. I’m not sure I would’ve admitted it at the time because I worked there and it’s sort of hard to admit you’re engaged in an enterprise that’s fundamentally worthless, which it was. But his other point was that I was somehow a partisan or a mindless partisan, which is definitely not true. It is true of him. He is a mindless partisan, but I’m not.

(01:08:54)
I really haven’t been since I got back from Baghdad at the beginning of the Iraq War, and I realized that the Republican party, which I’d voted for my whole life to that point, and had supported in general, was pushing this really horrible thing that was going to hurt the United States, which in time it really did. The Iraq War really hurt the United States. I realized that I had been on the wrong side of that. I said so publicly immediately from Baghdad, I said that to the New York Times and I really meant it. I mean it now. So to call me partisan, you can call me stupid, you can call me wrong, I certainly had been wrong, but partisan, I just didn’t think it was a meaningful… I mean, that’s just not true. It’s the opposite of true.

(01:09:35)
So I didn’t really take it seriously at all, and I never thought much of him. So I was like, “Whatever. Some buffoon jumping around on my show grandstanding.” By the way, that happened right at the moment that YouTube began. I think that was one of the first big YouTube, it was one of the first big YouTube videos. So it had a virality that, if that’s a word, it went everywhere in a way that didn’t used to happen in cable news. I mean, by that point, that was 20 years ago as you point out, I’ve been in cable news for nine years. So before 2004, we would say something on television and then it would be lost. People could claim they heard it, but you’d have to go to I think the University of Tennessee at Knoxville archives to get it.

(01:10:23)
Suddenly everything we said would live forever on the internet, which is good, by the way. That’s not bad. But it was a big change for me, and I just couldn’t believe how widely that was discussed at the time, because I thought he was not an interesting person, I think he’s obviously a very unhappy person. I just didn’t take him seriously then and I don’t now. But so anyway, that was it. It was a smaller thing in my life at the time than other people imagined.
Lex Fridman
(01:10:54)
Okay, you said lot of words that will make it sound like you’re a bit bitter even if you’re not. So you said unhappy person, partisan person.
Tucker Carlson
(01:11:03)
Well, I think he’s an unhappy guy. Well, he’s definitely partisan for sure.
Lex Fridman
(01:11:05)
So can you elaborate why you think he’s partisan?
Tucker Carlson
(01:11:07)
Well, so I think that, and I see this a lot, not only on the left, but people who believe that whatever political debate they’re engaged in is the most important debate in the world. So they bring an emotional intensity to those debates, and they’re inevitably disappointed because no eternal question is solved politically. So they’re kind of on the wrong path and they’re doomed to frustration if they believe that, and many do. He certainly does, that whatever the issue is, so Clarence Thomas should not be Supreme Court justice, and the implication is, well, if someone else’s Supreme Court justice, we’ll live in a fair and happy society, but that’s just not… It’s a false promise.

(01:11:45)
So I think that people who bring that level of intensity to politics are, by definition, bitter, by definition, disappointed, bitter in the way the disappointed people are. That the real questions are like what happens when you die and how do the people around you feel about you? Those are not the only questions in life, but they’re certainly the most important ones. If we’re spending a disproportionate amount of time on who gets elected to some office, not that it’s irrelevant, it is relevant, but it’s not the eternal question. So I feel like he’s not the only kind of bitter silly person in Washington or in its orbit. There are many, and a lot of them are Republicans, so.

(01:12:24)
But I just thought it was ironic. I mean, everything’s ironic to me, but being called a Russia’s sympathizer by a guy who calls himself Boris, it just made me laugh. No one else has ever laughed at that. Boris Johnson’s real name is not Boris, as you know. He calls himself Boris. It’s his middle name. So if you call yourself Boris, you don’t really have standing to attack anyone else as a Russia defender, right? I think that’s funny. No one else, as I noted does. But Jon Stewart, there are a lot of things you could say about me, but he’s much more partisan than I am. So to call me a partisan, it’s like what?
Lex Fridman
(01:13:01)
He would probably say that he’s not a partisan, that he’s a comedian who’s looking for the humor and the absurdity of the system on both sides.
Tucker Carlson
(01:13:11)
He’s a very serious person. I will say this, and he shares this quality with a lot of comedians, I know a lot of comedians, I know a cross section of people just having done this job for a long time, and a lot of them are very serious about their views, and they have a lot of emotional intensity. He certainly is in that category. That’s the silliest thing. Yeah, he’s a comedian for sure. He can be very funny for sure. He has talent, no doubt about it. I’ve never denied that. But he’s motivated by his moral views, “This is right. That is wrong.” I just think that it’s a misapplied passion.
Lex Fridman
(01:13:48)
Do you think I’m just a comedian? Is-
Tucker Carlson
(01:13:52)
I don’t think any person thinks that. I mean, if you’re just a comedian, and I, look, I’m not trying to claim, I couldn’t claim that I haven’t said a lot of dumb things, and one of the dumbest things I ever said was when he was on our set lecturing me, he’s a moralizer, which I also don’t really care for as an aesthetic matter, but he was lecturing me about something and I said, “I thought you’re here to tell jokes.” Which I shouldn’t have said because he wasn’t there to tell jokes. He was there to lecture me, and I should have just engaged it directly rather than trying to diminish him by like, “You’re just a little comedian.” Well, he doesn’t see himself that way. But I would just say this, Jon Stewart’s a defender of power. Jon Stewart has never criticized… What’s Jon Stewart’s view on the aid we’ve sent to Ukraine, the $100 billion or whatever. What happened to that money? What happened to the weapons that it bought? He doesn’t care. He has the exact same priorities as the people permanently in charge in Washington. So whatever. He’s not alone in that. So does Mika Brzezinski and her husband and all the rest of the cast of dummies.

(01:14:59)
But if you’re going to pretend to be the guy who’s giving the finger to entrenched power, you should do it once in a while, and he never has. There’s not one time when he said something that would be deeply unpopular on Morning Joe. That’s all I’m saying. So don’t call yourself a truth teller. You’re a court comedian or a flatterer of power. Okay, that’s fine. There’s a role for that, but don’t pretend to be something else.
Lex Fridman
(01:15:23)
I’ll just be honest that I watched it just recently, that video and-
Tucker Carlson
(01:15:29)
From 20 years ago?
Lex Fridman
(01:15:29)
From 20 years ago. I watched it initially, and I remember it very differently. I remembered that Jon Stewart completely destroyed you in that conversation. I watched it and you asked a very good question of him, and there was no destruction, first of all. You asked a very good question of him, “Why when you got a chance to interview John Kerry, did you ask a bunch of softball questions?”
Tucker Carlson
(01:15:56)
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(01:15:57)
I thought that was a really fair question. Then his defense was, “Well, I’m just a comedian.”
Tucker Carlson
(01:16:02)
So I thought that was disingenuous. I haven’t watched it. I never have watched the clip one time in my life, and I don’t like to watch myself on television. I never have. That’s my fault and I probably should force myself to watch it though, of course I never will. But I think the takeaway for me, which was really interesting and life-changing, was I agree with your assessment. I’ve lost a lot of debates. I’ve been humiliated on television. I’m not above that. It certainly happened to me. It will happen again. But I didn’t feel like it was a clear win for him at all. Maybe A TKO, but it was not a knockout at all, and yet it was recorded that way.

(01:16:41)
I remember thinking, “Well, that’s kind of weird. That’s not what I remember.” Then I realized, no, Jon Stewart was more popular than I was, therefore he was recorded as the winner. That was hard for me to accept, because that struck me as unfair. You should rate any contest on points. Here are the rules. We’re going to judge the contest in the basis of those rules. No, in the end, it’s just like the more popular guy wins. Every TV critic like Jon Stewart, every one of them hated me, therefore he won. I was like, “Wow, I guess I have to accept that reality.” You do, like the reality of the sunrise. You’re not in charge of it. So that’s just what it is.
Lex Fridman
(01:17:14)
Unfortunately it’s a bit darker, I think. The reason he’s seen as the winner and the reason at the time I saw as the “winner” is because he was basically shitting on you, like personal attacks versus engaging ideas. It was funny in a dark way and making fun of the bow tie and all this kind of stuff.
Tucker Carlson
(01:17:30)
That’s fair, the bow tie.
Lex Fridman
(01:17:31)
I understand.
Tucker Carlson
(01:17:32)
It was fair to call me a dick. I remember he called me a dick, and I remember even when he said that, I was like, “Yeah, I’m definitely a dick, and that’s not my best quality, trust me.”
Lex Fridman
(01:17:42)
I thought Jon Stewart came off as a giant dick at that time, and I’m a big fan of his, and I think he has improved a lot.
Tucker Carlson
(01:17:50)
That may be true.
Lex Fridman
(01:17:51)
So we should also say that people grow, people like-
Tucker Carlson
(01:17:54)
Well, I certainly have, or changed anyway. You hope it’s growth. You hope it’s not shrinkage, but-
Lex Fridman
(01:18:02)
It is cold outside.
Tucker Carlson
(01:18:03)
Yeah. I mean, look, I haven’t followed Jon Stewart’s career at all. I don’t have a television. I’m pretty cut off from all that stuff, so I wouldn’t really know. But the measure to me is, are you taking positions that are unpopular with the most powerful people in the world and how often are you doing it? It’s super simple. Not for its own sake, but do you feel free enough to say to the consensus, “I disagree.” If you don’t, then you’re just another toady. That’s my view.
Lex Fridman
(01:18:38)
Well, I think he probably feels free enough to do it, but you’re saying he doesn’t do it.
Tucker Carlson
(01:18:43)
On the big things. Look, the big things, this is my estimation of it, others may disagree, the big things are the economy and war, okay? The big things government does can be, I mean, there are a lot of things government does, government does everything at this point, but where we kill people and how and for what purpose and how we organize the economic engine that keeps the country afloat, those are the two big questions. I hear almost no debate about either one of them in the media, and I have dissenting views on both of them. I mean, I’m mad about the tax code, which I think is unfair.

(01:19:19)
The fact that we’ve a carried interest loophole in the tax code and people are claiming that their income is investment, income and they’re paying half the tax rate as someone who just goes to work every day, it discourages work. It encourages lending at interest, which I think is gross, personally. I’m against it. Sorry. The fact that we’re creating chaos around the world is the saddest thing that’s happening right now. Nobody feels free to say that. So that’s not good.

Ending the War in Ukraine

Lex Fridman
(01:19:48)
How do you hope the war on Ukraine ends?
Tucker Carlson
(01:19:50)
With a settlement, with a reasonable settlement. You know what a reasonable settlement is, which is a settlement where both sides feel like they’re giving a little, but can live with it. I mean, I was really struck in my conversation with Putin by how he basically refused to criticize Joe Biden and to criticize NATO. I will just be honest, as an American, it would be a little weird to be pissing on Joe Biden with a foreign leader, any foreign leader, even though I don’t think Joe Biden is a real person or really a president. I mean, the whole thing is ridiculous. But still, he is the American president technically, and I don’t want to beat up on the American president with a foreigner. I just don’t. Maybe I’m old fashioned. So that’s how I feel.

(01:20:33)
So I didn’t push it, but I thought it was really interesting. Because, of course, Putin knows my views on Joe Biden. He knew I applied to the CIA, so they’ve done some digging on me, but he didn’t mention it, and he didn’t attack NATO. The reason is, I know for a fact, because he wants a settlement. He wants a settlement not because Russia’s about to collapse despite the lying of our media, that’s just not true, and no one is even saying it anymore because it’s so dumb. He wants to because it’s just bad to have a war. It changes the world in ways you can’t predict. People die. Everything about it is sad. If you can avoid it, you should.

(01:21:08)
So I would like to see a settlement where, look, the thing that Russia wants and I think probably has a right to is not to have NATO missiles on its border. I don’t know why we would do that. I don’t know what we get out of it. I just don’t even understand it. I don’t understand the purpose of NATO. I don’t think NATO is good for the United States. I think it’s an attack on our sovereignty. I would pull out of NATO immediately if I were the U.S. president, because I don’t think it helps the U.S. I know a lot of people are getting their bread buttered by NATO. But anyway, that’s my view as an American.

(01:21:43)
If I’m a Russian or a Ukrainian, let’s just be sovereign countries now. We’re not run by the U.S. State Department. We’re just our own countries. I believe in sovereignty, okay? So that’s my view. I also want to say one thing about Zelensky. I attacked him before because I was so offended by his cavalier talk about nuclear exchange because it would kill my family. So I’m really offended by that. Anyone who talks that way I’m offended by. But I do feel for Zelensky. I do. He didn’t run for president to have this happen.

(01:22:14)
I think Zelensky’s been completely misused by the State Department, by Toria Nuland, by our Secretary of State, by the policymakers in the U.S. who’ve used Ukraine as a vessel for their ambitions, their geopolitical ambitions, but also the many American businesses who’ve used Ukraine as a way to fleece the American taxpayer, and then by just independent ghouls like Boris Johnson who are hoping to get rich from interviews on it. The whole thing, Zelensky is at the center of this. He’s not driving history. NATO and the United States is driving history. Putin is driving history. There’s this guy, Zelensky. So I do feel for him, and I think he’s in a perilous place.
Lex Fridman
(01:22:53)
Do you think Zelensky is a hero for staying in Kiev? Because I do. To me, you can criticize a lot of things. You should call out things that are obviously positive.
Tucker Carlson
(01:23:07)
I just tried to a second ago, I don’t know the extent that he is in Kiev. He seems to be in the United States an awful lot, way too much. You can do a satellite interview. You don’t have to speak to my Congress. You’re not an American. Please leave. That’s my opinion but-
Lex Fridman
(01:23:21)
You got many zingers, Tucker.
Tucker Carlson
(01:23:22)
No, no, no. It’s just heartfelt. It’s bubbling up from the wellspring that never turns off. But I would say this about Zelensky, yeah, to the extent he’s in Ukraine, good man. George W. Bush fled Washington on 9/11. I lived there with three kids and he ran away to some Air Force base in South Dakota. I thought that was cowardly and I said so at the time, and man was I attacked for saying that. I wrote a column about it in New York Magazine where I then had a column, hard to believe. But I felt that. I felt that. I think the prerequisites of leadership are really basic.

(01:23:53)
The first is caring about the people you lead, that’s number one. In the way a father cares for his children, or an officer cares for his troops. A president should care for his people. That leads inexorably to the next requirement, which is bravery, physical courage. I believe in that. I’m not like some tough guy, but I just think it’s obvious. If you’re in charge, I’m at my house and I feel like someone broke in, I’m not going to say to my wife, “Hey, baby, go deal with the home invasion.” I’m going to deal with it because I’m dad. Okay? So if you’re the president of a country and your capital city is attacked, as ours was at the Pentagon, and you run away?

(01:24:28)
“The Secret Service told me to.” Bitch, are you in charge? Who’s daddy here? The Secret Service? Do you know what I mean? I found that totally contemptible and I said so, and man, did I get a lecture, not just from Republicans, but from Democrats. “Oh, you don’t know. Put yourself in that position.” I was like, “Okay.” I don’t know what I would do under that kind of stress, enormous stress. I get it. I know one thing I wouldn’t do is run away because you can’t do that. If you’re not willing to die for your country, then you shouldn’t be leading it. So yes, to the extent, if Zelensky really is in Ukraine most of the time, amen.
Lex Fridman
(01:25:05)
Well, hold on a second. Let’s clarify. It’s not about what he’s in Ukraine most of the time or not.
Tucker Carlson
(01:25:09)
Well, I thought that was the whole premise of the problem.
Lex Fridman
(01:25:11)
No, at the beginning of the war, when a lot of people thought that the second biggest military in the world is pointing its guns in Kiev, is going to be taken. A man, a leader who stays in that city and says, “Fuck it.” When everybody around him says, flee, everybody around him believes the city will be taken or at least destroyed, leveled, artillery, bombs, all of this, he chooses to stay. You know a lot of leaders, how many leaders would choose to stay?
Tucker Carlson
(01:25:46)
Well, the leader of Afghanistan, the U.S. backed leader when the Taliban came, got in a U.S. plane with U.S. dollars and ran away, and of course is living on those dollars now. So yeah, there’s a lot of cowardly behavior. Good for him. I mean, I guess I’m looking at it slightly differently, which is what’s the option? You’re the leader of the country. You can’t leave. Stalin never left Moscow during the war. It was surrounded by the Germans, as you know, for a year, and he didn’t leave. When I was in Russia, they’re like, “Stalin never left.” It’s like he’s the leader of the country, you can’t. I mean, that’s just table stakes, of course. I would say, but you raised an interesting by implication question, which is what about Kiev? You think the Russians couldn’t level Kiev? Of course, obviously they could. Why haven’t? They could, but they haven’t.
Lex Fridman
(01:26:36)
Well, there’s military answers to that, which is urban warfare is extremely difficult.
Tucker Carlson
(01:26:41)
Do you think that Putin wants to take Kiev?
Lex Fridman
(01:26:45)
No, I do think he expected Zelensky to flee and somebody else to come into power.
Tucker Carlson
(01:26:50)
Yeah, that may be totally right. I don’t know. I have no idea what Putin was thinking when he did that about Zelensky. I didn’t ask him. But it’s a mistake to imagine this is a contest between Putin and Zelensky. This is Putin versus the U.S. State Department. That’s why I said I felt sorry for him. I mean, as I said, we’re literally paying the pensions of Ukrainian bureaucrats. So there is no Ukrainian government independent of the U.S. government. Maybe you’re for that, maybe you’re against it, but you can’t endorse that in the same sentence that you use the term democracy, because that’s not a democracy, obviously.
Lex Fridman
(01:27:29)
Well, that’s why it’s interesting that he didn’t really bring up NATO extensively.
Tucker Carlson
(01:27:33)
He wants a settlement, he wants a settlement. He doesn’t want to fight with them rhetorically and he just wants to get this done. He made a bunch of offers at the peace deal. We wouldn’t even know this happened if the Israelis hadn’t told us. I’m so grateful that they did that, that Johnson was dispatched by the State Department to stop it. I mean, I think Boris Johnson is a husk of a man. But imagine if you were Boris Johnson and you spend your whole life with Ukraine flag, “I’m for Ukraine,” and then all those kids died because of what you did, and the lines haven’t really moved. It hasn’t been a victory for Ukraine. It’s not going to be a victory for Ukraine. It’s like, how do you feel about yourself if you did that? I mean, I’ve done a lot of shitty things in my life, I feel bad about them, but I’ve never extended a war for no reason. That’s a pretty grave sin in my opinion.
Lex Fridman
(01:28:26)
Yes, that was a failure. But it doesn’t mean you can’t have a success over and over and over keep having negotiations between leaders.
Tucker Carlson
(01:28:36)
Well, the U.S. government’s not allowing negotiations. So that for me is the most upsetting part. It’s like in the end, what Russia does, I’m not implicated in that. What Ukraine does, I’m not implicated in that. I’m not Russian or Ukrainian. I’m an American who grew up really believing in my country. I’m supporting my country through my tax dollars. It’s like I really care about what the U.S. government does because they’re doing it in my name, and I care a lot because I’m American. We are the impediment to peace, which is another way of saying we are responsible for all these innocent people getting dragooned out of public parks in Kiev and sent to go die. What? That is not good. I’m ashamed of it.

Nazis

Lex Fridman
(01:29:16)
What do you think of Putin saying that justification for continuing the war is denazification?
Tucker Carlson
(01:29:21)
I thought it was one of the dumbest things I’d ever heard. I didn’t understand what it meant. Denazification?
Lex Fridman
(01:29:26)
It literally means what it sounds like.
Tucker Carlson
(01:29:30)
Yeah. I mean, I have a lot of thoughts on this. I hate that whole conversation because it’s not real. It’s just ad hominem. It’s a way of associating someone with an evil regime that doesn’t exist anymore. But in point of fact, Nazism, whatever it was, is inseparable from the German nation. It was a nationalist movement in Germany. There were no other Nazis, right? There’s no book of Nazism like, “I want to be a Nazi. What does it mean to be a Nazi?” I mean, Mein Kampf is not Das Kapital, right? Mein Kampf is, to the extent I understand it, it’s like he’s pissed about the Treaty of Versailles, whatever. I’m very anti-Nazi. I’m merely saying there isn’t a Nazi movement in 2024. It’s a way of calling people evil.

(01:30:13)
Okay. Putin doesn’t like nationalist Ukrainians. Putin hates nationalism in general, which is interesting. Of course he does. He’s got 80 whatever republics, and he’s afraid of nationalist movements. He fought a war in Chechnya over this. So I understand it, but I have a different… I’m for nationalism, I’m for American nationalism, so I disagree with Putin on that. But calling them Nazis, it’s like, I thought it was childish.
Lex Fridman
(01:30:38)
Well, I do believe that he believes it.
Tucker Carlson
(01:30:40)
So that’s so interesting. I agree with that. Because I was listening to this because in the United States, everyone’s always calling everyone else a Nazi, “You’re a Nazi.” But I was listening to this and I was like, “This is the dumbest sort of not convincing line you could take.” I sat there and listened to him talk about Nazis for eight minutes, and I’m like, “I think he believes this.”
Lex Fridman
(01:31:02)
Yeah. Having had a bunch of conversations with people who are living in Russia, they also believe it. Now, there’s technicalities here, which the word Nazi, World War II is deeply in the blood of a lot of Russians and Ukrainians.
Tucker Carlson
(01:31:17)
I get it. I get it.
Lex Fridman
(01:31:17)
So you’re using it as almost a political term, the way it’s used in the United States also, like racism and all this kind of stuff. Because you know you can really touch people if you use the Nazi term.
Tucker Carlson
(01:31:29)
I think that’s totally right.
Lex Fridman
(01:31:30)
But it’s also to me a really disgusting thing to do.
Tucker Carlson
(01:31:35)
I agree.
Lex Fridman
(01:31:37)
Also to clarify, there is neo-Nazi movements in Ukraine but it’s very small. You’re saying that there’s this distinction between Nazi and neo-Nazi, sure. But it’s a small percentage of the population, a tiny percentage that have no power in government, as far I have seen no data to show they have any influence on Zelensky and Zelensky government at all. So really, when Putin says denazification, I think he means nationalist movements.
Tucker Carlson
(01:32:08)
I think you’re right. I agree with everything you said. I do think that the Second World War occupies a place in Slavic society, Polish society, Central Eastern Europe that it does not occupy in the United States. You can just look at the death totals, tens of millions versus less than half a million. So it’s like this eliminated a lot of the male population of these countries. So of course, it’s still resonant in those countries. I get it. I think I’ve watched, I don’t think I know, I’ve watched the misuse of words, the weaponization of words for political reasons for so long that I just don’t like, though I do engage in it sometime and I’m sorry, I don’t like just dismissing people in a word. “Oh, he’s a Nazi. He’s a liberal,” or whatever. It’s like, tell me what you mean, what don’t you like about what they’re doing or saying?
Tucker Carlson
(01:33:00)
What don’t you like about what they’re doing or saying? And Nazi especially, I don’t even know what the hell you’re talking about.
Lex Fridman
(01:33:07)
What troubled me about that is because he said that that’s the primary objective currently for the war. And that because it’s not grounded in reality, it makes it difficult to then negotiate peace. Because what does it mean to get rid of the Nazis in Ukraine? So he’ll come to the table and say, “Well, okay, I will agree to do a ceasefire once the Nazis are gone.” Okay, so can you list the Nazis?
Tucker Carlson
(01:33:34)
I totally agree. Plus, can you negotiate with a Nazi?
Lex Fridman
(01:33:36)
Right, exactly.
Tucker Carlson
(01:33:38)
I totally agree with you.
Lex Fridman
(01:33:39)
It was very strange. But maybe it perhaps had to do with speaking to his own population, and also probably trying to avoid the use of the word NATO as the justification for the war.
Tucker Carlson
(01:33:52)
Yes, that’s all… Of course, I don’t know, but I suspect you’re right on both counts. But I would say it points to something that I’ve thought more and more since I did that interview, which was two weeks ago, I guess. I didn’t think he was… As a PR guy, not very good, not good at telling his own story. The story of the current war in Ukraine is the eastward expansion of NATO scaring the shit out of the Russians with NATO expansion. Which is totally necessary, doesn’t help the United States, NATO itself doesn’t help the United States. And so I’m not pro-Russian for saying that, I’m pro-American for saying that. And I think that’s a really compelling story, because it’s true. He did not tell that story, he told some other story that I didn’t fully understand. Again, I’m not Russian.

(01:34:36)
He’s speaking to multiple audiences around the world. I’m not sure what he hoped to achieve by that interview, I will never know. But I did think that, this guy is not good at telling his story. And I also think honestly on the base of a lot… I mean, I know this. Very isolated during COVID, very.

(01:34:57)
We keep hearing that he’s dying of this or that disease, “He’s got ALS. I mean, I don’t know, I’m not his doctor. There’s a ton of lying about it, I know that. But one thing that’s not a lie, is that he was cloistered away during COVID, I know this, and only dealing with two or three people. And that makes you weird, it’s so important to deal with a lot of people to have your views challenged. And you see this with leaders who stay in power too long. He’s been in power 24 years, effectively. There’s been upsides I think for Russia, the Russian economy, Russian life expectancy, but there are definitely downsides. And one of them is you get weird, and you get autocratic, this is why we have term limits. Very few kings don’t get crazy in old age.
Lex Fridman
(01:35:44)
Yeah. And you said some of this also in your post-Kremlin discussion while you’re in Moscow still, which was very impressive to me, that you can just openly criticize. This was great.
Tucker Carlson
(01:35:56)
Well, I don’t care.
Lex Fridman
(01:35:57)
I understand this. I just wish you did some more of that also with the supermarket video, and perhaps some more of that with Putin in front of you.
Tucker Carlson
(01:36:06)
Putin in front of me, it would be like, “I’m such a good person.”
Lex Fridman
(01:36:10)
I know you see it as virtue signaling.
Tucker Carlson
(01:36:12)
Yeah, it is. Have you seen some of the interview he did with some NBC news child?
Lex Fridman
(01:36:17)
Yes, I understand. So I think you’re just so annoyed by how bad journalists are, that you just didn’t want to be them.
Tucker Carlson
(01:36:25)
Yeah, that’s probably right actually.
Lex Fridman
(01:36:27)
Some great conversations will involve some challenging. You were confused about denazification.
Tucker Carlson
(01:36:34)
Well, first of all, I accept your criticism, and I accept it as true, that in some way I’m probably pivoting against what I dislike. And I have such contempt for American journalists on the basis of so much knowledge, that I probably was like, “I don’t want to be like that.” Fair, that is a kind of defensiveness and dumb. So you’re right. As for the Nazi thing, I really felt like we were just speaking so far past each other that we would never come to… I was like, “I don’t even know what the hell you’re talking about.” And especially when I decided or concluded that he really meant it, I was like, “That’s just too freaking weird to me.” I can think of many other examples where you’re interviewing someone, and they’ll say something that’s like… I was interviewing a guy one time and he started talking about the Black Israelites and, “We’re the real Jews.” And it wasn’t on camera, but it was so far out to me that I was like, “We’ll never understand common terms on that.”

Putin’s health

Lex Fridman
(01:37:42)
So you mentioned there’s a bunch of conspiracy theories about Putin’s health. How was he in person? What did he feel like? Did he look healthy?
Tucker Carlson
(01:37:52)
I’m not a health person myself, so I can easily gain 30 pounds and not know it, so I’m probably not a great person to ask. But no, he seemed fine. He had his arm hooked through a chair, and I heard people say, “Well, he’s got Parkinson’s.” And Parkinson’s can be controlled I know for periods with drugs. So it’s hard to assess. One of the tells of Parkinson’s is gait, how a person walks, I think. And his walking seemed fine, and I walked around with him and talked to him off camera. He’s had some work done, for sure. He’s 71 or two.
Lex Fridman
(01:38:30)
You mean visual purposes?
Tucker Carlson
(01:38:32)
Yeah, I’m 54, he’s almost 20 years older than me, he looked younger than me.
Lex Fridman
(01:38:35)
What was that like? The conversation off camera, you walking around with him, what was the content of the conversation?
Tucker Carlson
(01:38:44)
I feel bad even with Putin or anybody talking about stuff that is off the record. But I’ll just say that when I said that he didn’t want to fight with NATO, or with the US State Department, or with Joe Biden because he wants a settlement, that’s a very informed perspective, he doesn’t. Say whatever you want about that, believe it or not, but that is true.
Lex Fridman
(01:39:16)
So he’s open for peace, for peace negotiation?
Tucker Carlson
(01:39:22)
Russia tried to join NATO in 2000, that’s a fact. Okay, they tried to join NATO. So just think about this, NATO exists to keep Russia contained. It exists as a bulwark against Russian territorial expansion. And whether or not Russia has any territorial ambitions is another question. Why would it, it’s the largest landmass in the world? Whatever. But that’s why it exists. So if Russia seeks to join NATO, it is by definition a sign that NATO’s job is done here, we can declare victory and go home. The fact that they turned him down is so shocking to me, but it’s true. Then he approaches the next president, George W. Bush… That was with Bill Clinton at the end of his term in 2000. He approaches the next president and said, “In our next missile deal, let’s align on this, and we’ll designate Iran as our common enemy.” Iran, which is now effectively in league with Russia, thanks to our insane policies.

(01:40:26)
And George W. Bush to his credit is like, “Well, that seems like kind of an innovative good idea.” And Condi Rice, who’s one of the stupidest people ever to hold power in the United States, if I can say. Who’s monomaniacally anti-Russia because she had an advisor at Stanford who was, or something during the Cold War, “No, we can’t do that.” And Bush is just weak and so he agreed, it’s like, “What? That is crazy.” If you’re fighting with someone and the person says, “You know what? Actually our interests align. And you’ve spent 80% of your mental disc space on hating me and opposing me or whatever, but actually we can be on the same team.” If you don’t at least see that as progress, what?

(01:41:06)
If your interest is in helping your country, what’s the counter argument? I don’t even understand it. And no one has even addressed any of this, “The war of Russian aggression.” Yeah, it was a war of Russian aggression, for sure. But how did we get there? We got there because Joe Biden and Tony Blinken dispatched Kamala Harris, who does not freelance this stuff, fair to say, to the Munich Security Conference two years ago this month, February 2022. And said in a press conference to Zelenskyy, poor Zelenskyy, “We want you to join NATO.” This was not in a backroom, this was in public at a press conference, knowing because he said it 4,000 times, “We don’t want nuclear weapons from the United States or NATO on our western border.” Duh. And days later, he invaded. So what is that?

(01:42:05)
And I raised that question in my previous job, and I was denounced as of course a traitor or something. But okay, great, I’m a traitor. What’s the answer? What’s the answer? Toria Nuland, who I know, not dumb, hasn’t helped the US in any way, an architect of the Iraq war, architect of this disaster, one of the people who destroyed the US dollar. Okay, fine, but you’re not stupid. So you’re trying to get a war by acting that way, what’s the other explanation? By the way, NATO didn’t want Ukraine because it didn’t meet the criteria for admission. So why would you say that? Because you want a war, that’s why. And that war has enriched a lot of people to the tune of billions. So I don’t care if I sound like some kind of left-wing conspiracy nut, because I’m neither left-wing nor a conspiracy nut. Tell me how I’m wrong.
Lex Fridman
(01:42:59)
Who do you think is behind it? If you were to analyze, zoom out, looking at the entirety of human history, the military industrial complex, you said Kamala Harris, is it individuals? Is it this collective flock that people are just pro-war as a collective?
Tucker Carlson
(01:43:17)
It’s the hive mind. And I spent my whole life in DC from 85 to 2020, so 35 years. And again, I grew up around it in that world. And I do think that conspiracies… Of course, there are conspiracies. But in general, the hive mind is responsible for the worst decisions. It’s a bunch of people with the same views, views that have not been updated in decades. Putin said something that I thought was absolutely true, I don’t know how he would know this, but it is true because I lived among them. So the Soviet Union dissolves in August of 91 on my honeymoon in Bermuda, I’ll never forget it. And it was a big thing, if you lived in DC.

(01:44:02)
I mean, the receptionist in my office in 1991 was getting a master’s in Russian from Georgetown, he was going to be a Sovietologist. And he was among thousands of people in Washington on that same track. And so the Soviet Union collapses, well, so does the rationale for a good portion of the US government, has been dedicated for over 40 years to opposing this thing that no longer exists. So there’s a lot of forward momentum, there’s a huge amount of money, the bulk of the money in the richest country in the world, aimed in this direction. And it’s very hard for people to readjust, to reassess. And you see this in life all the time.

(01:44:40)
I love my wife, all of a sudden she ran off with my best friend. Holy shit, I didn’t expect that this morning, now it’s a reality, how do I deal with that? Well, I got Stage 4 cancer diagnosis, and it’s all bad, but just saying that’s the nature of life. Things that you did not anticipate, never thought you’d have to face, happen out of nowhere, and you have to adjust your expectations and your goals. And people have a hard time with that, very hard time with that. So that’s a lot of it.

(01:45:09)
If you’re Condi Rice, sort of highly ambitious mid-wit, who gets this degree from Stanford, and you read Tolstoy in the original, sure you did. And you spent your whole life thinking that Russia is the center of evil in the world, it’s kind of hard to be like, “Well, actually there’s a new threat, and it’s coming from farther east. It’s primarily an economic threat.” And maybe all the threats aren’t reduced to tank battles, that’s the other thing. Is these people are so inelastic in their thinking, so lacking imagination and flexibility, that they can’t sort of imagine a new framework. And the new framework is not that you’re going to go to war with China over Formosa, Taiwan. No, the framework is that all of a sudden all the infrastructure in Tijuana is going to be built by China, and that’s a different kind of threat. But they can’t kind of get there because they’re not that impressive.
Lex Fridman
(01:46:07)
So you actually have mentioned this, it’s not just the Cold War, it’s World War II that populates most of their thinking in Washington. You mentioned Churchill, Chamberlain, and Hitler, and they’re kind of seeing the World War II as kind of the good war and successful role the United States played in that war. They’re kind of seeing that dynamic, that geopolitical dynamic, and applying it everywhere else still.
Tucker Carlson
(01:46:39)
Yeah, it’s a template for everything. And I think it’s of huge significance to the development of the West, to the civilization we live in now, to world history, was a world war. And so I think it’s worth knowing a lot about, and being honest about, and all the rest. But it’s hardly the sum total of human history, it’s a snapshot. And so you keep hearing people refer to… Not even the war, no one ever talks about the war. How much does Tony Blinken know about the Battle of Stalingrad? Probably zero, he doesn’t know anything. Largest battle in human history, but I bet he knows nothing. But he knows a lot about the cliches surrounding the ’38 to ’40 period, 1938 to 1940. And everything is kind of expressed through that formula. And not everything is that formula, that’s all I’m saying. And the Republicans have a strange weakness for it, particularly the closeted ones, the weird ones who have no life other than starting more wars. Everything to them, the most vulnerable, I would say, among them, emotionally, psychologically vulnerable, the dumbest, they will always say the same thing.

(01:47:57)
And it appeals to Republican voters, unfortunately. That every problem is the result of weakness. Everyone’s Chamberlain, Germany never would’ve gone in to Poland, Czechoslovakia if England had been stronger, that’s the argument. Is that true? I don’t know, actually. Maybe, it might be totally true, it might not be true at all, I really don’t know. But not everything is that, that’s not always true. If I go up to you in a bar and I say, “I hate your neck tie.” I’m being pretty aggressive with you, pretty strong. You might beat the shit out of me actually, or shoot me if I do that. An aggressive posture doesn’t always get you the outcome that you want. Sometimes it requires a more sophisticated Mediterranean posture. I mean, it kind of depends, it’s a time and place thing. And they don’t acknowledge that, everything is this same template, and that’s not the road to good decision making at all.

Hitler

Lex Fridman
(01:48:47)
Since we’re on the time period, let me ask you a almost cliche question, but it applies to you, which you’ve interviewed a lot of world leaders. If you had the chance to interview Hitler in ’39, ’40, ’41, first of all, would you do it? And how would you do it? I assume you would do it given who you are.
Tucker Carlson
(01:49:09)
Man, it would be a massive cost for doing it. It may destroy my life to interview Putin, though I can tell you as much as I want that I’m not a Putin defender, I only care about the United States. That’s 100% true, anyone who knows me will tell you what’s true, I keep saying it. But history may record me to the extent it records me at all as a tool of Putin, a hater of America. That seems absurd to me, but absurd things happen. What would I ask Hitler? I don’t even know. I guess I would probably ask him, what I asked Putin, which is what I ask everybody, “What’s your motive? Why did you do…” I mean, if he’d already gone into Poland, “Why are you doing that? What’s your goal?” And then the question is, is he going to answer honestly? I don’t know, you can’t make someone answer a question honestly. You can only sort of shut up while they talk and then let people decide what they think of the answer.
Lex Fridman
(01:50:05)
Well, just like in the bar fight, there’s different ways.
Tucker Carlson
(01:50:07)
There are different ways, that’s exactly right. Man, is that true? That is absolutely right.
Lex Fridman
(01:50:13)
I mean, your energy with Putin, for example, was such that it felt like he could trust you. I felt like he could tell you a lot. I think…
Tucker Carlson
(01:50:23)
I just wanted to get it on the record, that’s all I wanted.
Lex Fridman
(01:50:27)
I think it was a extremely… We have to acknowledge how important that interview was, for the record, and for opening the door for conversation. Opening the door to conversation literally is the path to more conversations in peace talks.
Tucker Carlson
(01:50:43)
Well, I would flip it around and say anyone who seeks to shut that down by focusing on a supermarket video of four minutes versus a two hour and 15 minute long interview with a world leader, anyone who doesn’t want more conversation, who wants fewer facts, fewer perspectives is totalitarian, and probably doesn’t have good intent. I mean, I can honestly say for all my many manifold faults, I’ve never tried to make people shut up. It’s not in me, I don’t believe in that.
Lex Fridman
(01:51:14)
So Putin’s folks have shown interest for quite a while to speaking with me. So you’ve spoken with him, what advice would you give?
Tucker Carlson
(01:51:26)
Oh, do it immediately. How’s your Russian, by the way?
Lex Fridman
(01:51:26)
Fluent.
Tucker Carlson
(01:51:30)
Have you kept up with it?
Lex Fridman
(01:51:31)
Yeah, fluent, so it would most likely be in Russian. So that’s the other thing is I do have a question about language barrier, was it annoying?
Tucker Carlson
(01:51:41)
It’s horrible. I mean, I don’t have much of a technique as an interviewer other than listen really carefully, that’s my only skill. I don’t have the best questions, I certainly don’t have the best questions. All I do that I’m proud of and that I think works is I just listen super carefully. I never let a word go by that I’m not paying… It exhausts me, actually. But you can’t do that in a foreign language because there’s a delay. And here, I’m just whining. But it’s real.
Lex Fridman
(01:52:11)
It’s not whining. Can you actually describe the technical details of that? Are you hearing concurrently at the same time?
Tucker Carlson
(01:52:20)
Yes, but there’s a massive lag. So what’s happening is… So the translators… So we were of course extremely uptight about the logistical details. So we brought our own cameraman who I’ve been around the world with, who worked at Fox, came with me now, amazing. And he did our cameras, lighting, everything, we had full control of that, and we had control of the tape. The Russians also had their own cameras, and I don’t know what they did with it. But we had full control of that, and we brought our own translator. We got our own translator, because I don’t trust anyone. So I think we had a good translator, we had two of them actually, because they get exhausted.

(01:53:01)
But the problem is, from my perspective, as someone who’s trying to think of a follow-up and listen to the answer, Putin will talk, and you can in part of your ear hear the Slavic sounds, and then over that is a guy with a Slavic accent speaking English. And then you can hear Putin stop talking, and then this guy’s answer goes on for another 15, 20 seconds. So it’s super disconcerting, and it’s really hard.

(01:53:28)
And the other thing is, it doesn’t matter how good your translators are. I’m interested in language, I speak only English fluently, but I’m really interested in language, and I work in language. It doesn’t matter how good your translator is, in literature and in conversation you miss so much if the language is moving… I mean, you see this in Bible study, you see it in Dostoevsky, you see it everywhere. If you don’t speak Aramaic, Hebrew, Russian, you’re not really getting… I mean, even in romance languages. I like Balzac, who obviously wrote in French. You read Père Goriot, it’s an amazing novel, hilarious, and you’re not really getting it. And it’s not that French and English are not that far apart. Russian, what?
Lex Fridman
(01:54:22)
Plus conversation. So the chemistry of conversation, the humor, the wit, the play with words, all this [inaudible 01:54:29].
Tucker Carlson
(01:54:28)
Exactly. And my understanding of Russian as a lover of Russian literature in English, is that it’s not a simple language at all. The grammar’s complex, there’s a lot that’s expressed that will be lost in the translation. So yes, I mean, the fact that you speak native Russian, I mean, I would run, not walk to that interview because I think it would just be amazing. You would get so much more out of it than I did.
Lex Fridman
(01:54:53)
And we should say that you’ve met a lot of world leaders, both Zelenskyy and Putin are intelligent, witty, even funny. So there’s a depth to the person that could be explored through a conversation just on that element, the linguistic element.
Tucker Carlson
(01:55:09)
For sure. And Putin speaks decent English, I spoke to him in English, so I know that, but he’s not comfortable with it at all. But Zelenskyy is, I think,
Lex Fridman
(01:55:18)
No, he is… Well, he’s better than Putin at English, but the humor, the wit, the intelligence, all of that is not quite there in English. He says simple points, but the guy’s a comedian, and he’s a comedian primarily in Russian, the Russian language. So the Ukrainian language is now used mostly primarily as a kind of symbol of independence.
Tucker Carlson
(01:55:42)
I’m aware of that, it’s a political decision. No, I know.
Lex Fridman
(01:55:45)
Really his native language is Russian language.
Tucker Carlson
(01:55:48)
Of course, as a lot of people in Ukraine.
Lex Fridman
(01:55:49)
But you can also understand his position, that he might not want to be speaking Russian publicly. That’s something I’ve…
Tucker Carlson
(01:55:54)
I don’t think they’re allowed to speak in Russian in some places in Ukraine. That’s one of the reasons that Russia was so mad, is that they were attacking language. And that’s a fair complaint, like, “What?” And by the way, if you haven’t been to Moscow in a while, you should see it, and you will pick up a million things that were invisible to me, and you should assess it for yourself. And my strong advice would be, even if you don’t interview Putin, go over there, spend a week there, and assess what you think. I mean, how restricted does the society feel? I mean, it would take a lot of balls to do this because… I mean, whatever you decide, you will be sucked into conversations that have nothing to do with you, political conversations. You’re obviously not a political activist, you’re an interviewer. But I think it would be so interesting.
Lex Fridman
(01:56:41)
But for an interview itself, is there advice you have about how to carry an interview? It is fundamentally different when you do it in the native language.
Tucker Carlson
(01:56:50)
Yes, I mean, I think I approached… And maybe I did it incorrectly, but this was the product of a lot of thought. I was coming into that interview aware that he hadn’t given an interview at all with anybody since the war started. So I had a million different questions, and as noted, I didn’t ask them because I just wanted to focus on the war. But I mean, there’s so many… I’ll send you my notes that I wrote, I was like a diligent little girl.
Lex Fridman
(01:57:18)
That would be amazing, but I think…
Tucker Carlson
(01:57:20)
All these questions, and some of them I thought were pretty funny.
Lex Fridman
(01:57:25)
In your case, I think the very fact of the interview was the most important thing.
Tucker Carlson
(01:57:29)
Yeah, that’s probably right. The question that I really wanted to ask that I was almost going to ask, because it made me laugh out loud. I was sitting drinking coffee beforehand with my producers, and I was like, “I’m going to go in there. My first question is going to be, Mr. President, I’ve been here in the Kremlin for two days preparing, and I haven’t seen a single African-American in a position of power in the Kremlin.” I thought that’s too culturally specific and dry. And he’d be like, “This guy’s freaking crazy.”
Lex Fridman
(01:57:59)
Yeah, you don’t want to open with humor.
Tucker Carlson
(01:58:03)
I know.
Lex Fridman
(01:58:03)
All right.
Tucker Carlson
(01:58:03)
Doesn’t translate.
Lex Fridman
(01:58:05)
It doesn’t. Oh, yeah, and there’ll be a small delay where you have to wait for the joke, to see if it lands or not.
Tucker Carlson
(01:58:10)
Like, “What? This is not America.”

Nuclear war

Lex Fridman
(01:58:12)
At Fox, you were for a time the most popular host. After Fox you’ve garnered a huge amount of attention as well, same, probably more. Do you worry that popularity and just that attention gets to your head, is a kind of drug that clouds your thinking?
Tucker Carlson
(01:58:33)
You think? I live in a spiritual graveyard of people killed by the quest for fame. Yes, I have lived in it. I mean, I would say the two advantages I have. One, I Have a happy family, and a stable family, and a stable group of friends, which is just the greatest blessing, and a strong love of nature that my family shares. So I’m in nature every day. And I have a whole series of rituals designed to keep me from becoming the asshole that I could easily become. But no, of course, I mean, that’s what I… And I don’t want to beat up on… I’m grateful to Elon who gave me a platform, and I mean that sincerely. But I definitely don’t spend a lot of time on social media or on the internet, for that exact reason. Well, first of all, I think it’s, as I’ve said, a much more controlled environment than we acknowledge, and I don’t want lies in my head. But I also don’t want to become the sort of person who’s seeking the adulation of strangers, I think that’s soul poison.

(01:59:42)
And I said earlier that I think that the desire for power and money will kill you, and I believe that, and I’ve seen it a lot. But I also think the desire for the love of people you don’t know is every bit as poisonous, maybe more so. And so, yes. And it’s not just because I’ve obviously spent most of my life in public. And in fact, I don’t spend my life in public, and I’m a completely private person. But professionally, I’ve spent my life in public. It’s not just that, it’s social media makes everybody into a cable news host. And we were talking off the air, my new… I’m obsessed with this. I don’t know enough about it, but here’s what I do know. South Korea, amazing country, great people. I grew up around Koreans, probably no group, if I can generalize about a group, that I like more than Koreans, are just smart, funny, honest, brave. I really like Koreans, I always have, my whole life, growing up in sunny California with Koreans.

(02:00:39)
South Korea is dying, it’s literally dying. It’s way below replacement rate in fertility, its suicide rate is astronomical. Why is that? It’s a rich country. Of course, I don’t know the answer. But I suspect it has something to do with the penetration of technology into South Korean society, is I think certainly one of the highest in the world, people live online there. And there was a belief for a bunch of reasons in South Korea that western technology would be a liberating progressive force, and I think it’s been the opposite. It’s my sense, strong sense. And I think it’s true in this country too. And I don’t understand how people can ignore the decline in life expectancy or the rise in fentanyl use. It’s not just about China shipping precursor chemicals to Mexico, it’s like, “Why would you take that shit?”
Lex Fridman
(02:01:28)
I hope those two things aren’t coupled, technological advancement and the erosion…
Tucker Carlson
(02:01:33)
Well, let me ask you… And I know you’re a technologist and I respect it, and there’s a lot about technology that I like and have benefited from. I had back surgery and it worked. Okay, so I’m not against all technology. But can you name a big technology in the last 20 years that we can say conclusively has improved people’s lives?
Lex Fridman
(02:01:52)
Well, conclusive is a tough thing.
Tucker Carlson
(02:01:54)
Pretty conclusively, that we can brag about.
Lex Fridman
(02:01:58)
Well, you’ve criticized Google search recently, but I think making the world knowledge accessible to anyone anywhere across the world through Google search.
Tucker Carlson
(02:02:08)
Well, I love that, I love that idea. Are people better informed or are they more superstitious and misled than they were 20 years ago? It’s not close.
Lex Fridman
(02:02:17)
Well, no, I don’t know, I think they are more informed. It’s just revealing the ignorance. The internet has revealed ignorance that people have, but I think the ignorance has been decreasing gradually. And if you look, you can criticize places like Wikipedia a lot, and very many aspects of Wikipedia are very biased. But most of it are actually topics that don’t have any bias in them, because they’re not political or so on, there’s no battle over those topics. And most of Wikipedia is the fastest way to learn about a thing.
Tucker Carlson
(02:02:49)
I couldn’t agree more. You can very quickly imagine… You’re an expert, and that may be the problem, I think. No, I just experienced it in Moscow. Again, I feel like I’m in the top 1% for information, certainly intake, because it’s my job. And I had literally… And I’m always out of the country, I’ve been around the world many times. I feel like I know a lot about the rest of the world, or I thought I did. And how did I not know any of that? And maybe I’m just unusually ignorant or something, or reading the wrong things. I don’t know what it was, but all I know is the digital information sources that I use to understand just something as simple as, what’s the city of Moscow like? Were completely inadequate. And anyway, look, I just am worried that we’re missing the obvious signs. And the obvious signs are reproduction, life expectancy, sobriety. If you have a society where people just can’t deal with being sober, don’t want to have children, and are dying younger, you have a suicidal society.
Tucker Carlson
(02:04:00)
…An extremely sick, you have a suicidal society. And I’m not even blaming anyone for it. I’m just saying objectively that is true. And the measure of a health of your society is the number of children that you have and how well they do. It’s super simple. That’s the next generation. We all die and what replaces us? And if you don’t care, then you’re suicidal. And maybe other things too. But that’s all I’m saying. So what happened to South Korea? Why can’t anyone answer the question? They’re great people, they’re rich, they have all these advantages. They’re on the cutting edge of every American… For a foreign country, they’re more American than maybe any other country other than Canada. And what happened?
Lex Fridman
(02:04:45)
And I mean, your fundamental worry is the same kind of thing might be happening or will happen in the United States.
Tucker Carlson
(02:04:50)
Well, let me just ask you this. I think North Korea seems like the most dystopian, horrible place in the world, right? Obviously it’s a byword for dystopia, right? North Korean. I use it all the time. And I mean it. If in a hundred years there are more North Koreans still alive than there are South Koreans, what does that tell us?
Lex Fridman
(02:05:09)
Yeah, that’s something to worry about. But also-
Tucker Carlson
(02:05:11)
But how did it happen? But why? I’m interested in the why. This is a question I asked Putin. Sometimes we don’t know why, but why does no one ask why?
Lex Fridman
(02:05:20)
I’ve seen a lot of increased distrust in science, which is deserved in many places. It just worries me because some of the greatest inventions of humanity come from science and technological innovation.
Tucker Carlson
(02:05:35)
Okay, then let me ask you a couple quick questions and perhaps you have the answer. I’ve always assumed that was true. And I should say that when I was a kid, I lived in La Jolla, California, next to the Salk Institute named after Jonas Salk, a resident of La Jolla, California, who created the polio vaccine and saved untold millions. And so my belief, which is still my belief, actually, that’s a great thing. It’s one of the great additions to human flourishing ever. But if technology is so great, why is life expectancy going down? And why are fewer people having kids? And why would anybody who has internet access ever use fentanyl? What is that? What is going on? And until we can answer that question, I think we have to assume the question of whether technology is a net good or a net bad is unresolved at best. Right?
Lex Fridman
(02:06:25)
At best, perhaps. But technology is the very tool which will allow us to have that kind of discourse to figure out to do science better.
Tucker Carlson
(02:06:33)
I mean, I want that to be true. And when you said that the internet allows people to escape the darkness of ignorance, man, that resonated with me because I felt that way in 1993, 4 when it was first starting, and I first got on it and I thought, man, this is amazing. You can talk for free to anyone around the world. This is going to be great. But let me just ask you this. This is something I’ve never gotten over or gotten a straight answer to. Why is it that in any European city, the greatest buildings indisputably were built before electricity and the machine age? Why has no one ever built a medieval cathedral in the modern era ever?
Lex Fridman
(02:07:10)
Well-
Tucker Carlson
(02:07:10)
What is that?
Lex Fridman
(02:07:12)
…Indisputably? You have a presumption. We have a good definition wat beauty is. There’s a lot of people-
Tucker Carlson
(02:07:18)
Right. Let’s be specific. Pick a European city or any city in the world and tell me that there’s a prettier building than say Notre Dame before it was set fire to.
Lex Fridman
(02:07:28)
There’s other sources of prettiness and beauty.
Tucker Carlson
(02:07:30)
Purely in architecture. Of course. Trees are prettier than any building in my opinion. So I agree with you there.
Lex Fridman
(02:07:35)
Well, but also there could be, I grew up in the pre-internet age, but-
Tucker Carlson
(02:07:36)
Good.
Lex Fridman
(02:07:41)
Good. But if you grew up in the internet age, I think your eyes would be more open to beauty that’s digital. That is in a digital-
Tucker Carlson
(02:07:50)
I’m not discounting the possibility of digital beauty at all. And the Ted Kaczynski in me wants to, but that’s too close-minded. I agree. I’m completely willing to believe there is such a thing as digital beauty. I mean, I have digital pictures of my phone, of my dogs and kids. So I know that there is, but purely in the realm of architecture because it’s limited, and it is one of the pure expressions of human creativity. We need places to live and work and worship and eat. And so we build buildings and every civilization has, but the machine age, the industrial age seemed to have decreased the quality and the beauty in that one expression of human creativity, architecture. And why is that?
Lex Fridman
(02:08:35)
Well, I could also argue that I’m a big sucker for bridges and modern bridges can give older bridges a run for their money.
Tucker Carlson
(02:08:44)
I like bridges too. So I agree with you, sort of. But the Brooklyn Bridge… I don’t know that there’s any modern bridges that was built in late-
Lex Fridman
(02:08:54)
19th century.
Tucker Carlson
(02:08:56)
…19th century. Very much in the industrial age. But I’m just saying the great cathedrals of Europe-
Lex Fridman
(02:09:01)
Sure, yeah.
Tucker Carlson
(02:09:02)
Even the pyramids, whoever built them. It seems like it’s super obvious. I’m dealing on the autism level here, just like, well, why is that? But that’s a good way to start. If all of a sudden you have electricity and hydraulics and you have access to… I mean, I have machines in my wood shop at home that are so much more advanced than anything. Any cathedral builder in 15th century Europe had. And yet there’s neither I nor anyone I know could even begin to understand how a flying buttress was built. And so what is that?
Lex Fridman
(02:09:40)
And the other question is also consider that whatever is creating this technology is unstoppable.
Tucker Carlson
(02:09:47)
Well, there’s that.
Lex Fridman
(02:09:48)
And the question is how do you steer it then? You have to look in a realist way at the world and say that if you don’t, somebody else will. And you want to do it in a safe way. I mean, this is the Manhattan Project.
Tucker Carlson
(02:10:02)
Was the Manhattan Project a good idea, to create nuclear weapons? That’s an easy call. No.
Lex Fridman
(02:10:06)
For me, it’s an easy call in retrospect. In retrospect, yes. Because it seems like it stopped world wars. So the mutually assured destruction seems to have ended wars. Ended major military conflict.
Tucker Carlson
(02:10:19)
Well it’s been what, 80 years? Not even 80 years, 79. And so we haven’t had a world war in 79 years. But one nuclear exchange would of course kill more people than all wars in human history combined.
Lex Fridman
(02:10:37)
Your saying 79 makes it sound like you’re counting.
Tucker Carlson
(02:10:40)
I am counting. Because I think it obviously, it’s completely demonic and everyone pretends like it’s great. Nuclear weapons are evil.
Lex Fridman
(02:10:47)
Yeah, no, absolutely.
Tucker Carlson
(02:10:48)
The use of them is evil, and the technology itself is evil. And in my opinion, I mean, it’s like if you can’t, that’s just so obvious. And what I’m saying is I’m not against all technology. I took a shower this morning. It was powered by an electric pump, heated by a water heater. I loved it. I sat in an electric sauna. I’m not against all technology, obviously, but the mindless worship of technology?
Lex Fridman
(02:11:16)
Mindless worship of anything is pretty bad.
Tucker Carlson
(02:11:18)
But I’m just saying, so you said, let’s approach this from a realist perspective. Okay, let’s. If we think that there is a reasonable or even a potential chance it could happen, maybe on the margins, let’s assign it a 15% chance, that AI, for example, gets away from us, and we are now ruled by machines that may actually hate us. Who knows what they want. Why wouldn’t we use force to stop that from happening? So you’re walking down the street in midtown Manhattan, it’s midnight. You’ve had a few drinks, you’re coming from dinner, you’re walking back to your apartment. A guy, a very thuggish looking guy, young man, approaches you. He’s 50 feet away. He pulls out a handgun, he lifts it up to you. You also are armed.

(02:12:02)
Do you shoot him or do you wait to get shot? Because all the data, look, he hasn’t shot you. He’s not committed a crime other than carrying a weapon in New York City. But maybe he’s got a license. You don’t know. It could be legal, but he’s pointing a gun at you. Is it fair to kill him before he kills you, even though you can’t prove that he will kill you?
Lex Fridman
(02:12:22)
If I knew my skills with a gun because he already has the gun out.
Tucker Carlson
(02:12:26)
Right, but it turns out that you have some confidence in your ability to stop the threat by force. Are you justified in doing that?
Lex Fridman
(02:12:33)
I just like this picture. Am I wearing a cowboy hat? No.
Tucker Carlson
(02:12:36)
No. But you are wearing cowboy boots and they’re clicking on the cobblestones. Actually, you’re in the meat packing.
Lex Fridman
(02:12:40)
Okay, great. I like this picture. I’m just, I think about this a lot, no. Yeah, I understand your point. But also I think that metaphor falls apart if there’s other nations at play here. Same as with the nuclear bomb. If US doesn’t build it, will other nations build it? The Soviet Union build it. China or Nazi Germany.
Tucker Carlson
(02:13:08)
We faced this. I mean, we faced this and the last president to try and keep in a meaningful way nuclear proliferation under control was John F. Kennedy. And look what happened to him.
Lex Fridman
(02:13:20)
But what’s your suggestion? Was it inevitable?
Tucker Carlson
(02:13:24)
Well, hold on. Well, their position in 1962 was no, it’s absolutely not inevitable. Or perhaps it’s inevitable in the sense that our death is inevitable as human beings, but we fight against the dying of the light anyway, because that’s the right thing to do. No, we were willing to use force to prevent other countries from getting the bomb because we thought that would be really terrible. We acknowledged that while there were upsides to nuclear weapons, just like there are upsides to AI, the downside was terrifying in the hands of… I mean, that’s the thing that I kind of don’t get. It’s like the applications of that technology in the hands of people who mean to do harm and destroy. It’s so obviously terrifying.
Lex Fridman
(02:14:06)
It’s not so obvious to me. What I’m terrified about is probably similar thing that you’re terrified about, is using that technology to manipulate people’s minds. That’s much more reasonable to me as an expectation, a real threat that’s possible in the next few years.
Tucker Carlson
(02:14:21)
But what matters more than that?
Lex Fridman
(02:14:23)
Well, I think that could lead to destruction of human civilization through other humans, for example, starting nuclear wars.
Tucker Carlson
(02:14:30)
Yeah. Well, I mean, this is one of the reasons I wasn’t afraid in the Vladimir Putin interview. It’s all ending anyway. You know what I mean?
Lex Fridman
(02:14:39)
Yeah. Well-
Tucker Carlson
(02:14:39)
Might as well dance on the deck of the Titanic. Don’t be a pussy. Enjoy it.
Lex Fridman
(02:14:43)
I think we will forever fight against the dying of the light as the entirety of the civilization.
Tucker Carlson
(02:14:49)
Someone the other day said that Biden ascribed that to Churchill. That was a Churchill quote. That’s kind of what I’m saying. It’s like if you live in a society where people don’t read anymore, people are by definition much more ignorant, but they don’t know it. I do think the Wikipedia culture, and I think there are cool things about Wikipedia, certainly its ease of use is high and that’s great, but people get the sense that like, oh, I know a lot about this or that or the other thing. And it’s like the key to wisdom, again, the key to wise decision making is doing what you don’t know. And it’s just so important to be reminded of what a dummy you are and how ignorant you are all the time. That’s why I like having daughters. It’s like it’s never far from mind how flawed I am. And that’s important.
Lex Fridman
(02:15:39)
In the same way I hope to be a dad one day.
Tucker Carlson
(02:15:42)
You should have a ton of kids. Are you going to have a ton of pups?
Lex Fridman
(02:15:44)
Five… Oh pup, you mean kids?
Tucker Carlson
(02:15:46)
Children.
Lex Fridman
(02:15:47)
Yes. But also I’ve been thinking of getting a dog, but unrelated. I would love to have five or six kids. Yeah, for sure.
Tucker Carlson
(02:15:53)
Have you found a victim yet?
Lex Fridman
(02:15:57)
You make it sound so romantic, Tucker.
Tucker Carlson
(02:15:59)
I’m just joking. I love it. No, you should totally do that.
Lex Fridman
(02:16:03)
Yeah, 100%. But also in terms of being humble, I do jiu-jitsu. It’s a martial art where you get your ass kicked all the time.
Tucker Carlson
(02:16:10)
I love that.
Lex Fridman
(02:16:10)
It’s nice to get your ass kicked. Physical humbling is unlike anything else, I think, because we’re kind of monkeys at heart and just getting your ass kicked just really helpful.
Tucker Carlson
(02:16:20)
I agree. I’ve had it happen to me twice.
Lex Fridman
(02:16:23)
Twice is enough.
Tucker Carlson
(02:16:24)
It got me to quit drinking. I was good at starting fights. Not good at winning them, but no, I completely agree with that.

Trump

Lex Fridman
(02:16:31)
Let me ask you, you’ve been pretty close with Donald Trump. Your private texts about him around the 2020 election were made public in one of them. You said you passionately hate Trump. When that came out, you said that you actually no, you love him. So how do you explain the difference?
Tucker Carlson
(02:16:53)
My texts reflect a lot of things, including how I feel at the moment that I sent them. That specific text I happen to know since I had to go through it forensically during my deposition in a case I was not named in. I had nothing to do with whatsoever. It’s crazy how civil suits can be used to hurt people you disagree with politically. But I was mad at a very specific person. I mean, really I, you’re asking me, I’ll tell you exactly what that was. It was the second the election ended and they stopped voting, stopped the vote counting on election night. I was like, well, this is, and it’s all now mail-in ballots and electronic voting machines. I was like, that’s a rigged election. I thought that then, I think now. Now it’s obvious that it was. But at the time I was like, “I feel like that was crazy what just happened”.

(02:17:40)
I want, but I don’t want to go on TV and say that’s a rigged election because I don’t have any evidence it’s a rigged election. You can’t do that. It’s irresponsible and it’s wrong. So I was like, the Trump campaign was making all these claims about this or that fraud. So I was trying my best to substantiate them, to follow up on it. Everyone was like, “Shut up, Trump, you lost. Go away. We’re going to indict you.” But I felt like my job was to be like, no, the guy’s, he’s president, he’s claiming the election just got stolen and he’s making these claims. Let’s see if we can… Well, the people around him were so incompetent. It was just absolutely crazy. And so I called a couple of times, I finally give up, but I’d call and be like, “All right, you guys claim that these inconsistencies and this whatever, this happened, give me evidence and I’ll put it on TV.” It’s my job to bring stuff that is not going to be aired anywhere else to the public. It was insane how incompetent and unserious-
Lex Fridman
(02:18:37)
So they weren’t able to provide like-
Tucker Carlson
(02:18:39)
Here’s the point of the story and of that text. So then they come out and they say, well, dead people voted. Well, that’s just an easy call. If a dead person voted, we can prove someone’s dead. Because being dead is one of the few things we’re good at verifying because you start to smell and there’s a record of it. It’s called the death certificate. So it was like, give me the names of people who are dead who voted, and then we can get their registration and we can show they voted. Five names. So I go on TV and I say this Caroline Johnson, 79 of Waukegan, Illinois voted. Here’s her death certificate. She died. And the campaign sends me this stuff. Now in general, I don’t take stuff directly from campaigns.

(02:19:19)
Because they all lie, because their job is to get elected or whatever. So I’m very wary of campaigns having been around it for 30 years, but I made an exception to my rule and I got a bunch of stuff from them. Well, of the six names, two of them are still alive. What? I immediately corrected it the next night. CNN did a whole segment on how I was spreading disinformation, which I was by the way. In this one case, they were right. I was so mad. I was like, “I hate you. I’m not talking about you. I’m so mad.” Anyway, that’s the answer. That’s what that was.
Lex Fridman
(02:19:56)
Who were you texting to?
Tucker Carlson
(02:19:57)
My producer and I was venting. It’s like a producer I was really close to, and I’ve known him for a long time. He’s really smart. And he’s like, he was someone I could be honest with. And I was like, and by the way, it was so funny. I mean now I’m doing what was me, which I will keep to a minimum, but it’s like stealing someone’s texts? And by the way, I was an idiot. I should have said, “Come and arrest me. I’m not giving you my freaking text messages.”

(02:20:22)
But I got bullied into it by a lawyer… I didn’t get bullied into it. I was weak enough to agree with a lawyer. It was my fault. Never should have done that. “Fuck you. They’re my texts.” I’m not even named in this case. That’s what I should have said, but I didn’t. I said I was mad on the air the next day, but not in language that colorful, but whatever. I try to be transparent. I mean, I also think, by the way, if you watch someone over time, you don’t always know what they really think, but you can tell if someone’s lying. You can sort of feel it in people. And I have lied. I’m sure I’ll lie again. I don’t want to lie. I don’t think I’m a liar. I try not to be a liar. I don’t want to be a liar. I think it’s really important not to be a liar.
Lex Fridman
(02:21:12)
You said nice things about me earlier. I’m starting to question. I have questions. I have a lot of questions, Tucker.
Tucker Carlson
(02:21:18)
I hate Lex Fridman.
Lex Fridman
(02:21:20)
Yeah. I’m going to have to see your texts after this.
Tucker Carlson
(02:21:24)
My texts are so uninteresting now. It’s like crazy how uninteresting they are.
Lex Fridman
(02:21:28)
Emojis and gifs.
Tucker Carlson
(02:21:29)
Yeah, lots of dog pictures.
Lex Fridman
(02:21:30)
Nice. You said some degree the election was rigged. Was it stolen?
Tucker Carlson
(02:21:37)
It was a hundred percent stolen. Are you joking?
Lex Fridman
(02:21:40)
It was rigged to that large of a degree?
Tucker Carlson
(02:21:42)
Yeah. They completely change the way people vote right before the election on the basis of COVID, which had nothing to do with-
Lex Fridman
(02:21:49)
So in that way it was rigged, meaning manipulated.
Tucker Carlson
(02:21:52)
One hundred percent. Then you censor the information people are allowed to get, anyone who complains about COVID… Which is like, by the way, it might’ve hurt Trump. But I mean it’s like whatever. I mean you could play it many different ways. You can’t have censorship in a democracy by definition. Here’s how it works. The people rule. They vote for representatives to carry their agenda to the capitol city and get it enacted. That’s how they’re in charge. And then every few years they get to reassess the performance of those people in an election. In order to do that, they need access, unfettered access to information. And no one, particularly not people who are already in power, is allowed to tell them what information they can have.

(02:22:36)
They have to have all information that they want, whether the people in charge want it or don’t want it or think it’s true or think it’s false, it doesn’t matter. And the second you don’t have that, you don’t have a democracy. It’s not a free election, period. And that’s very clear in other countries, I guess. But it’s not clear here. But I would say it’s this election that… It took me a while to come to this, but it’s this election that’s the referendum on democracy. Biden is senile. He’s literally senile. He can’t talk, he can’t walk. The whole world knows that, leave our borders. Everybody in the world knows it.

(02:23:19)
A senile man is not going to get elected in the most powerful country in the world unless there’s fraud, period. Who would vote for a senile man? He literally can’t talk. And nobody I’ve ever met thinks he’s running the US government because he’s not. And so I think the world is looking on at this coming election and saying… And a lot of the world hates Trump. Okay, it’s not an endorsement of Trump, but it’s just true. If Joe Biden gets reelected, democracy is a freaking joke. That’s just true.
Lex Fridman
(02:23:52)
I think half the country doesn’t think he’s senile, just thinks-
Tucker Carlson
(02:23:52)
Do you really think that?
Lex Fridman
(02:23:56)
…He’s speaking-
Tucker Carlson
(02:23:59)
They don’t think he’s senile?
Lex Fridman
(02:24:00)
Yeah, I think he just has difficulty speaking. It’s like-
Tucker Carlson
(02:24:06)
Why do they think he has difficulty speaking?
Lex Fridman
(02:24:09)
…Gradual degradation. Just getting old. So cognitive ability is degrading.
Tucker Carlson
(02:24:12)
What’s the difference between degraded cognitive ability and senility?
Lex Fridman
(02:24:17)
Well, senility has a threshold of is beyond a threshold to where he could be a functioning leader.
Tucker Carlson
(02:24:23)
That may be a term of art that I don’t fully understand and maybe there’s an IQ threshold or something, but I’m happy to go with degraded cognitive ability.
Lex Fridman
(02:24:32)
Sure. But that’s an age thing.
Tucker Carlson
(02:24:33)
But he’s the leader of the United States with the world’s second-largest nuclear arsenal.
Lex Fridman
(02:24:37)
Yeah, I’m with you. I’m a sucker for great speeches and for speaking abilities of leaders. And Biden with two wars going on and potentially more, the importance of a leader to speak eloquently, both privately in a room with other leaders and publicly is really important.
Tucker Carlson
(02:24:54)
I agree with you that rhetorical ability really matters. Convincing people that your program is right, telling them what we’re for, national identity, national unity, all come from words. I agree with all of that. But at this stage, even someone who grunted at the microphone would be more reassuring than a guy who clearly doesn’t know where he is. And I think everyone knows that. And I can’t imagine there’s an honest person in Washington, which is going to vote for Biden by 90% obviously because they’re all dependent on the federal government for their income. But is there any person who could say, out of 350 million Americans that’s the most qualified to lead, or even in the top 80%, like what? That’s so embarrassing that that guy is our president. And with wars going on, it’s scary.
Lex Fridman
(02:25:40)
But it’s complicated to understand why those are the choices we have.
Tucker Carlson
(02:25:46)
I agree. Well, it’s a failure of the system. Clearly it’s not working. If you’ve got one guy over 80, the other guy almost at 80… People that age he should not be running anything.
Lex Fridman
(02:25:56)
You have on the Democratic side, you have Dean Phillips, you have RFK Jr until recently, I guess he’s independent. And then you have Vivek who are all younger people. Why did they not connect to a degree to where the people vote?
Tucker Carlson
(02:26:11)
It’s such an interesting, I mean, I think it’s a really interesting question. There are a million different answers. And of course I don’t fully understand it even though I feel like I’ve watched it pretty carefully. But I would say the bottom line is there’s so much money vested in the federal apparatus, in the parties, in the government. As I said a minute ago, our economy’s dominated by monopolies but the greatest of all monopolies is the federal monopoly which oversees and controls all the other monopolies.

(02:26:43)
So it’s really substantially about the money. It’s not ideological. It’s about the money. And if someone controls the federal government, I mean at this point, it’s the most powerful organization in human history. It’s kind of hard to fight that. And in the case of Trump, I know the answer there. They raided Mar-a-Lago. They indicted him on bullshit charges. And I felt that in myself too. Even I was like, come on, come on. Whatever you think of Trump… And I agreed with his immigration views and I really like Trump personally. I think he’s hilarious and interesting, which he is. But it’s like, okay, there are a lot of people in this country.

(02:27:21)
At the very least, let’s have a real debate. The second… Messed up your cameras there, sorry, I’m getting excited. But the second they rated Mar-a-Lago on a documents charge, as someone from DC I was like, I know a lot about classification and all this stuff and been around it a lot. That’s so absurd that I was like, now it’s not about Trump, it’s about our system continuing. If you can take out a presidential candidate on a fake charge, use the justice system to take the guy out of the race, then we don’t have a representative democracy anymore. And I think a lot of Republican voters felt that way. If they hadn’t indicted him, I’m not sure he would be the nominee. I really don’t think he would be.
Lex Fridman
(02:28:06)
So now a vote for Trump is a kind of fuck you to the system.
Tucker Carlson
(02:28:09)
Or an expression of your desire to keep the system that we had, which is one where voters get to decide. Prosecutors don’t get to decide. Look, they told us for four years that Trump was a super criminal or something. I’ve actually been friends with some super criminals. I’m a little less judgy than most. So I didn’t discount the possibility that he had… I don’t know. He’s in the real estate business in New York in the seventies. Did he kill someone? I don’t know.
Lex Fridman
(02:28:34)
Yeah.
Tucker Carlson
(02:28:35)
No, I’m not joking. And I’m not for killing people, but anything’s possible.
Lex Fridman
(02:28:39)
It’s good that you took a stand on that.
Tucker Carlson
(02:28:42)
No, I’m not joking. I was like, well, who knows?
Lex Fridman
(02:28:45)
Real estate.
Tucker Carlson
(02:28:46)
And I didn’t know. And what they came up with was a documents charge. Are you joking? And then the sitting president has the same documents violation, but he’s fine. It’s like, it’s just crazy this is happening in front of all of us. And then it becomes… At that point, it’s not about Joe Biden, it’s not about Donald Trump. It’s about preserving a system which has worked not perfectly, but pretty freaking well for 250 years. I know you don’t like Trump. I get it. Let’s not destroy that system. We can handle another four years of Trump. I think we can. Let’s all calm down. What we can’t handle is a country whose political system is run by the Justice Department. That is just, you’re freaking Ecuador at that point. No.
Lex Fridman
(02:29:28)
So speaking of the Justice Department, CIA and intelligence agencies of that nature, which… You’ve been traveling quite a bit, probably tracked by everybody. Which is the most powerful intelligence agency, do you think? CIA, Mossad, MI6, SVR? I could keep going. The Chinese.
Tucker Carlson
(02:29:56)
It depends what you mean by powerful. Which one bats above its weight? We know. Which one-
Lex Fridman
(02:30:06)
Mossad, just to be clear, I guess is what you’re talking about.
Tucker Carlson
(02:30:08)
Well of course. Tiny country, very sophisticated intel service. Which one has the greatest global reach in comms? Which one is most able to read your texts? I assume the NSA, but Chinese are clearly pretty good. Israelis pretty good. The French actually are surprisingly good for kind of a declining country. Their intel services seem pretty impressive. No, I love France, but you know what I mean and all that. But the question… I grew up around all that stuff, that’s all totally fine. A strong country should have a strong and capable intel service so its policymakers can make informed decisions. That’s what they’re for. And so as Vladimir Putin himself noted, I don’t talk about it very much, but it’s true. I applied to the CIA when I was in college because I was familiar with it because of where I lived and had grown up and everything. And I was like, seemed interesting.

(02:30:59)
That’s honestly the only reason. I was like, live in foreign countries, see history happen. I’m for that. I applied to the Operations Directorate. They turned me down on the basis of drug use actually. True. But anyway, whatever. I was unsuited for it so I’m glad they turned me down. But the point is I didn’t see CIA as a threat, partly because I was bathing in propaganda about CIA and I didn’t really understand what it was and didn’t want to know. But second, because my impression at the time was it was outwardly focused. It was focused on our enemies. I don’t have a problem with that as much. The fact that CIA is playing in domestic politics and actually has for a long time, was involved in the Kennedy assassination, that’s not speculation. That’s a fact. And I confirmed that from someone who had read their documents that are still not public, it’s shocking.

(02:31:48)
You can’t have that. And the reason I’m so mad is I really believe in the idea of representative government. Acknowledging its imperfections, but I should have some say, I live here, I’m a citizen. I pay all your freaking taxes. So the fact that they would be tampering with American democracy is so outrageous to me. And I don’t know why Morning Joe is not outraged. This parade of dummies, highly credentialed dummies they have on Morning Joe every day. That doesn’t bother them at all. How could that not bother you? Why is only Glenn Greenwald mad about it? I mean, it’s confirmed. It’s not like a fever dream. It’s real. They played in the last election domestically, and I guess it shows how dumb I am because they’ve been doing that for many years. I mean, the guy who took out Mosaddegh lived on my street. One of the Roosevelts, CIA officer.

(02:32:42)
So I mean, again, I grew up around this stuff, but I never really thought… I never reached the obvious conclusion, which is that if the US government subverts democracy in other countries in the name of democracy, it will over time subvert democracy in my country. Why wouldn’t it? That is, the corruption is like core. It’s at the root of it. The purpose of the CIA was envisioned, at least publicly envisioned, as an intel gathering apparatus for the executive so the president could make wise foreign policy decisions. What the hell is happening in Country X? I don’t know. Let me call the agency in charge of finding out. The point wasn’t to freaking guarantee the outcome of elections.

Israel-Palestine

Lex Fridman
(02:33:27)
I’m doing an Israel Palestine debate next week, but I have to ask you just your thoughts, maybe even from a US perspective, what do you think about Hamas attacks on Israel? What would be the right thing for Israel to do and what’s the right thing for us to do in this? If you’re looking at the geopolitics of it.
Tucker Carlson
(02:33:46)
I mean, it’s not a topic that I get into a lot because I’m a non-expert and because I’m not… Unlike every other American, I’m not emotionally invested in other countries just in general. I mean, I admire them or not, and I love visiting them. I love Jerusalem, probably my favorite city in the world, but I don’t have an emotional attachment to it. So maybe I’ve got more clarity. I don’t know, maybe less. Here’s my view. I believe in sovereignty as mentioned, and I think each country has to make decisions based on its own interest, but also with reference to its own capabilities and its own long-term interest.

(02:34:26)
And it’s very unwise for… I’m not a huge fan of treaties. Some are fine, too many bad. But I think US aid, military aid to Israel and the implied security guarantees, some explicit, but many implied, security guarantees of the United States to Israel probably haven’t helped Israel that much long-term. It’s a rich country with a highly capable population. Like every other country, it’s probably best if it makes its decisions based on what it can do by itself. So I would definitely be concerned if I lived in Israel because I think fair or unfair-
Tucker Carlson
(02:35:00)
Concerned if I lived in Israel because I think, fair or unfair, and really this is another product of technology, social media, public sentiment in that area is boiling over. I think it’s going to be hard for some of the governments in the region, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, to contain their own population. They don’t want conflict with Israel at all. They were all pretty psyched actually for the trend in progress, the Saudi peace deal, which was never signed, but would’ve been great for everybody. Because trade peace, normal relations, that’s good, okay? Let’s just say. I know John Bolton doesn’t like it, but it’s good it, and it’s kind of what we should be looking for.

(02:35:39)
But now it’s not possible. If you had a coalition of countries against Israel, I know Israel has nuclear weapons and has a capable military and all that and the backing of the United States, but it’s a small country, I think I’d be very worried. So there’s that. I don’t see any advantage to the United States. I mean, I think it’s important for each country to make its own decisions.
Lex Fridman
(02:36:09)
But it also is a place, like you said, where things are boiling over and it could spread across multiple nations into a major military conflict.
Tucker Carlson
(02:36:18)
Yeah. Well, I think it very easily could happen. In fact, probably right after Ramadan, if I had to guess. I pray it doesn’t. But again, I don’t think you can overstate the lack of wisdom, weakness, short-term thinking of American foreign policy leadership. These are the architects of the Iraq War, of the totally pointless destruction of Libya, totally pointless destruction of Syria, and the 20-year occupation of Afghanistan that resulted in a return to the status quo, of the Vietnam War. Their track record of the Korean war even going back 80 years is uninterrupted failures, one after the other.

(02:36:59)
So I just don’t have any confidence in those leaders to… When was the last time they improved another country? Can you think of that? Oh, the Marshall Plan. Well, you look at Europe now and you’re like, “I don’t know if that worked.” But even if it did work, again 80 years ago. So when was the last country American foreign policy makers improved? Netanyahu’s in a very difficult place, politically impossible. I mean, I’m glad I’m not Netanyahu, and I’m not sure he’s capable of making wise long-term decisions anyway. But if I was just an Israeli, I’d be like, “I don’t know if I want all this help and guidance.”

(02:37:45)
So yeah, I actually think it’s worse than just having just returned from the Middle East and talking to a lot of pretty open-minded sort of pro-Israeli Arabs who want stability above all. The merchant class always wants stability. So I’m on their side, I guess. They’re like, “Man, this could get super ugly super fast.” American leadership is completely absent. It’s just all posturing. People like Nikki Haley, you just wonder how does an advanced civilization promote someone like Nikki Haley to a position of authority? It’s like what? Adults are talking. Adults are talking. Nikki Haley, please go away.

(02:38:25)
That would be the appropriate response. But everyone’s so intimidated to be like, “Oh, she’s a strong woman.” She’s so transparently weak and sort of ridiculous and doesn’t know anything, and it’s just thinks that jumping up and down and making these absurd blanket statements, repeating bumper stickers just like leadership or something. It’s like a self-confident advanced society would never allow Nikki Haley to advance. I mean, she’s really not impressive. Sorry.
Lex Fridman
(02:38:53)
I just feel like you hold back too much and don’t tell us what you really think.
Tucker Carlson
(02:38:58)
Sorry.
Lex Fridman
(02:38:59)
I think you just speak your mind more often.
Tucker Carlson
(02:39:02)
I mean, you can completely disagree with my opinions, but in the case of Nikki Haley, it’s not like an opinion formed just from watching television, which I don’t watch. It’s an opinion formed from knowing Nikki Haley, so.
Lex Fridman
(02:39:14)
Strong words from Tucker, well felt too.
Tucker Carlson
(02:39:18)
Well, the world’s in the balance. I mean, it’s not just like-
Lex Fridman
(02:39:20)
Yes, yes. This is important stuff.
Tucker Carlson
(02:39:21)
Yeah, it’s not just like, well, what should the capital gains rate be? It’s like, do we live or die? I don’t know. Let’s consult Nikki Haley. So if you’re asking should we live or die and consulting Nikki Haley, clearly you don’t care about the lives of your children. That’s how I feel.

Xi Jinping

Lex Fridman
(02:39:37)
Not to try to get a preview or anything, but do you have interest of interviewing Xi Jinping? If you do, how will you approach that?
Tucker Carlson
(02:39:47)
I have enormous interest in doing that, enormous, and a couple other people and we’re working on it.
Lex Fridman
(02:39:53)
Yeah. I should also say, it’s been refreshing you interviewing world leaders. I think when I’ve started seeing you do that, it made me realize how much that’s lacking.
Tucker Carlson
(02:40:06)
Well, yeah, it’s just interesting. I mean-
Lex Fridman
(02:40:07)
From even a historical perspective, it’s interesting. But it’s also important from a geopolitics perspective.
Tucker Carlson
(02:40:13)
Well, it’s really changed my perspective and I’ve been going on about how American I am, and I think that’s a great thing. I love America. But it’s also we’re so physically geographically isolated from the world, even though I traveled a ton as a kid, a lot, more than most people. But even now I’m like, “I’m so parochial.” I see everything through this lens and getting out and seeing the rest of the world to which we really are connected, that’s real, is vitally important. So yeah. I mean, at this stage I don’t kind of need to do it, but I really want to, just motivated by curiosity and trying to expand my own mind and not be closed-minded and see the fullest perspective I possibly can in order to render wise judgments. I mean, that’s like the whole journey of life.
Lex Fridman
(02:41:06)
I was just hanging out with Rogan yesterday, Joe Rogan. I mentioned to him that as me being a fan of his show, that I would love for him to talk with you and he said he’s up for it. Any reason you guys haven’t done it already.
Tucker Carlson
(02:41:22)
I don’t know. I’ve only met Rogan once and I liked him. I met him at the UFC in New York. He was with somebody, a mutual friend of ours. Rogan changed media. I mean, maybe more than anybody. What I admire about Rogan without knowing him beyond meeting him that one time, I mean, I’m still in media, but I’ve always been in media. It’s not a great surprise. I’m doing what I’ve always done just a different format. But Rogan, he’s got one of those resumes that I admire. I like the guy who was like, “I was a longshoreman. I was a short order cook. I was an astrophysicist.” You know what I mean? You use to call it a man of parts. This guy was a fighter, a stand up comic. He hosted some Fear Factor. How did he wind up at the vanguard of the deepest conversations in the country? How did that happen? So I definitely respect that and I think it’s cool. Rogan is one of those people who just came out of nowhere. No one helped him. You know what I mean?
Lex Fridman
(02:42:31)
He was doing the thing that he loves doing and it somehow keeps accidentally being exceptionally successful.
Tucker Carlson
(02:42:36)
Yeah, and he’s curious. So that’s the main thing. There was a guy, without getting boring, but there was a guy I worked with years ago who kind of dominated cable news, Larry King. Everyone would always beat up on Larry King for being dumb. Well, I got to know Larry King well, and I was his fill in host for a while, and Larry King was just intensely curious. He’d be like, “Why do you wear a black tie, Lex?” You’d be like, “Because I like black tie.” “Why do you like a black tie? Everyone else wears a striped tie, but you wear a black one.” He was really interested.
Lex Fridman
(02:43:01)
Yeah, genuinely so, yeah.
Tucker Carlson
(02:43:02)
Totally. I want to be like that. I don’t want to think I know everything. That’s so boorish and also false. You don’t know everything. But I see that in Rogan. Rogan’s like, “How does that work?”
Lex Fridman
(02:43:15)
100%.
Tucker Carlson
(02:43:16)
It’s so funny how that’s threatening to people. It’s like Rogan will just sit there while someone else is free balling on some far out topic, which by the way might be true, probably truer than the conventional explanation. People are like, “I don’t know, how can he stand that?” He had someone say, “The pyramids weren’t built 3,000 years ago, but 8,000 years ago, and that’s wrong.” It’s like, first of all, how do you know when the pyramids were built? Second, why do you care if someone disagrees with you? What is that?

(02:43:44)
This weird kind of group think, it’s almost like fourth grade, there’s always some little girl in the front row who’s like acting as kind of the teacher’s enforcer. Whip around and be like, “Sit down. Didn’t you hear Mrs. Johnson said sit down.” It’s like the whole American media, “How dare you ask that question?” Rogan just seems like completely on his own trip. He doesn’t even hear it. He’s like, “Well, really where the pyramids built?” I was like, “Oh, I love that.”
Lex Fridman
(02:44:15)
Yeah, curiosity, open-mindedness.
Tucker Carlson
(02:44:17)
Yes.
Lex Fridman
(02:44:17)
The thing I admire about him most, honestly, is that he’s a good father. He’s a good husband. He’s a good family man for many years. That’s his place where he escapes from the world too and it’s just beautiful.
Tucker Carlson
(02:44:31)
Without that man, you’re destroyed.
Lex Fridman
(02:44:33)
Yeah.
Tucker Carlson
(02:44:34)
If I had a wife who was interested at all in any way in what I did, I think I would’ve gone crazy by now. When we get home, she’s like, “How was your day?” “It was great.” “Oh, I’m so proud of you.” That’s the end of our conversation about what I do for a living. That is such a wonderful and essential respite from, you said how do I not become an asshole to the extent I haven’t, I kind of have. How have I not been transformed into a totally insufferable megalomaniac who is checking his Twitter replies every day or every minute? It’s that. Yeah. The core of your life has to be solid and enduring and not just ephemeral and silly.
Lex Fridman
(02:45:14)
So the two of you have known each other for what, 40 years?
Tucker Carlson
(02:45:17)
We’ve been together 40 years.
Lex Fridman
(02:45:19)
Together 40 years.
Tucker Carlson
(02:45:20)
40 years, yeah, 1984. Was the hottest 15-year old in Newport, Rhode Island.
Lex Fridman
(02:45:25)
Wow.
Tucker Carlson
(02:45:26)
It sounds dirty, but I’m talking about myself, I was the hottest.
Lex Fridman
(02:45:29)
[inaudible 02:45:29]. Yeah. You were just looking in the mirror.
Tucker Carlson
(02:45:32)
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(02:45:32)
Very nice. So what’s the secret to successful relationship, successful marriage?
Tucker Carlson
(02:45:38)
I don’t even know. I mean, no, I’m serious. I got married in August ’91, so that’s our 30 year of being married.
Lex Fridman
(02:45:48)
The collapse of the Soviet Union.
Tucker Carlson
(02:45:49)
Yeah, yeah, yeah. As noted. Yeah. So you hear these people, it’s actually changed my theology a little bit. Not that I have deep theology, but I grew up in a society in Southern California when I was little. That was a totally self-created society. I mean, Southern California was that root of libertarianism for a reason. It was like that’s where you went to recreate yourself. So the operative assumption there is that you are the sum total of your choices and that free will is everything. We never consider questions like, well, why do children get cancer? What do they do to deserve it? Well, of course nothing, right? Because that would suggest that maybe you’re not the sum total.

(02:46:31)
Your choices matter. If I smoke a lot, I get lung cancer. If I use fentanyl, I may OD. Got it. If I don’t exercise, I might get fat, okay. But on a bigger scale, you’re not only the sum total of your choices. Things happen to you that you didn’t deserve, good and bad. Marriages, and I’ll speak for myself, in my case, just one of them. I mean, clearly spending time with the person you’re married to, talking, enjoying each other. I have a lot of rituals. We have a lot of rituals that ensure that. But in 40 years, you’re like a different person.

(02:47:09)
I did drugs. I was drinking all the time when we met. It’s been a long time since I’ve done that. I’m very different and so is she, but we’re different in ways that are complementary and happy. We’ve never been happier. So how do we pull that off? Just kind of good luck, honestly. Then I see other people… No, I’m not kidding. But that’s true. I think it’s so important not to flatter yourself if you’ve been successful at something. The thing I’ve been most successful at is marriage, but it’s not really me. I mean, I haven’t-
Lex Fridman
(02:47:41)
So I think what you’re indirectly communicating is it’s like humility, I think.
Tucker Carlson
(02:47:45)
It’s not even humility. Humility is the result of a reality-based worldview, okay?
Lex Fridman
(02:47:49)
Sure, right.
Tucker Carlson
(02:47:50)
Once you see things clearly, then you know that you are not the author of all your successes or failures. I hate the implication otherwise because it suggests powers that people don’t have. It’s one of the reasons I always hated the smoking debate or the COVID debate. Someone die of COVID, didn’t have the vaccine. They’d be like, “See, that’s what you get.” You smoke cigarettes, you die. Well, yeah, if you smoke cigarettes, you’re more likely to get lung cancer. Whatever. Cause and effect is real. I’m not denying its existence. It’s obvious, but it’s not the whole story. There are larger forces acting on us, unseen forces. That’s just a fact. You don’t need to be some kind of religious nut and they act on AI too and you should keep that in mind. The idea that all-
Tucker Carlson
(02:48:36)
It’s missing why you said that.
Tucker Carlson
(02:48:37)
No, it’s true. It’s demonstrably true. We’re the only society that hasn’t acknowledged the truth of that. The idea that the only things that are real are the things that we can see or measure in a lab. That’s insane. That’s just dumb.
Lex Fridman
(02:48:51)
In the religious context, you have this two categories that I really like of the two kinds of people, people who believe they’re God and people who know they’re not, which is a really interesting division that speaks to humility and a kind of realist worldview of where we are in the world.
Tucker Carlson
(02:49:12)
Oh.
Lex Fridman
(02:49:14)
Can atheists be in the latter category?
Tucker Carlson
(02:49:18)
No. There are very few atheists. I’ve never actually met one. There are people who pose as atheists, but no one’s purely rational. Everyone, I mean, this is a cliche for a reason, everyone under extreme stress appeals to a power higher than himself because everyone knows that there is a power higher than himself. So really it’s just people who are gripped with a delusion that they’re God. No one actually believes that. If you’re God, jump off the roof of your garage and see what happens. You know what I mean? No one actually thinks that, but people behave as if it’s true, and those people are dangerous. I will say by contrast, the only people I trust are the people who know their limits.

(02:49:59)
I was thinking actually this morning in my sauna, of all the people I’ve interviewed or met, this is someone I’ve never interviewed, but I have talked to him a couple of times, the greatest leader I’ve ever met in the world is literally a king. It’s MB Sheikh Mohammed of Abu Dhabi, who is Muslim. I’m definitely not Muslim. I’m Christian, Protestant Christian. So I don’t agree with his religion and I don’t agree with monarchies, but he’s the best leader in the world that I’ve ever met, and by far, it’s not even close. Why is that? Well, I could bore you for an hour on the subject, but the reason that he’s such a good leader is because he’s guided by an ever-present knowledge of his limitations and of the limits of his power and of his foresight.

(02:50:53)
When you start there, when you start with reality, it’s not even humility. Humility can be a pose like, “Oh, I’m so humble.” Okay, humble brag is a phrase for a reason. It’s like way deeper than that’s just like, no, do I have magical powers? Can I see the future? No. Okay. That’s just a fact. So I’m not God, but I’ve never seen anybody more at ease with admitting that than MBZ, just a remarkable person. For that reason, he is treated as an oracle. I don’t think people understand the number of world leaders who traipse through his house or palace to seek his counsel. I’m not sure that there is a parallel since, I don’t want to get too hyperbolic here, but honestly, since Solomon, where people come from around the world to ask what he thinks.

(02:51:46)
Now, why would they be doing that? Because Abu Dhabi’s military is so powerful? I mean, he’s rich, okay, massive oil and gas deposits, but so is Canada. You know what I mean? No one is coming to Ottawa to ask Justin Trudeau what he thinks. No, it’s humility. That’s where wisdom comes from. You start to think, I spent my whole life mad at America’s leadership class, because it’s not just Biden or the people in official positions, it’s the whole constellation of advisors and throne sniffers around them. It’s not even that I disagree with them. It’s I’m not impressed by them. I’m just not impressed. They’re not that capable, right? So that’s what I was saying about Nikki Haley. I don’t think Nikki Haley’s the most evil person in the world. I just think she’s ridiculous, obviously. Everyone’s like, “Oh, Nikki Haley or Mike Pompeo.” What?
Lex Fridman
(02:52:40)
Great leaders are so rare that when you see one, you know it right away.
Tucker Carlson
(02:52:44)
It blows your mind. What blows my mind about Sheikh Mohammed in Abu Dhabi is that everyone in the world knows it. I’ve never seen a story on this, and I’m not guessing, I know this is true because I’ve seen it. Everyone in the world knows it. So if there’s a conflict, he’s the only person that people call. Everybody calls the same guy. It’s like he runs this tiny little country, the UAE, in Abu Dhabi there are a bunch of Emirates, but he’s the president of the country, but still, and it’s got a ton of energy and all that wealth and all that. Dubai’s got great real estate and restaurants, but really it’s a tiny little country that wasn’t even a country 50 years ago. So how did that happen? Purely on the basis of his humility and the wisdom that results from that humility. That’s it.

Advice for young people

Lex Fridman
(02:53:34)
What advice would you give to young people? You got four, you somehow made them into great human beings. What advice would you give people in high school?
Tucker Carlson
(02:53:43)
Have children immediately.
Lex Fridman
(02:53:45)
Oh that.
Tucker Carlson
(02:53:45)
Including in high school? Yes, I think that. That’s all that matters in the end. Again, these aren’t even cliches anymore because no one says them. But when I was a kid, people always say, “On your deathbed, you never wish you’d spent more time at work.” I mean, everyone said that. It was like one of these things. Now, I don’t think Google allows you to say that. It’s like, “No, you’re going to wish you spent more time at work. Get back to your cube.” But I can’t overstate from my vantage how true that is. Nothing else matters but your family.

(02:54:20)
If you have the opportunity, and a lot of people are being denied the opportunity to have children, and this messing with the gender roles, and I’m not even talking about the tranny stuff, I mean, feminism has so destroyed people’s brains and the ability of young people to connect with each other and stay together and have fruitful lives. It’s like nothing’s been more destructive than that. It’s such a lie. It’s so dumb. It’s counter to human nature, and nothing counter to human nature can endure. It can only cause suffering and that’s what it’s done. But fight that. Stop complaining about it. Find someone.

(02:54:54)
By the way, everyone gets together, or most people get together on the basis, in a Western society where there’s no arranged marriages, they get together on a basis of sexual attraction. Totally natural. Get off your birth control and have children. “Oh, I can’t afford that.” Well, yeah, you’ll figure out a way to afford it once you have kids. It’s like it’s chicken in the egg, but it’s actually not. When you have responsibility, when you have no… This is true of men, I’m not sure if true of women, but it’s definitely true of men, you will not achieve until you have no choice. Because I always think of men, men do nothing until they have to, but once they have to, they will do anything. That is true.

(02:55:32)
Men will do nothing unless they have to. But once they have to, they will do anything. I really believe that from watching and from being one. I would never have done anything if I didn’t have to, but I had to and I would just recommend it. By the way, even if you don’t succeed, even if you’re poor, having spent my life among rich people, I grew up among rich people, I am a rich person. Boy, are they unhappy? Well, that’s clearly not the road to happiness. You don’t want to be a debt slave or starved to death or anything like that, but making a billion dollars, that’s not worth doing. Don’t do that. Don’t even try to do that.

(02:56:03)
If you create something that’s beautiful and worth having and you make a billion dollars, okay, then you have to deal with your billion dollars, which will be the worst part of your life, trust me. But seeking money for its own sake is a dead end. What you should seek for its own sake is children. Talk about a creative act. Last thing I’ll say, the whole point of life is to create, okay? The act of creation, which is dying in the West, in the arts and in its most pure expression, which is children, that’s all that’s worth doing while you’re alive is creating something beautiful. Creating children, by the way, it’s super fun. It’s not hard. I can get more technical off the earth if you want.
Lex Fridman
(02:56:42)
Can you? Yeah, please.
Tucker Carlson
(02:56:43)
I have a lot of thoughts on it.
Lex Fridman
(02:56:44)
Do you have documents or something?
Tucker Carlson
(02:56:45)
No, I can draw you a schematic.
Lex Fridman
(02:56:48)
Oh, thank you.
Tucker Carlson
(02:56:49)
But yeah, that’s the greatest thing. The fact that corporate America denies, “Oh, freeze your eggs. Have an abortion.” What? You’re evil. Are you kidding? Because you’re taking from people the only thing that can possibly give them enduring joy. They are successfully taking it from people, and I hate them for it.
Lex Fridman
(02:57:08)
You founded TCN, Tucker Carlson Network.
Tucker Carlson
(02:57:11)
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(02:57:11)
What’s your vision for it?
Tucker Carlson
(02:57:12)
I have no vision for myself, for my career, and I never have. So I’m the last person to explain.
Lex Fridman
(02:57:19)
You just roll with it.
Tucker Carlson
(02:57:19)
Yeah, I’m an instinct guy, 100%. I have a vision for the world, but I don’t have a vision for my life, for my career. So really my vision extended precisely this far, I just want to keep doing what I’m doing. I just want to keep doing what I’m doing. There was a five hour period where I wondered if I would be able to, because I feel pretty spry and alert, and I’m certainly deeply enjoying what I’m doing, which is talking to people and saying what I think and learning, constantly learning. But I just wanted to keep doing that and I also wanted to employ the people who I worked with at Fox. I’ve worked with the same people for years, and I love them. So I had all these people and I wanted to bring them with me so we had to build a structure for that.
Lex Fridman
(02:58:06)
But this feels like one of the first times you’re really working for yourself. There’s an extra level of freedom here.
Tucker Carlson
(02:58:12)
Totally, totally. You don’t want me doing your taxes. I’m good at some things, but I’m really not good at others, so. One of them would be running a business. No idea. I’m not interested, not a commerce guy, so I don’t buy anything. So it’s like the whole thing I’m not good at. But luckily, I’m really blessed to have friends who are involved in this who are good at that. So I feel positive about it, but mostly I am totally committed to only doing the things that I am good at and enjoy and not doing anything else because I don’t want to waste my time. So I’m just getting to do what I want to do and I’m really loving it.

Hope for the future

Lex Fridman
(02:58:53)
What hope, positive hope do you have for the future of human civilization in say 50 years, 100 years, 200 years?
Tucker Carlson
(02:59:01)
People are great just by their nature. I mean, they’re super complicated, but I like people. I always have liked people. If I was sitting here with Nikki Haley, who I guess I’ve been pretty clear I’m not a mega fan of Nikki Haley’s, I would enjoy it. I’ve never met anybody I couldn’t enjoy on some level given enough time. So as long as nobody tampers with the human recipe, the human nature itself, I will always feel blessed by being around other people. That’s true around the world. I’ve never been to a country, and I’ve been to scores of countries, where I didn’t, given a week, really like it and the people. So yeah, bad leaders are a recurring theme in human history. They’re mostly bad, and we’ve got an unusually bad set right now, but we’ll have better ones at some point. One thing I don’t like more than nuclear weapons and more than AI, the one thing that really, really bothers me is the idea of using technology to change the human brain permanently. Because you’re tampering with the secret sauce. You’re tampering with God’s creation, and totally evil. I mean, I literally sat there the other day with Klaus Schwab. I was with Klaus Schwab. He was like a total moron, like 100 years old and has no idea what’s going on in the world. But he’s one of these guys who, speaking of mediocre, everyone’s so afraid of Klaus Schwab, I don’t think Klaus Schwab is going to be organizing anything. Again, he’s just like a total figurehead, like a douchebag.

(03:00:40)
But anyway, but he was talking and he’s reading all these talking points, all the cool kids are talking about Adapos and whatever, and he starts talking about it in his way, his accent, he was saying, “I think it’s so important that we follow an ethical way, always in an ethical way, of course, very ethical. I’m a very ethical man, that we follow using technology to improve the human mind and implant the chips in the brain.” I’m like, “Okay, you have no idea what you’re talking about. You’re as senile as Joe Biden.” But what was so striking is that no one in the room is like, “Wait, what? You’re with people’s brains. Oh my God. What are you even talking about? Who do you think you are?”
Lex Fridman
(03:01:26)
I mean, you’re right, the secret sauce. The human mind is really special. We should not mess with it.
Tucker Carlson
(03:01:26)
It’s all that matters, dude.
Lex Fridman
(03:01:32)
We should be very careful. Whatever special thing it does, it seems like it’s a good thing. Human beings are fundamentally good. These sources of creativity, the creative force in the universe we don’t want to mess with.
Tucker Carlson
(03:01:48)
Oh, I mean, what else matters? I don’t understand. I mean, I guess, look, I don’t want to seem like the Unabomber and I’m not.
Lex Fridman
(03:01:59)
We are in a cabin in the woods.
Tucker Carlson
(03:02:00)
No. Well, I’m sympathetic to some of his ideas, but not of course sending mail bombs to people because I like people and I don’t believe in violence at all. But I think the problem with technology, one of the problems with technology is the way that people approach it in a very kind of mindless heedless way. I think it’s important, this idea that it’s inexorable and we can’t control it, and if we don’t do it, someone else will. There’s some truth in that, but it’s not the whole story. We do have free will and we are creating these things intentionally, and I think it’s incumbent on us, it’s a requirement, of a moral requirement of us that we ask, is this a net gain or a net loss? What, to the extent we can foresee them, will the effects be, et cetera, et cetera?

(03:02:46)
It’s not super complicated. So I prize long-term thinking. I don’t always apply to my own life, obviously. I want to, but I prize it. I think that people with power should think about future generations and I don’t see that kind of thinking at all. They all seem like children to me, and don’t give children handguns because they can hurt people.
Lex Fridman
(03:03:07)
Fundamentally, you want people in power to be pro-humanity.
Tucker Carlson
(03:03:11)
By the way, you don’t want people who are 81 who are going to die anyway. Why do they care? By the way, if your track record with your own family is miserable, why would I give you my family to oversee? Again, these are autistic level questions that someone should answer.
Lex Fridman
(03:03:28)
Well, thank you for asking those questions, first of all, and thank you for this conversation. Thank you for welcoming me to the cabin in the woods.
Tucker Carlson
(03:03:38)
Thank you.
Lex Fridman
(03:03:40)
Thanks for listening to this conversation with Tucker Carlson. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. Now, let me leave you with some words from Mahatma Gandhi. When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Think of it, always. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.

Transcript for Bill Ackman: Investing, Financial Battles, Harvard, DEI, X & Free Speech | Lex Fridman Podcast #413

This is a transcript of Lex Fridman Podcast #413 with Bill Ackman.
The timestamps in the transcript are clickable links that take you directly to that point in
the main video. Please note that the transcript is human generated, and may have errors.
Here are some useful links:

Table of Contents

Here are the loose “chapters” in the conversation.
Click link to jump approximately to that part in the transcript:

Introduction

Bill Ackman
(00:00:00)
The only person who’ll cause you more harm than a thief with a dagger is a journalist with a pen.
Lex Fridman
(00:00:06)
The following is a conversation with Bill Ackman, a legendary activist investor who has been part of some of the biggest and at times, controversial trades in history. Also, he is fearlessly vocal on X, FKA Twitter, and uses the platform to fight for ideas he believes in. For example, he was a central figure in the resignation of the President of Harvard University, Claudine Gay, the saga of which we discuss in this episode. This is the Lex Fridman podcast to support it. Please check out our sponsors in the description. And now to you, friends, here’s Bill Ackman.

Investing basics


(00:00:47)
In your lecture on the basics of finance and investing, you mentioned a book, Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham, as being formative in your life. What key lesson do you take away from that book that informs your own investing?
Bill Ackman
(00:01:00)
Sure. Actually, it was the first investment book I read, and as such, it was kind of the inspiration for my career and a lot of my life. So important book. Bear in mind, this is sort of after the Great Depression, people lost confidence investing in markets, World War II, and then he writes this book. It’s for the average man, and basically he says that you have to understand the difference between price and value. Price is what you pay, value is what you get. And he said the stock market is here to serve you, and it’s a bit like the neighbor that comes by every day and makes you an offer for your house. It makes you a stupid offer, you ignore. It makes you a great offer, you can take it. And that’s the stock market.

(00:01:44)
And the key is to figure out what something’s worth and you have to kind of weigh it. He talked about the difference between… He said the stock market in the short term is a voting machine. It represents speculative interests, supply and demand of people in the short term. But in the long term, the stock market’s a weighing machine, much more accurate. It’s going to tell you what something’s worth. And so if you can define what something’s worth, then you can really take advantage of the market because it’s really here to help you. And that’s kind of the message of the book.
Lex Fridman
(00:02:14)
In that same way, there’s a kind of difference between speculation and investing.
Bill Ackman
(00:02:18)
Yeah, speculation is just a bit like trading crypto, right? You’re-
Lex Fridman
(00:02:25)
Strong words.
Bill Ackman
(00:02:27)
Well, short-term trading crypto. Maybe in the long run there’s intrinsic value, but many investors in a bubble going into the crash were really just pure speculators. They didn’t know what things were worth, they just knew they were going up. That’s speculation. And investing is doing your homework, digging down, understanding a business, understanding the competitive dynamics of an industry, understanding what management’s going to do, understanding what price you’re going to pay. The value of anything, I would say, other than love, let’s say, is the present value of the cash you can take out of it over its life. Now, some people think about love that way, but it’s not the right way to think about love. So investing is about basically building a model of what this business is going to produce over its lifetime.
Lex Fridman
(00:03:22)
So how do you get to that, this idea called value investing? How do you get to the value of a thing? Even philosophically, value of anything really but we can just talk about the things that are on the stock market, companies.
Bill Ackman
(00:03:35)
The value of a security is the present value of the cash you can take out of it over its life. So if you think about a bond, a bond pays a 5% coupon, interest rate. You get that, let’s say, every year or twice a year, split in half, and it’s very predictable. And if it’s a US government bond, you know you’re going to get it. So that’s a pretty easy thing to value. A stock is an interest in a business. It’s like owning a piece of a company and a business, a profitable one, is like a bond in that it generates these coupons or these earnings or cashflow every year. The difference with a stock and a bond is that the bond, it’s a contract. You know what you’re going to get as long as they don’t go bankrupt and default. With the stock, you have to make predictions about the business.

(00:04:22)
How many widgets are going to sell this year, how many are going to sell next year, what are the costs going to be? How much of the money that they generate? Do they need to reinvest in the business to keep the business going? And that’s more complicated. But what we do is we try to find businesses where, with a very high degree of confidence, we know what those cash flows are going to be for a very long time. And very few businesses that you can have a really high degree of certainty about. And as a result, many investments are speculations because it’s really very difficult to predict the future. So what we do for a living, what I do for a living is find those rare companies that you can kind of predict what they’re going to look like over a very long period of time.
Lex Fridman
(00:05:01)
So what are the factors that indicate that a company is going to be something that’s going to make a lot of money, it’s going to have a lot of value, and it’s going to be reliable over a long period of time? And what is your process of figuring out whether a company is or isn’t that?

Investing in music

Bill Ackman
(00:05:19)
So every consumer has a view on different brands and different companies. And what we look for are these non-disruptively businesses, a business where you can close your eyes, stock market shuts for a decade, and you know that 10 years from now it’s going to be a more valuable, more profitable company. So we own a business called Universal Music Group. It’s in the business of helping artists become global artists, recorded music business, and it’s in the business of owning the music publishing rights of songwriters. And I think music is forever, right? Music is a many thousand year old part of the human experience, and I think it will be thousands of years from now. And so that’s a pretty good backdrop to invest in a company. And the company basically owns a third of the global recorded music, the most dominant market share in the business.

(00:06:20)
They’re the best at taking an artist who’s 18 years old, who’s got a great voice, and has started to get a presence on YouTube and Instagram and helping that artist become a superstar. And that’s a unique talent. And the end result is the best artists in the world want to come work for them, but they also have this incredible library of the Beatles, the Rolling Stone, U2, et cetera. And then if you think about what music has become… It used to be about what records and CDs and eight track tapes for those of whom… And it was about a new format and that’s how they drive sales. And it’s become a business which is like the podcast business, streaming. And streaming is a lot more predictable than selling records. You can sort of say, “Okay, how many people have smartphones? How many people are going to have smartphones next year?”

(00:07:12)
There’s a kind of global penetration over time of smartphones. You pay, call it, 10, 11 bucks a month for a subscription or less for a family plan and you can kind of build a model of what the world looks like and predict the growth of the streaming business, predict what kind of market share Universal is going to have over time. You can’t get to a precise view of value. You can get to an approximation. And the key is to buy at a price that represents a big discount to that approximation. And that gets back to Ben Graham. Ben Graham invented this concept of margin of safety. You want to buy a company at a price that if you’re wrong about what you think it’s worth and it turns out to be worth 30% less, you paid a deep enough discount to your estimate that you’re still okay. A big part of investing is not losing money. If you can avoid losing money and then have a few great hits, you can do very, very well over time.
Lex Fridman
(00:08:09)
Well, music is interesting because yes, music’s been around for a very long time, but the way to make money from music has been evolving. Like you mentioned streaming, there’s a big transition initiated by, I guess, Napster, then created Spotify of how you make money on music with Apple and with all of this. And the question is, how well are companies like UMG able to adjust to such transformations? One, I could ask you about the future, which is artificial intelligence being able to generate music, for example.
Bill Ackman
(00:08:43)
Sure.
Lex Fridman
(00:08:43)
There have been a lot of amazing advancements with… So do you have to also think about that. When you close your eyes, all the things you think about, are you imagining the possible ways that the future is completely different from the present and how well this company will be able to surf the wave of that?
Bill Ackman
(00:09:00)
Sure. And they’ve had to surf a lot of waves. And actually the music business peaked the last time in the late ’90s or 2000 timeframe. And that really innovation, Napster, digitization of music, almost killed the industry. And Universal really led an effort to save the industry and actually made an early deal with Spotify that enabled the industry to really recover. And so by virtue of their market position and their credibility and their willingness to kind of adopt new technologies, they’ve kept their position. Now, they of course had this huge advantage because I think the Beatles are forever, I think U2 is forever, I think Rolling Stones are forever. So they had a nice base of assets that were important and I think will forever be, and forever is a long time. Again, enormous… There are all kinds of risks in every business. This is one that I think has a very high degree of persistence.

(00:09:52)
And I can’t envision a world beyond streaming in a sense… Now you may have a Neuralink chip in your head instead of a phone, but the music can come in a digitized kind of format, you’re going to want to have an infinite library that you can walk around in your pocket or in your brain. It’s not going to matter that much of the form factor. The device changes. It’s not really that important whether it’s Spotify or Apple or Amazon that are the so-called DSPs or the providers. I think the value is really going to reside in the content owners. And that’s really the artists and the label.
Lex Fridman
(00:10:32)
And I actually think AI is not going to be the primary creator of music. I think we’re going to actually face the reality that it’s not that music has been around for thousands of years, but musicians and music has been around. We actually care to know who’s the musician that created it, just like we want to know who’s the artist, human artist that created a piece of art.
Bill Ackman
(00:10:59)
I totally agree. If you think about it, there’s lots of other technologies and computers that have been used to generate music over time but no one falls in love with a computer generated track. And Taylor Swift, incredible music, but it’s also about the artist and her story and her physical presence and the live experience. I don’t think you’re going to sit there and someone’s going to put a computer up on stage and it’s going to play and people are going to get excited around it. So I think AI is really going to be a tool to make artists better artists. A synthesizer really created the opportunity for one man to have an orchestra. Maybe a bit of a threat to a percussionist, but not maybe. Maybe it drove even more demand for the live experience.
Lex Fridman
(00:11:57)
Unless that computer has human- like sentience, which I believe is a real possibility. But then it’s really, from a business perspective, no different than a human. If it has an identity, that’s basically fame and an influence, and there’ll be a robot Taylor Swift and it doesn’t really matter-
Bill Ackman
(00:12:14)
That’s a copyrightable asset I would think, right? Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(00:12:18)
And then there’ll-
Bill Ackman
(00:12:18)
I’m not sure that’s the world I’m excited about that.
Lex Fridman
(00:12:21)
That’s a different discussion. The world is not going to ask your permission to become what it’s becoming, but you could still make money on it. Presumably there’d be a capital system and there’d be some laws under which I believe AI systems will have rights that are akin to human rights and we’re going to have to contend with what that means.
Bill Ackman
(00:12:40)
Well, there’s sort of name and likeness rights that have to be protected. Now, can a name be attributed to a Tesla robot? I don’t know.
Lex Fridman
(00:12:50)
I think so. I think it’s quite obvious to me.
Bill Ackman
(00:12:52)
Okay, so those are more potential artists for us to represent at Universal.
Lex Fridman
(00:12:56)
Exactly, exactly. All right.
Bill Ackman
(00:12:57)
That’s sort of one example. Another example could be just the restaurant industry. If you look at businesses like a McDonald’s, it’s… Whatever, the company’s like an 1950 vintage business and here we are, 75 years later, and you can kind of predict what it’s going to look like over time. And the menu’s going to adjust over time to consumer tastes but I think the hamburger and fries is probably forever.
Lex Fridman
(00:13:21)
The Beatles, the Rolling Stones, the hamburger and fries are forever. I was eating at Chipotle last night as I was preparing these notes-
Bill Ackman
(00:13:30)
Thank you. Thank you.
Lex Fridman
(00:13:32)
And yeah, it is one of my favorite places to eat. You said it is a place that you eat. You obviously also invest in it. What do you get at Chipotle?
Bill Ackman
(00:13:41)
I tend to get a double chicken.
Lex Fridman
(00:13:43)
Bowl or burrito?
Bill Ackman
(00:13:45)
I like the burrito, but I generally try to order the bowl. Cut the carb part.
Lex Fridman
(00:13:49)
For health reasons. All right.
Bill Ackman
(00:13:51)
And double chicken, guac, lettuce, black beans.

Process of researching companies

Lex Fridman
(00:13:54)
And I’m more of a steak guy, just putting that on the record. What’s the actual process you go through, literally the process of figuring out what the value of a company is? How do you do the research? Is it reading documents? Is it talking to people? How do you do it?
Bill Ackman
(00:14:16)
All of the above. So Chipotle, what attracted us initially is the stock price dropped by about 50%. Great company, great concept. Athletes love it, consumers love it. Healthy, sustainable, fresh food made in front of your eyes and great… Steve Ells is the founder, did an amazing job, but ultimately the company’s lacking some of the systems and had a food safety issue. Consumers got sick, almost killed the rent. But the reality of the fast food, quick service industry is almost every fast food company has had a food safety issue over time. And the vast majority have survived. And we said, “Look, it’s such a great concept,” but their approach was not… It was far from my deal, but we start with usually reading the SEC filing. So companies file a 10-K or an annual report and they file these quarterly reports called 10-Qs. They have a proxy statement which describes the governance, the board structure.

(00:15:14)
Conference call transcripts are publicly available. It’s very helpful to go back five years and learn the story. “Here’s how management describes their business, here’s what they say they’re going to do,” and you can follow along to see what they do. It’s like a historical record of how competent and truthful they are. It’s a very useful device. And then, of course, looking at competitors and thinking about what could dislodge this company. And then we’ll talk to… If it’s an industry we don’t know well… We know the restaurant industry really well. Music industry, we will talk to people in the industry. We’ll try to understand the difference between publishing and recorded music. We’ll look at the competitors, we’ll read books. I read a book about the music industry or a couple books about the industry.

(00:16:04)
So it’s a bit like a big research project. And these, so-called expert networks now, and you can get pretty much anyone on the phone and they’ll talk to you about an aspect of the industry that you don’t understand, want to learn more about. Try to get a sense… Public filings of companies generally give you a lot of information, but not everything you want to know. And you can learn more by talking to experts about some of the industry dynamics, the personalities. You want to get a sense of management. I like watching podcasts. If a CEO were to do a podcast or a YouTube interview, you get a sense of the people.
Lex Fridman
(00:16:40)
So in the case of Chipotle, for example… By the way, I could talk about Chipotle all day. I just love it. I love it. I wish there was a sponsor.
Bill Ackman
(00:16:48)
I’ll mention it to the CEO.
Lex Fridman
(00:16:50)
Don’t make promises you can’t keep, Bill.
Bill Ackman
(00:16:51)
I’m not making… Brian Nichols a fantastic CEO. He’s not going to spend $1 that he doesn’t think is in the company’s best interest.
Lex Fridman
(00:16:58)
All right. All I want is free Chipotle, come on now. What was I saying? Oh, and so you look at a company like Chipotle and then you see there’s a difficult moment in its history, like you said that there was a food safety issue and then you say, “Okay, well I see a path where we can fix this and therefore even though the price is low, we can get it to where the price goes up to its value.”
Bill Ackman
(00:17:24)
So the kind of business we’re looking for is sort of the kind of business everyone should be looking for, right? A great business, it’s got a long-term trajectory of growth even beyond the foreseeable distance. Those are the kind of businesses you want to own, you want businesses that generate a lot of cash, you want businesses you can easily understand, you want businesses with these sort of huge barriers to entry where it’s difficult for others to compete. You want companies that don’t have to constantly raise capital. And these are some of the great business of the world, but people have figured out that those are the great businesses. So the problem is those companies tend to have very high stock prices and the value is generally built into the price you have to pay for the business.

(00:18:02)
So we can’t earn the kind of returns we want to earn for investors by paying a really high price. Price matters a lot. You can buy the best business in the world and if you overpay, you’re not going to earn particularly attractive returns. So we get involved in cases where a great business has kind of made a big mistake or you’ve a company that’s kind of lost its way, but it’s recoverable. And we buy from shareholders who are disappointed, who’ve lost confidence, selling at a low price relative to what it’s worth if fixed. And then we try to be helpful in fixing the company.

Investing in restaurants

Lex Fridman
(00:18:39)
You said that barriers to entry… You said a lot of really interesting qualities of companies very quickly in a sequence of statements that took less than 10 seconds to say, but some of them were… All of them were fascinating. So you said barriers to entry. How do you know if there’s a type of moat protecting the competitors from stepping up to the plate?
Bill Ackman
(00:19:04)
The most difficult analysis to do as an investor is that, is kind of figuring out how wide is the moat, how much at risk is the business to disruption? And we’re in, I would say, the greatest period of disruptability in history. Technology… A couple of 19 year olds can leave whatever university or maybe they didn’t even go in the first place, they can raise millions of dollars, they can get access to infinite bandwidth storage. They can contract with engineers in low cost markets around the world. They could build a virtual company and they can disrupt businesses that seem super established over time. And then on top of that, you have major companies with multi-trillion dollar market caps working to find profits wherever they can. And so that’s a dangerous world in a way to be an investor. And so you have to find businesses that it’s hard to foresee a world in which they get disrupted.

(00:20:04)
The beauty of the restaurant business… Our best track record is in restaurants. We’ve never lost money. We’ve only made a fortune, interestingly, investing restaurants. A big part of it, it’s a really simple business. If you get Chipotle right and you’re at a hundred stores, it’s not so hard to envision getting to 200 stores and then getting to 500 stores, right? And the key is maintaining the brand image, growing intelligently, having the right systems. Now when you go from a hundred stores to 3,500 stores, you have to know what you’re doing and there’s a lot of complexity. If you think about your local restaurant, the family’s working in the business, they’re watching the cash register, and you can probably open another restaurant across town, but there are very few restaurant operators that own more than a few restaurants and operate them successfully.

(00:20:56)
And the quick service business is about systems and building a model that a stranger who doesn’t know the restaurant industry can come in and enter the business and build a successful franchise. Now, Chipotle is not a franchise company. They actually own all their own stores, but many of the most successful restaurant companies are franchise models like a Burger King, a McDonald’s, Tim Horton’s, all these various brands, Popeyes. And there it’s about systems, but the same systems apply whether you own all the stores and it’s run by a big corporation or whether the owners of the restaurants are sort of franchisees, local entrepreneurs.
Lex Fridman
(00:21:32)
So if the restaurant has scaled to a certain number, that means they’ve figured out some kind of system that works. And it’s very difficult to develop that kind of system. So that’s a moat?
Bill Ackman
(00:21:41)
A moat is you get to a certain scale and you do it successfully and the brand is now the understood by the consumer. And what’s interesting about Chipotle is what they’ve achieved is difficult. They’re not buying frozen hamburgers, getting shipped in. They’re buying fresh, sustainably sourced ingredients. They’re preparing food in the store. That was a first. The quality of the product at Chipotle is incredible. It’s the highest quality food. You can get a serious dinner for under 20 bucks and eat really healthfully and very high quality ingredients. And that’s just not available anywhere else. And it’s very hard to replicate and to build those relationships with farmers around the country. It’s a lot easier to make a deal with one of the big massive food producers and buy your pork from them than to buy from a whole bunch of farmers around the country. And so that is a big moat for Chipotle, very difficult to replicate.
Lex Fridman
(00:22:38)
And by the way, another company, I think, you have a stake in is McDonald’s?
Bill Ackman
(00:22:41)
No. We own a company called Restaurant Brands. Restaurant Brands owns a number of quick service companies, one of which is Burger King.
Lex Fridman
(00:22:47)
Burger King, okay. Well, it’s been a meme for a while, but… Burger King is great too. Wendy’s, whatever. But usually I go McDonald’s, I’ll just eat burger patties. I don’t know if you knew you could do this, but a burger patty… Burger King can do this, McDonald’s. It’s actually way cheaper.
Bill Ackman
(00:23:05)
They’ll just sell you the patty.
Lex Fridman
(00:23:07)
The patty and it’s cheap. It’s like $1.50 or $2 per patty and it’s about 250 calories and it’s just meat. And despite the criticism or memes out there, that’s-
Bill Ackman
(00:23:18)
Pretty healthy stuff.
Lex Fridman
(00:23:19)
It’s healthy stuff. And so the healthiest I feel is when I do carnivore. It doesn’t sound healthy, but if I eat only meat, I feel really good, I lose weight. I have all this energy, it’s crazy. And when I’m traveling, the easiest way to get meat is that.
Bill Ackman
(00:23:34)
So you go to McDonald’s, you order six patties.
Lex Fridman
(00:23:35)
Exactly. So there’s this sad meme of me just sitting alone in a car when I’m traveling, just eating beef patties at McDonald’s. But I love it. And you got to do what you love, what makes you happy, and that’s what makes me happy.
Bill Ackman
(00:23:46)
I think maybe we’ll have Burger King feature in it. What about Flame World? What’s with these fried burgers? We got to get you to Burger King, grilled burgers.
Lex Fridman
(00:23:54)
Wait, is this fast food trash? I don’t know the details of how they’re made. I don’t have allegiance-
Bill Ackman
(00:24:00)
I think we got a chance to switch you to Burger King.
Lex Fridman
(00:24:02)
Great. We’ll see. I’m making so many deals today, it’s wonderful. Okay, you were talking about moats, and this kind of remind me of Alphabet, the parent company.

Investing in Google

Bill Ackman
(00:24:13)
Sure. It’s a big position for us.
Lex Fridman
(00:24:15)
So it’s interesting that you think that maybe Alphabet fits some of these characteristics. It’s tricky to know with everything that’s happening in AI… And I’m interviewing Sundar Pichai soon. It’s interesting that you think that there’s a moat. And it’s also interesting to analyze it because as a consumer, as just a fan of technology, why is Google still around? It’s not just a search engine, it’s doing all the basics of the business of search really well, but they’re doing all these other stuff. So what’s your analysis of Alphabet? Why are you still positive about it?
Bill Ackman
(00:24:53)
Sure. So it’s a business we’ve admired as a firm for, whatever, 15 years, but rarely got to a price that we felt we could own it. Because again, the expectations were so high and price really matters. Really the sort of AI scare, I would call it… Microsoft comes out with ChatGPT, they do an amazing demonstration. People like this most incredible product. And Google, which had been working on AI even earlier, obviously… The Microsoft was behind in AI. It was really their ChatGPT deal that gave them a market presence. And then Google does this fairly disastrous demonstration of Bard and the world says, “Oh my god, Google’s fallen behind in AI. AI is the future.” Stock gets crushed. Google gets to a price around 15 times earnings, which for a business of this quality is an extremely, extremely low price. And our view on Google… One way to think about it, when a business becomes a verb, that’s usually pretty good sign about the moat around the business.

(00:25:55)
So you’d open your computer and you open your search and very high percentage of the world starts with a Google page in one line where you type in your search. The Google advertising, search, YouTube franchise is one of the most dominant franchises in the world. Very difficult to disrupt, extremely profitable. The world is moving from offline advertising to online advertising. And that trend, I think, continues. Why? Because you can actually see whether your ads work. They used to say about advertising, “You spend a fortune and you just don’t know which 50% of it works, but you just sort of spend the money because you know ultimately that’s going to bring in the customer.” And now with online advertising, you can see with granularity which dollars I’m spending… When people click on the search term and end up buying something and I pay, it’s a very high return on investment for the advertiser and they really dominate that business.

(00:26:53)
Now, AI, of course, is a risk. If all of a sudden people start searching or asking questions of ChatGPT and don’t start with the Google search bar, that’s a risk to the company. And so our view, based on work we had done and talked to industry experts, is that Google, by virtue of the investment they’ve made the time, the energy that people put into it, we felt their AI capabilities were, if anything, potentially greater than Microsoft ChatGPT and that the market had overreacted. And because Google is a big company, global business regulators scrutinized it incredibly carefully. They couldn’t take some of the same liberties a startup like OpenAI did in releasing a product. And I think Google took a more cautious approach in releasing an early version of Bard in terms of its capabilities. And that led the world to believe that they were behind.

(00:27:46)
And we ultimately concluded, if anything, they’re tied or ahead and you’re paying nothing for that potential business. And they also have huge advantages by virtue… If you think of all the data Google has, the search data, all the various applications, email and otherwise, and the Google suite of products, it’s an incredible data set. So they have more training data than pretty much any company in the world. They have incredible engineers, they have enormous financial resources. So that was kind of the bet. And we still think it’s probably the cheapest of the big seven companies in terms of the price you’re paying for the business relative to its current earnings. It also is a business that has a lot of potential for efficiency. Sometimes when you have this enormously profitable dominant company… All of the technology companies in the post March ’20 world grew enormously in terms of their teams and they probably overhired.

(00:28:41)
And so you’ve seen the Facebooks of the world and now even Google starting to get a little more efficient in terms of their operation. So we paid a low multiple for the business. One way to think about the value of the business is the price you pay for the earnings or alternatively what’s the yield? If you flip over the price over the earnings, it gives you kind of the yield of the business. So a 15 multiple is about almost a seven and a half percent yield. And that earnings yield is growing over time as the business grows. Compare it to what you can earn lending your money to the government, 4%, that’s a very attractive going in yield.

(00:29:18)
And then there’s all kinds of, what we call, optionality in all the various businesses and investments they’ve made that are losing money. They’ve got a cloud business that’s growing very rapidly, but they’re investing basically a hundred percent of the profits from that business and growth. So you’re in that earnings number, you’re not seeing any earnings from the cloud business, and they’re one of the top cloud players. So very interesting, generally well-managed company with incredible assets and resources and dominance, and it has no debt. It’s got a ton of cash. And so pretty good story.

AI

Lex Fridman
(00:29:51)
Is there something fundamentally different about AI that makes all of this more complicated, which is the exponential possibilities of the kinds of products and impact that AI could create when you’re looking at Meta, Microsoft, Alphabet, Google, all these companies, xAI, or maybe startups? Is there some more risk introduced by the possibilities of AI?
Bill Ackman
(00:30:20)
Absolutely. That’s a great question. Investing is about finding companies that can’t be disrupted. AI is the ultimate disruptable asset or technology. And that’s what makes investing treacherous, is that you own a business that’s enormously profitable, management gets, if you will, fat and happy, and then a new technology emerges that just takes away all their profitability. And AI is this incredibly powerful tool, which is why every business is saying, “How can I use AI in my business to make us more profitable, more successful, grow faster, and also disrupt or protect ourself from the incomings?” It’s a bit like… Buffett talks about a great business is like a cast…
Bill Ackman
(00:31:00)
It’s a bit like Buffett talks about a great business, like a castle surrounded by this really wide moat but you have all these barbarians trying to get in and steal the princess. And it happens. Kodak, for example, was an amazing, incredibly dominant company until it disappeared. Polaroid, this incredible technology. And that’s why we have tended to stay away from companies that are technology companies because technology companies generally… The world is such a dynamic place that someone’s always working on a better version. And Kodak was caught up in the analog film world and then the world changed.
Lex Fridman
(00:31:40)
Well, Google was pretty fat and happy until ChatGPT came out.
Bill Ackman
(00:31:44)
Yes.
Lex Fridman
(00:31:44)
How would you rate their ability to wake up, lose weight, and be less happy and aggressively rediscover their search for happiness?
Bill Ackman
(00:31:55)
I think you’ve seen a lot of that in the last year. And I would say some combination of embarrassment and pride are huge motivators for everyone from Sergey Brin, to the management of the company.
Lex Fridman
(00:32:10)
And Demis Hassabis threw them into the picture and all of DeepMind teams, and the unification of teams and all the shakeups. It was interesting to watch the chaos. I love it. I love it when everybody freaks out. Like you said, partly embarrassment, and partly that competitive drive that drives engineers, is great. I can’t wait to see what… They’ve [inaudible 00:32:31] a lot of improvement in the product, let’s see where it goes. You mentioned management. How do you analyze the governance structure and the individual humans that are the managers of a company?
Bill Ackman
(00:32:42)
So as I like to say, incentives drive all human behavior and that certainly applies in the business world. So understanding the people and what drives them, and what the actual financial and other incentives of a business, are very important part of the analysis for investing in a company. And you can learn a lot… I mentioned before, one great way to learn about a business is go back a decade and read everything that management has written about the business, and see what they’ve done over time. See what they’ve said…

(00:33:12)
Conference calls are actually relatively recent. When I started in the business, there weren’t conference call transcripts. Now you have a written record of everything management has said in response to questions from analysts, at conferences and otherwise. And so just you learn a lot about people by listening to what they say, how they answer questions, and ultimately their track record for doing what they say they’re going to do. Do they under promise and over deliver? Do they over promise and under deliver? Do they say what they’re going to do? Do they admit mistakes? Do they build great teams? Do people want to come work for them? Are they able to retain their talent?

(00:33:51)
And then part of it is how much are they running the business for the benefit of the business? How much are they running the business for the benefit of themselves? And that’s the analysis you do.
Lex Fridman
(00:34:03)
Are we talking about CEO, COO? What does management mean? How deep does it go?
Bill Ackman
(00:34:09)
Sure. Very senior management matters enormously. We use the Chipotle example. Steve Ells, great entrepreneur. Business got to a scale he really couldn’t run it. We helped the company recruit a guy named Brian Niccol, and he was considered the best person in the quick service industry. He came in and completely rebuilt the company. Actually we moved the company, Chipotle was moved to California. And sometimes one way to redo the culture of a company is just to move it geographically, and then you can reboot the business.

(00:34:40)
But a great leader has great followership. Over the course of their career, they’ll have a team they’ve built that will come follow them into the next opportunity. But the key is really the top person matters enormously, and then it’s who they recruit. You recruit an A-plus leader and they’re going to recruit other A- type people. You recruit a B-leader, you’re not going to recruit any great talent beneath them.

Warren Buffet

Lex Fridman
(00:35:06)
You mentioned Warren Buffett. You said you admire him as an investor. What do you find most interesting and powerful about his approach? What aspects of his approach to investing do you also practice?
Bill Ackman
(00:35:19)
Sure. So most of what I’ve learned in the investment business, I’ve learned from Warren Buffett, he’s been my great professor of this business. My first book I read in the business was the Ben Graham Intelligent Investor, but fairly quickly you get to learn about Warren Buffett and I started by reading the Berkshire Hathaway annual reports. And then I eventually got the Buffett partnership letters that you could see, which are an amazing read to go back to the mid 1950s and read what he wrote to his limited partners when he first started out and just follow that trajectory over a long period of time. So what’s remarkable about him is one, duration, right? He’s still at it at 93. Two, it takes a very long-term view, but a big thing that you learn from him investing requires is incredible, dispassionate, unemotional quality. You have to be extremely economically rational, which is not a basic, it’s not something you learn in the jungle.

(00:36:17)
I don’t think it’s something that… If you think about surviving the jungle, the lion shows up and everyone starts running, you run with them. That does not work well in markets. In fact, you generally have to do the opposite, right? When the lemmings are running over the cliff, that’s the time where you’re facing the other direction and you’re running the other direction, i.e, you’re stepping in, you’re buying stocks at really low prices. Buffett’s been great at that and great at teaching about what he calls temperament, which is this sort of emotional or unemotional quality that you need to be able to dispassionately look at the world and say, “Okay, is this a real risk? Are people overreacting?” People tend to get excited about investments when stocks are going up and they get depressed when they’re going down. And I think that’s just inherently human. You have to reverse that. You have to get excited when things get cheaper and you got to get concerned when things get more expensive.

Psychology of investing

Lex Fridman
(00:37:15)
You’ve been a part of some big battles, some big losses, some big wins. It’s been a roller coaster. So in terms of temperament psychologically, how do you not let that break you? How do you maintain a calm demeanor and avoid running with a lemmings?
Bill Ackman
(00:37:36)
I think it’s something you learn over time. A key success factor is you want to have enough money in the bank that you’re going to survive regardless of what’s going on with volatility in markets, people who… One, you shouldn’t borrow money. So if you borrow money, you own stocks on margin, markets are going down and you have your livelihood at risk. It’s very difficult to be rational. So key is getting yourself to a place where you’re financially secure, you’re not going to lose your house. That’s kind of a key thing. And then also doing your homework.

(00:38:15)
Stocks can trade at any price in the short term. And if you know what a business is worth and you understand the management and you know it extremely well, it’s not nearly as… It doesn’t bother you when a stock price goes down or it has much less impact on you because again, as Mr. Graham said, the short term, the markets are voting machine. You have a bunch of lemmings voting one direction that’s concerning. But if it’s a great business, doesn’t have a lot of debt and people are going to just listen to more music next year than this year, you know you’re going to do well. So it’s a bit some combination of being personally secure and also just knowing what you own and over time you build callouses, I would say.
Lex Fridman
(00:38:58)
So psychologically, just as a human being, speaking of lines and gazelles and all this kind of stuff, is it as simple as just being financially secure? Is there some just human qualities that you have to be born with slash develop?
Bill Ackman
(00:39:16)
I think so. I think now I’m a pretty emotional person I would say, or I feel pretty strong emotions, but not in investing. I’m remarkably immune to volatility and that’s a big advantage and it took some time for me to develop that.
Lex Fridman
(00:39:33)
So you weren’t born with that, you think?
Bill Ackman
(00:39:35)
No.
Lex Fridman
(00:39:35)
So being emotional, do you want to respond to volatility?
Bill Ackman
(00:39:40)
Yeah, and it’s a bit… Again, you can learn a lot from other people’s experience. It’s one of the few businesses where you can learn an enormous amount by reading about other periods in history following Buffett’s career, the mistakes he made. If you’re investing a lot of capital, every one of your mistakes is going to be big, right? So we’ve made big mistakes. The good news is that the vast majority of things we’ve done have worked out really well. And so that also gives you confidence over time. But because we make very few investments, we own eight things today or seven companies of that matter, if we get one wrong, it’s going to be big news. And so the other nature of our business you have to be comfortable with is a lot of public scrutiny, a lot of public criticism. And that requires some experience. I call it that.
Lex Fridman
(00:40:35)
I think we’ll talk about some of that. Financially secure is something I believe also recommend for even just everyday investors. Is there some general advice from the things you’ve been talking about that applies to everyday investors?
Bill Ackman
(00:40:50)
Sure. So never invest money you can’t afford to lose. Where if you’d lost this money, you lose your house, et cetera. So being in a place where you’re investing money that you don’t care about the price in the short term, it’s money for your retirement, and you take a really long-term view, I think that’s key. Never investing, will you borrow money against your securities? The markets offer you the opportunity to leverage your investment and in most worlds you’ll be okay, except if there’s a financial crisis or a nuclear device gets detonated, God forbid somewhere in the world or there’s an unexpected war or someone kills a leader unexpectedly, things happen that can change the course of history and markets react very negatively to those kinds of events.

(00:41:46)
And you can own the greatest business in the world trading for a hundred dollars a share, and next moment it could be 50. So as long as you don’t borrow against securities, you own really high quality businesses and it’s not money that you need in the short term, then you can actually be thoughtful about it. And that is a huge advantage. The vast majority of investors, it seems tend to be the ones that panic and the downturns get over related and when markets are doing well.
Lex Fridman
(00:42:14)
So be able to think long-term and be sufficiently financially secure such that you can afford to think long-term.
Bill Ackman
(00:42:22)
Now Buffett is the ultimate long-term thinker and just the decisions he makes, the consistency of the decisions he’s made over time and fitting into that sort of long-term framework is a very, very educational, let’s put it that way, for learning about this business.
Lex Fridman
(00:42:42)
So you mentioned eight companies, but what do you think about mutual funds for everyday investors that diversify across a larger number of companies?
Bill Ackman
(00:42:53)
I think there are very few mutual funds. There are thousands and thousands of mutual funds. There are very few that earn their keep in terms of the fees they charge. They tend to be too diversified and too short-term. And you’re often much better off just buying an index fund. And many of them perform, if you look carefully at their portfolios are not so different from the underlying index itself and you tend to pay a much higher fee. Now, all of that being said, there’s some very talented mutual fund managers. A guy named Will Danoff at Fidelity has had a great record over a long period of time. The famous Peter Lynch, Ron Barron, another great long-term growth stock investor. So there’s some great mutual funds, but I put them in the handful versus the thousands. And if you’re in the thousands, I’d rather someone bought just an index fund basically.
Lex Fridman
(00:43:54)
Yeah, index funds. But what would be the leap for an everyday investor to go to investing in a small number of companies like two, three, four, five companies?
Bill Ackman
(00:44:05)
I even recommend for individual investors to invest in a dozen companies, you don’t get that much more benefit of diversification going from a dozen to 25 or even 50. Most of the benefits of diversification come in the first, call it 10 or 12. And if you’re investing in businesses that don’t have a lot of debt, they’re businesses that you can understand yourself, you understand… Actually individual investors did a much better job analyzing Tesla than the so-called professional investors or analysts, the vast majority of them. So if it’s a business you understand, if you bought a Tesla, you understand the product and its appeal to consumers, it’s a good place to start when you’re analyzing a company.

(00:44:47)
So I would invest in things you can understand, that’s kind of a key. You like Chipotle, you understand why they’re successful. You can go there every week and you can monitor. Is anything changing? How’s Chicken al Pastor, is that a good upgrade from the basic chicken? The drink offering is improving. The store is clean. I think you should invest in companies you really understand, simple businesses where you can predict with a high degree of confidence what it’s going to look like over time. And if you do that in a not particularly concentrated fashion and you don’t borrow money against your securities, you’ll probably do much better than your typical mutual fund.
Lex Fridman
(00:45:26)
Yeah, it’s interesting. Consumers that love a thing are actually good analysts of that thing, or I guess a good starting point.
Bill Ackman
(00:45:33)
And by the way, there’s much more information available today. When I was first investing, literally we had people faxing us documents from the SEC filings in Washington, D.C. Now everything’s available online, conference call transcripts are free. You have AI, you have unlimited data and all kinds of message boards and Reddit forums and things where people are sharing advice and everyone has their own… By virtue of their career or experience, they’ll know about an industry or a business and that gives them… I would take advantage of your own competitive advantages.
Lex Fridman
(00:46:12)
I’m just afraid if I invest in Chipotle, I’ll be analyzing every little change of menu from a financial perspective and just be very critical.
Bill Ackman
(00:46:20)
If it’s going to affect your experience, I wouldn’t buy the stock.
Lex Fridman
(00:46:24)
Yeah, I mean I should also say that I am somebody that emotionally does respond to volatility, which is why I’ve never bought index funds and I just notice myself psychologically being affected by the ups and downs of the market. I want to tune out because if I’m at all tuned in, it has a negative impact on my life.
Bill Ackman
(00:46:43)
Yeah, that’s really important.

Activist investing

Lex Fridman
(00:46:45)
Can you explain what activist investing is? You’ve been talking about investing and then looking at companies when they’re struggling, stepping in and reconfiguring things within that company and helping it become great. So that’s part of it, but let’s just zoom out. What’s this idea of activist investing?
Bill Ackman
(00:47:05)
I think recently in the last couple of days I read an article saying that more than 50% of the capital in the world today invests in the stock markets passive indexed money. And that’s the most passive form, right? So if you think about an index fund, a machine buys a fixed set of securities in certain proportion. There’s no human judgment at all, and there’s no real person behind it, in a way. They never take steps to improve a business. They just quietly own securities. What we do is we invest our capital in a handful of things. We get to know them really, really well because you’re going to put 20% of your assets in something, you need to know it really well. But once you become a big holder and if you’ve got some thoughts on how to make a business more valuable, you can do more than just be a passive investor.

(00:47:58)
So our strategy is built upon finding great companies in some cases that have lost their way and then helping them succeed. And we can do that with ideas from outside the boardroom. Sometimes we take a seat on a board or more than one, and we work with the best management teams in the world to help these businesses succeed. So when I first went into this business, no one knew who we were and we didn’t have that much money. And so to influence what was to us a big company, we had to make a fair bit more noise, right? So we would buy a stake, we’d announce it publicly, we’d attempt to engage with management. The first activist investment we made at Pershing Square was Wendy’s. I couldn’t get the CEO to ever return my call. He didn’t return my call. Actually, in that case, our idea was Wendy’s owned a company called Tim Hortons, which was this coffee donut chain, and you could buy Wendy’s for basically $5 billion and they owned a hundred percent of Tim Hortons, which itself was worth more than 5 billion.

(00:49:03)
So you could literally buy Wendy’s, separate Tim Hortons and get Wendy’s for negative value. That seemed like a pretty good opportunity even though the business wasn’t doing that well. So we bought the stake, called the CEO, couldn’t get a meeting, nothing. So we hired actually Blackstone, which at that time had an investment bank and we hired them to do what’s called a fairness opinion of what Wendy’s would be worth if they followed our advice and they agreed to do it, paid them a fee for it. And then we mailed in a letter with a copy of the fairness opinion saying Wendy’s would basically be worth 80% more if they did what we said. And six weeks later they did what we said. So that’s activism, at least an early form of activism. With that kind of under our belt, we had a little more credibility and now we started to take things and stakes in companies.

(00:49:48)
The media would pay attention. So the media became kind of an important partner and some combination of shame, embarrassment and opportunity motivated management teams to do the right thing. And then beyond that, there’s certain steps you can take if management’s recalcitrant and the shareholders are on your side. But it’s a bit like running for office. You’ve got to get all the constituents to support you and your ideas. And if they support you and your ideas, you can overthrow, if you will, the board of a company. You bring in new talent and then take over the management of a business. And that’s the most extreme form of activism. So that’s kind of the early days, and what we did. And a lot of the early things that we did were, what we call sort of like investment banking activism where we’d go in and recommend something, a good investment bank would’ve recommended, and if they do it, we make a bunch of money.

(00:50:38)
And then we moved on to the next one. And then we realized an investment in a company called General Growth was the first time we took a board seat on a company. And there it was some financial restructuring and also an opportunity to improve the operations of the business, sit on the board of a company. And that was one of the best investments we ever made. And we said, “Okay, we can do more than just be an outside the boardroom investor and we can get involved in helping select the right management teams and helping guide the right management teams.” And then we’ve done that over years. And then I would say the last seven years we haven’t had to be an activist. An activist is generally someone who’s outside banging on the door trying to get in. We’re sort of built enough credibility that they open the door and they say, “Hey, Bill, what ideas do you have? So welcome. Would you like to join the board?”

(00:51:27)
We’re treated differently today than we were in the beginning. And that is… I would say some people might just call it being an engaged owner. And by the way, that’s the way investing was done in the Andrew Carnegie, JPMorgan days 150 years ago. You had these iconic business leaders that would own 20% of US steel, and when things would go wrong, they’d replace the board and the management and fix them. And over time, we went to a world where mutual funds were created in the 1920s, ’30s, index funds with Vanguard and others, and that all these controlling shareholders gave their stock to society or their children and multiple generations. And they were no longer controlling owners of businesses or very few. And that led to under performance and the opportunity for activists over time. And what activism has done, and I think we’ve helped lead this movement, is it restored the balance of power between the owners of the business and the management of the company. And that’s been a very good thing for the performance of the US stock market actually.
Lex Fridman
(00:52:33)
So the owners meaning the shareholders?
Bill Ackman
(00:52:35)
Yes.
Lex Fridman
(00:52:35)
And so there’s a more direct channel of communication with activists investing between the shareholders and the people running the company?
Bill Ackman
(00:52:44)
Yes. So activists generally never own more than five or 10% of a business. So they don’t have control. So the way they get influence is they have to convince the other, but they have to get to sort of a majority of the other shareholders to support them. And if they can get that kind of support, they can behave almost like a controlling shareholder. And that’s how it works.
Lex Fridman
(00:53:06)
So the running of companies, according to Bill Ackman is more democratic now.
Bill Ackman
(00:53:11)
It is. It is. But you need some thought leaders. So activists are kind of thought leaders. Because they can spend the time and the money. A retail investor that owns a thousand shares doesn’t have the resources or the time, they got a day job. Whereas an activist day job is finding the handful of things where there are opportunities.
Lex Fridman
(00:53:30)
So on average is a good to have such an engaged, powerful, influential investor helping control direct the direction of a company.
Bill Ackman
(00:53:43)
It depends who that investor is, but generally I think it’s a good thing. And that’s why one of the problems with being CEO of a company today and having a very diversified shareholder base is the kind of short-term, long-term balance. And you have investors that have all different interests in terms of what they want to achieve and when they want it achieved. And CEO of a new company… A new CEO of an old company, let’s say, hasn’t had the chance to develop the credibility to make the kind of longer-term decisions and can be stuck in a cycle of being judged on a quarterly basis.

(00:54:19)
And the best businesses are forever assets and decisions you make now have impact three, four or five years from now, in order to make… And sometimes there are decisions we make that have the effect of reducing the earnings of a company in the short-term because in the long term it’s going to make the business much more valuable. But sometimes it’s hard to have that kind of credibility when you’re a new CEO of a company. So when you have a major owner that’s respected by other shareholders sitting on the board saying, “Hey, the CEO is doing the right thing and making this expensive investment in a new factory, we’re spending more money on R&D because we’re developing something that’s going to pay off over time.” That large owner on the board can help buy the time necessary for management to behave in a longer term way. And that’s, I think, good for all the shareholders.
Lex Fridman
(00:55:07)
So that’s the good story. But can it get bad? Can you have a CEO who is a visionary and sees the long-term future of a company and an investor come in and have very selfish interest in just making more money in the short term and therefore destroy and manipulate the opinions of the shareholders and other people on the board in order to sink the company, maybe increase the price, but destroy the possibility of long-term value?
Bill Ackman
(00:55:41)
It could theoretically happen, but again, the activist in your example, generally doesn’t own a lot of stock. The shareholder basis today, the biggest shareholders are these index funds that are forever, right? The BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, their ownership stakes are just at this point only growing because of the inflows of capital they have from shareholders. So they have to think or they should think very long-term and they’re going to be very skeptical of someone coming in with a short-term idea that drives the stock price up in the next six months, but impairs the company’s long-term ability to compete. And basically that ownership group prevents this kind of activity from really happening.
Lex Fridman
(00:56:19)
So people are generally skeptical of short-term activist investors?
Bill Ackman
(00:56:25)
Yes, and they’re very few. I don’t really know any short-term activist investors.
Lex Fridman
(00:56:30)
That’s a hopeful-
Bill Ackman
(00:56:31)
Not ones with credibility.

General Growth Properties

Lex Fridman
(00:56:33)
You mentioned general growth. I read somewhere called arguably one of the best hedge fund trades of all time. So I guess it went from $60 million to over 3 billion.
Bill Ackman
(00:56:47)
It was a good one.
Lex Fridman
(00:56:48)
All right.
Bill Ackman
(00:56:49)
But it wasn’t a trade. I wouldn’t describe it as a trade. A trade is something you buy and you flip. This is something where we made the investment initially in November of 2008, and we still own a company. We spun off of general growth and it’s now 15 years later.
Lex Fridman
(00:57:05)
Can you describe what went into making that decision to actually increase the value of the company?
Bill Ackman
(00:57:10)
Sure. So this was at the time of the financial crisis, circa November 2008. Real estate’s always been a kind of sector that I’ve been interested in. I began my career in the real estate business working for my dad, actually arranging mortgages for real estate developers. So I have kind of deep ties and interest in the business and General Growth was the second-largest shopping mall company in the country. Simon Properties many people have heard of, General Growth was number two. They owned some of the best malls in the country. And at that time, people thought of shopping malls as these non disruptible things. Again, we talk about disruption. Malls have been disrupted in many ways and General Growth stock… General Growth the company, the CFO in particular was very aggressive in the way that he borrowed money. And he borrowed money from a kind of Wall Street, not long-term mortgages, but generally relatively short-term mortgages.

(00:58:05)
It was pretty aggressive. As the value went up, he would borrow more and more against the assets and that helped the short-term results of the business. The problem was during the financial crisis, the market for what’s called CMBS, commercial mortgage backed securities basically shut. And the company, because its debt was relatively short term, had a lot of big maturities coming up that they had no ability to refinance. And the market said, “Oh, my god, the lenders are going to foreclose and the shareholders going to get wiped, the company’s going to go bankrupt, they’re going to get wiped out.” The stock went from $63 a share to 34 cents. And there was a family, the Bucksbaum Family owned I think about 25% of the company, and they had a 5 billion of stock that was worth 25 billion or something by the time, we bought a stake in the business.

(00:58:50)
And what interested me was I thought the assets were worth substantially more than the liabilities. The company had 27 billion of debt and had a hundred million dollars value of the equity down from 20 billion. Okay? And one that sort of an interesting place to start with a stock down 99%. But the fundamental drivers, the mall business are occupancy. How occupied are the malls, occupancy was up year-on-year between ’07 and ’08. Interestingly, net operating income, which is kind of a measure of cash flow from the malls, that was up year-on-year. So kind of the underlying fundamentals were doing fine. The only problem they had is they had billions of dollars of debt that they had to repay, they couldn’t repay. And if you kind of examine the bankruptcy code, it’s precisely designed for a situation like this where it’s this resting place you can go to restructure your business.

(00:59:48)
Now the problem was that every other company that had gone bankrupt, the shareholders got wiped out. And so the market’s seeing every previous example, the shareholders get wiped out. The assumption is this stock is going to go to zero. But that’s not what the bankruptcy code says. What the bankruptcy code says is that the value gets portioned based on value. And if you could prove to a judge that there was the assets worth more than a liabilities, then the shareholders actually get to keep their investment in the company. And that was the bet we made. And so we stepped into the market and we bought 25% of the company in the open market for… We had to pay up. It started out at 34 cents, I think there were 300 million shares. So it was at a hundred million dollars value by the time we were done. We paid an average of… We paid 60 million for 25% of the business, so about $240 million for the equity of the company.

(01:00:38)
And then we had to get on the board to convince the directors the thing to do. And the board was in complete panic, didn’t know what to do, spending a ton of money on advisors. And I was a shareholder activist four years into Pershing Square, and no one had any idea what we were doing. They thought we were crazy. Every day we’d go into the market and we’d buy this penny stock and we’d file what’s called a 13D, every 1% increase in our stake. And people just thought we were crazy. We’re buying stock in a company that’s going to go bankrupt. “Bill, you’re going to lose all your money. Run.” And I said, “Well, wait, bankruptcy code says that if it’s more asset value than liabilities, we should be fine.” And the key moment, if you’re looking for fun moments is there’s a woman named Maddie Bucksbaum who’s from the Bucksbaum family.

(01:01:27)
And her cousin John was chairman of the board, CEO of the company. And as she calls me after we disclose our stake in the company, she’s like, “Bill Ackman, I’m really glad to see you here.” And I met her like… I don’t think it was a date, but I kind of met her in a social context when I was like 25 or something. And she said, “Look, I’m really glad to see you here and if there’s anything I can do to help you, call me.” I said, “Sure.” We kept trying to get on the board of the company. They wouldn’t invite us on, couldn’t really run a proxy contest, not with a company going bankrupt. And their advisors actually were Goldman Sachs…
Bill Ackman
(01:02:00)
… not with a company going bankrupt. And their advisors actually were Goldman Sachs and they’re like, “You don’t want the fox in the henhouse.” And they were listening to their advisors. I called Maddie up and I said, “Maddie, I need to get on the board of the company to help.” And she says, “You know what? I will call my cousin and I’ll get it done.” She calls back a few hours later, “You’ll be going onto the board.” I don’t know what she said because …
Lex Fridman
(01:02:23)
Well, she was convincing.
Bill Ackman
(01:02:25)
Next thing you know, I’m invited on the board of the company, and the board is talking about the old equity of general growth. Old equity is what you talk about, “The shareholders are getting wiped out.” I said, “No, no, no. This board represents the current equity of the company and I’m a major shareholder. John’s a major shareholder. There’s plenty of asset value here. This company should be able to be restructured for the benefit of shareholders.” And we led a restructuring for the benefit of shareholders, and it took, let’s say eight months. And the company emerged from Chapter 11. We made an incremental investment into the company, and the shareholders kept the vast majority of their investment. All the creditors got their face amount of their investment par plus accrued interest, and it was a great outcome. All the employees kept their jobs, the mall stayed open, there was no liquidation.

(01:03:14)
The bankruptcy system worked the way it should. I was in court all the time and the first meeting with the judge, the judge is like, “Look, this would never have happened were it not for a financial crisis.” And once the judge said that, I knew we were going to be fine, because the company had really not done anything fundamentally wrong, maybe a little too aggressive in how they borrowed money. And stock went from 34 cents to $31 a share. And actually fun little anecdote, we made a lot of people a lot of money who followed us into it. I got a lot of nice thank you notes, which you get on occasion in this business, believe it or not. And then one day I get a voicemail, this is when there was something called voicemail, probably a few years later. And it’s a guy with a very thick Jamaican accent leaving a message for Bill Ackman.

(01:04:01)
I return all my calls, called the guy back. I said, “Hi, it’s Bill Ackman. I’m just returning your call.” He says, “Oh, Mr. Ackman, thank you so much for calling me.” And I said, “Oh, how can I help?” He says, “I wanted to thank you.” I said, “What do you mean?” He said, “I saw you on CNBC a couple of years ago and you were talking about this general growth and the stock.” I said, “Where was the stock at the time?” He said, “It’s 60 cents or something like this. And I bought a lot of stock.” And I’m like, “Well, how much did you invest?” ” Oh, I invest all of my money in the company.” And he was a New York City taxi driver and he invested like $50,000 or something like this at 60 cents a share. And he was still holding it. And he went into retirement and he made 50 times his money. And those are the moments that you feel pretty good about investing.
Lex Fridman
(01:04:53)
What gave you confidence through that? Went to a penny stock, and I’m sure you were getting a lot of naysayers and people saying that, “This is crazy.”
Bill Ackman
(01:05:01)
It’s the same thing. You just do the work. We got a lot of pushback from our investors actually because we had never invested in a bankrupt company before. It’s a field called distressed investing, and they’re dedicated distressed investors and we weren’t considered one of them. “Bill, what are you doing? You don’t know anything about distressed investing. You don’t know anything about bankruptcy investing.” But I can read.
Lex Fridman
(01:05:23)
And you learned.
Bill Ackman
(01:05:24)
And I learned. And it sometimes is very helpful not to be a practitioner, an expert in something because you get used to the conventional wisdom. And so we just abstractly stepped back and look at the facts and it was just a really interesting setup for one of the best investments we ever made.
Lex Fridman
(01:05:43)
How hard is it to learn some of the legal aspects of this? Like you mentioned bankruptcy code. I imagine is very dense language and dense ideas and loopholes and all that kind of stuff. If you’re just stepping in and you’ve never done distressed investing, how hard is it to figure out?
Bill Ackman
(01:06:01)
It’s not that hard. No, it’s not that hard.
Lex Fridman
(01:06:04)
Okay.
Bill Ackman
(01:06:05)
I literally read a book on distressed investing. Ben Branch or something on distressed investing.
Lex Fridman
(01:06:11)
You were able to pick up the intuition from that. Just all the basic skills involved, the basic facts to know, all that kind of stuff?
Bill Ackman
(01:06:19)
Most of the world’s knowledge has already been written somewhere. You just got to read the right books. And also had great lawyers. Built up some great relationships. We work with Sullivan & Cromwell, and the lawyer there named Joe Schenker who I met earlier in my career. Pershing Square was actually my second act in the hedge fund business. I started a fund called Gotham Partners when I was 26. One of my early investments was a company called Rockefeller Center Properties that was heading for bankruptcy. And the lawyer on the other side representing Goldman Sachs was a guy named Joe Schenker. He was an obvious phone call because we had yet another real estate bankruptcy.

(01:06:54)
And that one we did very well, but I missed the big opportunity and I suffered severe psychological torture every time I walked by Rockefeller Center because we knew more about that property, anyone else, but I knew less about deal making and didn’t have the resources, and I was 28 years old or 27. And they hired a better lawyer than we did, and they outsmarted us on that one in a way. I said, “Okay, I’m going to go hire this guy the next time round.”
Lex Fridman
(01:07:23)
Okay. We’ll probably talk about Rockefeller Center and some failures, but first you said Fox in the henhouse, something that the board and the chairman were worried about. Why would they call you a fox? You keep saying activist investing, there’s nothing to worry about. It’s always good, mostly good. But that expression applied in this context, they were still worried about that.
Bill Ackman
(01:07:51)
Sure.
Lex Fridman
(01:07:51)
And so there’s a million questions here, but first of all, what is the process of getting on the board look like?
Bill Ackman
(01:07:59)
A board can always admit a member at any time in their discretion for a US company. Maybe there’s some jurisdiction where you need a shareholder vote, but in most cases a board can vote on any director that they want. If the board doesn’t invite you to the party, you have to apply to be a member in effect, and basically it’s the process of ultimately running a slate for a meeting where you propose a … Any shareholder can propose to be on a board of a company if they own a one share of stock in the business. And getting your name in the materials they sent to shareholders, those rules were written in a way that were very unfavorable and very difficult to get in the door.

(01:08:43)
And those rules have been changed very recently where the company now has to include really all the candidates and the materials they sent to shareholders and the shareholders pick the best ones. When we ran proxy contests in the past, that was not the case. And so you have to spend a lot of money, mostly mailing fees and all kinds of other legal and other expenses to let everyone know you’re running, like running a political campaign. And then you got to run around and meet with the big shareholders, fly around the country, explain your case to them, and then there’s a shareholder meeting. And if you get a majority of the votes, you get on.
Lex Fridman
(01:09:18)
What’s this proxy contest/battle idea, what’s the-
Bill Ackman
(01:09:23)
The battle comes when they don’t want you to get on. And a lot of that has to do with I would say, pride, normal human stuff. A lot of times a board of an underperforming company doesn’t want to admit that they’ve underperformed. And boards of directors 20 years ago when we started Pershing Square, were pretty cushy jobs. Sit on a board of a company, you play golf with the CEO at nice golf courses, you make a few hundred thousand dollars a year to go to four meetings. It was kind of a rubber stamp world where, at the end of the day, the CEO really ran the show. Once shareholders could actually dislodge board members and they could lose their seats, and that’s really the rise of shareholder activism, boards started taking their responsibilities much more seriously. Because directors are typically … in many cases, they’re retired CEOs. This is how they’re making a living in the later part of their career.

(01:10:20)
They’ll sit on four boards, they collect a million, a million and a half dollars a year in director’s fees. If they get thrown off the board by the shareholders, that’s embarrassing obviously and it affects their ability to get on other boards. Again, incentives, as I said earlier, drive all human behavior. The incentives of directors, they want to preserve their board seats. Now the directors on board serve in various roles. The most vulnerable ones are ones who, for example, chair a compensation committee. And if they put in a bad plan or they overpaid management, they’re subject to attack by shareholders. But these contests are not dissimilar to political contests, where there’s mudslinging and the other side puts out false information about you and you have to respond and they’re spending the shareholders’ money, so they have sort of unlimited resources. And you’re spending your and your investors’ money, when you’re a small firm, finite resources. They can outspend you, they can sue you, they can try to jigger the mechanics in such a way that you’re going to lose. There’s some unfortunate stuff that’s happened in the past, some manipulative stuff.
Lex Fridman
(01:11:24)
Also some stuff that’s public like in the press and all this kind of stuff?
Bill Ackman
(01:11:27)
Oh, of course. There’ll be articles about … In the dirty days where they would go through your trash and make sure that you’re not sleeping around and things like this. But that’s okay. I can survive extreme scrutiny because I’ve been through this for a long time.
Lex Fridman
(01:11:49)
You’re saying the fat and happy hens can get very wolf-like when the fox is trying to break in? Is this how we extend this metaphor?
Bill Ackman
(01:11:59)
Well, the fox is a threat to the hens.
Lex Fridman
(01:12:03)
But the charismatic fox just explained to me why the fox is good for everybody in the henhouse.
Bill Ackman
(01:12:10)
At the end of the day, it’s actually very good on a board to have someone … There are many examples over time and some handful of high profile ones where the board fought tooth and nail to keep the activists off the board. And then once the activists got on the board and they said, “This guy’s not so bad after all. The shareholders voted him on. He’s got some decent ideas and let’s all work together to have this work out.” And so there are very few cases where after the contest … And by the way, sometimes you have to replace the entire board. We’ve done that. But in most cases you got a couple of seats on the board, and it’s just you want to build a board comprised of diverse points of view. And that’s how you get to the truth.

Canadian Pacific Railway

Lex Fridman
(01:12:50)
What was the most dramatic battle for the board that you have been a part of?
Bill Ackman
(01:12:55)
The Canadian Pacific Proxy contest. Canadian Pacific was considered the most iconic company in Canada. It literally built the country because the rail that got built over Canada is what united the various provinces into a country. And then over time, because the railroad business is a pretty good business, they built a ton of hotels, they owned a lot of real estate, and it became this massive conglomerate, but it was horribly mismanaged for decades. By the time we got involved, it was by far the worst run railroad in North America. They had the lowest profit margins, they had the lowest growth rate. Every quarter management would make excuses, generally about the weather as to why they underperformed versus … And there there’s a direct competitor, a company called Canadian National, has a rail goes right across the country. And Canadian Pacific would constantly be complaining about the weather.

(01:13:48)
And basically same country, same regions, the tracks weren’t that far apart. But it was a really important company and being on this board was like an honorary thing. And everyone on the board was an icon of Canada. The chairman of the Royal Bank of Canada, the head of the most important privately held grain company, an important collection of big time Canadian executives. Here we were, this is probably about 13 years ago, and still maybe a 44-year-old from New York, not a Canadian basically saying, “This is the worst run railroad North America.” And we bought 12% of the railroad at a really low price and we brought with us to our first meeting, the greatest railroader ever, a guy named Hunter Harrison who had turned around Canadian National. We’re like, “Okay, we’ve got a great asset. We’ve got the greatest railroad CEO of all time. He’s come out of retirement to step in and run the railroad.” And we brought him to the first meeting and they wouldn’t even meet with him, and they certainly weren’t going to consider hiring him. And that led us to a proxy contest.
Lex Fridman
(01:15:01)
And this is where the engine starts churning to figure out how this contest can be won. What’s involved?
Bill Ackman
(01:15:11)
Well the key is we had to one come up with a group of directors who would be willing to step into a battle. And we didn’t want a bunch of New York directors or even American directors, we wanted Canadians. The problem was this was the most iconic company in Canada and we wanted high profile people. We talked to all the high profile people in Canada. Every one of them would say, “Bill, you’re entirely right. This thing is the worst run railroad. It needs to be fixed. But I see John at the club. I see him at the Toronto Club. I can’t do this, but you’re totally right.” And that was the concern because you have to file your materials by a certain day, you got to put together a slate. We needed a big slate because we knew that we had to replace basically all the directors.

(01:15:53)
And then I spoke to a guy who was one of the wealthiest guys in Canada who was on the board at one point in time. And he said, “Bill, I have an idea for you. There’s this woman, Rebecca McDonald, why don’t you give her a call?” And I called Rebecca and she was the first woman to take a company public in Canada as CEO. And she was an anti-establishment, not afraid to take on anything kind of person. And I called her, we had a great conversation and she was in the Dominican Republic at her house and I flew down to see her and she said, “Yeah, I’m all in.” And actually, once we got her, that enabled us to get others. And then we put together our slate and we had some pretty interesting dialogue with the company. They tried to embarrass us all the time.
Lex Fridman
(01:16:42)
In the press publicly? What are talking about?
Bill Ackman
(01:16:44)
Press publicly. At one point I wrote an email saying, “Look, let’s come to peace on this thing, but if we don’t, you’re really forcing my hand and we’re going to have to rent the largest hall in Toronto and invite all the shareholders and it’s going to be embarrassing for management.” And I made reference to some nuclear winter, “Let’s not have it be a nuclear winter.” And they thought they’d embarrass me by releasing the email, but it only inspired us. And we rented the largest hall in Canada and we put up a presentation walking through, “Here’s Canadian National. Here’s Canadian Pacific. Here’s what they said. Here’s what they did.” And then we had Hunter get up who was this incredibly charismatic guy from Tennessee. He’s like a lion, incredibly deep voice, unbelievable track record, incredibly respected guy. It’s like getting Michael Jordan to come out of retirement and come run the company.

(01:17:38)
And Hunter was incredible, and Paul Lau, other members of my team were super engaged. And Canadians are known to be nice, so one of the problems we had is shareholders would never tell management or the board that they were losing. It was not until the night before the meeting when the vote came in, that management realized that they lost. We got 99% of the vote. And they begged us to take a deal. They said, “Look, we’ll resign tonight so that we don’t have to come to the meeting tomorrow.” That’s how embarrassed they were. But that was kind of an interesting one.
Lex Fridman
(01:18:14)
In both this proxy battle and the company itself, this was one of your more successful investments?
Bill Ackman
(01:18:21)
It was. The stock’s up about 10 times and it’s an industrial company. It’s a railroad. It’s not Google. So it’s a great story. And the company’s now run by a guy named Keith Creel. And Keith was Hunter’s protege, and in many ways he’s actually better than Hunter. He’s doing an incredible job. And the sad part here is we did very well, we tripled our money over several years and then I went through a very challenging period because of a couple of bad investments, and we had to sell our Canadian Pacific to raise capital to pay for investors who are leaving. But we had another opportunity to buy it back in the last couple of years. And so we’re now again a major owner of the company. But had we held onto original stock, it would’ve been epic, if you will.
Lex Fridman
(01:19:11)
On this one, you were right.
Bill Ackman
(01:19:13)
Yes.
Lex Fridman
(01:19:14)
And I read an article about you, and there’s many articles about you. I read an article that said, Bill is often right, but you approach it with a scorched earth approach that can often do damage.
Bill Ackman
(01:19:30)
I haven’t read the often right article, but the good news is we are often right, and I say we because we’re a team, a small team, but fortunately a very successful one. Our batting average as investors is extremely high. And the good news is our record’s totally public. You can see everything we’ve ever done. But the press doesn’t generally write about the success stories, they write about the failures. And so we’ve had some epic failures, big losses. The good news is they’ve been a tiny minority of the cases now. No one likes to lose money. It’s even worse to lose other people’s money. And I’ve done that occasionally. The good news is if you’ve stuck with us, you’ve done very well over a long time.

OpenAI

Lex Fridman
(01:20:13)
On a small tangent since we were talking about boards. Did you get a chance to see what happened with the OpenAI board? Because I’m talking to Sam Altman soon. Is there any insight you have, just maybe lessons you draw from these kinds of events, especially with an AI technology company, such dramatic things happening?
Bill Ackman
(01:20:34)
Yeah, that was an incredible story. Look, governance really matters, and the governance structure of OpenAI, I think leaves something to be desired. I think Sam’s point was, and maybe Elon Musk’s point originally set up as a nonprofit. And it reminds me actually, I invested in a nonprofit run by a former Facebook founder where he was going to create a Facebook-like entity for nonprofits to promote goodness in the world. And the problem was he couldn’t hire the talent he wanted because he couldn’t grant stock options, he couldn’t pay market salaries. And ultimately he ended up selling the business to a for-profit.

(01:21:14)
It taught me for-profit solutions to problems are much better than nonprofits. And here you had kind of a blend. It was set up as a nonprofit, but I think they found the same thing. They couldn’t hire the talent they wanted without having a for-profit subsidiary. But the nonprofit entity, as I understand it, owns a big chunk of OpenAI, and the investors own a capped interest where their upside is capped and they don’t have representation on the board. And I think that was a setup for a problem, and that’s clearly what happened here.
Lex Fridman
(01:21:49)
And there’s, I guess some kind of complexity in the governance. Because of this nonprofit and cap profit thing, it seems like there’s a bunch of complexity and non-standard aspects to it that perhaps also contributed to the problem?
Bill Ackman
(01:22:08)
Yeah. Governance really matters. Boards of directors really matter. Giving the shareholders the right to have input at least once a year on the structure of the governance of companies is really important. And private venture backed boards are also not ideal. I’m an active investor in ventures, and there are some complicated issues that emerge in private and venture stage companies where board members have somewhat divergent incentives from the long-term owners of a business. And what you see a lot in venture boards is they’re presided over generally by venture capital investors who are big investors in the company. And oftentimes it’s more important to them to have the public perception that they’re good directors so they get the next best deal. If they have a reputation for taking on management too aggressively, word will get out in the small community of founders and they’ll miss the next Google. And so their interests are not just in that particular company. That’s also one of the problems. Again, it all comes back to incentives.
Lex Fridman
(01:23:21)
Can you explain to me the difference venture backed VCs and shareholders? This means before the company goes public?
Bill Ackman
(01:23:29)
Yeah. Private venture backed companies, the boards tend to be very small. It could be a handful of the venture investors and management. They’re often very rarely independent directors. It’s just not an ideal structure.
Lex Fridman
(01:23:43)
Oh, I see. You want independent?
Bill Ackman
(01:23:45)
It’s beneficial to have people who have an economic interest in the business and they care only about the success of that company, as opposed to someone who … If you think about the venture business, getting into the best deals is more important than any one deal. And you see cases where the boards go along with, in some cases, bad behavior on the part of management because they want a reputation for being a founder friendly director. That’s kind of problematic. You don’t have the same issue in public company boards.
Lex Fridman
(01:24:16)
We talked about some of the big wins and your a track record, but you said there were some big losses. What’s the biggest loss of your career?

Biggest loss and lowest point

Bill Ackman
(01:24:27)
Biggest loss in my career is a company called Valiant Pharmaceuticals. We made an investment in business that didn’t meet our core principles. The problem in the pharmaceutical industry, and there are many problems as I’ve learned, is it’s a very volatile business. It’s based on drug discovery. It’s based on predicting the future revenues of a drug before it goes off patent. Lots of complexities. And we thought we had found a pharmaceutical company we could own because of a very unusual founder in the way he approached this business. It was a company where another activist was on the board of directors of the company and governing and overseeing the day-to-day decisions, and we ended up making a passive investment in the company. And up until this point in time, we really didn’t make passive investments, and the company made a series of decisions that were disastrous and then we stepped in to try to solve the problem. It was the first time I ever joined a board, and the mess was much larger than I realized from the outside and then I was kind of stuck. And it was very much a confidence sensitive strategy because they built their business by acquiring pharmaceutical assets, and they often issued stock when they acquired targets. Once the market lost confidence in management, the stock price got crushed and it impaired their ability to continue to acquire low cost drugs. And we lost $4 billion.
Lex Fridman
(01:25:49)
$4 billion.
Bill Ackman
(01:25:51)
How’s that for a big loss? That’s up there.
Lex Fridman
(01:25:55)
I’m sweating this whole conversation, both the wins and the losses and the stakes involved.
Bill Ackman
(01:25:59)
And by the way, that loss catalyzed other, what I call mark to market losses. Very high profile, huge number, disastrous press. Then people said, “Okay, Bill’s going to go out of business, so we’re going to bet against everything he’s doing. And we know his entire portfolio because we only own 10 things.” And we were short a company called Herbalife. Very famously, we’ve only really shorted two companies. The first one, there’s a book, the second one, there’s a movie. We no longer short companies. People pushed up the price of Herbalife, which when you’re a short seller, that’s catastrophic. I can explain that.

(01:26:39)
And then they also shorted the other stocks that we owned. And so that Valiant loss led to an overall more than 30% loss in the value of our portfolio. The Valiant loss was real and was crystallized. We ended up selling the position taking that loss. Most of the other losses were what I would call mark to market losses that were temporary. But many people go out of business because as I mentioned before, large move in a price, if investors are redeeming or you have leverage can put you out of business. And if people assumed if we got put out of business, we’d have to sell everything or cover our short position, and that would make the losses even worse. Wall Street is kind of ruthless.
Lex Fridman
(01:27:17)
They can make money off of that whole thing?
Bill Ackman
(01:27:19)
Absolutely.
Lex Fridman
(01:27:20)
They used the opportunity of Valiant to try to destroy you reputation, financially, and then capitalize and make money off of that?
Bill Ackman
(01:27:29)
Yes.
Lex Fridman
(01:27:29)
Wow, that’s a terrifying spot to be in. What was it like going through that?
Bill Ackman
(01:27:34)
I was pretty grim. It’s actually much worse than that because I had a lot of stuff going on personally as well, and these things tend to be correlated. The Valiant mistake came at a time where I was contemplating my marriage. The problem with the hedge fund business is when you get to a certain scale, the CEO becomes like the chief marketing officer of the business, and I’m really an investor as opposed to a marketing guy. But when you have investors who give you a few hundred million dollars, they want to see you once a year, “Bill, I’d love to see you for an hour.” But if you’ve got a couple hundred of those, you find yourself on a plane to the Middle East, to Asia, flying around the country. This is pre Zoom, and that takes you away from the investment process.

(01:28:20)
You have to delegate more. That was a contributor to the Valiant mistake. Now we lose a ton of money on Valiant. My ex-wife and I were talking about separating, getting divorced. I put that on hold because I didn’t want to make a decision in the middle of this crisis, and things just kept getting worse. We were also sued. When you lose a lot of money … we didn’t get sued by our investors, but we got sued by a shareholder because when the stock price goes down, shareholders sue. We’d done nothing wrong other than make a big mistake. So you have litigation, your investors are taking their money out. I’m in the middle of a divorce. The divorce starts to proceed. My ex-wife’s lawyer’s expectations of what my net worth was was about three times what it actually was, and it was going lower right in the middle of this. And I remember the lawyer saying, “Look, Bill, we’ve estimate your net worth at X, but don’t worry, we only want a third.” But X was 3X, so a third was 100%.

(01:29:25)
And then I had litigation. And actually never before publicly disclosed, and I’ll share it with you now. We had a public company that owned about a third of our portfolio that was call it, our version of Berkshire Hathaway. I tried to learn from Mr. Buffet over time, and it was so to speak, permanent capital. The problem with hedge funds is people can take their money out every quarter. What Buffet has is a company where if people want to take their money out, they sell the stock, but the money stays. We set up a similar structure in October of 2014, and then a year later, Valiant happens, and then a year later we’re in the middle of the mess and we’re still in the mess. By mid 2017, we’ve got litigation underway, and another activist investor, a firm called Elliot Associates, which is run by a guy named Paul Singer, took a big position in our public company that was the bulk of our capital, and they shorted all the stocks that we owned.

(01:30:27)
And they probably went long the short that we were short, and they were making a bet that we’d be forced to liquidate and then they would make money on … Our public company was trading at a discount to what all the securities were worth. They bought the public company, they shorted the securities, and then they came to see us to try to be activists and force us to liquidate and that sort of-
Lex Fridman
(01:30:53)
Wow.
Bill Ackman
(01:30:56)
I envisioned an end where the divorce takes all of my resources, the permanent capital vehicle ends up getting liquidated, and another activist in my industry puts me out of business. And I had met Neri Oxman right around this time, and I’d fallen completely in love with her. And I was envisioning a world where I was bankrupt, a judge found me guilty of whatever, he sends me off to jail … of course not that judge because he was a civil judge, but another judge sues the SEC, Department of Justice, and I find myself in this incredible mess. And I decided I didn’t want things to end that way.

(01:31:34)
I did something I’d never done before. I talked about it before about that you don’t borrow money, but I borrowed money and I borrowed $300 million from JP Morgan in the middle of this mess. And I give JP Morgan enormous credit in seeing through it. And also I had been a good client over a long period of time, and it’s like it’s a handshake bank and they bet that I would succeed. And I took that money to buy enough stock in my public company that I could prevent an activist from taking over and I could effectively buy control of our little public company.

(01:32:09)
And I got that done, and that I knew was the moment, the turning point. And I resolved my divorce, and divorces get easier to resolve when things are going badly. I was able to resolve that. We settled the litigation. I was buying blocks of our stock in the market. I remember a day I bought a big block of stock in the market, and I get a call from Gordon Singer, who is Paul Singer’s son, who runs their London part of their business. And he’s like, “Bill, was that you buying that block?” I said, “Yes.” And he’s like, “Fuck.”
Lex Fridman
(01:32:39)
So he knew-
Bill Ackman
(01:32:40)
He knew that once I got that they were not going to be able to succeed, and they went away. And that was the bottom. And that we’ve had an incredible run since then.
Lex Fridman
(01:32:51)
And then you were able to protect your reputation from the Valiant failure still?
Bill Ackman
(01:32:57)
This is a business where you’re going to make some mistakes. It was a big one. It was very reputationally damaging. The press-
Bill Ackman
(01:33:00)
… was a big one. It was very reputationally damaging. The press was a total disaster, but I’m not a quitter. And actually the key moments for us, we’d never taken our core investment principles and actually really written them down, something we talked about at meetings, kind of our investment team meetings. I had a member of the team, I said, “Look, go find a big piece of granite and a chisel and let’s take those core principles. I want them Moses’ 10 Commandments. Okay, we’re going to chisel them and then we’re going to put it up on the wall.” And once we produce those, we put one on everyone’s desk. I said, “Look, if we ever again veer from the core principles, hit me with a baseball bat.” And that was the bottom. And ever since then, we’ve had the best six years in the history of the firm.
Lex Fridman
(01:33:45)
So refocus on the fundamentals. That’s a hell of a story.
Bill Ackman
(01:33:49)
And love helps. Love helps. I literally met Neri at the absolute bottom. Our first date was September 7th of 2017. That was very close to the bottom. Actually, there’s one other element to the story. So this went on for a few months after I met her. The other element is that one day I got a call from Neri. She’s like, “Bill, guess what?” I’m like, “What?” “Brad Pitt is coming to the Media Lab. He wants to see my work.” I’m like, “That’s beautiful, sweetheart. I didn’t know Brad Pitt was interested in your work.”
Lex Fridman
(01:34:17)
As a man, that’s a difficult phone call to take.
Bill Ackman
(01:34:19)
And apparently he’s really interested in architecture. I’m like, “Okay.” Now, Neri and I were like, we would WhatsApp all day every day, we talk throughout the day. Brad Pitt shows up at the Media Lab at 10 o’clock. I talk to her in the morning. I kind of text her to see how things are going, don’t hear back. And on WhatsApp, you can see whether the other person’s read it or not.
Lex Fridman
(01:34:41)
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Bill Ackman
(01:34:42)
Okay, no response. A couple of hours later, send her another text, no response. Six o’clock, no response. Eight o’clock, no response, 10 o’clock, no response. And she finally calls me at 10:30 and tells me how great Brad Pitt is. So I had this scenario, okay, a judge is going to find me. We’re going to lose to the judge. All my assets will disappear. And then Brad Pitt’s going to take my girlfriend. [inaudible 01:35:09].
Lex Fridman
(01:35:08)
Yeah, Brad Pitt’s your competition. This is great.
Bill Ackman
(01:35:11)
So it was like a moment. That was sort of the bottom. And then sort of the motivational thing. I didn’t want to lose to an activist, didn’t want to lose my girl to some other guy.
Lex Fridman
(01:35:22)
Brad Pitt, and you emerged from all of that, the winner on all fronts.
Bill Ackman
(01:35:27)
I’m a very fortunate guy, very fortunate and lucky.
Lex Fridman
(01:35:31)
You talked about some of the technical aspects of that, but psychologically, what are you doing at night by yourself?
Bill Ackman
(01:35:39)
That was a hard time, hard time because I was separated from my wife and my kids. I was living in not the greatest apartment. I had a beautiful home. And so I had to go find a bachelor place and I didn’t want to be away from my kids. I moved 10 blocks away and I wasn’t seeing them and they didn’t like it. So I ended up buying an apartment I didn’t like in the same building as my kids with a different entrance so I could be near them. But I was home alone. I got a dog that was Babar. We call him Babar, not the elephant. He’s a black Labradoodle.
Lex Fridman
(01:36:16)
Nice.
Bill Ackman
(01:36:17)
He was supposed to be a mini, but he’s not so as mini. But I got him at six weeks old and he would keep me company. And I started meditating actually. And a friend recommended TM. And I would meditate 20 minutes in the morning, 20 minutes in the evening. And I also a big believer in exercise and weightlifting and I play tennis. And I had been… This is not my first proximity to disaster. I had another moment in my career, like 2002, and I learned this method for dealing with these kind of moments, which is you just make a little progress every day. So today, I’m going to wake up, I’m going to make progress. I’ll make progress in the litigation, I’ll make progress in the portfolio. I’ll make progress with my life. And progress compounds a bit like money compounds. You don’t see a lot of progress in the first few weeks, but 30 days in like, oh, okay. You can’t look up at the mountaintop where you used to be because then you’ll give up.

(01:37:21)
But you just, okay, just make step by step by step. And then 90 days in you’re like, okay, I was way down there. Okay, the mountain. Okay, I don’t look up. Just keep making progress, progress, progress and progress really does compound. And one day you wake up and like, wow, it’s amazing how far I’ve come.

(01:37:39)
And if you look at a chart of Pershing Square, our company, you can see the absolute bottom. You can see where we were, you can see the drop and you can see where we are now. And that huge drop that felt like a complete unbelievable disaster looks like a little bump on the curve. And it really gives you perspective on these things. You just have to power through. And I think the key is, I’ve always been fortunate from a mental health point of view and nutrition, sleep, exercise, and a little progress every day. That’s it. And good friends and family. I had go take a walk with a friend every night and a sister who loves me and parents who were supportive, but they were all worried about their son, their brother. It was a moment.

(01:38:34)
And also, by the way, the other thing to think about is when you recover from something like this, you really appreciate it. And also as much of the media loves when some successful person falls, they love writing the story of success, they love even more the story of failure. But when you recover from that, it’s kind of like the American story. America, you think of the great entrepreneurs and how many failures they had before they succeeded. How many rocket launches did SpaceX have explode on the pad? And then you look at success. I mean, that’s why Musk is so admired.

Herbalife and Carl Icahn

Lex Fridman
(01:39:14)
You mentioned Herbalife. Can you take me through the saga of that? It’s historic.
Bill Ackman
(01:39:22)
So we at Pershing Square short a very few stocks. And the reason for that is short selling is just inherently treacherous. So if you buy a stock, it’s called going long. You’re buying something, your worst case scenario is you lose your whole investment. You buy a stock for 100, it goes to zero, you lose $100 per share. You buy one share, you lose 100. You short a stock at 100. What it means is you borrow the security from someone else. The analogy I gave that made it easy for people to understand, it’s a bit like you think silver coins are going to go down in value, and you have a friend who’s got a whole pile of these 1880 silver US dollars, and you think they’re going to go down in value, and say, “Hey, can I borrow 10 of those dollars from you?”

(01:40:06)
He’s like, “Sure, but what are you going to pay me to borrow them?” I’m like, “I’ll pay you interest on the value of the dollars today.” So you borrow the dollars that are worth $100 each today, you pay them interest while you’re borrowing them, and then you go sell them in the market for $100. That’s what they’re worth. And then they go down in price to 50. You go back in, you buy the silver dollars back at $50 and you give them back to your friend. Your friend is fine. You borrowed 10, you gave him the 10 back and he got interest. In the meantime, he’s happy. He made money on his coin collection. You, however, made $50 times the 10 coins, you made 500 bucks. That’s pretty good. The problem with that is what if you sell them and they go from 100 to 1000, now you’re going to have to go buy them back and you got to pay whatever, $10,000 to buy back coins that you sold for 500.

(01:40:57)
You’re going to lose $9,500. And there’s no limit to how high a stock price can go. Companies go to $3 trillion in value. Tesla, a lot of people shorted Tesla saying, oh, it’s overvalued. He’s never going to be able to make a successful electric car. Well, I’m sure the people went bankrupt shorting Tesla. That’s why we didn’t short stocks. But I was presented with this actually a reporter that covered the other short investment we made early in the career, a company called MBIA, came to me and said, “Bill, I found this incredible company. You got to take a look at it. It’s a total fraud and they’re scamming poor people.”
Lex Fridman
(01:41:30)
And we should say that MBIA was a very successful short.
Bill Ackman
(01:41:33)
It was a big part of it was that we used a different kind of instrument to short it where we reversed that sort of… we made the investment asymmetric in our favor, meaning put up a small amount of money, if it works, we make a fortune. Whereas, short selling is you kind of sell something and you have to buy it back at a higher price. Herbalife didn’t have the, what’s called credit default swaps that you purchase. Not a big enough company. It didn’t have enough debt outstanding to be able to implement it. You had to short the stock in order to make it as successful, to bet against the company. And the more work I did in the company, the more I was like, oh, my God, this thing’s an incredible scam. They purport to sell weight loss shakes, but in reality, they’re selling kind a fake business plan.

(01:42:15)
And the people that adopt it lose money and they go after poor people. They go after, actually in many cases, undocumented immigrants who are pitched on the American Dream opportunity. And because they have few other options because they can’t get legal employment, they become Herbalife distributors. And it’s a business where you, so-called multi-level marketing. Multi-level marketing is sort of the name for a legitimate company like this. Or it’s a pyramid scheme where basically your sales are really only coming from people you convince to buy the product by getting them into the business. That’s precisely what this company is. And like, okay, shorting a pyramid scheme seems like, one, we’ll make a bunch of money, but two, the world will be behind us because they’re harming poor people. Regulators will get interested in a company like this. And we said, the FTC is going to shut this thing down.

(01:43:09)
And we did a ton of work and I gave this sort of epic presentation laying out all the facts, stock got completely crushed, and we were on our way. And the government actually got interested early on, launched an investigation pretty early, SEC and otherwise. But then a guy named Carl Icahn showed up, and we have a little bit of a backstory, but his motivations here were not really principally driven by thinking Herbalife was a good company. He thought it was a good way to hurt me. So he basically bought a bunch of stock and said it was a really great company, and Carl, at least at the time, threw his weight around a bit. He was a credible investor, had a lot of resources, and that began the saga.
Lex Fridman
(01:43:57)
So he was, we should say, a legendary investor himself.
Bill Ackman
(01:44:03)
I’d say legendary in a sense. Yes, for sure. An iconic…
Lex Fridman
(01:44:06)
Iconic.
Bill Ackman
(01:44:07)
… Carl Icahn.
Lex Fridman
(01:44:08)
Oh, that’s very well done.
Bill Ackman
(01:44:09)
Yeah, so definitely a iconic investor.
Lex Fridman
(01:44:11)
So what was the backstory between the two of you?
Bill Ackman
(01:44:15)
So I mentioned that I had another period of time where significant business challenges… This was my first fund called Gotham Partners. And we had a court stop a transaction between a private company we owned and a public company. It’s another long story if you want to go there.
Lex Fridman
(01:44:29)
I would love to hear it as well.
Bill Ackman
(01:44:32)
But it was really my deciding to wind up my former fund. And we owned a big stake in a company called Hallwood Realty Partners, which was a company that owned real estate assets and it was worth a lot more than where it was trading, but it needed an activist to really unlock the value. And we were in fact of going out of business and didn’t have the time or the resources to pursue it. So I sold it to Carl Icahn, and I sold it to him at a premium to where the stock was trading. I think the stock was like 66. I sold it to him for 80, but it was worth about 150. And I said, look… And part of the deal was Carl’s like, look, I’ll give you schmuck insurance. I’ll make you sure you don’t look bad. And I had another deal at a higher price without schmuck insurance, but a deal with Carl at a lower price with schmuck insurance.

(01:45:16)
And the way the schmuck insurance went, he said, “Look, Bill, if I sell the stock in the next three years for a higher price, I’ll give you 50% of my profit.” That’s a pretty good deal. So we made that deal, and because I was dealing with Carl Icahn who had a reputation for being difficult, I was very focused on the agreement and we didn’t want him to be able to be cute. So the agreement said, if he sells or otherwise transfers his shares. And we came up with a definition to include every version of sell, okay, because it’s Carl. Well, he then buys the stake and then makes a bid for the company and plan is for him to get the company. And he bids like 120 a share, and the company hires Morgan Stanley to sell itself, and he raises bid to 125 and then 130, and eventually gets sold, I don’t remember the exact price, let’s say $145 a share.

(01:46:16)
And Carl’s not the winning bidder, and he sells his stock or he loses or transfers his shares for $145 a share. So he owes actually our investors the difference between 145 and 80 times 50%. And I had… Lawyers never like you to put a arithmetic example. I put a formula out of a math book in the documents so there can be no confusion. It was only an eight page, really simple agreement. So the deal closes and he’s supposed to pay us in two business days or three business days. I wait a few business days, no money comes in. I call Carl. I’m like, “Carl, congratulations on the Hallwood Realty.” “Thanks Bill.” I said, “Carl, just I want to remind you, I know it’s been a few years, but we have this agreement. Remember the schmuck insurance?” He’s like, “Yeah.” And I said, “Well, you owe us our schmuck insurance.”

(01:47:08)
He said, “What do you mean? I didn’t sell my shares.” And I said, “Do you still have the shares?” He says, “No.” I said, “What happened to them?” “Well, the company did a merger for cash and they took away my shares, but I didn’t sell them. Do you understand what happened?” And I said, “Carl, I’m going to have to sue you.” He said, “Sue me. I’m going to sue you,” he says.

(01:47:33)
So I sued him and the legal system in America can take some time. And what he would do is we sued and then we won in the whatever New York Supreme Court, and then he appealed, and you can appeal six months after the case. He waited till the 179th day, and then he would appeal. And then we fought at the next level, and then he would appeal. And he appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. Of course, the Supreme Court wouldn’t take the case. It took years. Now, as part of our agreement, we got 9% interest on the money that he owed us. So I viewed it as my Carl Icahn money market account with a much higher interest rate. And eventually I won.
Lex Fridman
(01:48:12)
What was the amount? Just-
Bill Ackman
(01:48:13)
Tiny. Now it was material to my investors. So my first fund, I wound it down, but I wanted to maximize everything for my investors. These are the people who backed me at 26 years old. I was right out of business school and no experience, and they supported me. So I’m going to go to the end of the earth for them. And four and a half million relative to our fund at the end was maybe 400 million. So it wasn’t a huge number, but it was a big percentage of what was left after I sold our liquid securities. So I was fighting for it. So we got four and a half million plus interest for eight years or something. That’s how long the litigation took. So we got about double. So he owed me $9 million, which to Carl Icahn, who had probably a $20 billion net worth. At the time, this was nothing. But to me, it was like, okay, this is my investor’s money. I’m going to get it back. And so eventually we won. Eventually he paid, and then he called me and he said, “Bill, congratulations. Now we can be friends and we can do some investing together.” I’m like, “Carl, fuck you.”
Lex Fridman
(01:49:18)
You actually said fuck you?
Bill Ackman
(01:49:19)
Yes. And I’m not that kind of person generally, but he made eight years to pay me, not me, even me, my investors money they owed. So yeah. So he probably didn’t like that. So he kind of hung around in the weeds waiting for an opportunity. And then from there I started purging. We had a kind straight line up. We were up. The first 12 years, we could do nothing wrong. Then Valeant, Herbalife, he sees an opportunity and he buys the stock. He figures he’s going to run me off the road. And so that was the beginning of that. And the moment, and I think it’s, I’m told by CNBC, it’s the most watched segment in business television history. They’re interviewing me about the Herbalife investment on CNBC, and then Carl Icahn calls into the show and we have kind of a interesting conversation where he calls me all kinds of names and stuff. So it was a moment. It was a moment in my life.
Lex Fridman
(01:50:20)
It wasn’t public information that he was long on Herbalife?
Bill Ackman
(01:50:24)
He didn’t yet disclose he had a stake. But he was just telling me how stupid I was to be short at this company.
Lex Fridman
(01:50:30)
So for him, it wasn’t about the fundamentals of the company, it was just personal?
Bill Ackman
(01:50:36)
100%.
Lex Fridman
(01:50:37)
Is there part of you that regrets saying fuck you on that phone call to Carl Icahn?
Bill Ackman
(01:50:44)
No. I generally have no regrets because I’m very happy with where I am now. And I feel like it’s a bit like you step on the butterfly in the forest and the world changes because every action has a reaction. If you’re happy with who you are, where you are in life, every decision you’ve made, good or bad over the course of your life, got you to precisely where you are. I wouldn’t change anything.
Lex Fridman
(01:51:10)
He said, you lost money on Herbalife. So he did the long-term battle.
Bill Ackman
(01:51:16)
What he did is he got on the board of the company and used the company’s financial resources plus his stake in the business to squeeze us. And a squeeze in short selling is where you restrict the supply of the securities so that there’s a scarcity, and then you encourage people to buy the stock and you drive the stock up. And as I explained before, you short those coins at 10, they go to 100, you can lose, theoretically, an unlimited amount of money. And that’s scary. That’s why we don’t short stocks. That’s why I didn’t short stocks before this, but this was… Unfortunately, I had to have the personal lesson.
Lex Fridman
(01:51:53)
So how much was for him personal versus part of the game of investing?
Bill Ackman
(01:51:59)
Well, he thought he could make money doing this. He wouldn’t have done it if he did otherwise. He thought his bully pulpit, his ability to create a short squeeze, his control over the company would enable him to achieve this. And he made a billion, we lost a billion.
Lex Fridman
(01:52:14)
So you think it was a financial decision not a personal?
Bill Ackman
(01:52:16)
It was a personal decision to pursue it, but he was waiting for an opportunity where he could make money at our expense, and it was kind of a brilliant opportunity for him. Now, the irony is… Well, first of all, the FTC found a few interesting facts. So one, the government launched an investigation. They ended up settling with the company, and the company paid $220 million in fines.

(01:52:36)
I met a professor from Berkeley a couple of years ago who told me that he had been hired by the government as their expert on Herbalife, and he got access to all their data, was able to prove that they’re a pyramid scheme. But the government ultimately settled with Carl because they were afraid they could possibly lose in court. So they settled with him. But if you look at the stock, if we’d been able to stay short the entire time, we would’ve made a bunch of money because the stock had a $6 billion market cap, and we shorted it. Today as probably a billion, a billion and a half.
Lex Fridman
(01:53:08)
So you left the short or whatever that’s called…?
Bill Ackman
(01:53:11)
We covered, we closed it out. When we sold Valeant, we covered Herbalife. That was the resetting moment for the firm because it would just, psychologically… And the beauty of investing is you don’t need to make it back the way you lost it. You can just take your loss. By the way, losses are valuable and that the government allows you to take a tax loss and that can shelter other gains. And we just refocused.
Lex Fridman
(01:53:35)
Can you say one thing you really like about Carl Icahn and one thing you really don’t like about him?
Bill Ackman
(01:53:40)
Sure. So he’s a very charming guy. So in the midst of all this, at the Hallwood one, he took me out for dinner to his favorite Italian restaurant.
Lex Fridman
(01:53:51)
Really?
Bill Ackman
(01:53:52)
Yeah. We’re in the middle of the litigation to see if he could resolve it, and he offered 10 million to my favorite charity. The problem was that it wasn’t my money, it was my investor’s money. So I couldn’t settle with him on that basis, but I had the chance to spend real time with him at dinner. He’s funny, he’s charismatic, he’s got incredible stories. And actually I made peace with him over time. We had a little hug out on CNBC, even had him to my house, believe it or not. I hosted something called the Finance Cup, which is a tennis tournament between people in finance in Europe and the US. And we had the event at my house and one guy thought to invite Carl Icahn. And so we had Carl Icahn there to present awards. And again, I have to say, I kind of like the guy, but I didn’t like him much during this.
Lex Fridman
(01:54:47)
Because at least from the outsider perspective, there’s a bit of a personal vengeance here or anger can build up. Do you ever worry the personal attacks between powerful investors can cloud your judgment of what is the right financial decision?
Bill Ackman
(01:55:04)
I think it’s possible, but again, I try to be extremely economically rational. And actually the last seven years have been quite peaceful. I really have not been an activist in the old form for many years. And the vast majority of even our activist investments historically were very polite, respectful cases. The press, of course, focuses on the more interesting ones. Like Chipotle was one of the best investments we ever made. We got four of eight board seats and we worked with management and it was a great outcome. I don’t think there’s ever been a story about it. And the stock’s up almost 10 times from the time we hired Brian Nichols as CEO. But it’s not interesting because there was no battle. Whereas, Herbalife, of course, was like an epic battle, even Canadian Pacific. So for a period there, most people when they meet me in person, they’re like, “Wow, bill, you seem like a really nice guy. But I thought…” But things have been pretty calm for the last seven years.

Oct 7

Lex Fridman
(01:56:03)
Of course, there’s more than just the investing that your life is about, especially recently. Let me just ask you about what’s going on in the world. First, what was your reaction and what is your reaction and thoughts with respect to the October 7th attacks by Hamas on Israel?
Bill Ackman
(01:56:27)
It’s a sad world that we live in. That, one, we have terrorists, and two, that we could have such barbaric terrorism. And just a reminder of that.
Lex Fridman
(01:56:38)
So there’s several things I can ask here. First, on your views on the prospects of the Middle East, but also on the reaction to this war in the United States, especially on university campuses. So first, let me just ask, you’ve said that you’re pro-Palestinian. Can you explain what you mean by that?
Bill Ackman
(01:57:00)
With all of my posts about Israel, I’m obviously very supportive of the country of Israel, Israel’s right to exist, Israel’s right to defend itself. My Arab friends, my Palestinian friends were kind of saying, “Hey Bill, where are you? What about Palestinian lives?” And I was pretty early in my life, a guy named Marty Peretz, who’s been important to me over the course of my life, a professor or first investor in my fund, introduced me to Neri, asked me when I was right out of school to join this nonprofit called the Jerusalem Foundation, which was a charitable foundation that supported Teddy Kollek when he was mayor of Jerusalem. I ended up becoming the youngest chairman of the Jerusalem Foundation in my 30s. And I spent some time in Israel, and the early philanthropic stuff I did with the Jerusalem Foundation, the thing I was most interested in was kind of the plight to the Palestinians and kind of peaceful coexistence.

(01:57:58)
And so I had kind of an early kind of perspective, and as chairman of the Jerusalem Foundation, I would go into Arab communities and I would meet with families in their homes. You get a sense of the humanity of a people. And I care about humanity. I generally take the side of people who’ve been disadvantaged. Almost all of our philanthropic work has been in that capacity. So it’s sort of my natural perspective, but I don’t take the side of terrorists ever, obviously. And the whole thing is just a tragedy.
Lex Fridman
(01:58:34)
So to you, this is about Hamas, not about Palestine?
Bill Ackman
(01:58:38)
Yes. I mean, the problem of course is when Hamas controls… for the last almost 20 years, has controlled Gaza, including the education system. They’re educating. You see these training videos of kindergartners, indoctrinating them into hating Jews and Israel. And of course, you don’t like to see Palestinians celebrating some of those early videos of October 7th with dead bodies in the back of trucks and people cheering. So it’s a really unfortunate situation, but I think about a Palestinian life as important, as valuable as a Jewish life, as a American life. And what do people really want? They want a place. They want a home. They want to be able to feed their family. They want a job that generates the resources to feed their family. They want their kids to have a better life than they’ve had. They want peace. I think these are basic human things. I’m sure the vast majority of Palestinians share these views, but it’s such an embedded situation with hatred and, as I say, indoctrination.

(01:59:53)
And then going back to incentives, terrorists generate their resources by committing terrorism, and that’s how they get funding. And there’s a lot of graft. It’s a plutocracy. The top of the terrorist pyramid, if you accept the numbers that are in the press, the top leaders have billions of dollars. 40 billion or so has gone into Gaza over the last… and the West Bank over the last 30 years, a number like that. And a lot of it’s disappeared into some combination of corruption or tunnels or weapons. And the tragedy is you look at what Singapore has achieved in the last 30 years, right?
Lex Fridman
(02:00:37)
Do you think that’s still possible if we look into the future of 10, 20, 50 years from now?
Bill Ackman
(02:00:42)
Absolutely.
Lex Fridman
(02:00:43)
So not just peace, but-
Bill Ackman
(02:00:46)
Peace comes with prosperity. People are under the leadership of terrorists, you’re not going to have prosperity and you’re not going to have peace. And I think the Israelis withdrew in 2005 and fairly quickly, Hamas took control of the situation. That should never have been allowed to happen. And I think if you think about… I had the opportunity to spend, call it, an hour with Henry Kissinger a few months before we passed away, and we were talking about Gaza, or in the early stage of the war. He said, “Look, you can think about Gaza as a test of a two-state solution. It’s not looking good.” These were his words. So the next time round, the Palestinian people should have their own state, but it can’t be a state where 40 billion resources goes in and is spent on weaponry and missiles and rockets going into Israel. And I do think a consortium of the Gulf states, the Saudis and others have to ultimately oversee the governance of this region. I think if that can happen, I think you can have peace, you can have prosperity. And I’m fundamentally an optimist.
Lex Fridman
(02:02:06)
So a coalition of governance.
Bill Ackman
(02:02:09)
Governance matters, going back to what we talked about before.
Lex Fridman
(02:02:13)
And that kind of approach can give the people a chance to flourish.
Bill Ackman
(02:02:20)
100%. 100%. I mean, look at what Dubai has accomplished with nomads in the desert. It’s a tourist destination. Gaza could have been a tourist destination.

College campus protests

Lex Fridman
(02:02:34)
Take me through the saga of university presidents testifying on this topic, on the topic of protests on college campuses, protests that call for the genocide of Jewish people and the university presidents… Maybe you could describe it more precisely, but they fail to denounce the calls for genocide.
Bill Ackman
(02:03:01)
So it begins on October 8th probably. And you can do a compare and contrast with how Dartmouth managed the events of October 7th and the aftermath, and how Harvard did. And on October 8th or shortly thereafter, the Dartmouth president, who had been in her job for precisely the same number of months that the Harvard president had been in her job. The first thing she did is she got the most important professors of Middle East studies who were Arab and who were Jews and convened them and held an open session Q&A for students to talk about what’s going on in the Middle East, and began an opportunity for common understanding among the student body. And Dartmouth has been a relatively benign environment on this issue, and students are able to do work and there aren’t disruptive protests with people with bullhorn…
Bill Ackman
(02:04:00)
Work and there aren’t disruptive protests with people with bullhorns walking into classrooms interfering with … People pay, today, $82,000 a year, which itself is crazy, to go to Harvard. But imagine your family borrows the money or you borrow the money as a student and you’re learning is disrupted by constant protests and the university does nothing. When George Floyd died, the Harvard president wrote a very strong letter denouncing what had taken place and calling this an important moment in American history and took it incredibly seriously. Her first letter about October 7th was not that, let’s put it that way. Then her second letter was not that. Then, ultimately, she was sort of forced by the board or pressured to make a more public statement, but it was clear that it was hard for her to come to an understanding of this terrorist act.

(02:04:58)
Then the protests erupted on campus and they started out reasonably benign. Then the protesters got more and more aggressive in terms of violating university rules on things like bullying, and the university did nothing. That obviously for the Jewish students, the Israeli students, the Israeli faculty, Jewish faculty, created an incredibly uncomfortable environment. The president seemed indifferent. I went up to campus and I met with hundreds of students in small groups, in larger groups and they’re like, “Bill, why is the president doing nothing? Why is the administration doing nothing?” That was really the beginning.

(02:05:36)
I reached out to the president, reached out to the board of Harvard, I said, “Look, this thing is headed in the wrong direction and you need to fix it. I have some ideas, love to share.” I got the Heisman, as they say. They just kept pushing off the opportunity for me to meet with the president and meet with the board. At a certain point in time I pushed, I’m kind of a activist when he pushed me, it reminded me of early days of activism where I couldn’t get the CEO of Wendy’s to return my call. I couldn’t get the CEO of Harvard to take a meeting.

(02:06:19)
Then finally I spoke to the chairman of the board, a woman by the name of Penny Pritzker, who I’m on a business school board with her. It was, as I described, one of the more disappointing conversations in my life. She seemed a bit like, if you will, deer in the headlights. They couldn’t do this, they couldn’t do that. The law was preventing them from doing various things. That led to my first letter to the university. I sort of ended the letter of giving this president of Harvard a dare to be great speech. This is your opportunity. You can fix this. This could be your legacy. I emailed it to the president and the board members whose email addresses I had, I posted it on Twitter and I got no response, no acknowledgement, nothing. In fact, the open dialogue I had with a couple of people on the board basically got shut down after that.

(02:07:16)
That led to letter number two. Then when the Congress, led by Elise Stefanik, announced an investigation of antisemitism on campus and concern about violations of law, the president was called to testify along with two other … The president of MIT, the president of University of Pennsylvania were having similar issues on campus. I reached out to the president of Harvard and said, well, one, the Israeli government had gotten in touch and offered the opportunity for me to see the Hamas, if you will, GoPro film. I said, “You know, I’d love to show it at Harvard,” and they thought that would be a great idea. I partnered with the head of Harvard Chabad, a guy named Rabbi Hirschy, and we were putting the film up on campus.

(02:08:06)
I thought if the president were to see this, it would give her a lot of perspective on what happened and she should see it before her testimony. I reached out to her, or actually Rabbi Hirschy did. He was told she would be out of town and couldn’t see it. Then I reached out to her again and said, “Look, I’ll facilitate your attendance in the Congress. Come see the film, I’ll fly you down.” That was rejected, and then she testified.

(02:08:36)
I watched a good percentage, 80% of the testimony, of all three presidents, and it was an embarrassment to the country, embarrassment to the universities. They were evasive. They didn’t answer questions. They were rude. They smirked. They looked very disrespectful to our Congress. Then, of course, there was that several minutes where finally Elise Stefanik was not getting answers to her questions, and she said, “Let me be kind of clear. What if protestors were calling for genocide for the Jews? Does that violate your rules on bullying and harassment?” The three of them basically gave the same answer; “It depends on the context.” Not until they actually executed on the genocide that the university had the right to intervene.

(02:09:26)
The thing that perhaps bothered me the most was the incredible hypocrisy. Each of these universities are ranked by this entity called FIRE, which is a nonprofit that focuses on free speech on campus. Harvard, it’s been in the bottom quartile for the last five years and dropped to last before October 7th, out of 250.
Lex Fridman
(02:09:47)
I should mention briefly that I’ve interviewed on this podcast, the founder of FIRE and the current head of FIRE, where we discussed this at length, including running for the board of Harvard and the whole procedure of all that. It’s quite a fascinating investigation of free speech. For people who care about free speech absolutism that’s a good episode to listen to because those folks kind of fight for this idea. It’s a difficult idea actually to internalize; what does free speech on college campuses look like?
Bill Ackman
(02:10:17)
Harvard has become a place where free speech is not tolerated on campus, or at least free speech that’s not part of the accepted dialogue. This whole notion of speech codes and microaggressions really emerged on the Harvard, Yale campuses of the world. The then president of Harvard’s explanation for why you could call for the genocide of the Jewish people on campus was Harvard’s commitment to free expression. One of the more hypocritical statements of all time. You really can’t have it both ways. Either Harvard has to be a place where it’s a free speech … She basically said, “We’re a free speech absolutist place, which is why we have to allow this.” Harvard could not be further from that. That was a big part of it.

(02:11:07)
I was in the barber chair, if you will, getting a haircut. I had a guy on my team send me the three-minute section. I said, “Cut that line of questioning.” I put out a little tweet on that. I call it my greatest hits of posts, it’s got something like 110 million views. Everyone looked at this and said, “What is wrong with university campuses and their leadership,” and their governance, by the way. In a way, this whole conversation has been about governance. Harvard has a disastrous governance structure, which is why we have the problem we have.
Lex Fridman
(02:11:46)
Just to linger on the testimony, you mentioned smirks and this kind of stuff, and you mentioned dare to be great, I myself am kind of a sucker for great leadership. You mentioned Churchill or so on, even great speeches … People talk down on speeches like it’s maybe just words, but I think speeches can define a culture and define a place, define a people that can inspire. I think, actually, the testimony before Congress could have been an opportunity to redefine what Harvard is. Dare to be a great leader.
Bill Ackman
(02:12:30)
The president of Harvard had a huge opportunity, because she went third. The first two gave the world’s most disastrous answers to the question, and she literally just copied their answer, which is, itself, kind of ironic in light of ultimately what happened.
Lex Fridman
(02:12:45)
It’s tough because you can get busy as a president, as a leader and so on. There’s these meetings, and so you think Congress, maybe you’re smirking at the ridiculousness of the meeting. You need to remember that many of these are opportunities to give a speech of a lifetime. If there is principles which you want to see an institution become and embody in the next several decades, there’s opportunities to do that. You, as a great leader, also need to have a sense of when is the opportunity to do that. October 7th really woke up the world on all sides, honestly. There is a serious issue going on here. Then the protests woke up the university to there’s a serious issue going on here. It’s an opportunity to speak on free speech and on genocide, both.
Bill Ackman
(02:13:44)
Yes.
Lex Fridman
(02:13:45)
Do you see the criticism that you are a billionaire donor and you sort of used your power and financial influence unfairly to affect the governing structure of Harvard, in this case?
Bill Ackman
(02:13:59)
First of all, I never threatened to use financial or other resources. The only thing I did here was wrote. I wrote public letters, I spoke privately to a couple members of the board. I spoke for 45 minutes to the chairman. None of those conversations were effective or went anywhere, as far as I could tell. I think my public letters and then some of the posts, I did and that little three minute video excerpt had an impact, but it wasn’t about … I mean you can criticize me for being a billionaire, but it was really the words. It’s a bit like, again, going back to the corporate analogy, it’s not the fact that you own 5% of the company that causes people to vote in your favor, it’s the fact that your ideas are right.

(02:14:47)
After the congressional testimony, the board of Harvard said that they were unanimously, a hundred percent behind President Gay. Clearly, I was ineffective. Ultimately what took her down was other, I would say, activists who identified issues with academic integrity and then she lost the confidence of the faculty. Once that happens, it’s hard to stay. I wanted her to be fired, basically, or be forced to resign because of failures of leadership, because that would’ve sent a message about the importance of leadership. Failure to stop a emergence of antisemitism on campus. There’s some news today; the protests are getting worse.
Lex Fridman
(02:15:28)
Is there some tension between free speech on college campuses and disciplining students for calls of genocide?
Bill Ackman
(02:15:34)
Yes, there’s certainly a tension. First of all, I think free speech is incredibly important. I’m a lot closer to absolutism on free speech than otherwise. The issue I had was the hypocrisy. They were restricting other kinds of speech on campus, principally conservative speech, conservative views. So it wasn’t a free speech, absolutist campus. The protests were actually quite threatening to students. There are limits to even absolutist free speech and they begin where people feel intimidation, harassment and threat to bodily harm, et cetera, that kind of speech is generally … Again, it’s pretty technical, but as people feel like they’re in imminent harm, by virtue of the protest, that speech is at risk of not meeting the standards for free speech.

(02:16:26)
Harvard is a private corporation and as a private corporation, they can put on what restrictions they want. Harvard had introduced only a few months before bullying and harassment policies, and that’s why Representative Stefanik focused on … It’s not like she said, “Does calling for genocide against the Jews violate your free speech policies?” She said, “Does calling for genocide against the Jews violate your policies on bullying and harassment?”

(02:16:49)
I think everyone looked at this when they said, it depends on the context. They said, look, if you replaced Jews with some other ethnic group, students who’ve used the N word for example, have been thrown off campus or suspended. Students who’ve hate speeched directed at LGBTQ people has led to disciplinary action, but attacking, spitting on Jewish students or roughing them up a bit, seemed like we’re calling for their elimination, didn’t seem to violate the policies. Look, I think a university should be a place where you have broad views and open viewpoints and broad discussion, but it should also be a place where students don’t feel threatened going to class, where their learning is not interrupted, when final exams are not interrupted by people coming in with loud protests.

(02:17:43)
Students asked me when I went up there, “What would you do if you were Harvard president?” This was before I knew what was happening on the Dartmouth campus, I said, “I’d convene everyone together. This is Harvard. We have access to the best minds in the world. Let’s have a better understanding of the history. Let’s understand the backdrop. Let’s focus on solutions. Let’s bring Arab and Jewish and Israeli students together. Let’s form let groups to create communication.” That’s how you solve this kind of problem. None of that stuff has been done. It’s not that hard.
Lex Fridman
(02:18:09)
Do you think this reveals a deeper problem in terms of ideology and the governance of Harvard in maybe the culture of Harvard?
Bill Ackman
(02:18:22)
Yes. On governance, the governance structure is a disaster. The way it works today is Harvard has two principal boards. There’s the board of the corporation, the so-called fellows of Harvard. It’s a board of, I think, 12 independent directors and the president. There’s no shareholder vote, there’s no proxy system. It’s really a self-perpetuating board that effectively elects its own members. Once the balance tips, politically, one way or another, it can be kept that way forever. There’s no kind of rebalancing system. If a US corporation goes off the rails, so to speak, the shareholders can get together and vote off the directors. There’s no ability to vote off the directors.

(02:19:04)
Then there’s the board of overseers, which is I think 32 directors. A few years ago, if you could put together 600 signatures, you could run for that board and put up a bunch of candidates and about five or six get elected each year. A group did exactly that, and it was an oil and gas kind of disinvestment group. They got the signatures, a couple of them got elected, and Harvard then changed the rules and they said, ” Now we need 3,200 signatures. By the way, if there are these dissident directors on the board, we’re going to cap them at five.” So if three were elected in the oil and gas thing, now they’re only two seats available.

(02:19:46)
Then a group of former students, kind of younger alums, one of whom I knew, approached me and said, “Look, Bill, we should run for the board.” They decided this pretty late, only a few weeks before the signatures were due. We’d love your support. I took a look at their platform, I thought it looked great. I said, “Look, happy to support.” I posted about them, did a Zoom with them, and they got thousands of signatures. Collectively the four got, whatever, 12,000 signatures or something like this. They missed by about 10% of the threshold.

(02:20:16)
What did Harvard do in the middle of the election? They made it very, very difficult to sign up for a vote and it just makes them look terrible. They’ve got now thousands of alums upset that … Again, this wasn’t an election. This was just to put the names on the slate. The only candidates on the slate are the ones selected by the existing members. Businesses fail because of governance failures. Universities fail because of governance failures. It’s not really the president’s fault, because the job of the board is to hire and fire the president and help guide the institution academically and otherwise. That’s governance.

DEI in universities


(02:20:59)
I was like, “How can this be?” October 7th, the event that woke me up was 30 student organizations came out with a public letter on October 8th, literally the morning after this letter was created and said, “Israel is solely responsible for Hamas’ violent acts.” Again, Israel had not even mounted a defense at this point, and there were still terrorists running around in the southern part of Israel. I’m like, “34 Harvard student organizations signed this letter?” I’m like, “What is going on? WTF?” That’s when I went up on campus and I started talking to the faculty.

(02:21:43)
That’s when I started hearing about, actually, Bill, it’s this DEI ideology. I’m like, “What?” Diversity, equity, inclusion. Obviously I’m familiar with these words and I see this in the corporate context. They say, “Yeah.” They started talking to me about this oppressor-oppressed framework, which is effectively taught on campus and represents the backdrop for many of the courses that are offered and some of the studies and other degree offerings. I had not even heard of this and I’m a pretty aware person, but I was completely unaware. Basically they’re like, “Look, Israel is deemed an oppressor and the Palestinians are deemed the oppressed, and you take the side of the oppressed. Any acts of the oppressed to dislodge the oppressor, regardless of how vile or barbaric, are okay.” I’m like, “Okay. This is a super dangerous ideology.”

(02:22:45)
I wrote a questioning post about this, like, “Here’s what I’m hearing, is this right?” A friend of mine sent me Christopher Rufo’s book, America’s Cultural Revolution, which is sort of a sociological study of the origins of the DEI movement and critical race theory. I found it actually one of the more important books I’ve read and also I found it quite concerning. Ultimately, DEI comes out of a kind of Marxist socialist way to look at the world. I think there are a lot of issues with it, but unfortunately it’s advancing. I, ultimately, concluded racism, as opposed to fighting it, which is what I thought it was ultimately about.
Lex Fridman
(02:23:37)
Maybe you can speak to that book a little bit. So there’s a history that traces back across decades and then that infiltrated college campuses.
Bill Ackman
(02:23:47)
So basically what Rufo argues is that the black power movement of the sixties really failed. It was a very violent movement and many of the protagonists ended up in jail. Out of that movement, a number of thought leaders, this guy named [inaudible 02:24:08] and others built this framework kind of an approach. Said, “Look, if we’re going to be successful, it can’t be a violent movement, number one. Number two, we need to infiltrate, if you will, the universities and we need to become part of the faculty and we need to teach the students. Then once we take over the universities with this ideology, then we can go into government and then we can go into corporations and we can change the world.” I thought important book, and the more I dug in, the more I felt there was credibility to this, not just the kind of sociological backdrop, but to what it meant on campus.

(02:24:49)
Harvard faculty were telling me that there really is no such thing as free speech on campus and that there was a survey done, a year or so ago, the Harvard faculty and only 2% of the faculty admitted, even in an anonymous survey, admitted to having a conservative point of view. We have a campus that’s 98% non-conservative, liberal, progressive that’s adopted this DEI construct. Then I learned from a member of the search committee for the Harvard president that they were restricted in looking at candidates only those who met the DEI office’s criteria. I shared this in one of my postings and I was accused of being a racist. That’s someone who believes in that diversity is a very good thing for organizations and that equity fairness isn’t really important, and having an inclusive culture is critical for a functioning of a organization. Here I was, someone who was like, “Okay. DEI, sounds good to me,” at least in the small D small E, I version of events, but this DEI ideology is really problematic.
Lex Fridman
(02:26:02)
What’s the way to fix this in the next few years, the infiltration of DEI with the uppercase version of universities and the things that have troubled you, the things you saw at Harvard and elsewhere.
Bill Ackman
(02:26:20)
The same way this was an eyeopening event for me it has been for a very broad range of other people. I mentioned general growth. I got a lot of nice letters from people from making money on a stock that went up a hundred times. I literally get hundreds of emails, letters, texts, handwritten letters, typed letters from people, from the ages of 25 to 85, saying, “Bill, this is so important. Thanks for speaking out on this. You are saying what so many of us believe but have been afraid to say.”

(02:26:51)
I described it as almost a McCarthy-esque kind of movement in that if you challenge the DEI construct people accuse you of being a racist. It’s happened to me already. Perhaps I’m much less vulnerable than a university professor who can get shouted off campus, canceled. I’m sort of difficult to cancel, but that doesn’t mean people aren’t going to try. I’ve been the victim of a couple of interesting articles in the last few days, or at least one in particular in The Washington Post written by what I thought was a well-meaning reporter. It’s just clear that I’ve taken on some big parts of at least the progressive establishment, DEI. I’m also a believer that Biden should have stepped aside a long time ago, and it’s only getting worse. I’m attacking the president, DEI, elite universities and you make some enemies doing that.
Lex Fridman
(02:27:51)
I should say, I’m still at MIT and I love MIT. I believe in the power of great universities to explore ideas, to inspire young people to think, to inspire young people to lead.
Bill Ackman
(02:28:08)
Let me ask, okay, how can you explore how to think when you’re only shared a certain point of view? How can you learn about leadership when the governance and leadership at the institution is broken and exposure to ideas, if you’re limited in the ideas that you’re exposed to? I think university is at risk. I mean, the concerning thing is if 34 student organizations that each have, I don’t know, 30 members or maybe more, that’s a thousand. Okay. That’s a meaningful percentage of the campus perhaps that ultimately respond. Now, 10 or so, the 30 withdrew the statement once many of the members realized what they had written. It seems like the statement was signed by their leadership and not necessarily supported by all the various students that were members. If the university teaches people these precepts, this is the next generation of …

(02:29:04)
I wrote my college thesis on university admissions. The reason why controlling the gates of the Harvard institution, the admissions office is important, is that many of these people who graduate end up with the top jobs in government and ultimately become judges, they permeate through society and so it really matters what they learn. If they’re limited to one side of the political aisle and they’re not open to a broad array of views, and this represents some of the most elite institutions in our country, I think it’s very problematic for the country, long term.
Lex Fridman
(02:29:47)
Yeah, I 100% agree. I also felt like the leadership wasn’t even part of the problem as much as they were almost out of touch, unaware that this is an important moment, it’s an important crisis, it’s an important opportunity to step up as a leader and define the future of an institution. I don’t even know where the source of the problem is. It could be, literally, governance structure as we’ve been talking about.
Bill Ackman
(02:30:18)
Well, it’s two things. I think it’s governance structure. I also think universities, they’re not selecting leaders. It’s not clear to me that universities should necessarily be run by academics. The dean of a university, the person who helps … There’s sort of the business of the university, and then there’s the academics of the university. I would argue having a business leader run these institutions and then having a board that has, itself, diverse viewpoints, and by the way, permanently structured to have diverse viewpoints is a much better way to run a university than picking an academic that the faculty supports.

(02:31:11)
One of the things I learned about how faculty get hired at universities, ultimately, it’s signed off by the board, but the new faculty are chosen by each of the various departments. There’s sort of a tipping point, politically, where once they tip in one direction, the faculty recruit more people like themselves. The departments become more and more progressive, if you will, with the passage of time. They only advance candidates that meet their political objectives. It’s not a great way to build an institution, which allows for …
Lex Fridman
(02:31:48)
Small D, diversity
Bill Ackman
(02:31:50)
Allows for diversity. Diversity by the way, is not just race and gender. That’s also something I feel very strongly about.
Lex Fridman
(02:32:00)
Well, luckily, engineering robotics is touched last by this. It is touched. When I am at the computing building [inaudible 02:32:11] and the new one, politics doesn’t infiltrate, or I haven’t seen it infiltrate quite as deeply as elsewhere.
Bill Ackman
(02:32:17)
It’s in the biology department at Harvard because biology is controversial now.
Lex Fridman
(02:32:22)
Yes. Yes, yes.
Bill Ackman
(02:32:23)
Because biology and gender, there are faculty … There’s a woman at Harvard who was literally canceled from the faculty as a member. I think she was at the med school. She made the argument that there are basically two genders determined by biology. She wasn’t allowed to stay. That’s another topic for another time.
Lex Fridman
(02:32:46)
That’s another topic.
Bill Ackman
(02:32:47)
You should do a show on that one. That’d be an interesting one.
Lex Fridman
(02:32:50)
So as you said, technically Claudine Gay, the president of Harvard resigned over plagiarism, not over the thing that you were initially troubled by.
Bill Ackman
(02:33:01)
It’s hard to really know, right? It’s not like a provable fact. I would say at a certain point in time, she lost the confidence of the faculty, and that was ultimately the catalyst. How much of that was the plagiarism issue, and how much of that was some of the things that preceded it, or was it all of these issues in their entirety? There’s no way to do a calculus.
Lex Fridman
(02:33:21)
Can you explain the nature of this plagiarism from what you remember?
Bill Ackman
(02:33:25)
Aaron Sibarium and Christopher Rufo, one from The Free Beacon, and Chris, surfaced some allegations, or identified some pleasures in the issues that I would say the initial examples were use of the same words with proper attribution, some missing footnotes. Then over time with, I guess, more digging, they released I think ultimately something like 76 examples of what they call plagiarism in I think eight of 11 of her articles. One of the other things that came forth here is, as president of the university, she had sort of the thinnest transcript academically of any previous president, relatively small body of work. Then when you couple that with the amount of plagiarism that was pervasive. Then I guess some of the other examples that surfaced were not missing quotation marks where the authors of the work felt that their ideas had been stolen.

(02:34:26)
Really, plagiarism is academic fraud. One indicia of plagiarism is a missing footnote, that could also be a clerical error. When a professor’s accused of plagiarism, the university does sort of a deep dive. They have these administrative boards. It can take six months, nine months, a year to evaluate … Intent matters. Was this intentional theft of another person’s idea? That’s academic fraud. Or was this sloppy or just humanity? You miss a footnote here or there. I think once it got …
Bill Ackman
(02:35:00)
It’s a footnote here or there. And I think once it got to a place where people felt it was theft of someone else’s intellectual property, that’s when it became intolerable for her to stay as President of Harvard.
Lex Fridman
(02:35:13)
So is there a spectrum for you between a different kinds of plagiarism, maybe be plagiarizing words, and plagiarizing ideas, and plagiarizing novel ideas?
Bill Ackman
(02:35:28)
Of course. The common understanding of plagiarism, if you look in the dictionary, it’s about the theft. Theft requires a intent. Did the person intentionally take someone else’s ideas or words?

(02:35:43)
Now if you’re writing a novel, words matter more. If you’re taking Shakespeare and presenting it as your own words. If you’re writing about ideas, ideas matter, but you’re not supposed to take someone else’s words without properly acknowledging them, whether it’s quotation marks or otherwise.

(02:36:03)
But in the context of a academic’s life’s work before AI, everyone’s going to have missing quotation marks and footnotes. I remember writing my own thesis, there were books you couldn’t take out a Widener Library, so I’d have index cards. And I’d write stuff on index cards, and I put a little citation to make sure I remember to cite it properly.

(02:36:27)
And scrambling to do your thesis, get it in on time, what’s the chances you forget at what point, what are your words versus the author’s words? And you forget to put quotation marks. Just the humanity, the human fallibility of it. So it’s not academic fraud to have human fallibility, but it’s academic fraud. If you take someone else’s ideas that are an integral part of your work.
Lex Fridman
(02:36:53)
Is there a part of you that regrets that, at least from the perception of it, the President Harvard stepped on over plagiarism versus over refusing to say that the calls for genocide are wrong?
Bill Ackman
(02:37:09)
Again, I think it would’ve sent a better message if a leader fails as a leader, and that’s the reason for their resignation or dismissal. Then she gets, if you will, caught on a technical violation that had nothing to do with failed leadership. Because I don’t know what lesson that teaches the board about selecting the next candidate.

(02:37:32)
I mean, the future of Harvard, A lot of it’s going to depend on who they pick as the next leader. Here’s an interesting anecdote that I think has not surfaced publicly. So a guy named Larry Bacow was the previous president of Harvard. Larry Bacow was on the search committee, and they were looking for a new president. And what was strange was they picked an old white guy to be president of Harvard when there was a call for a more diverse president.

(02:38:04)
And what I learned was Harvard actually ran a process, had a diverse new president of Harvard, and in the due diligence on that candidate, shortly before the announcement of the new president, they found out that that presidential candidate had a plagiarism problem. And the search had gone on long enough, they couldn’t restart a search to find another candidate.

(02:38:26)
So they picked Larry Bacow off the board, off the search committee to the next president Harvard, as kind of an interim solution. And then there was that much more pressure to have a more diverse candidate this time around, because it was a big disappointment to the DEI office, if you will, and I would say to the community at large. That Harvard of all places couldn’t have a racially-diverse present. It sent an important message.

(02:38:53)
So the strange thing is that they didn’t do due diligence on President Gay, and that it was a relatively quick process. So the whole thing I think is worthy of further exploration.
Lex Fridman
(02:39:08)
So this goes deeper than just the president?
Bill Ackman
(02:39:10)
Yes, for sure. When a company fails, most people blame the CEO. I generally blame the board. Because the board’s job is to make sure the right person’s running the company, and if they’re failing, help the person. If they can’t help the person, make a change. That’s not what’s happened here. The board’s hand was sort of forced from the outside, whereas they should have made their own decision from the inside.
Lex Fridman
(02:39:32)
Do you still love Harvard?
Bill Ackman
(02:39:34)
Sure. It’s a 400-odd year institution. Enormously helpful to me in my life, I’m sure. My sister also went to Harvard. And the experiences, learnings, friendships, relationships. Again, I’m very happy with my life. Harvard was an important part of my life, I went there for both undergrad and business school. I learned a ton, met a lot of faculty. A number of my closest friends who I still really keep in touch with, I made then. So yeah, it’s a great place, but it needs a reboot.
Lex Fridman
(02:40:15)
Yeah, I still have hope. I think universities are really important institutions.
Bill Ackman
(02:40:21)
When I went to Harvard, there were 1600 people in my class. I think today’s class about the same size, and their online education really has not taken off. So I heard Peter Thiel speak at one point in time, and he’s like, “What great institution do you know, that’s truly great, that hasn’t grown in a hundred years?”

(02:40:44)
And the incentives in some sense of the alums are for, it’s a bit like a club. If you’re proud of the elitism of the club, you don’t want that many new members. But the fact that the population has grown of the country so significantly since, certainly, I was a student in 1984, and the fact that Harvard recruits people from all over the world, it’s really serving a smaller and smaller percentage of the population today.

(02:41:11)
And some of them were most talented and successful entrepreneurs anyway. It’s a token of success that they didn’t make it through their undergraduate years. They left as a freshman, or they didn’t attend at all.
Lex Fridman
(02:41:25)
For entrepreneurs, yes. But it’s still a place…
Bill Ackman
(02:41:28)
Very important for research, very important for advancing ideas. And yes, in shaping dialogue and the next generation of Supreme Court justices, and the members of government, politicians. So yes, it’s critically important. But it’s not doing the job it should be doing.

Neri Oxman

Lex Fridman
(02:41:53)
Neri Oxman, somebody you mentioned several times throughout this podcast, somebody I had a wonderful conversation with, a friendship with. I’ve looked up to her, admired her, I’ve been a fan of hers for a long time, of her work and of her as a human being. Looks like you’re a fan of hers as well.
Bill Ackman
(02:42:12)
Yes. W.
Lex Fridman
(02:42:14)
Hat do you love about Neri? What do you admire about her as a scientist, artist, human being?
Bill Ackman
(02:42:19)
I think she’s the most beautiful person I’ve ever met, and I mean that from the center of her soul. She’s the most caring, warm, considerate, thoughtful person I’ve ever met. And she couples those remarkable qualities with brilliance, incredible creativity, beauty, elegance, grace. I’m talking about my wife, but I’m talking incredibly dispassionately.

(02:42:57)
But I mean what I say. She’s the most remarkable person I’ve ever met, and I’ve met a lot of remarkable people, and I’m incredibly fortunate to spend a very high percentage of my lifetime with her, ever since I met her six years ago.
Lex Fridman
(02:43:14)
So she’s been a help to you through some of the rough moments you described.
Bill Ackman
(02:43:17)
For sure. I mean, I met her at the bottom. Which is not a bad place to meet someone if it works out.
Lex Fridman
(02:43:25)
Is there some degree of yin and yang with the two personalities? You have described yourself as emotional and so on, but it does seem the two of you have slightly different styles about how you approach the world.
Bill Ackman
(02:43:39)
Sure. Well, interestingly, we have a lot of, we come from very similar places in the world. There are times where you feel like we’ve known each other for centuries.

(02:43:49)
I met her parents for the first time a long time ago, almost six years ago as well. And I knew her parents were from Eastern Europe, originally. So I asked her father, what city did her family come from originally? And I called my father and asked him, “Dad, Grandpa Abraham, what’s the name of the city?” And then I put the two cities into Google Maps, and they were 52 miles apart. Which I thought was pretty cool.

(02:44:21)
Then of course at some point we did genetic testing, make sure we weren’t related, which we were not. But we share incredible commonality on values. We are attracted to the same kind of people. She loves my friends, I love hers. We love doing the same kind of things, we like spending time the same ways.

(02:44:46)
And she has more emotion, more elegance. She doesn’t like battles, but she’s very strong. But she’s more sensitive than I am.
Lex Fridman
(02:44:58)
Yeah, you are constantly in multiple battles at the same time, and there’s often the media, social media, it’s just fire everywhere.
Bill Ackman
(02:45:11)
That hasn’t really been the case for a while. I’ve had relative peace for a long time as I stopped being, as I haven’t had to be the kind of activist I was earlier in my career. I think since October 7th, yes, I do feel like I’ve been in a war.
Lex Fridman
(02:45:25)
Can you tell me the saga of the accusations against Neri?
Bill Ackman
(02:45:32)
So I did not actually surface the plagiarism allegations against President Gay that surfaced by Aaron and maybe Christopher Ruffo as well, or maybe Chris helped promote what Aaron and some anonymous person identified. But I certainly, it was a point in time where the board had said “We’re a hundred percent behind her,” and unanimously. And I really felt she had to go. So it didn’t bother me at all that they had identified problems with her work.

(02:46:02)
So I shared, I reposted those posts. And then when the board, she ultimately resigned and she got a $900,000 a year professorship continuing at Harvard, I said, look, in light of her limited academic record and these plagiarism allegations, she had to go.

(02:46:21)
I knew when I did so, I assumed I was actually a bit paranoid about that thesis I had written. I only had one academic work, but I hadn’t checked it for plagiarism. And I thought, that’s going to happen. Actually, I had someone, I did not have a copy on hand, so I got a copy of my thesis.

(02:46:42)
And I remember writing it, Harvard at the time was pretty, they kind of gave you a lecture about making sure you have all your footnotes and quotation marks. I learned later that apparently they had a copy of my thesis at the New York Public Library, and a member of the media told me he was there online with a dozen other members of the media all trying to get a copy of my thesis to run it through some AI. They had to first do optical character recognition to convert the paper document into digital.

(02:47:14)
But fortunately, through a miracle, I didn’t have an issue. I didn’t think about Neri of course, who has whatever, 130 academic works.

(02:47:25)
And so we were just at the end of a vacation for Christmas break, and it was early in the morning for a vacation time. And all of a sudden I hear my phone ringing in the other room, or vibrating in the other room multiple times. I’m like, hm.

(02:47:41)
I pick up the phone and saw our communication guy, Fran McGill. And he’s like, “Bill, Business Insider has apparently identified a number of instances of plagiarism in Neri’s dissertation. Let me send you this email.”

(02:47:53)
He sent me the email, and they had identified four paragraphs in her 330- page dissertation where she had cited the author, but she had used the vast majority of the words, and that those paragraphs were from the author, and she should have used quotation marks.

(02:48:10)
And then there was one case where she paraphrased correctly an author, but did not footnote that it was from his work.

(02:48:21)
And so we were presented with this and told, they’re going to publish in a few hours. And we’re like, “Well, can we get to the next day? We’re just about to head home.”

(02:48:28)
And they’re like, “No, we’re publishing by noon. We need an answer by noon.”

(02:48:32)
And so we downloaded the copy of her thesis on the slow internet. And Neri checked it out and she said, “You know what? Looks like they’re right.”

(02:48:42)
And I said, “Look, you should just admit your mistake.”

(02:48:45)
And she wrote a very simple, gracious, yes, I should have used quotation marks. And on the author I failed to cite, she pointed out that she cited them eight other times, and wrote a several-paragraph section of her thesis acknowledging his work.

(02:49:02)
And none of these were important parts of her thesis. But she acknowledged her mistake and she said, I apologize for my mistake, and I apologized to the author who I failed to cite. And I stand on the shoulders of all the people came before me, and looking to advance work. And we sort of thought it was over.

(02:49:19)
We head home. In-flight on the way home, although we didn’t realize this until we got back the following day, a Business Insider published another article and said, “Neri Oxman admits to plagiarism.” Plagiarism, of course, is academic fraud. And this thing goes crazy viral.

(02:49:37)
Oh, Bill Ackman the title is Bill Ackman’s Wife, Celebrity Academic, Mary Oxman. And they use the term celebrity because there are limits to what legitimate media can go after, but celebrities, there’s a lot more leeway in the media into what they can say. So that’s why they call her a celebrity. First time ever she’d been called a celebrity. And they basically, she’s admitting to academic fraud. And then they said … And then the next day at 5:19 PM, I remember the timeline pretty well, an email was sent to Fran McGill saying, “We’ve identified two dozen other instances of plagiarism in her work.” 15 of which are Wikipedia entries where she copied definitions, and the others were mostly software-hardware manuals for various devices or software she used in her work, most of which were in footnotes where she described a nozzle for a 3D printer or something like this.

(02:50:43)
And they said, “We’re publishing tonight.” The email they sent to us was 6,900 words. It was 12 pages. It was practically indecipherable. You couldn’t even read it in an hour. And we didn’t have some of the documents they were referring to.

(02:50:59)
And I’m like, “Neri, you know what I’m going to do? I think it’ll be useful to provide context here. I’m going to do a review of every MIT professor’s dissertations. Every published paper. AI has enabled this.”

(02:51:12)
And so that was, I put out a tweet basically saying that. And we’re doing a test run now, because we have to get it right, and I think it’ll be a useful exercise. Provide some context, if you will. And then this thing goes crazy viral. And Neri is a pretty sensitive person, pretty emotional person, and someone who’s a perfectionist. And having everyone in the world thinking you committed academic fraud is a pretty damning thing.

(02:51:40)
Now, they did say they did a thorough review of all of her work, and this is what they found. I’m like, sweetheart, that’s remarkable. I did 130 works, 73 of which were peer-reviewed, blah, blah, blah. And she’s published in Nature Science and all these different publications. That’s actually, it’s a pretty good batting average.

(02:51:56)
But this is wrong, this is not academic fraud. These are inadvertent mistakes. And the Wikipedia entries, Neri actually used Wikipedia as a dictionary. This is the early days of Wikipedia. And they also referred to the MIT handbook, which has a whole section on plagiarism, academic handbook.

(02:52:14)
And if you read it, which I ultimately did, they make clear a few things. Number one, there’s plagiarism, academic fraud. And there’s what they call inadvertent plagiarism, which is clerical errors where you make a mistake, and it depends on intent. And there’s a link that you can go to, which is a section on, if you get investigated at MIT, what happens? What’s the procedure, what’s the initial stage, what’s the investigative stage, what’s the procedure if they identify it? And they make very clear that academic fraud is, and they list plagiarism, research theft, a few other things, but it does not include honest errors. Honest errors are not plagiarism under MIT’s own policies.

(02:52:58)
And in the handbook, they also have a big section of what they call common knowledge. And common knowledge depends on who you’re writing your thesis for. And so if it’s a fact that is known by your audience, you’re not required to quote or cite.

(02:53:14)
And so all those Wikipedia entries were for things like sustainable design, computer-aided design. She just took a definition from Wikipedia, common knowledge to her readers, no obligation under the handbook, totally exempt.

(02:53:28)
On using the same words, she referred to whatever, some kind of 3D printer. She was, the Stratasys 3D Printer, and she quoted from the manual. Right away, Stratasys is a company you consulted for. That’s not something, you’re not stealing their ideas, you’re describing a nozzle for a device you use in your work in a footnote. That’s not a theft of idea.

(02:53:52)
And so I’m like, this is crazy. And so this has got to stop. And so I reach out to a guy I knew who was on the board of Business Insider, the chairman, and his name is going to come public shortly. I committed at that time to keep his name confidential, it’s now surfaced publicly in the press.
Lex Fridman
(02:54:11)
Can I just pause real quick here?
Bill Ackman
(02:54:13)
Sure.
Lex Fridman
(02:54:13)
Just to, I don’t know. There’s a lot of things I want to say. But you made it pretty clear. But just as a member of the community, there’s also a common sense test. I think you’re more precisely legal in looking at…
Bill Ackman
(02:54:31)
Sure.
Lex Fridman
(02:54:31)
But there’s just a bullshit test. And nothing that Neri did is plagiarism in the bad meaning of the word. Plagiarism right now is becoming another -ism, like racism or so on, used as an attack word. I don’t care what the meaning of it is, but there’s the bad academic fraud like theft, theft of an idea. And maybe you can say a lot of definitions and this kind of stuff. But then there’s just a basic bullshit test where everyone knows, this is a thief and this is definitely not a thief.

(02:55:05)
And there’s nothing about anything that Neri did, anything in her thesis or in her life. Everyone that knows her, she’s a rock star. I just want to make it clear, it really hurt me that the internet, whatever is happening, could go after a great scientist. Because I love science, and I love celebrating great scientists.

(02:55:33)
And it’s just really messed up that whatever the machine, we can talk about Business Insider or whatever, social media, mass hysteria, whatever is happening. We need the great scientists of the world, because the future depends on them. And so we need to celebrate them, and protect them, and let them flourish and do their thing.

(02:55:56)
And keep them out of this whatever shit-storm that we’re doing to get clicks, and advertisements, and drama and all this. We need to protect them. So I just want to say there’s nobody I know, and I have a million friends that are scientists, world-class scientists, Nobel Prize winners, they all love Neri, they all respect Neri, she did zero wrong.

(02:56:21)
And then the rest of the conversation we’re going to have about how broken journalism is, and so on. But I just want to say that there’s nothing that Neri did wrong. It’s not a gray area or so on.

(02:56:31)
I also personally don’t love that Claudine Gay is a discussion about plagiarism, because it distracts from the fundamentals that is broken, it becomes some weird technical discussion. But in case of Neri, did nothing wrong. Great scientist, great engineer at MIT and beyond. She’s doing the cool thing now.
Bill Ackman
(02:56:55)
Could not have said it better myself. Now, obviously I’m focusing the technical part…
Lex Fridman
(02:56:59)
Right. Because you have to be precise here.
Bill Ackman
(02:57:02)
Well, it’s not even that. I mean, yes, I have said that we’re going to sue Business Insider. And in 35 years of my career of someone who has, not every article has been a favorable one, not every article has been an accurate one, I’ve never threatened to sue the media. And I’ve never sued the media. But this is so egregious.

(02:57:23)
It’s not just that she did nothing wrong, but they accused her of academic fraud. They did it knowing, they make reference to MIT’s own handbook so they had to read all the same stuff that I read in the handbook, they did that work. Then, after I escalated this thing to Henry Blodget, the chairman of Business Insider, to the CEO of Axel Springer, I even reached out to Henry Kravis at a certain point in time, one of the controlling shareholders of the company through KKR, laying out the factual errors in the article.

(02:57:59)
Business Insider went public after they said Neri committed academic fraud and plagiarism. And said, we didn’t challenge any, the facts remain undisputed in the article.

(02:58:12)
So it’s basically, Neri committed plagiarism. That’s story one. Neri admits to plagiarism. She admits to plagiarism. She admitted to making a few clerical errors, that’s the only thing she admitted to, and she graciously apologized.

(02:58:25)
So they said, “Neri admits to plagiarism, apologizes for plagiarism.” That’s incredibly damning. ” And by the way, we’re doing an investigation because we’re concerned that there might’ve been inappropriate process, but the facts of the story have not been disputed by Neri Oxman or Bill Ackman.”

(02:58:41)
And that was totally false. I had done it privately, I’d done it publicly on Twitter, on X. I laid out, I have a whole tech stream, a WhatsApp stream with the CEO of the company. And they doubled down, and they doubled down again.

(02:58:56)
And so, I don’t sue people lightly. And stay tuned.
Lex Fridman
(02:59:02)
So you’re, at least for now, moving forward with…
Bill Ackman
(02:59:08)
It’s a certainty we’re moving forward. There’s a step we can take prior to suing them, where we basically send them a letter demanding they make a series of corrections. That if they don’t make those corrections, the next step is litigation. I hope we can avoid the next step.

(02:59:28)
And I’m just making sure that when we present the demand to Business Insider, and ultimately to Axel Springer, that it’s incredibly clear how they defamed her, the factual mistakes in our stories, and what they need to do to fix it. And if we can fix it there, we can move on from this episode and hopefully avoid litigation. So that’s where we are.
Lex Fridman
(02:59:51)
I don’t know. You’re smarter than me. There’s technical stuff, there’s legal stuff, there’s journalistic stuff. But just, fuck you Business Insider for doing this. I don’t know much in this world, but journalists aren’t supposed to do that.
Bill Ackman
(03:00:06)
Now look, we’re going to surface all this stuff publicly, ultimately. The email was not to Neri saying there was plagiarism in her work. The email came from a reporter named Catherine Long, and the headline was, “Your wife committed plagiarism. Shouldn’t she be fired from MIT, just like you caused Claudine Gay to be fired from Harvard?”

(03:00:27)
It was a political agenda. She doesn’t like me, and she was trying to hurt me, and they couldn’t find plagiarism in my thesis. And being a short seller, the Herbalife battle went on for years. They tried to do everything to destroy my reputation. So they’d already gone through my trash, they’d already done all that work. So anything they could possibly find, I’ve always lived a very clean life, thankfully. And if you’re going to be an activist short seller, you better. Because they’re going to find out dirt on you if it exists. And so they’re like, how can we really hurt Bill?

(03:01:07)
And by the way, Neri had left MIT years earlier. When the reporter found out she was no longer a member of the MIT faculty, they were enraged. They didn’t believe us. They made us prove to us she’s no longer on the MIT faculty, because they wanted to get her fired. And by the way, malice is one of the important factors in determining whether defamation is taking place. And this was a malice- driven, this was not about news.

(03:01:33)
And the unfortunate thing about journalism is Business Insider made a fortune from this. This story was published and republished by thousands of media organizations around the world. It was the number one trending thing on Twitter for two days. Every newspaper, it was on the front page of every Israeli newspaper, it was on the front page of the Financial Times.

(03:01:58)
And she’s building a business. And if you’re a CEO of a science company and you committed academic fraud, that’s incredibly damaging. But I ultimately convinced her that this was good.

(03:02:11)
I said, “Sweetheart, you’re amazing. You’re incredible. You’re incredibly talented, but you’re mostly known in the design world. Now everyone in the universe has heard of Neri Oxman. We’re going to get this thing cleared up. You’re going to be doing an event in six months where you’re going to tell the world, you’re going to go out of stealth mode, you’re going to tell the world about all the incredible things that you’re building, and you’re designing, and you’re creating. And it’s going to be like the iPhone launch, because everyone’s going to be paying attention and they’re going to want to see your work.”

(03:02:42)
And that’s how I try to cheer her up. But I think it’s true.
Lex Fridman
(03:02:45)
It is true. And you’re doing your job as a good partner, seeing the silver lining of all this. How is, just from observing her, how did she stay strong through all of this psychologically? Because at least I know she’s pushing ahead with the work.
Bill Ackman
(03:03:04)
Oh, she’s full speed ahead in her work. She’s built an amazing team, she’s hired 30 scientists, roboticists, people who, biologists, plant specialists, material scientists, engineers, really incredible crew. She’s built this 36,000 square-foot lab in New York City that’s one of a kind, they’re working out of it. It’s still under construction while they’re working out of it.

(03:03:28)
And so she’s going to do amazing things. But as I said, she’s an extremely sensitive person. She’s a perfectionist. Okay? Imagine thinking that the entire world thinks you committed academic fraud. And so that was very hard for her.

(03:03:44)
She’s a very positive person. But I saw her in, I would say, her darkest emotional period for sure. She’s doing much better now. But you can kill someone. You can kill someone by destroying their reputation. People commit suicide. People go into these deep, dark depression.
Lex Fridman
(03:04:05)
Well my worry, primarily, when I saw what Business Insider was doing, is that they might dim the light of a truly special scientist and creator.
Bill Ackman
(03:04:20)
It’s not going to happen.
Lex Fridman
(03:04:22)
But I also worry about others like Neri, young Neris, that this sends a signal that might scare them. And journalism shouldn’t scare aspiring young scientists.
Bill Ackman
(03:04:38)
The problem is the defamation law in the US is so favorable to the publisher, to the media, and so unfavorable to the victim. And the incentives are all wrong.

(03:04:53)
When you went from a paper version of journalism to digital, and you could track how many people click, and it’s a medium that advertising drives the economics. And if you can show an advertiser more clicks, you can make more money. So a journalist is incentivized to write a story that will generate more clicks. How do you write a story that generate more clicks? You get a billionaire guy, and then you go after his wife, and you make a sensationalist story. And you give them no time to respond, right?

(03:05:25)
Look at the timing here. On the first story, they gave us three hours. On the second one, the following day, 5:19 PM, the email comes in not to Neri, not to her firm, but to my communications person. Who tracks us down by 5:30, 10 minutes later. And they publish their story 92 minutes after.

(03:05:47)
And they sent us, “We’re going to surface all these documents in our demand.” Read the email they sent, whether you could even decipher it. There was no … And by the way, there’s a reason why academic institutions, when a professor’s accused…
Bill Ackman
(03:06:00)
The reason why academic institutions, when a professors accused of plagiarism, why they have these very careful processes with multiple stages and they can take a year or more because it depends on intent. Was this intentional? In order to be a crime, an academic crime, you got to prove that they intentionally stole. Look, in some cases it’s obvious. In some cases it’s very subtle and they take this stuff super seriously, but they basically accused Neri of academic crime. And then 92 minutes later, they said she committed an academic crime and that should be a crime and that should be punishable with litigation. And there should be a real cost. And we’re going to make sure there’s a real cost, reputationally and otherwise, to Business Insider and to Axel Springer. Because ultimately you got to look to the controlling owner. They’re responsible.
Lex Fridman
(03:06:50)
I’ll just say that you in this regard are inspiring to me for facing basically an institution that whole purpose is to write articles. So you’re like going into the fire.

X and free speech

Bill Ackman
(03:07:10)
My kid’s school, the epithet of the school, or the saying is go forth unafraid. I think it’s a good way to live. And again, words can’t harm me. The power of X, And we do owe Elon enormous thanks for this is now, so for example, the Washington Post wrote a story about me a couple days ago, and I didn’t think the story was a fair story. So within a few hours of the story being written, I’m able to put out a response to the story and send it to 1,200,000 people. And it gets read and reread. I haven’t checked, but probably 5 million people saw my response. Now, those are the people on X, It’s not everyone in the world. There’s a disconnection between the X world and the offline world. But reputation in my business is basically all you have. And as they say, you can take a lifetime to build a reputation and take five minutes to have a disappear.

(03:08:11)
And the media plays a very important role and they can destroy people. At least we now have some ability to fight back. We have a platform, we can surface our views. The typical old days, they write an incredibly damning article and you point out factual errors and then two months later they bury a little correction on page, whatever. By then the person was fired where their life was destroyed or the reputation’s damaged. It was with Warren Buffett talking about media, and it’s a business he really loves. He says, “You know what, Bill?” He said, “A thief with a dagger. The only person who cause you more harm than a thief with a dagger is a journalist with a pen.” And those were very powerful words.
Lex Fridman
(03:08:50)
So you think X, formerly known as Twitter, is a kind of neutralizing force to that, to the power of centralized institutions?
Bill Ackman
(03:09:00)
100%. And I think it’s a really important one, and it’s really been eye-opening for me to see how stories get covered in mainstream media. And then what I do on X is I follow people on multiple sides of an issue and you can or I post on a topic and I get to hear the other side. I read the replies. And the truth is something that people have had a lot of question about, particularly in the last, I would say five years beginning with Trump’s talking about fake news. And a lot of what Trump said about fake news is true. A big part of the world hated Trump and did everything they could to discredit him, destroy him.

(03:09:44)
And he did a lot of things perhaps deserving of being discredited. He is by a very imperfect and some cases harmful leader. But everything from pre-election, the Hunter Biden laptop story in the New York Post that then Twitter made difficult for people to share and to read. COVID, the Jay Bhattacharyas of the world, questioning the government’s response, questioning long-term lockdowns, questioning keeping kids out of school, questions about masks, about vaccines, which are still not definitively answered, no counterbalance to the power of the government when the government can shut down avenues for free speech and where the mainstream media has kind of towed the line in many stents to the government’s actions.

(03:10:49)
So having an independently owned powerful platform is very important for truth, for free speech, for hearing the other side of the story, for counterbalancing the power of the government. Elon is getting a lot of pushback. The SpaceXs and Teslas of the world are experiencing a lot of government questions and investigations. And even the President of the United States came out and said, “Look, he needs to be investigated.” I’m getting my own version of that in terms of some negative media articles. I don’t know what’s next. But yeah, if you stick your neck out in today’s world and you go against the establishment, or at least the existing administration, you can find yourself in a very challenged place. And that discourages people from sharing stuff. And that’s why anonymous speech is important, some of which you find on Twitter.

Trump

Lex Fridman
(03:11:46)
You mentioned Trump. I have to talk to you about politics.
Bill Ackman
(03:11:50)
Sure.
Lex Fridman
(03:11:50)
Amongst all the other battles, you’ve also been a part of that one. Maybe you can correct me on this, but you’ve been a big supporter of various democratic candidates over the years, but you did say a lot of nice things about Donald Trump in 2016, I believe.
Bill Ackman
(03:12:10)
So I was interviewed by Andrew Sorkin a week after Trump won the election.
Lex Fridman
(03:12:13)
Yes.
Bill Ackman
(03:12:14)
And I made my case for why I thought he could be a good president.
Lex Fridman
(03:12:16)
Yes. So what was the case back then? To which degree did that turn out to be true? And to which degree did not? To which degree was he a good president? To which degree was he not a good president?
Bill Ackman
(03:12:28)
Look, I think what I said at the time was the United States is actually a huge business. And it reminds me a bit of the type of activist investments we’ve taken on over time where this really, really great business has kind of lost its way. And with the right leadership, we can fix it. And if you think about the business of the United States today, right? You’ve got $32 trillion worth of debt over leveraged and or it’s highly leveraged, and the leverage is only increasing. We’re losing money, i.e., revenues aren’t covering expenses. The cost of our debt is going up as interest rates have gone up and the debt has to be rolled over. We have enormous administrative bloat in the country. The regulatory regime is incredibly complicated and burdensome and impeding growth. Our relations with our competitor nations and our friendly nations are far from ideal.

(03:13:23)
And those conditions were present in 2020 as well. They’re just, I would say worse now. And I said, “Look, it’s a great thing that we have a business man as president.” And in my lifetime was really the first businessman as opposed to, I mean, maybe Bush to some degree was a business person, but I thought, “Okay, I always wanted the CEO to be CEO of America.” And now we have Trump said, “Look, he’s got some personal qualities that seem less ideal, but he’s going to be President of the United States. He’s going to rise to the occasion. This is going to be his legacy, and he knows how to make deals and he’s going to recruit some great people into his administration.” I hoped. And growth can solve a lot of our problems. So if we can get rid of a bunch of regulations that are holding back the country, we can have a president.

(03:14:12)
Obama was a, I would say not a pro-business president. He did not love the business community. He did not love successful people. And having a president who just changed the tone on being a pro-business president, I thought it would be good for the country. And that’s basically what I said. And I would say Trump did a lot of good things and a lot of people, you can get criticized for acknowledging that, but I think the country’s economy accelerated dramatically. And that, by the way, the capitalist system helps the people at the bottom best when the system does well and when the economy does well.

(03:14:51)
The black unemployment rate was the lowest in history when Trump was president, and that’s true for other minority groups. So he was good for the economy, and he recognized some of the challenges and issues and threats of China early. He kind of woke up NATO. Now, again, the way he did all this stuff you can object to, but NATO actually started spending more money on defense in the early part of Trump’s presidency because of his threats, which turned out to be a good thing in light of ultimately the Russia-Ukraine war. And I think if you analyze Trump objectively based on policies, he did a lot of good for the country. I think what’s bad is he did some harm as well.

(03:15:40)
I do think civility disappeared in America with Trump as president. A lot of that’s his personal style. And how important is civility? I do think he was attacked very aggressively by the left, by the media that made him paranoid. It probably interfered with his ability to be successful. He had the Russian collusion investigation overhang, and when someone’s attacked, they’re not going to be at their best, particularly if they’re paranoid. I think there’s some degree of that, but I’m giving the best of defense of Trump. Just you look at how he managed his team, right? Very few people made it through the Trump administration without getting fired or quitting, and he would say they’re the greatest person in the world when he hired them, and they’re total disaster when he fired them. It’s not an inspiring way to be a leader and to attract really talented people.

(03:16:39)
I think the events surrounding the election, I think January 6th, he could have done a lot more to stop a riot. I don’t consider it an insurrection, but a riot that takes place in our capitol. And where police officers are killed or die, commit suicide for failure as they sought it to do their job. He stepped in way too late to stop that. He could have stopped it early. Many of his words, I think, inspired people, some of whom with malintent to go in there and cause harm, and literally to shut down the government. There were some evil people unfortunately there. So he’s been a very imperfect president and also I think contributed to the extreme amount of divisiveness in our country. So I was ultimately disappointed by the note of optimism. And again, I always support the president. I trust the people ultimately to select our next leader.

(03:17:37)
It’s a bit like who wants to be a millionaire? When you go to the crowd and the crowd says a certain thing, you got to trust the crowd. But usually in who wants to be a millionaire, it’s a landslide in one direction. So you know which letter to pick. Here, we had an incredibly close election, which itself is a problem. So my dream and what I’ve tried a little bit, played politics in the last little period to support some alternatives to Trump so that we have a president. I use the example, imagine you woke up in the morning, it’s election day, whatever it is, this November 4th, whatever, 2024, and you still haven’t figured out who to vote for because the candidates are so appealing that you don’t know which lever to pull because it’s a tough call. That’s the choice we should be making as Americans. It shouldn’t be, I’m a member of this party and I’m only going to vote this way. I’m a member of that party going to vote the other way and I hate the other side. And that’s where we’ve been, unfortunately for too long.
Lex Fridman
(03:18:31)
Or you might be torn because both candidates are not good.
Bill Ackman
(03:18:35)
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(03:18:36)
I love a future where I’m torn because the choices are so amazing.
Bill Ackman
(03:18:42)
The problem is the party system is so screwed up and the parties are self-interested, and there’s another governance problem, an incentive problem. Michael Porter, who was one of my professors at Harvard Business School, wrote a brilliant piece on the American political system and all the incentives and market dynamics and what he called a competitive analysis. It’s a must read. I should dig it up and send it around on X, but it explains how the parties and the incentives of these sort of self-sustaining entities where the people involved are not incentivized to do what’s best for the country, it’s a problem.

Dean Phillips

Lex Fridman
(03:19:22)
You’ve been a supporter of Dean Phillips for the 2024 US presidential race.
Bill Ackman
(03:19:28)
Yes.
Lex Fridman
(03:19:28)
What do you like about Dean?
Bill Ackman
(03:19:31)
I think he’s a honest, smart, motivated, capable, proven guy as a business leader. And I think in six, almost in his three terms in Congress, he ran when Trump was elected, he said his kids cried, his daughters cried, inspired him to run for office, ran in a Republican district in Minnesota for the last 60 years, was elected in the landslide, has been re-elected twice, moved up the ranks in the Congress, respected by his fellow members of Congress, advance some important legislation during COVID on senior roles, on various foreign policy committees. Centrist considered, I think the second most bipartisan member of the Congress. I’d love to have a bipartisan president. That’s the only way to go forward. But we’d enormously benefit if we had a president that chose policies on the basis of what’s best for the country as opposed to what his party wanted. What I like about him is he’s financially independent.

(03:20:36)
He’s not a billionaire, but he doesn’t need the job. The party hates him now because he challenged the king, but he was willing to give up his political career because what he thought was best for the country, he tried to get other people to run who were higher profile, had more name recognition. None would, no one wants to challenge Biden if they want to have a chance to stay in office or run in the future. But he’s very principled. I think he would be a great president, but his shot is Michigan, but he needs to raise money in order to… He’s only got a couple weeks and he’s got to be on TV there. That’s expensive. So we’ll see.
Lex Fridman
(03:21:16)
So he has to increase name recognition, all that kind of stuff. Also, as you mentioned, he’s young.
Bill Ackman
(03:21:21)
55. Yeah, but he’s a young 55. You see him play hockey.
Lex Fridman
(03:21:24)
Yeah. I mean, I guess 55 no matter what is a pretty young age.
Bill Ackman
(03:21:27)
I’m 57. I feel young. I can do more pull-ups today than I could as a kid. So that’s a standard.
Lex Fridman
(03:21:34)
You’re at the top of your tennis game.
Bill Ackman
(03:21:36)
I’m at the top of my tennis game for sure.
Lex Fridman
(03:21:38)
Maybe there’s someone that would disagree with that.
Bill Ackman
(03:21:40)
And by the way, the other thing to point out here is, and I have been pointing this out as of others, Biden is I think is done. I mean, it’s embarrassing. It’s embarrassing for the country having him as a presidential candidate, let alone the president of the country. It’s crazy. And it’s just going to get worse and worse and should… The worst of his legacy is his ego that prevents him from stepping aside. And that’s it. It’s his ego. And it is so wrong and so bad and so embarrassing when you talk to people. I was in Europe, I was in London a few days ago, and people are like, “Bill, how can this guy be a president?” And it’s a bit like, again, I go back to my business analogy. Being a CEO is like a full contact sport. Being President of the United States is like some combination of wrestling, marathon running, being a triathlete.

(03:22:36)
I mean, you got to be at the serious physical shape and at the top of your game to represent this country. And he is a far cry from that. And it’s just getting worse, and it’s embarrassing. And he cannot be. And by the way, every day he waits, he’s handing the election to Trump because it’s harder and harder for an alternative candidate to surface. Now, Dean is the only candidate left on the Democratic side. They can still win delegates. He’s on the ballot in 42 states. And the best way for Biden to step aside is for Dean to show well in Michigan.
Lex Fridman
(03:23:11)
And so you think there is a path with the delegates and all that kind of stuff?
Bill Ackman
(03:23:14)
100%. So what has to happen is New Hampshire, he went from 0 to 20% of the vote and 10 weeks with no name recognition. I helped a little bit. Elon helped. We did a spaces for him. We had 350,000 people on the spaces. Some originally 40,000 live or something and then the rest after. And then he was on the ground in New Hampshire. And New Hampshire is one of the states where you don’t need to be registered to a party to vote for the candidate. So it’s like jump ball and you got 20%. And that’s with a lot of independents and Democrats voting for Haley.

(03:23:52)
Haley, who I like and who I’ve supported, does not look like she’s going to make it. Trump is really kind of running the table. And so vote for Haley as an independent Michigan, maybe throw away your vote. I think it increases the likelihood that Dean can get those independent votes if he could theoretically, again, he needs money, he could beat Biden in Michigan. Biden’s doing very poorly in Michigan. His polls are terrible. The Muslim community is not happy with him, and he really has spent no time there. And so if he’s embarrassed in Michigan, it could be a catalyst for him withdrawing.

(03:24:29)
Then Dean will get funding if he wins Michigan or shows well in Michigan, and people say he’s viable. He’s the only choice we have. He’ll attract from the center, he’ll attract from people, Republicans who won’t vote for Trump, of which there are a big percentage, could be 60% or more. It could be 70% won’t vote for Trump and also from the Democrats. So I think he’s a really interesting candidate, but we’ve got to get the word out.
Lex Fridman
(03:24:53)
I gotten a chance to chat with Dean. I really like him. I really like him. And I think the next President of the United States is going to have to meet and speak regularly with Zelensky, Putin, [inaudible 03:25:07], with world leaders and have some of the most historic conversations, agreements, negotiations. And I just don’t see Biden doing that.
Bill Ackman
(03:25:17)
No.
Lex Fridman
(03:25:18)
And not for any reason, but sadly, age.
Bill Ackman
(03:25:23)
Think about it this way. When Biden’s present now, you saw his recent impromptu press conference, which he did after the special prosecutor report, basically saying the guy was way past his prime, and then he confused the president of Mexico and the president of Egypt. So they’re very careful when they roll him out and he’s scripted and he’s always reading from a lectern. Imagine the care they have in exposing him, and when they expose him, it’s terrible. Okay. Imagine how bad it is for real.
Lex Fridman
(03:25:55)
It’s not good.
Bill Ackman
(03:25:56)
No, really bad for America. And I’m upset with him and upset with his family. I’m upset with his wife. This is the time where the people closest to you have to put their arms around you and say, “Dad, honey, you’ve done your thing. This is going to be your legacy and it’s not going to be a good one.”
Lex Fridman
(03:26:16)
Great leaders should also know when to step down.
Bill Ackman
(03:26:19)
Yeah. One of the best tests of a leader is succession planning. This is a massive failure of succession planning.

Future

Lex Fridman
(03:26:26)
Outside of politics, let me look to the future, first, in terms of the financial world, what are you looking forward to in the next couple of years? You have a new fund. What are you thinking about in terms of investment, your own and the entire economy, and maybe even the economy of the world?
Bill Ackman
(03:26:52)
Sure. So the SEC doesn’t like us to talk about new funds that we’re launching, that we filed with the SEC.
Lex Fridman
(03:27:00)
Sure.
Bill Ackman
(03:27:02)
But I would say I do, and by the way, if anyone’s ever interested in a fund, they should always read the prospectus carefully, including the risk factors. That’s very, very important. But I like the idea of democratizing access to good investors, and I think that’s an interesting trend. So we want to be part of that trend. In terms of financial markets, generally the economy, a lot is going to depend upon the next leader of the country. So we’re kind of right back there. The leadership of the United States is important for the US economy. It’s important for the global economy, it’s important for global peace, and we’ve gone through a really difficult period, and it’s time. We need a break. But look, I think the United States is an incredibly resilient country.

(03:27:45)
We have some incredible moats among them. We have the Atlantic and the Pacific, and we have peaceful neighbors to the north and the South. We’re an enormously rich country. Capitalism still works effectively here. I get optimistic about the world when I talk to my friends who are either venture capitalists or my hobby of backing these young entrepreneurs. I talked to a founder of a startup, if you want to get optimistic about the world. So I think technology is going to save us. I think AI, of course, has its frightening, Terminator-like scenarios. But I’m going to take the opposite view that this is going to be a huge enabler of productivity, scientific discovery, drug discovery, and it’s going to make us healthier, happier, and better. So I do think the internet revolution had a lot of good, obviously some bad. I think the AI revolution’s going to be similar, but we’re at this other really interesting juncture in the world with technology, and we’re going to have to use it for our good.

(03:28:47)
On the media front, I’m happy about X, and I think Elon’s going to be successful here. I think advertisers will realize it’s a really good platform. The best way to reach me, if you want to sell something to me, I’ve actually bought stuff on some ads in X. I don’t remember the last time I responded to a direct response advertising. In terms of my business, I have an incredible team. It’s tiny. We’re one of the smallest firms relative to the assets we manage. It’s a bit like the Navy SEALs, not the US Army. We have only 40 people at Pershing Square. So it’s a tight team. I think we’ll do great things. I think we’re early on my ambitions investment-wise, I’ve always said I’d like to have a record as good as Warren Buffett’s. The problem is, each year he adds on another year.

(03:29:38)
He’s now in his 93rd year. So I’ve got 36 more years to just get where he is, and I think he’s going to add a lot more years. I’m excited about seeing what Neri is going to produce. She’s building an incredible company. They’re trying to solve a lot of problems with respect to products and buildings and their impact on the environment. Her vision is how do we design products that by virtue of the product’s existence, the world is a better place. Today, her world is a world where the existence of the new car actually is better for the environment than if the new car hadn’t existed. And think about that in every product scale, that’s what she’s working on. I don’t want to give away too much, but you’re going to see some early examples of what she’s working on. So again, I get excited about the future and crises are sort of a terrible thing to waste.

(03:30:31)
And we’ve had a number of these here. I think this disaster in the Middle East, my prediction is the next few months, this war will largely be over in terms of getting rid of Hamas. I think I can envision a world in which Saudi Arabia, some of the other Gulf states come together, take over the governance and reconstruction of Gaza. Security guarantees are put in place. The Abraham Accords continue to grow. A deal is made. Terrorists are ostracized that this October 7th experience on the Harvard, Penn, MIT, Columbia, unfortunately, other campuses is a wake-up call for universities. Generally, people see the problems with DEI, but understand the importance of diversity and inclusion, but not as a political movement, but as a way that we return to a meritocratic world where someone’s background is relevant in understanding their contribution, but we don’t have race quotas and things that were made illegal years ago actually being implemented in organizations on campus. So I think there’s, if we can go through a corrective phase, and I’m an optimist and I hope we get there.
Lex Fridman
(03:31:47)
So you have hope for the entirety of it, even for Harvard.
Bill Ackman
(03:31:51)
I have hope, even for Harvard, it’s generally hard to break 400 year old things.
Lex Fridman
(03:31:56)
Well, I share your hope and you are a fascinating mind, a brilliant mind, persistent as you like to say. And fearless, the fearless part is truly inspiring, and this was an incredible conversation. Thank you. Thank you for talking today, Bill.
Bill Ackman
(03:32:13)
Thank you, Lex.
Lex Fridman
(03:32:14)
Thanks for listening to this conversation with Bill Ackman. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, let me leave you some words from Jonathan Swift, “A wise person should have money in their head, but not in their heart.” Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.

Transcript for Marc Raibert: Boston Dynamics and the Future of Robotics | Lex Fridman Podcast #412

This is a transcript of Lex Fridman Podcast #412 with Marc Raibert.
The timestamps in the transcript are clickable links that take you directly to that point in
the main video. Please note that the transcript is human generated, and may have errors.
Here are some useful links:

Table of Contents

Here are the loose “chapters” in the conversation.
Click link to jump approximately to that part in the transcript:

Introduction

Marc Raibert
(00:00:00)
BigDog became LS3, which is the big load carrying one.
Lex Fridman
(00:00:04)
Just a quick pause. It can carry 400 pounds.
Marc Raibert
(00:00:08)
It was designed to carry 400, but we had it carrying about 1,000 pounds at one time.
Lex Fridman
(00:00:12)
Of course you did. Just to make sure.
Marc Raibert
(00:00:15)
We had one carrying the other one. We had two of them, so we had one carrying the other one.
Lex Fridman
(00:00:19)
So one of the things that stands out about the robots Boston Dynamics have created is how beautiful the movement is, how natural the walking is and running is, even flipping, it’s throwing is, so maybe you can talk about what’s involved in making it look natural.
Marc Raibert
(00:00:37)
Well, I think having good hardware is part of the story, and people who think you don’t need to innovate hardware anymore are wrong.
Lex Fridman
(00:00:49)
The following is a conversation with Marc Raibert, a legendary roboticist, founder and longtime CEO of Boston Dynamics, and recently the Executive Director of the newly created Boston Dynamics AI Institute, that focuses on research and the cutting edge, on creating future generations of robots that are far better than anything that exists today. He has been leading the creation of incredible legged robots for over 40 years at CMU, at MIT, the legendary MIT Leg Lab, and then of course, Boston Dynamics with amazing robots like BigDog, Atlas, Spot, and Handle. This was a big honor and pleasure for me.

(00:01:35)
This is the Lex Friedman Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here’s Marc Raibert. When did you first fall in love with robotics?

Early robots

Marc Raibert
(00:01:47)
Well, I was always a builder from a young age. I was lucky. My father was a frustrated engineer, and by that, I mean he wanted to be an aerospace engineer, but his mom from the old country thought that that would be like a grease monkey, and so she said no. So he became an accountant.

(00:02:10)
But the result of that was our basement was always full of tools and equipment and electronics, and from a young age, I would watch him assembling an ICO kit or something like that. I still have a couple of his old ICO kits.

(00:02:27)
But it was really during graduate school when I followed a professor back from class. It was Berthold Horn at MIT, and I was taking an interim class. It’s IAP, Independent Activities Period. And I followed him back to his lab, and on the table was a [inaudible 00:02:50] robot arm taken apart in probably a thousand pieces. And when I saw that, from that day on, I was a roboticist.
Lex Fridman
(00:02:58)
Do you remember the year?
Marc Raibert
(00:02:59)
1974.
Lex Fridman
(00:03:02)
1974. So there’s just this arm in pieces.
Marc Raibert
(00:03:04)
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(00:03:04)
And you saw the pieces and you saw in your vision the arm when it’s put back together and the possibilities that holds.
Marc Raibert
(00:03:12)
Somehow it spurred my imagination. I was in the branding cognitive sciences department as a graduate student doing neurophysiology. I’d been an electrical engineer as an undergrad at Northeastern. And the neurophysiology wasn’t really working for me. It wasn’t conceptual enough. I couldn’t see really how by looking at single neurons, you were going to get to a place where you could understand control systems or thought or anything like that. And the AI lab was always an appealing. This was before, [inaudible 00:03:47]. This was in the ’70s. So the AI lab was always an appealing idea. And so when I went back to the AI lab following him and I saw the arm, I just thought, “This is it.”
Lex Fridman
(00:03:58)
It’s so interesting, the tension between the BCS, brain cognitive science approach to understanding intelligence, and the robotics approach to understanding intelligence.
Marc Raibert
(00:04:09)
Well, BCS is now morphed. They have the Center for Brains, minds and Machines, which is trying to bridge that gap. And even when I was there, David Maher was in the AI lab. David Maher had models of the brain that were appealing both to biologists but also to computer people. So he was a visitor in the AI lab at the time, and I guess he became full-time there.

(00:04:34)
So that was the first time a bridge was made between those two groups then the bridge kind of went away, and then there was another time in the ’80s. And then recently the last five or so years, there’s been a stronger connection.
Lex Fridman
(00:04:48)
You said you were always kind of a builder. What stands out to you in memory of a thing you’ve built, maybe a trivial thing that just kind of inspired you in the possibilities that this direction of work might hold?
Marc Raibert
(00:05:02)
We were just doing gadgets when we were kids. I have a friend, we were taking the… I don’t know if everybody remembers, but fluorescent lights had this little aluminum cylinder, I can’t even remember what it’s called now that you needed a starter, I think it was. And we would take those apart, fill them with match heads, put a tail on it and make it into little rockets.
Lex Fridman
(00:05:27)
So it wasn’t always about function, it was, well…
Marc Raibert
(00:05:30)
Rocket was pretty [inaudible 00:05:32].
Lex Fridman
(00:05:32)
I guess that is pretty functional. But yeah, I guess that is a question. How much was it about function versus just creating something cool?
Marc Raibert
(00:05:39)
I think it’s still a balance between those two. There was a time though, I guess I was probably already a professor or maybe late in graduate school, when I thought that function was everything and that mobility, dexterity, perception and intelligence, those are the key functionalities for robotics, that that’s what mattered. And nothing else mattered.

(00:06:04)
And I even had kind of this platonic ideal that a robot, if you just looked at a robot and it wasn’t doing anything, it would look like a pile of junk, which a lot of my robots looked like in those days. But then when it started moving, you’d get the idea that it had some kind of life or some kind of interest in its movement, and I think we purposely even designed the machines not worrying about the aesthetics of the structure itself. But then it turns out that the aesthetics of the thing itself add and combine with the lifelike things that the robots can do. But the heart of it is making them do things that are interesting.

Legged robots

Lex Fridman
(00:06:47)
One of the things that underlies a lot of your work is that the robots you create, the systems you have created for over 40 years now have a kind of, they’re not cautious. So a lot of robots that people know about move about this world very cautiously, carefully, very afraid of the world. A lot of the robots you built, especially in the early days, were very aggressive under actuated. They’re hopping, they’re wild, moving quickly. So is there a philosophy under underlying that?
Marc Raibert
(00:07:20)
Well, let me tell you about how I got started on legs at all. When I was still a graduate student, I went to a conference. It was a biological legged locomotion conference, I think it was in Philadelphia. So it was all biomechanics people, researchers who would look at muscle and maybe neurons and things like that. They weren’t so much computational people, but they were more biomechanics and maybe there were a thousand people there.

(00:07:45)
And I went to a talk. All the talks were about the body of either animals or people and respiration, things like that. But one talk was by a robotics guy, and he showed a six legged robot that walked very slowly. It always had at least three feet on the ground, so it worked like a table or a chair with tripod stability, and it moved really slowly.

(00:08:12)
And I just looked at that and said, wow, that’s wrong. That’s not anything like how people and animals work because we bounce and fly. We have to predict what’s going to happen in order to keep our balance when we’re taking a running step or something like that. We use the springiness in our legs, our muscles and our tendons and things like that as part of the story. The energy circulates. We don’t just throw it away every time.

(00:08:40)
I’m not sure I understood all that when I first thought, but I definitely got inspired to say, “Let’s try the opposite.” And I didn’t have a clue as to how to make a hopping robot work, not balance in 3D. In fact, when I started, it was all just about the energy of bouncing, and I was going to have a springy thing in the leg and some actuator so that you could get an energy regime going of bouncing.

(00:09:08)
And the idea that balance was an important part of it didn’t come until a little later. And then I made the pogo stick robots. Now I think that we need to do that in manipulation. If you look at robot manipulation, a community has been working on it for 50 years. We’re nowhere near human levels of manipulation. It’s come along, but I think it’s all too safe.

(00:09:35)
And I think trying to break out of that safety thing of static grasping. If you look at a lot of work that goes on, it’s about the geometry of the part, and then you figure out how to move your hand so that you can position it with respect to that, and then you grasp it carefully and then you move it. Well, that’s not anything like how people and animals work. We juggle in our hands, we hug multiple objects and can sort them. So.

(00:10:03)
Now to be fair, being more aggressive is going to mean things aren’t going to work very well for a while, so it’s a longer term approach to the problem, and that’s just theory now. Maybe that won’t pay off, but that’s how I’m trying to think about it, trying to encourage our group to go at it.
Lex Fridman
(00:10:22)
Well, we’ll talk about what it means to what is the actual thing we’re trying to optimize for a robot, sometimes, especially with human robot interaction, maybe flaws is a good thing. Perfection is not necessarily the right thing to be chasing. Just like you said, maybe being good at fumbling an object, being good at fumbling might be the right thing to optimize versus perfect modeling of the object and perfect movement of the arm to grasp that object as maybe perfection is not supposed to exist in the real world.
Marc Raibert
(00:10:57)
I don’t know if you know my friend Matt Mason, who is the director of the Robotics Institute at Carnegie Mellon, and we go back to graduate school together, but he analyzed a movie of Julia Child’s doing a cooking thing, and she did, I think he said something like there were 40 different ways that she handled a thing and none of them was grasping. She would nudge, roll, flatten with her knife, things like that. And none of them was grasping.
Lex Fridman
(00:11:28)
So okay, let’s go back to the early days. First of all, you’ve created and led the Leg Lab, the legendary Leg Lab at MIT. So what was that first hopping robot?
Marc Raibert
(00:11:38)
But first of all, the Leg Lab actually started at Carnegie Mellon.
Lex Fridman
(00:11:41)
Carnegie Mellon.
Marc Raibert
(00:11:42)
So I was a professor there starting in 1980, about 1986, so that’s where the first topping machines were built. I guess we got the first one working in about 1982, something like that. That was a simplified one. Then we got a three-dimensional one in 1983, the quadruped that we built at the Leg Lab, the first version was built in about 1984 or five, and really only got going about ’86 or so, and took years of development to get it to…
Lex Fridman
(00:12:17)
Let’s just pause here. For people who don’t know, I’m talking to Mark Weber, founder of Boston Dynamics. But before that, you were a professor developing some of the most incredible robots for 15 years. And before that, of course, a grad student and all that. So you’ve been doing this for a really long time. You skipped over this, but go to the first hopping robot. There’s videos of some of this.

(00:12:38)
These are incredible robots. You talked about the very first step was to get a thing hopping up and down, and then you realized, well, balancing is a thing you should care about, and it’s actually a solvable problem. Can you just go through how to create that robot? What was involved in creating that robot?
Marc Raibert
(00:13:00)
Well, I’m going to start on not the technical side, but I guess we could call it the motivational side or the funding side. So before Carnegie Mellon, I was actually at JPL at the Jet Propulsion Lab for three years. And while I was there, I connected up with Ivan Sutherland, who is sometimes regarded as the father of computer graphics because of work he did both at MIT and then University of Utah and Evanston Sutherland.

(00:13:28)
Anyway, I got to know him and at one point he said he encouraged me to do some kind of project at Caltech, even though I was at JPL. Those are kind of related institutions. And so I thought about it and I made up a list of three possible projects, and I purposely made the top one and the bottom one really boring sounding. And in the middle I put Pogo stick robot. And when he looked at it, Ivan is a brilliant guy, brilliant engineer, and a real cultivator of people. He looked at it and knew right away what thing that was worth doing. And so he had an endowed chair, so he had about $3,000 that he gave me to build the first model, which I went I to the shop and with my own hands kind of made a first model, which didn’t work and was just a beginning shot at it.

(00:14:32)
Ivan and I took that to Washington. And in those days you could just walk into DARPA and walk down the hallway and see who’s there, and Ivan, who had been there in his previous life. And so we walked around and we looked in the offices. Of course, I didn’t know anything. I was basically a kid, but Ivan knew his way around, and we found Craig Fields in his office.

(00:14:54)
Craig later became the director of DARPA, but in those days, he was a program manager. And so we went in, I had a little Samsonite suitcase, which we opened, and it had just the skeleton of this one-legged hopping robot. And we showed it to him, and you could almost see the drool going down his chin of excitement. And he sent me $250,000. He said, “Okay, I want to fund this.”

(00:15:19)
And I was between institutions, I was just about to leave JPL, and I hadn’t decided yet where I was going next, and then when I landed at CMU, he sent $250,000, which in 1980 was a lot of research money.
Lex Fridman
(00:15:34)
Did you see the possibility of where this is going, why this is an important problem?
Marc Raibert
(00:15:39)
No.
Lex Fridman
(00:15:41)
It has to do with leg locomotion. I mean, it has to do with all these problems that the human body solves when we’re walking, for example. All the fundamentals are there.
Marc Raibert
(00:15:51)
Yeah, I think that was the motivation to try and get more at the fundamentals of how animals work, but the idea that it would result in machines that were anything practical like we’re making now, that wasn’t anywhere in my head. As an academic, I was mostly just trying to do the next thing, make some progress, impress my colleagues if I could.
Lex Fridman
(00:16:14)
And have fun.
Marc Raibert
(00:16:15)
And have fun.
Lex Fridman
(00:16:16)
Pogo stick robot.
Marc Raibert
(00:16:17)
Pogo stick robot.
Lex Fridman
(00:16:18)
So what was on the technical side? What are some of the challenges of getting to the point where we saw in the video the pogo stick robot that’s actually successfully hopping and then eventually doing flips and all this kind of stuff?
Marc Raibert
(00:16:31)
Well, in the very early days, I needed some better engineering than I could do myself, and I hired Ben Brown. We each had our way of contributing to the design, and we came up with a thing that could start to work. I had some stupid ideas about how the actuation system should work, and we sorted that out.

(00:16:52)
It wasn’t that hard to make it balanced once you get the physical machine to be working well enough and have enough control over the degrees of freedom. We started out by having it floating on an inclined air table, and then that only gave us like six foot of travel, so once it started working, we switched to a thing that could run around the room on another device. It’s hard to explain these without you seeing them, but you probably know what I’m talking about, a planarize.

(00:17:23)
And then the next big step was to make it work in 3D, which that was really the scary part with these simple things. People had inverted pendulums at the time for years, and they could control them by driving a cart back and forth, but could you make it work in three dimensions while it’s bouncing and all that? But it turned out not to be that hard to do, at least at the level of performance we achieved at the time.
Lex Fridman
(00:17:46)
Okay. You mentioned inverted pendulum, but can you explain how a hopping stick in 3D can balance itself?
Marc Raibert
(00:17:57)
Yeah, sure.
Lex Fridman
(00:17:58)
What does the actuation look like?
Marc Raibert
(00:18:01)
The simple story is that there’s three things going on. There’s something making it bounce. And we had a system that was estimating how high the robot was off the ground and using that. There’s energy that can be in three places in a pogo stick: one is in the spring, one is in the altitude, and the other is in the velocity. And so when at the top of the hop, it’s all in the height, so you could just measure how high you’re going, and thereby have an idea of a lot about the cycle, and you could decide whether to put more energy in or less. That’s one element.

(00:18:40)
Then there’s a part that you decide where to put the foot. And if you think when you’re landing on the ground with respect to the center of mass. So if you think of a pole vaulter, the key thing the pole vaulter has to do is get its body to the right place when the pole gets stuck. If they’re too far forward, they kind of get thrown backwards. If they’re too far back, they go over. And what they need to do is get it so that they go mostly up to get over the thing. And high jumpers is the same kind of thing. So there’s a calculation about where to put the foot, and we did something relatively simple.

(00:19:16)
And then there’s a third part to keep the body at an attitude that’s upright, because if it gets too far, you could hop and just keep rotating around. But if it gets too far, then you run out of motion of the joints at the hips. So you have to do that. And we did that by applying a torque between the legs and the body. Every time the foot’s on the ground. You only can do it while the foot’s on the ground in the air. The physics don’t work out.
Lex Fridman
(00:19:42)
How far does it have to tilt before it’s too late to be able to balance itself or it’s impossible to balance itself, correct itself?
Marc Raibert
(00:19:50)
Well, you’re asking an interesting question because in those days, we didn’t actually optimize things and they probably could have gone much further than we did and then had higher performance, and we just kind of got a sketch of a solution and worked on that. And then in years since, some people working for us, some people working for others, people came up with all kinds of equations or algorithms for how to do a better job, be able to go faster.

(00:20:19)
One of my students worked on getting things to go faster. Another one worked on climbing over obstacles. Because when you’re running on the open ground, it’s one thing; if you’re running up a stair, you have to adjust where you are, otherwise things don’t work out. You land your foot on the edge of the steps. There’s other degrees of freedom to control if you’re getting to more realistic, practical situations.
Lex Fridman
(00:20:44)
I think it’s really interesting to ask about the early days because believing in yourself, believing that there’s something interesting here. And then you mentioned finding somebody else, Ben Brown. What’s that like, finding other people with whom you can build this crazy idea and actually make it work?
Marc Raibert
(00:21:00)
Probably the smartest thing I ever did is to find the other people. When I look at it now, I look at Boston Dynamics and all the really excellent engineering there, people who really make stuff work, I’m only the dreamer.
Lex Fridman
(00:21:16)
So when you talk about pogo stick robot or legged robots, whether it’s quadrupeds or humanoid robots, did people doubt that this is possible? Did you experience a lot of people around you kind of…
Marc Raibert
(00:21:29)
I don’t know if they doubted whether it was possible, but I think they thought it was a waste of time.
Lex Fridman
(00:21:34)
Oh, it’s not even an interesting problem.
Marc Raibert
(00:21:36)
I think for a lot of people. I think it’s been both, though. Some people, I felt like they were saying, “Oh, why are you wasting your time on this stupid problem?” But then I’ve been at many things where people have told me it’s been an inspiration to go out and attack these harder things. And I think legged locomotion has turned out to be a useful thing.
Lex Fridman
(00:22:06)
Did you ever have doubt about bringing Atlas to life, for example, or with Big Dog just every step of the way? Did you have doubt? This is too hard of a problem.
Marc Raibert
(00:22:19)
At first, I wasn’t an enthusiast for the humanoids. Again, it goes back to saying “what’s the functionality?” And the form wasn’t as important as the functionality. And also, there’s an aspect to humanoid robots that’s about about the cosmetics, where there isn’t really other functionality, and that kind of is off putting for me. As a roboticist, I think the functionality really matters. So probably that’s why I avoided the humanoid robots to start with.

(00:22:51)
But I’ll tell you, after we started working on them, you could see that the connection and the impact with other people, whether they’re laypeople or even other technical people, there’s a special thing that goes on, even though most of the humanoid robots aren’t that much like a person.
Lex Fridman
(00:23:11)
But we anthropomorphize and we see the humanity. But also with Spot, you can see not the humanity, but whatever we find compelling about social interactions there in Spot, as well.
Marc Raibert
(00:23:24)
Well. I’ll tell you, I go around giving talks and take Spot to a lot of them, and it’s amazing. The media likes to say that they’re terrifying and that people are afraid, and YouTube commenters like to say that it’s frightening. But when you take a Spot out there, maybe it’s self-selecting, but you get a crowd of people who want to take pictures, want to pose for selfies, want to operate the robot, want to pet it, want to put clothes on it. It’s amazing.
Lex Fridman
(00:23:52)
Yeah, I love Spot. So if we move around history a little bit, so you said, I think, in the early days of Boston Dynamics that you quietly worked on making a running version of Aibo, Sony’s robot dog.
Marc Raibert
(00:24:05)
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(00:24:06)
It’s just an interesting little tidbit of history for me. What stands out to your memory from that task? For people who don’t know, that little dog robot moves slowly. How did that become Big Dog? What was involved there? What was the dance between how do we make this cute little dog versus a thing that can actually carry a lot of payload and move fast and stuff like that?
Marc Raibert
(00:24:29)
What the connection was is that at that point, Boston Dynamics was mostly a physics-based simulation company. So when I left MIT to start Boston Dynamics, there was a few years of overlap, but the concept wasn’t to start a robot company. The concept was to use this dynamic simulation tool that we developed to do robotics for other things. But working with Sony, we got back into robotics by doing the IBO Runner, we made some tools for programming Curio, which was a small humanoid this big that could do some dancing and other kinds of fun stuff. And I don’t think it ever reached the market, even though they did show it. When I look back, I say that we got us back where we belonged.
Lex Fridman
(00:25:14)
Yeah, you rediscovered the soul of the company.
Marc Raibert
(00:25:17)
That’s right.
Lex Fridman
(00:25:18)
And so from there, it was always about robots.
Marc Raibert
(00:25:21)
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(00:25:23)
So you started Boston Dynamics in 1992.

Boston Dynamics

Marc Raibert
(00:25:27)
Right.
Lex Fridman
(00:25:28)
What are some fond memories from the early days?
Marc Raibert
(00:25:31)
One of the robots that we built wasn’t actually a robot, it was a surgical simulator, but it had force feedback, so it had all the techniques of robotics, and you look down into this mirror, it actually was, and it looked like you were looking down onto the body you were working on. Your hands were underneath the mirror where you were looking, and you had tools in your hands that were connected up to these force feedback devices made by another MIT spin out, Sensible Technologies.
Marc Raibert
(00:26:00)
Another MIT spin out sensible technologies. So they made the force feedback device, we attached the tools and we wrote all the software and did all the graphics. So we had 3D computer graphics. It was in the old days, this was in the late 90s when you had a Silicon Graphics computer that was about this big. It was the heater in the office basically.

(00:26:24)
And we were doing surgical operations’ anastomosis, which was stitching tubes together. Tubes like blood vessels or other things in their body. And you could feel, you could see the tissues move. And it was really exciting. And the idea was to make a trainer to teach surgeons how to do stuff. We built a scoring system because we’d interviewed surgeons that told us what you’re supposed to do and what you’re not supposed to do.

(00:26:50)
You’re not supposed to tear the tissue, you’re not supposed to touch it in any place except for where you’re trying to engage. There were a bunch of rules. So we built this thing and took it to a trade show, a surgical trade show, and the surgeons were practically lined up. Well, we kept a score and we posted their scores on a video game. And those guys are so competitive that they really, really loved doing it.

(00:27:13)
And they would come around and they see someone’s score was higher there, so they would come back. But we figured out shortly after, that we thought surgeons were going to pay us to get trained on these things and the surgeons thought we should pay them so they could teach us about the thing. And there was no money from the surgeons. And we looked at it and thought, well, maybe we could sell it to hospitals that would train their surgeons.

(00:27:39)
And then we said, at the time we were probably a 12 person company or maybe 15 people, I don’t remember, there’s no way we could go after a marketing activity. The company was all bootstrapped in those years. We never had investors until Google bought us, which was after 20 years. So we didn’t have any resources to go after hospitals. So one day, Rob and I were looking at that and we’d built another simulator for knee arthroscopy and we said, “This isn’t going to work.” And we killed it. And we moved on. And that was really a milestone in the company because we sort of understood who we were and what would work and what wouldn’t. Even though technically it was really a fascinating thing.
Lex Fridman
(00:28:24)
What was that meeting like, where you’re just sitting at a table, “You know what? We’re going to pivot completely. We’re going to let go of this thing we put so much hard work into and then go back to the thing it came from.”
Marc Raibert
(00:28:39)
It just always felt right once we did it.
Lex Fridman
(00:28:42)
Just looked at each other and said, “Let’s build robots.”

BigDog

Marc Raibert
(00:28:44)
Yeah. What was the first robot you built under the flag of Boston Dynamics? BigDog?
Marc Raibert
(00:28:51)
Well, there was the Aibo runner, but it wasn’t even a whole robot. We took off the legs on Aibos and attached legs we’ve made. And we got that working and showed it to the Sony people. We worked pretty closely with Sony in those years. One of the interesting things is that it was before the internet and Zoom and anything like that.

(00:29:15)
So we had six ISDN lines installed and we would have a telecon every week that worked at very low frame rates, something like 10 hertz. English across the boundary with Japan was a challenge trying to understand what each of us was saying and have meetings every week for several years doing that.

(00:29:39)
And it was a pleasure working with them. They were really supporters. They seemed to like us and what we were doing. That was the real transition from us being a simulation company into being a robotics company again.
Lex Fridman
(00:29:51)
It was a quadruplet. The legs were four legs digital legs?
Marc Raibert
(00:29:55)
Yeah, no, four legs.
Lex Fridman
(00:29:56)
And what did you learn from that experience of building basically a fast moving quadruplet?
Marc Raibert
(00:30:03)
Mostly we learned that something that small doesn’t look very exciting when it’s running. It’s like it’s scampering and you had to watch a slow mo for it to look like it was interesting. If you watch it fast, it was just like a-
Lex Fridman
(00:30:17)
That’s funny.
Marc Raibert
(00:30:18)
One of my things was to show stuff in video from the very early days of the hopping machines. And so I was always focused on how’s this going to look through the Viewfinder and running Aibo didn’t look so cool through the Viewfinder.
Lex Fridman
(00:30:32)
So what came next? What was a big next milestone in terms of a robot you built?
Marc Raibert
(00:30:40)
I mean, you got to say that BigDog sort of put us on the map and got our heads really pulled together. We scaled up the company. BigDog was the result of Alan Rudolph at DARPA starting a biodynamics program. And he put out a request for proposals and I think there were 42 proposals written and three got funded.

(00:31:06)
One was BigDog, one was a climbing robot rise, and that put things in motion. We hired Martin Bueller, he was a professor in Montreal at McGill. He was incredibly important for getting BigDog out of the lab and into the mud, which was a key step to really be willing to go out there out and build it, break it, fix it, which is sort of one of our mottos at the company.
Lex Fridman
(00:31:32)
So testing it in the real world. For people who don’t know BigDog, maybe you can correct me, but it’s a big quadruplet four-legged robot. It looks big, could probably carry a lot of weight. Not the most weight that Boston Dynamics have built, but a lot.
Marc Raibert
(00:31:48)
Well, it’s the first thing that worked. So let’s see, if we go back to the leg lab, we built a quadruplet that could do many of the things that BigDog did, but it had a hydraulic pump sitting in the room with hoses connected to the robot. It had a VAX computer in the next room. It needed its own room because it was this giant thing with air conditioning and it had this very complicated bus connected to the robot.

(00:32:12)
And the robot itself just had the actuators. It had gyroscopes for sensing and some other sensors, but all the power and computing was off board. BigDog had all that stuff integrated on the platform. It had a gasoline engine for power, which was a very complicated thing to undertake. It had to convert the rotation of the engine into hydraulic power, which is how we actuated it. So there was a lot of learning just on building the physical robot and the system integration for that. And then there was the controls of it.
Lex Fridman
(00:32:49)
So for BigDog, you brought it all together onto one platform so-
Marc Raibert
(00:32:53)
You could take it out in the woods.
Lex Fridman
(00:32:55)
Yeah, and you did.
Marc Raibert
(00:32:56)
We did. We spent a lot of time down at the Marine Corps base in Quantico where there was a trail called the Guadalcanal Trail. And our milestone that DARPA had specified was that we could go on this one particular trail that involved a lot of challenge. And we spent a lot of time. Our team spent a lot of time down there hiking. Those were fun days.
Lex Fridman
(00:33:20)
Hiking with the robot. So what did you learn about what it takes to balance a robot like that on a trail, on a hiking trail in the woods? Basically, forget the woods. Just the real world. That’s the big leap into testing in the real world.
Marc Raibert
(00:33:36)
As challenging as the woods were, working inside of a home or in an office is really harder because when you’re in the woods, you can actually take any path up the hill. All you have to do is avoid the obstacles. There’s no such thing as damaging the woods, at least to first order. Whereas if you’re in a house, you can’t leave scuff marks, you can’t bang into the walls. The robots aren’t very comfortable bumping into the walls, especially in the early days.

(00:34:05)
So I think those were actually bigger challenges. Once we faced them, it was mostly getting the systems to work well enough together, the hardware systems to work. And the controls. In those days, we did have a human operator who did all the visual perception going up the Guadalcanal Trail. So there was an operator who was right there who was very skilled even though the robot was balancing itself and placing its own feet, if the operator didn’t do the right thing, it wouldn’t go.

(00:34:36)
But years later, we went back with one of the electric, the precursor to Spot, and we had advanced the controls and everything so much that a complete amateur could operate the robot the first time up and down and up and down. Whereas it taken us years to get there in the previous robot.
Lex Fridman
(00:34:55)
So if you fast-forward, BigDog eventually became Spot?
Marc Raibert
(00:34:59)
So BigDog became LS3, which is the big load carrying one.
Lex Fridman
(00:35:03)
Just a quick pause, it can carry 400 pounds?
Marc Raibert
(00:35:07)
It was designed to carry 400. But we had it carrying about a thousand pounds one time.
Lex Fridman
(00:35:12)
Of course you did. Just to make sure.
Marc Raibert
(00:35:14)
We had one carrying the other one. We had two of them, so we had one carrying the other one. There’s a little clip of that. We should put that out somewhere. That’s from 20 years ago.
Lex Fridman
(00:35:24)
Wow. And it can go for very long distances? You can travel the 20 miles.
Marc Raibert
(00:35:28)
Yeah. Gasoline.
Lex Fridman
(00:35:30)
Gasoline, yeah. And that event just… Okay, sorry. So LS3 then how did that lead to Spot?
Marc Raibert
(00:35:38)
So BigDog and LS3 had engine power and hydraulic actuation. Then we made a robot that was electric power. So there’s a battery driving a motor, driving a pump, but still hydraulic actuation. Larry asked us, “Could you make something that weighed 60 pounds, that would not be so intimidating if you had it in a house where there were people.”

(00:36:07)
And that was the inspiration behind the spot pretty much as it exists today. We did a prototype the same size that was the first all electric, non-hydraulic robot.
Lex Fridman
(00:36:19)
What was the conversation with Larry Page about? Here’s a guy that is very product focused and can see a vision for what the future holds. That’s just interesting aside, what was the brainstorm about the future of robotics with him?
Marc Raibert
(00:36:35)
I mean, it was almost as simple as what I just said. We were having meeting, he said, “Do you think you could make a smaller one that wouldn’t be so intimidating like a big dog if it was in your house?” And I said, “Yeah, we could do that.” And we started and did.

Hydraulic actuation

Lex Fridman
(00:36:52)
Is there a lot of technical challenges to go from hydraulic to electric?
Marc Raibert
(00:36:57)
I had been in love with hydraulics and still love hydraulics. It’s a great technology. It’s too bad that somehow the world out there looks at it like it’s old-fashioned or that it’s icky. And it’s true that you do. It is very hard to keep it from having some amount of dripping from time to time. But if you look at the performance, how strong you can get in a lightweight package, and of course we did a huge amount of innovation.

(00:37:26)
Most of hydraulic control, that is the valve that controls the flow of oil, had been designed in the 50s for airplanes. It had been made robust enough, safe enough that you could count on it so that humans could fly in airplanes and very little innovation had happened that might not be fair to the people who make the valves. I’m sure that they did innovate, but the basic had stayed the same and there was so much more you could do.

(00:37:56)
And so our engineers designed valves, the ones that are in Atlas for instance, that had new kinds of circuits, they sort of did some of the computing that could get you much more efficient use. They were much smaller and lighter so the whole robot could be smaller and lighter. We made a hydraulic power supply that had a bunch of components integrated in this tiny package.

(00:38:20)
It’s about this big, the size of a football weighs five kilograms and it produces five kilowatts of power. Of course it has to have a battery operating, but it’s got a motor, a pump filters, heat exchanger to keep it cool. Some valves all in this tiny little package. So hydraulics could still have a ways to go.

Natural movement

Lex Fridman
(00:38:44)
One of the things that stands out about the robots Boston Dynamics have created is how beautiful the movement is, how natural the walking is, and running is, even flipping is, throwing is. So maybe you can talk about what’s involved in making it look natural.
Marc Raibert
(00:39:02)
Well, I think having good hardware is part of the story and people who think you don’t need to innovate hardware anymore are wrong, in my opinion. So I think one of the things, certainly in the early years for me, taking a dynamic approach where you think about what’s the evolution of the motion of the thing going to be in the future and having a prediction of that that’s used at the time that you’re giving signals to it, as opposed to it all being sing, which is sing is sort of backward looking. It says, okay, where am I now? I’m going to try and adjust for that. But you really need to think about what’s coming.
Lex Fridman
(00:39:40)
So how far ahead you do, you have to look in time.
Marc Raibert
(00:39:44)
It’s interesting. I think that the number is only a couple of seconds for Spot. So there’s a limited horizon type approach where you’re recalculating assuming what’s going to happen in the next second or second and a half. And then you keep iterating at the next, even though a 10th of a second later you’ll say, okay, let’s do that again and see what’s happening.

(00:40:06)
And you’re looking at what the obstacles are, where the feet are going to be placed. You have to coordinate a lot of things. If you have obstacles and you’re balancing at the same time and it’s that limited horizon type calculation that’s doing a lot of that. But if you’re doing something like a somersault, you’re looking out a lot further. If you want to stick the landing, you have to, at the time of launch, have momentum and rotation, all those things coordinated so that a landing is within reach.
Lex Fridman
(00:40:38)
How hard is it to stick a landing? I mean, it’s very much under actuated. In the air, you don’t have as much control about anything. So how hard is it to get that to work? First of all, did flips with a hopping robot.
Marc Raibert
(00:40:57)
If you look at the first time we ever made a robot do a somersault, it was in a planer robot. It had a boom. So it was restricted to the surface of a sphere. We call that planer. So it could move fore-and-aft, it could go up and down and it could rotate. And so the calculation of what you need to do to stick a landing isn’t all that complicated. You have to get time to make the rotation.

(00:41:22)
So how high you jump gives you time. You look at how quickly you can rotate. And so if you get those two right, then when you land, you have the feet in the right place and you have to get rid of all that rotational and linear momentum. But that’s not too hard to figure out. And we made back in about 1985 or six, I can’t remember, we had a simple robot doing somersaults.

(00:41:50)
To do it in 3D, really the calculation is the same. You just have to be balancing in the other degrees of freedom. If you’re just doing a somersault, it’s just a plainer thing. Ron Robert was my graduate student and we were at MIT, which is when we made a two-legged robot do a 3D somersault for the first time. There, in order to get enough rotation rate you needed to do tucking also, withdraw the legs in order to accelerate it.

(00:42:15)
And he did some really fascinating work on how you stabilize more complicated maneuvers. You remember he was a gymnast at Champion Gymnast before he’d come to me. So he had the physical abilities and he was an engineer, so he could translate some of that into the math and the algorithms that you need to do that.
Lex Fridman
(00:42:37)
He knew how humans do it. You just have to get robots to do the same.
Marc Raibert
(00:42:41)
Unfortunately though, humans don’t really know how they do it, right. We are coached, we have ways of learning, but do we really understand in a physics way what we’re doing? Probably most gymnasts and athletes don’t know.
Lex Fridman
(00:42:57)
So in some way, by building robots, you are in part understanding how humans do walking. Most of us walk without considering how we walk really and how we make it so natural and efficient, all those kinds of things.
Marc Raibert
(00:43:10)
Atlas still doesn’t walk like a person and it still doesn’t walk quite as gracefully as a person. Even though it’s been getting closer and closer. The running might be close to a human, but the walking is still a challenge.
Lex Fridman
(00:43:23)
That’s interesting, right? That running is closer to a human. It just shows that the more aggressive and the more you leap into the unknown, the more natural it is. I mean, walking is kind of falling always right?
Marc Raibert
(00:43:37)
And something weird about the knee that you can do this folding and unfolding and get it to work out just a human can get it to work out just right, there’s compliances. Compliance means springiness in the design that are important to how it all works. Well, we used to have a motto at the Boston Dynamics in the early days, which was you have to run before you can walk.
Lex Fridman
(00:44:00)
That’s a good motto because you also had Wildcat, which was one of along the way towards Spot, which is a quadruplet that went 19 miles an hour on flat terrain. Is that the fastest you’ve ever built?
Marc Raibert
(00:44:14)
Oh, yeah.
Lex Fridman
(00:44:14)
Might be the fastest quadruplet in the world. I don’t know.
Marc Raibert
(00:44:17)
For a quadruplet, probably. Of course, it was probably the loudest too. So we had this little racing go-kart engine on it, and we would get people from three buildings away sending us… Complaining about how loud it was.

Leg Lab

Lex Fridman
(00:44:31)
So at the leg lab, I believe most of the robots didn’t have knees. How do you figure out what is the right number of actuators? What are the joints to have? What do you need to have? We humans have knees and all kinds of interesting stuff on the feet. The toe is an important part, I guess, for humans, or maybe it’s not.

(00:44:55)
I injured my toe recently and it made running very unpleasant. So that seems to be important. So how do you figure out for efficiency, for function, for aesthetics, how many joints to have, how many actuaries to have?
Marc Raibert
(00:45:09)
Well, it’s always a balance between wanting to get where you really want to get and what’s practical to do based on your resources or what you know and all that. So I mean, the whole idea of the pogo stick was to do a simplification. Obviously, it didn’t look like a human. I think a technical scientist could appreciate that we were capturing some of the things that are important in human locomotion without it looking like it, without having a knee, an ankle.

(00:45:40)
I’ll tell you the first sketch that Ben Brown made when we were talking about building this thing, was a very complicated thing with zillions of springs, lots of joints. It looked much more like a kangaroo or an ostrich or something like that. Things we were paying a lot of attention to at the time. So my job was to say, okay, well let’s do something simpler to get started and maybe we’ll get there at some point.
Lex Fridman
(00:46:10)
I just love the idea that you two were studying kangaroos and ostriches.
Marc Raibert
(00:46:14)
Oh yeah, we did. We filmed and digitized data from horses. I did a dissection of ostrich at one point, which has absolutely remarkable legs.
Lex Fridman
(00:46:27)
Dumb question. Do ostriches have a lot of musculature on the legs or no?
Marc Raibert
(00:46:33)
Most of it’s up in the feathers, but there’s a huge amount going on in the feathers, including a knee joint. The knee joint’s way up there. The thing that’s halfway down the leg that looks like a backwards knee is actually the ankle. The thing on the ground which looks like the foot is actually the toes. It’s an extended toe.
Lex Fridman
(00:46:51)
Fascinating.
Marc Raibert
(00:46:52)
But the basic morphology is the same in all these animals.
Lex Fridman
(00:46:58)
What do you think is the most beautiful movement of an animal? What animal you think is the coolest land animal? That’s cool because fish is pretty cool. Like the fish in crystal water, but legged locomotion.
Marc Raibert
(00:47:12)
The slow mos of cheetahs running are incredible. There’s so much back motion and grace, and of course they’re moving very fast. The animals running away from the cheetah are pretty exciting. The pronghorn, which they do this all four legs at once, jump called the prog, especially if there’s a group of them, to confuse whoever’s chasing them.
Lex Fridman
(00:47:39)
So they do a misdirection type of thing?
Marc Raibert
(00:47:41)
Yep. They do a misdirection thing. The front on views of the cheetahs running fast where the tail is whipping around to help in the turns to help stabilize in the turns. That’s pretty exciting.
Lex Fridman
(00:47:51)
Because they spend a lot of time in the air, I guess, as they’re running that fast.
Marc Raibert
(00:47:55)
But they also turn very fast.
Lex Fridman
(00:47:57)
Is that a tail thing or is do you have to have contact with ground?
Marc Raibert
(00:48:00)
Everything in the body is probably helping turn because they’re chasing something that’s trying to get away. That’s also zigzagging around. But I would be remiss if I didn’t say humans are pretty good too. You watch gymnasts, especially these days, they’re doing just incredible stuff.
Lex Fridman
(00:48:19)
Well, especially Olympic level gymnasts. See, but there could be cheetahs that are Olympic level. We might be watching the average cheetah versus there could be a really special cheetah that can do-
Marc Raibert
(00:48:31)
You’re right.
Lex Fridman
(00:48:32)
When did the knees first come into play in you building legged robots?
Marc Raibert
(00:48:37)
In BigDog. BigDog came first and then LittleDog was later. And there’s a big compromise there. Human knees have multiple muscles and you could argue that there’s… I mean, it’s a technical thing about negative work when you’re contracting a joint, but you’re pushing out, that’s negative work. And if you don’t have a place to store that, it can be very expensive to do negative work.

(00:49:08)
And in BigDog, there was no place to store negative work in the knees. But BigDog also had pogo stick springs down below. So part of the action was to comply in a bouncing motion. Later on in Spot, we took that out. As we got further and further away from the leg lab, we had more energy-driven controls.
Lex Fridman
(00:49:34)
Is there something to be said about needs that go forward versus backward?
Marc Raibert
(00:49:40)
Sure. There’s this idea called passive dynamics, which says that although you can use computers and actuators to make a motion, a mechanical system can make a motion just by itself if it gets stimulated the right way. So Tad McGeer, I think in the mid 80s, maybe it was in the late 80s, started to work on that.

(00:50:06)
And he made this legged system that could walk down an incline plane where the legs folded and unfolded and swung forward, do the whole walking motion where there was no computer. There were some adjustments to the mechanics so that there were dampers and springs in some places that helped the mechanical action happen. It was essentially a mechanical computer. And the interesting idea there is that it’s not all about the brain dictating to the body what the body should do. The body is a participant in the motion.
Lex Fridman
(00:50:42)
So a great design for a robot has a mechanical component where the movement is efficient even without a brain?
Marc Raibert
(00:50:49)
Yes.
Lex Fridman
(00:50:50)
How do you design that?
Marc Raibert
(00:50:52)
I think that these days most robots aren’t doing that. Most robots are basically using the computer to govern the motion. Now, the brain though is taking into account what the mechanical thing can do and how it’s going to behave. Otherwise, it would have to really forcefully move everything around all the time which probably some solutions do, but I think you end up with a more efficient and more graceful thing if you’re taking into account what the machine wants to do.

AI Institute

Lex Fridman
(00:51:23)
So this might be a good place to mention that you’re now leading up the Boston Dynamics AI Institute newly formed, which is focused more on designing the robots of the future. I think one of the things, maybe you can tell me the big vision for what’s going on, but one of the things is this idea that hardware still matters with organic design and so on. Maybe before that, can you zoom out and tell me what the vision is for the AI Institute?
Marc Raibert
(00:51:57)
I like to talk about intelligence having two parts, an athletic part and a cognitive part.
Marc Raibert
(00:52:00)
An athletic part and a cognitive part. I think Boston Dynamics, in my view, has set the standard for what athletic intelligence can be. And it has to do with all the things we’ve been talking about, the mechanical design, the real-time control, the energetics and that kind of stuff. But obviously, people have another kind of intelligence, and animals have another kind of intelligence. We can make a plan. Our meeting started at 9:30, I looked up on Google Maps how long it took to walk over here. It was 20 minutes, so I decided, okay, I’d leave my house at nine, which is what I did. Simple intelligence, but we use that kind of stuff all the time. It’s what we think of as going on in our heads.

(00:52:50)
And I think that’s in short supply for robots. Most robots are pretty dumb. As a result, it takes a lot of skilled people to program them to do everything they do, and it takes a long time. If robots are going to satisfy our dreams, they need to be smarter. So the AI Institute is designed to combine that physicality of the athletic side with the cognitive side.

(00:53:22)
For instance, we’re trying to make robots that can watch a human do a task, understand what it’s seeing, and then do the task itself. OJT, on-the-job training for robots as a paradigm. Now, that’s pretty hard, and it’s sort of science fiction, but our idea is to work on a longer timeframe and work on solving those kinds of problems. I have a whole list of things that are in that vein.
Lex Fridman
(00:53:53)
Maybe we can just take many of the things you mentioned, just take it as a tangent. First of all, athletic intelligence is a super cool term. And that really is intelligence. We humans take it for granted that we’re so good at walking and moving about the world.
Marc Raibert
(00:54:10)
And using our hands.
Lex Fridman
(00:54:10)
Using your hands.
Marc Raibert
(00:54:11)
The mechanics of interacting with all these [inaudible 00:54:15] these two things.
Lex Fridman
(00:54:18)
And you’ve never touched those things before.
Marc Raibert
(00:54:18)
Never touched… Well, I’ve touched ones like this.
Lex Fridman
(00:54:20)
[inaudible 00:54:20].
Marc Raibert
(00:54:20)
Look at all the things I can do, right? I can juggle them, I’m rotating it this way, I can rotate it without looking. I could fetch these things out my pocket and figure out which one was which and all that kind of stuff. And I don’t think we have much of a clue how all that works yet.

Athletic intelligence

Lex Fridman
(00:54:36)
I really like putting that under the banner of athletic intelligence. What are the big open problems in athletic intelligence? Boston Dynamics, with Spot, with Atlas, just have shown time and time again, pushed the limits of what we think is possible with robots. But where do we stand actually, if we zoom out. What are the big open problems on the athletic intelligence side?
Marc Raibert
(00:55:01)
I mean, one question you could ask, that isn’t my question, but are they commercially viable? Will they increase productivity? And I think we’re getting very close to that. I don’t think we’re quite there still. Most of the robotics companies, it’s a struggle. It’s really the lack of the cognitive side that probably is the biggest barrier at the moment, even for the physically successful robots.
Lex Fridman
(00:55:01)
Interesting.
Marc Raibert
(00:55:27)
But your question’s a good one. You can always do a thing that’s more efficient, lighter, more reliable. I’d say reliability. I know that Spot, they’ve been working very hard on getting the tail of the reliability curve up and they’ve made huge progress. There’s 1500 of them out there now, many of them being used in practical applications, day in and day out, where they have to work reliably. And it’s very exciting that they’ve done that. But it takes a huge effort to get that reliability in the robot.

(00:56:07)
There’s cost too, you’d like to get the cost down. Spots are still pretty expensive, and I don’t think that they have to be, but it takes a different kind of activity to do that. I think that Boston Dynamics is owned primarily by Hyundai now, and I think that the skills of Hyundai in making cars can be brought to bear in making robots that are less expensive and more reliable and those kinds of things.
Lex Fridman
(00:56:40)
On the cognitive side for the AI Institute, what’s the trade-off between moonshot projects for you and maybe incremental progress?
Marc Raibert
(00:56:50)
That’s a good question. I think we’re using the paradigm called stepping stones to moonshots. I don’t believe… That was in my original proposal for the institute, stepping stones to moonshots. I think if you go more than a year without seeing a tangible status report of where you are, which is the stepping stone, and it could be a simplification, you don’t necessarily have to solve all the problems of your target goal, even though your target goal is going to take several years, those stepping stone results give you feedback, give motivation, because usually there’s some success in there. So that’s the mantra we’ve been working on, and that’s pretty much how I’d say Boston Dynamics has worked, where you make progress and show it as you go. Show it to yourself, if not to the world.
Lex Fridman
(00:57:45)
What does success look like? What are some of the milestones you’re chasing?
Marc Raibert
(00:57:52)
Well, with Watch Understand Do, the project I mentioned before, we’ve broken that down into getting some progress with, what does meaningfully watching something mean? Breaking down an observation of a person doing something into the components, segmenting. You watch me do something, I’m going to pick up this thing and put it down here and stack this on it. Well, it’s not obvious if you just look at the raw data, what the sequence of acts are. It’s really a creative intelligent act for you to break that down into the pieces and understand them in a way, so you could say, “Okay, what skill do I need to accomplish each of those things?” So we’re working on the front end of that kind of a problem, where we observe and translate the, it may be video, it may be live, into a description of what we think is going on and then try and map that into skills to accomplish that. And we’ve been developing skills as well. So we have multiple stabs at the pieces of doing that.
Lex Fridman
(00:58:55)
That. And this is usually video of humans manipulating objects with their hands, kind of thing.
Marc Raibert
(00:59:00)
Mm-hmm. We’re starting out with bicycle repair, some simple bicycle repair tasks.
Lex Fridman
(00:59:05)
Oh no. That seems complicated, that seems really complicated.
Marc Raibert
(00:59:07)
Well, it is, but there’s some parts of it that aren’t, like putting the seat into the… You have a tube that goes inside of another tube and there’s a latch. That should be within range.
Lex Fridman
(00:59:19)
Is it possible to observe, to watch a video like this without having an explicit model of what a bicycle looks like?
Marc Raibert
(00:59:26)
I think it is, and I think that’s the kind of thing that people don’t recognize. Let me translate it to navigation. I think the basic paradigm for navigating a space is to get some kind of sensor that tells you where an obstacle is and what’s open, build a map and then go through the space. But if we were doing on the job training where I was giving you a task, I wouldn’t have to say anything about the room. We came in here, all we did is adjust the chair, but we didn’t say anything about the room and we could navigate it. So I think there’s opportunities to build that kind of navigation skill into robots and we’re hoping to be able to do that.
Lex Fridman
(01:00:07)
So operate successfully under a lot of uncertainty.
Marc Raibert
(01:00:10)
Yeah. And lack of specification.
Lex Fridman
(01:00:13)
Lack of specification.
Marc Raibert
(01:00:14)
I mean that’s what intelligence is, right? Dealing with… Understanding a situation even though it wasn’t explained.
Lex Fridman
(01:00:22)
So how big of a role does machine learning play in all of this? Is this more and more learning based?
Marc Raibert
(01:00:32)
Since Chat GPT, which is a year ago, basically, there’s a huge interest in that and a huge optimism about it. I think that there’s a lot of things that that kind of machine learning, now of course there’s lots of different kinds of machine learning, I think there’s a lot of interest and optimism about it. The facts on the ground are that doing physical things with physical robots is a little bit different than language, and the tokens don’t exist. Pixel values aren’t like words. But I think that there’s a lot that can be done there.

(01:01:12)
We have several people working on machine learning approaches. I don’t know if you know, but we opened an office in Zurich recently, and Marco Hutter, who’s one of the real leaders in reinforcement learning for robots, is the director of that office. He’s still half-time at ETH, the university there, where he has an unbelievably fantastic lab, and then he’s half-time leading, will be leading efforts in the Zurich office. So we have a healthy learning component.

(01:01:48)
But there’s part of me that still says, if you look out in the world at what the most impressive performances are, they’re still pretty much, I hate to use the word traditional, but that’s what everybody’s calling it, traditional controls, like model predictive control. The Atlas performances that you’ve seen are mostly model predictive control. They’ve started to do some learning stuff that’s really incredible. I don’t know if it’s all been shown yet, but you’ll see it over time. And then Marco has done some great stuff and others.
Lex Fridman
(01:02:21)
So especially for the athletic intelligence piece, the traditional approach seems to be the one that still performs the best.
Marc Raibert
(01:02:29)
I think we’re going to find a mating of the two and we’ll have the best of both worlds. And we’re working on that at the institute too.

Building a team

Lex Fridman
(01:02:36)
If I can talk to you about teams, you’ve built an incredible team of Boston Dynamics, before at MIT and CMU, at Boston Dynamics, and now at the AI Institute. And you said that there’s four components to a great team, technical fearlessness, diligence, intrepidness, and fun, technical fun. Can you explain each? Technical fearlessness, what do you mean by that?
Marc Raibert
(01:02:58)
Sure. Technical fearlessness means being willing to take on a problem that you don’t know how to solve, and study it, figure out an entry point, maybe a simplified version, or a simplified solution or something, learn from the stepping stone, and go back and eventually make a solution that meets your goals. I think that’s really important.
Lex Fridman
(01:03:28)
The fearlessness comes into play because some of it has never been done before?
Marc Raibert
(01:03:32)
Yeah, and you don’t know how to do it. There’s easier stuff to do in life. I mean, I don’t know, Watch Understand Do, it’s a mountain of a challenge.
Lex Fridman
(01:03:45)
So that’s the really big challenge you’re tackling now, can we watch humans at scale and have robots, by watching humans, become effective actors in the world?
Marc Raibert
(01:03:57)
Yeah. I mean we have others like that. We have one called Inspect Diagnose Fix. You call up the Maytag repairman… Okay, he’s the one who you don’t have to call. But you call up the dishwasher repair person, and they come to your house and they look at your machine. It’s already been actually figured out that something doesn’t work, but they have to examine it and figure out what’s wrong and then fix it. I think robots should be able to do that. Boston Dynamics already has Spot robots collecting data on machines, things like thermal data, reading the gauges, listening to them, getting sounds, and that data are used to determine whether they’re healthy or not. But the interpretation isn’t done by the robots yet, and certainly the fixing, the diagnosing and the fixing isn’t done yet, but I think it could be. That’s bringing the AI and combining it with the physical skills to do it.
Lex Fridman
(01:05:00)
And you’re referring to the fixing in the physical world. I can’t wait until they can fix the psychological problems of humans, and show up and talk, do therapy.
Marc Raibert
(01:05:08)
Yeah, that’s a different thing.
Lex Fridman
(01:05:10)
Yeah, it’s a different. Well, it’s all part of the same thing. Again, humanity. Maybe, maybe.
Marc Raibert
(01:05:17)
You mean convincing you it’s okay that the dishwasher’s broken, just do the [inaudible 01:05:21]. The marketing approach.
Lex Fridman
(01:05:23)
Yeah, exactly. Don’t sweat the small stuff. As opposed to fixing the dishwasher, it’ll convince you that it’s okay that the dishwasher’s broken. It’s a different approach. Diligence. Why is diligence important?

Videos

Marc Raibert
(01:05:39)
Well, if you want a real robot solution, it can’t be a very narrow solution that’s going to break at the first variation in what the robot does, or the environment if it wasn’t exactly as you expected it. So how do you get there? I think having an approach that leaves you unsatisfied until you’ve embraced the bigger problem is the diligence I’m talking about.

(01:06:08)
Again, I’ll point at Boston Dynamics, some of the videos that we had showing the engineer making it hard for the robot to do its task. Spot opening a door and then the guy gets there and pushes on the door so it doesn’t open the way it’s supposed to. Pulling on the rope that’s attached to the robot, so its navigation has been screwed up. We have one where the robot’s climbing stairs and an engineer is tugging on a rope that’s pulling it back down the stairs. That’s totally different than just the robot seeing the stairs, making a model, putting its feet carefully on each step. But that’s what probably robotics needs to succeed, and having that broader idea that you want to come with a robust solution is what I meant by diligence.
Lex Fridman
(01:06:54)
So really testing it in all conditions, perturbing the system in all kinds of ways, and as a result, creating some epic videos. The legendary-
Marc Raibert
(01:07:03)
The fun part, the hockey stick.
Lex Fridman
(01:07:04)
And then yes, tugging on Spot as it’s trying to open the door. I mean, it’s great testing, but it’s also, I don’t know, it’s just somehow extremely compelling demonstration of robotics in video form.
Marc Raibert
(01:07:21)
I learned something very early on with the first three-dimensional hopping machine. If you just show a video of it hopping, it’s a so what. If you show it falling over a couple of times, and you can see how easily and fast it falls over, then you appreciate what the robot’s doing when it’s doing its thing. So I think the reaction you just gave to the robot getting interfered with or tested while it’s going through the door, it’s showing you the scope of the solution.
Lex Fridman
(01:07:53)
The limits of the system, the challenges involved in failure. Showing both failure and success makes you appreciate the success, yeah. And then just the way the videos are done in Boston Dynamics are incredible. Because there’s no flash, there’s no extra production, it’s just raw testing of the robot.
Marc Raibert
(01:08:13)
Well, I was the final edit for most of the videos up until about three years ago, or four years ago. My theory of the video is no explanation. If they can’t see it, then it’s not the right thing. And if you do something worth showing, then let them see it. Don’t interfere with a bunch of titles that slow you down, or a bunch of distraction, just do something worth showing and then show it.
Lex Fridman
(01:08:47)
That’s brilliant.
Marc Raibert
(01:08:49)
It’s hard though for people to buy into that.
Lex Fridman
(01:08:53)
Yeah, I mean people always want to add more stuff, but the simplicity of just, “Do something worth showing and show it”, that’s brilliant. And don’t add extra stuff.
Marc Raibert
(01:09:03)
People have criticized, especially the Big Dog videos, where there’s a human driving the robot. And I understand the criticism now. At the time we wanted to just show, “Look, this thing’s using its legs to get up the hill.” So we focused on showing that, which was, we thought, the story. The fact that there was a human… So they were thinking about autonomy, whereas we were thinking about the mobility. So we’ve adjusted to a lot of things that we see that people care about, trying to be honest. We’ve always tried to be honest.
Lex Fridman
(01:09:38)
But also just show cool stuff in its raw form, the limits of the system. Let’s see the system be perturbed and be robust and resilient and all that kind of stuff. And dancing with some music. Intrepidness and fun. So, intrepid?
Marc Raibert
(01:09:57)
I mean, it might be the most important ingredient.
Lex Fridman
(01:10:00)
Sure.
Marc Raibert
(01:10:00)
And that is, robotics is hard, it’s not going to work right right away, so don’t be discouraged, is all it really means. Usually, when I talk about these things, I show videos, and I show a long string of outtakes. You have to have courage to be intrepid, when you work so hard to build your machine, and then you’re trying it, and it just doesn’t do what you thought it would do, what you want it to do, and you have to stick to it and keep trying.
Lex Fridman
(01:10:35)
I mean, we don’t often see that, the story behind Spot and Atlas. How many failures were there along the way to get a working Atlas, a working Spot, in the early days, even a working Big Dog?
Marc Raibert
(01:10:49)
There’s a video of Atlas climbing three big steps, and it’s very dynamic and it’s really exciting, real accomplishment. It took 109 tries and we have video of every one of them, we shoot everything. Again, we, this is at Boston Dynamics. So it took 109 tries, but once it did it had a high percentage of success. So it’s not like we’re cheating by just showing the best one, but we do show the evolved performance, not everything along the way. But everything along the way is informative. And it shows there’s stupid things that go wrong, like the robot, just when you say go and it collapses right there on the start, that doesn’t have to do with the steps. Or the perception didn’t work right, so you miss the target when you jump, or something breaks and there’s oil flying everywhere. But that’s fun.
Lex Fridman
(01:11:47)
Yeah. So the hardware failures and maybe some software-
Marc Raibert
(01:11:50)
Lots of control of evolution during that time. I think it took six weeks to get those 109 trials, because there was programming going on. It was actually robot learning, but there were human in the loop helping with the learning. So all data-driven.
Lex Fridman
(01:12:08)
Okay, and you always are learning from that failure.
Marc Raibert
(01:12:12)
Right.
Lex Fridman
(01:12:16)
How do you protect Atlas from not getting damaged from 109 attempts?
Marc Raibert
(01:12:24)
It’s remarkable. One of the accomplishments of Atlas is that the engineers have made a machine that’s robust enough that it can take that kind of testing, where it’s falling and stuff, and it doesn’t break every time. It still breaks, and part of the paradigm is to have people to repair stuff. You got to figure that in if you’re going to do this kind of work. I sometimes criticize the people who have their gold-plated thing and they keep it on the shelf and they’re afraid to use it. I don’t think you can make progress if you’re working that way. You need to be ready to have it break and go in there and fix it. It’s part of the thing. Plan your budget so you have spare parts and a crew and all that stuff.
Lex Fridman
(01:13:07)
If it falls 109 times, it’s okay. Wow. So, intrepid, truly. And that applies to Spot, that applies to all the other robot stuff.
Marc Raibert
(01:13:17)
Applies to everything. I think it applies to everything anybody tries to do that’s worth doing.
Lex Fridman
(01:13:22)
And especially with systems in the real world, right?

Engineering

Marc Raibert
(01:13:24)
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(01:13:26)
So, fun.
Marc Raibert
(01:13:27)
Fun. Technical fun, I usually say.
Lex Fridman
(01:13:30)
Technical fun.
Marc Raibert
(01:13:31)
Have technical fun. I think that life as an engineer is really satisfying. To some degree it can be like crafts work, where you get to do things with your own hands, or your own design, or whatever your media is, and it’s very satisfying to be able to just do the work. Unlike a lot of people who have to do something that they don’t like doing, I think engineers typically get to do something that they like and there’s a lot of satisfaction from that. Then there’s, in many cases, you can have impact on the world somehow, because you’ve done something that other people admire, which is different from just the craft fun of building a thing. So that’s the second way that being an engineer is good.

(01:14:19)
I think the third thing is that if you’re lucky to be working in a team where you’re getting the benefit of other people’s skills that are helping you do your thing. None of us has all the skills needed to do most of these projects, and if you have a team where you’re working well with the others, that can be very satisfying.

(01:14:40)
Then if you’re an engineer, you also usually get paid. So you kind of get paid four times in my view of the world. So what could be better than that?
Lex Fridman
(01:14:49)
Get paid to have fun. What do you love about engineering? When you say engineering, what does that mean to you exactly? What is this big thing that we call engineering?
Marc Raibert
(01:15:00)
I think it’s both being a scientist, or getting to use science, at the same time as being an artist or a creator. Scientists only get to study what’s out there, and engineers get to make stuff that didn’t exist before. So it’s really, I think, a higher calling, even though I think most the public out there thinks science is top and engineering is somehow secondary, but I think it’s the other way around.
Lex Fridman
(01:15:26)
And at the cutting edge, I think, when you talk about robotics, there is a possibility to do art in that you do the first of its kind thing. Then there’s the production at scale, which is its own beautiful thing. But when you do the first new robot or the first new thing, that’s a possibility to create something totally new, that is art.
Marc Raibert
(01:15:48)
Bringing metal to life, or a machine to life, is fun. It was fun doing the dancing videos, where got a huge public response, and we’re going to do more. We’re doing some at the institute doing some at the institute and we’ll do more.
Lex Fridman
(01:16:05)
Well, that metal to life moment. I mean, to me that’s still magical. When inanimate objects comes to life, to me-
Marc Raibert
(01:16:15)
It’s cool.
Lex Fridman
(01:16:16)
… to this day, is still an incredible moment. That human intelligence can create systems that instill life, or whatever that is, into inanimate objects, it’s truly magical. Especially when it’s at the scale that humans can perceive and appreciate directly.
Marc Raibert
(01:16:37)
But I think, with going back to the pieces of that, you design a linkage that turns out to be half the weight and just as strong, that’s very satisfying.
Lex Fridman
(01:16:48)
That’s [inaudible 01:16:49], yeah.
Marc Raibert
(01:16:49)
There are people who do that and it’s a creative act.

Dancing robots

Lex Fridman
(01:16:54)
What to you is most beautiful about robotics? Sorry for the big romantic question.
Marc Raibert
(01:17:01)
I think having the robots move in a way that’s evocative of life is pretty exciting.
Lex Fridman
(01:17:08)
So the elegance of movement.
Marc Raibert
(01:17:09)
Yeah. Or if it’s a high performance act where it’s doing it faster, bigger than other robots. Usually we’re not doing it bigger, faster than people, but we’re getting there in a few narrow dimensions.
Lex Fridman
(01:17:22)
So faster, bigger, smoother, more elegant, more graceful.
Marc Raibert
(01:17:27)
I mean, I’d like to do dancing that starts… We’re nowhere near the dancing capabilities of a human. We’ve been having a ballerina in, who’s kind of a well-known ballerina, and she’s been programming the robot. We’ve been working on the tools that can make it so that she can use her way of talking, way of doing a choreography or something like that, more accessible, to get the robot to do things, and starting to produce some interesting stuff.
Lex Fridman
(01:17:58)
Well, we should mention that there is a choreography tool.
Marc Raibert
(01:18:00)
There is.
Lex Fridman
(01:18:02)
I guess-
Lex Fridman
(01:18:00)
Tool.
Marc Raibert
(01:18:00)
There is.
Lex Fridman
(01:18:02)
I mean I guess I saw versions of it, which is pretty cool. You can, at slices of time, control different parts at the high level, the movement of the robot, Spot and other-
Marc Raibert
(01:18:15)
We hope to take that forward and make it more tuned to how the dance world wants to talk, wants to communicate and get better performances. I mean, we’ve done a lot, but there’s still a lot possible. And I’d like to have performances where the robots are dancing with people. So right now almost everything that we’ve done on dancing is to a fixed time base. So once you press go, the robot does its thing and plays out its thing. It’s not listening, it’s not watching. But I think it should do those things.
Lex Fridman
(01:18:48)
I think I would love to see a professional ballerina, alone in her room with a robot, slowly teaching the robot. Just actually, the process of a clueless robot trying to figure out a small little piece of a dance. Because right now, Atlas and Spot have done perfect dancing to a beat and so on, to a degree, but the learning process of interacting with a human would be incredible to watch.
Marc Raibert
(01:19:19)
One of the cool things going on, you know that there’s a class at Brown University called Choreorobotics? Sidney Skybetter is a dancer, choreographer and he teamed up with Stefanie Tellex, who’s a computer science professor, and they taught this class and I think they have some graduate students helping teach it, where they have two spots and people come in. I think it’s 50/50 of computer science people and dance people, and they program performances that are very interesting. I show some of them sometimes when I give a talk.
Lex Fridman
(01:19:53)
And making that process of a human teaching the robot more efficient, more intuitive, maybe partial language, part movement. That’d be really fascinating because one of the things I’ve realized is humans communicate with movement a lot. It’s not just language, there’s a lot. There’s body language, there’s so many intricate little things. To watch a human and Spot communicate back and forth with movement, I mean there’s just so many wonderful possibilities there.
Marc Raibert
(01:20:28)
But it’s also a challenge. We get asked to have our robots perform with famous dancers and they have 200 degrees of freedom or something, every little ripple and thing, and they have all this head and neck and shoulders and stuff, and the robots mostly don’t have all that stuff and it’s a daunting challenge to not look physically stupid next to them. So we’ve pretty much avoided that performance, but we’ll get to it.
Lex Fridman
(01:21:04)
I think even with the limited degrees of freedom, we could still have some sass and flavor and so on. You can figure out your own thing even if you can’t-
Marc Raibert
(01:21:11)
And we can reverse things. If you watch a human do a robot animation, which is a dance style where you jerk around and you pop and lock and all that stuff, I think the robots could show up the humans by doing unstable oscillations and things that are faster than a person could. So that’s on my plan, but I haven’t quite gotten there yet.

Hiring

Lex Fridman
(01:21:39)
You mentioned about building teams and robotics teams and so on. How do you find great engineers? How do you hire great engineers?
Marc Raibert
(01:21:45)
Well, it’s a chicken and egg. If you have an environment where interesting engineering is going on, then engineers want to work there. And I think it took a long time to develop that at Boston Dynamics. In fact, when we started, although I had the experience of building things in the leg lab, both at CMU and at MIT, we weren’t that sophisticated an engineering thing compared to what Boston Dynamics is now, but it was our ambition to do that. And Sarcos was another robot company, so I always thought of us as being this much on the computing side, and this much on the hardware side, and they were this. And then over the years, I think we achieved the same or better levels of engineering.

(01:22:41)
Meanwhile, Sarcos got acquired and then they went through all changes and I don’t know exactly what their current status is. So it took many years, is part of the answer. I think you got to find people who love it. In the early days, we paid a little less so we only got people who were doing it because they really loved it. We also hired people who might not have professional degrees, people who were building bicycles and building kayaks. We have some people who come from the maker world, and that’s really important for the work we do, to have that be part of the mix.
Lex Fridman
(01:23:20)
Whatever that is. Whatever the magic ingredient that makes a great builder, maker. That’s the big part of it.
Marc Raibert
(01:23:26)
People who repaired their cars or motorcycles or whatever in their garages when they were kids.
Lex Fridman
(01:23:35)
The robotics students, grad students, and just roboticists that I know and I hang out with, there’s a endless energy and they’re just happy. Say, I compare another group of people that are alike that are people that skydive professionally. There’s just excitement and general energy that I think probably has to do with the fact that they’re just constantly, first of all, fail a lot. And then the joy of building a thing that you eventually works.
Marc Raibert
(01:24:06)
Talking about being happy, there used to be a time when I was doing the machine shop work myself back in those JPL and Caltech days, when, if I came home smelling like the machine shop because it’s an oily place, my wife would say, “You had a good day today.” Because she could tell that that’s where I’d been.
Lex Fridman
(01:24:26)
You’ve actually built something. You’ve done something in the physical world. And probably the videos help show off what robotics is.
Marc Raibert
(01:24:36)
At Boston Dynamics, it put us on the map. I remember interviewing some sales guy and he was from a company and he said, “Well, no one’s ever heard of my company but we have really good products. You guys, everybody knows who you are but you don’t have any products at all.” Which was true, and we thank YouTube for that. YouTube came, we caught the YouTube wave and it had a huge impact on our company.
Lex Fridman
(01:25:06)
I mean, it’s a big impact not just on your company, but on robotics in general and helping people understand and inspire what is possible with robots, and inspire imagination, fear and everything. The full spectrum of human emotion was aroused, which is great for the entirety of humanity, and also, it’s probably inspiring for young people that want to get into AI and robotics. Let me ask you about some competitors. You’ve been a complimentary of Elon and Tesla’s work on Optimus robot with their humanoid robot. What do you think of their efforts there with the humanoid robot?

Optimus robot

Marc Raibert
(01:25:48)
I really admire Elon as a technologist. I think that what he did with Tesla, it was just totally mind-boggling that he could go from this totally niche area that less than 1% of anybody seemed to be interested to making it, so that essentially every car company in the world is trying to do what he’s done. So you got to give it to him. Then look at SpaceX, he’s basically replaced NASA. That might be a little exaggeration, but not by much.

(01:26:24)
So you got to admire the guy and I wouldn’t count him out for anything. I don’t think Optimus today is where Atlas is, for instance. I don’t know, it’s a little hard to compare them to the other companies. I visited Figure. I think they’re doing well and they have a good team. I’ve visited Apptronik and I think they have a good team and they’re doing well. But Elon has a lot of resources, he has a lot of ambition. I like to take some credit for his ambition. I think if I read between the lines, it’s hard not to think that him seeing what Atlas is doing is a little bit of an inspiration. I hope so.
Lex Fridman
(01:27:13)
Do you think Atlas and Optimus will hang out at some point?
Marc Raibert
(01:27:17)
I would love to host that. Now that I’m not at Boston Dynamics, I’m not officially connected, I’m on the board but I’m not officially connected, I would love to host a-
Lex Fridman
(01:27:27)
A robot meetups?
Marc Raibert
(01:27:28)
… a wrote up meetup, yeah.
Lex Fridman
(01:27:31)
Does the AI Institute work with Spots and Atlas? Is it focused on Spots mostly right now as a platform?
Marc Raibert
(01:27:37)
We have a bunch of different robots. We bought everything we could buy. So we have Spots. I think we have a good size fleet of them. I don’t know how many it is, but a good size fleet. We have a couple of ANYmal robots. ANYmal is a company founded by Marco Hutter, even though he’s not that involved anymore, but we have a couple of those. We have a bunch of arms like Franka’s and USRobotics. Because even though we have ambitions to build stuff and we are starting to build stuff, day one, getting off the ground, we just bought stuff.
Lex Fridman
(01:28:14)
I love this robot playground you’ve built.
Marc Raibert
(01:28:17)
You can come over and take a look if you want.
Lex Fridman
(01:28:19)
That’s great. So it’s all these kinds of robots, legged, arms.
Marc Raibert
(01:28:24)
Well, there’s some areas that feel like a playground, but it’s not like they’re all frolic together.
Lex Fridman
(01:28:31)
Again, maybe you’ll arrange a robot meetup. But in general, what’s your view on competition in this space for especially humanoid and legged robots? Are you excited by the competition or the friendly competition?
Marc Raibert
(01:28:51)
I don’t think about competition that much. I’m not a commercial guy. I think for the many years I was at Boston Dynamics, we didn’t think about competition. We were just doing our thing there. It wasn’t like there were products out there that we were competing with. Maybe there was some competition for DARPA funding, which we got a lot of, got very good at getting. But even there, in a couple of cases where we might’ve competed, we ended up just being the robot provider, that is for the LittleDog program, we just made the robots. We didn’t participate as developers except for developing the robot. And in the DARPA robotics challenge, we didn’t compete. We provided the robots.

(01:29:42)
In the AI world now, now that we’re working on cognitive stuff, it feels much more a competition. The entry requirements in terms of computing hardware and the skills of the team and hiring talent, it’s a much tougher place. So I think much more about competition now on the cognitive side. On the physical side, it doesn’t feel it’s that much about competition yet. Obviously, with 10 humanoid companies out there, 10 or 12, I mean there’s probably others that I don’t know about, they’re definitely in competition, will be in competition.
Lex Fridman
(01:30:22)
How much room is there for a quadruped and especially a humanoid robot to become cheaper? So cutting costs, and how low can you go? And how much of it is just mass production? So questions of how to produce versus engineering innovation, how to simplify it.
Marc Raibert
(01:30:47)
I think there’s a huge way to go. I don’t think we’ve seen the bottom of it, the bottom in terms of its lower prices. I think you should be totally optimistic that, at asymptote, things don’t have to be anything as expensive as they are now. Back to competition, I wanted to say one thing. I think in the quadruped space, having other people selling quadruped’s is a great thing for Boston Dynamics because I believe the question in the user’s minds is, “Which quadruped do I want?” It’s not, “Do I want a quadruped?” “Can a quadruped do my job?” It’s much more like that, which is a great place for it to be. Then you’re just doing the things you normally do to make your product better and compete, selling and all that stuff. And that’ll be the way it is with humanoids at some point.
Lex Fridman
(01:31:37)
Well, there’s a lot of humanoids and you’re just not even… It’s like iPhone versus Android and people are just buying both and it’s just, you’re not really-
Marc Raibert
(01:31:48)
You’re creating the category or the category is happening. I mean right now, the use cases, that’s the key thing. Having realistic use cases that are moneymaking in robotics is a big challenge. There’s the warehouse use case. That’s probably the only thing that makes anybody any money in robotics at this point.
Lex Fridman
(01:32:10)
There’s got to be a moment-
Marc Raibert
(01:32:11)
There’s old-fashioned robots. I mean, there’s fixed arms doing manufacturing. I don’t want to say that they’re not making money.
Lex Fridman
(01:32:17)
… Industrial robotics, yes. But there’s got to be a moment when social robotics starts making real money. Meaning a Spot type robot in the home and there’s tens of millions of them in the home and they’re, I don’t know, how many dogs there are in the United States as pets.
Marc Raibert
(01:32:34)
Many.
Lex Fridman
(01:32:35)
It feels there’s something we love about having a intelligent companion with us that remembers us, that’s excited to see us. All that stuff.
Marc Raibert
(01:32:44)
But it’s also true that the companies making those things, there’ve been a lot of failures in recent times. There’s that one year when I think three of them went under. So it’s not that easy to do that. Getting performance, safety and cost all to be where they need to be at the same time, that’s hard.
Lex Fridman
(01:33:07)
But also some of it is, like you say, you can have a product but people might not be aware of it. So also part of it is the videos or however you connect with the public, the culture and create the category. Make people realize this is the thing you want. There’s a lot of negative perceptions you can have. Do you really want a system with the camera in your home walking around? If it’s presented correctly and if there’s the right boundaries around it and you understand how it works and so on, a lot of people would want to. And if they don’t, they might be suspicious of it. So that’s an important one. We all use smartphones and that has a camera that’s looking at us.
Marc Raibert
(01:33:49)
It has two or three or four.
Lex Fridman
(01:33:50)
And it’s listening. Very few people are suspicious about it. They take it for granted and so on. And I think robots would be the same way.
Marc Raibert
(01:34:00)
I agree.

Future of robotics

Lex Fridman
(01:34:02)
So as you work on the cognitive aspect of these robots, do you think we’ll ever get to human level or superhuman level intelligence? There’s been a lot of conversations about this recently, given the rapid development in large language models.
Marc Raibert
(01:34:21)
I think that intelligence is a lot of different things and I think some things, computers are already smarter than people, and some things they’re not even close. And I think you’d need a menu of detailed categories to come up with that. But I also think that the conversation that seems to be happening about AGI’s puzzles me. So I ask you a question, do you think there’s anybody smarter than you in the world?
Lex Fridman
(01:34:55)
Absolutely, yes.
Marc Raibert
(01:34:57)
Do you find that threatening?
Lex Fridman
(01:34:58)
No.
Marc Raibert
(01:34:59)
So I don’t understand, even if computers were smarter than people, why we should assume that that’s a threat, especially since they could easily be smarter but still available to us or under our control, which is basically how computers generally are.
Lex Fridman
(01:35:17)
I think the fear is that they would be 10x or 100x smarter and operating under different morals and ethical codes than humans naturally do, and so almost become misaligned in unintended ways and therefore harm humans in ways we just can’t predict. And even if we program them to do a thing, on the way of doing that thing, they would cause a lot of harm. And when they’re 100 times, 1,000 times, 10,000 times smarter than us, we won’t be able to stop it or we won’t be able to even see the harm as it’s happening until it’s too late. That stuff. So you can construct all possible trajectories of how the world ends because of super intelligent systems.
Marc Raibert
(01:36:05)
It’s a little bit like that line in the Oppenheimer movie where they contemplate whether the first time they set off a reaction, all matter on earth is going to go up. I don’t remember what the verb they used was for the chain reaction. I guess it’s possible, but I personally don’t think it’s worth worrying about that. I think that it’s balancing opportunities and risk. I think if you take any technology, there’s opportunity and risk. I’ll point at the car. They pollute and about what? 1.25 million people get killed every year around the world because of them. Despite that, I think they’re a boon to humankind, they’re very useful, many of us love them and those technical problems can be solved. I think they’re becoming safer. I think they’re becoming less polluting, at least some of them are. And every technology you can name has a story like that in my opinion.
Lex Fridman
(01:37:20)
What’s the story behind the Hawaiian shirt? Is it a fashion statement, a philosophical statement? Is it just a statement of rebellion? Engineering statement?
Marc Raibert
(01:37:31)
It was born of me being a contrarian.
Lex Fridman
(01:37:35)
It’s a symbol.
Marc Raibert
(01:37:36)
Someone told me once that I was wearing one when I only had one or two and they said, “Those things are so old-fashioned. You can’t wear that, Marc.” And I stopped wearing them for about a week and then I said, “I’m not going to let them tell me what to do.” And so every day since, pretty much.
Lex Fridman
(01:37:55)
So it’s a symbol.
Marc Raibert
(01:37:56)
That was years ago. That was 20 years ago. 15 years ago probably.
Lex Fridman
(01:38:00)
That says something about your personality. That’s great.
Marc Raibert
(01:38:04)
It took me a while to realize that I was a contrarian, but it can be a useful tool.
Lex Fridman
(01:38:10)
Have you had people tell you on the robotics side that, “I don’t think you could do this”? A negative motivation?
Marc Raibert
(01:38:21)
I’d rather talk about, when we were doing a lot of DARPA work, there was a Marine, Ed Tovar, who’s still around. What he would always say is when someone would say, “You can’t do that.” He’d say, “Why not?” And it’s a great question. I ask all the time when I’m thinking, “We’re not going to do that nice thing.” “Why not?” And I give him credit for opening my eyes to resisting that.

Advice for young people

Lex Fridman
(01:38:50)
So the Hawaiian shirt is almost a symbol of “why not?” Okay. What advice would you give to young folks that are trying to figure out what they want to do with their life? How to have a life they can be proud of? How they can have a career they can be proud of?
Marc Raibert
(01:39:06)
When I was teaching at MIT, for a while, I had undergraduate advisees where people would have to meet with me once a semester or something and they frequently would ask what they should do. And I think the advice I used to give was something like, “Well, if you had no constraints on you, no resource constraints, no opportunity constraints and no skill constraints, what could you imagine doing?” And I said, “Well, start there and see how close you can get to what’s realistic for how close you can get.” The other version of that is try and figure out what you want to do and do that. A lot of people think that they’re in a channel and there’s only limited opportunities, but it’s usually wider than they think.
Lex Fridman
(01:39:57)
The opportunities really are limitless. But at the same time, you want to pick a thing and it’s the diligence and really, really pursue it. And really pursue it. Because sometimes the really special stuff happens after years of pursuit.
Marc Raibert
(01:40:18)
Yeah. Oh, absolutely. It can take a while.
Lex Fridman
(01:40:21)
I mean, you’ve been doing this for 40 plus years.
Marc Raibert
(01:40:24)
Some people think I’m in a rut. And in fact, some of the inspiration for the AI Institute is to say, “I’ve been working on locomotion for however many years it was, let’s do something else.” And it’s a really fascinating and interesting challenge.
Lex Fridman
(01:40:44)
And you’re hoping to show it off also in the same way it has been done with Boston Dynamics?
Marc Raibert
(01:40:48)
Just about to start showing some stuff off. I hope we have a YouTube channel. I mean one of the challenges is, it’s one thing to show athletic skills on YouTube. Showing cognitive function is a lot harder, and I haven’t quite figured out yet how that’s going to work.
Lex Fridman
(01:41:06)
There might be a way.
Marc Raibert
(01:41:07)
There’s a way.
Lex Fridman
(01:41:08)
There’s a way.
Marc Raibert
(01:41:09)
Why not?
Lex Fridman
(01:41:10)
I also do think sucking at a task is also compelling. The incremental improvement. A robot being really terrible at a task and then slowly becoming better. Even in athletic intelligence, honestly. Learning to walk and falling and slowly figuring that out, I think there’s something extremely compelling about that. We like flaws, especially with the cognitive task. It’s okay to be clumsy. It’s okay to be confused and a little silly and all that stuff. It feels like in that space is where we can-
Marc Raibert
(01:41:45)
There’s charm.
Lex Fridman
(01:41:46)
… There’s charm and there’s something inspiring about a robot sucking and then becoming less terrible slowly at a task.
Marc Raibert
(01:41:57)
No, I think you’re right.
Lex Fridman
(01:41:58)
That reveals something about ourselves. Ultimately, that’s what’s one of the coolest things about robots, is it’s a mirror about what makes humans special. Just by watching how hard it is to make a robot do the things that humans do. You realize how special we are. What do you think is the meaning of this whole thing? Why are we here? Marc, do you ever ask about the big questions as you try to create these humanoid, human-like intelligence systems?
Marc Raibert
(01:42:32)
I don’t know. I think you have to have fun while you’re here. That’s about all I know. It would be a waste not to.
Lex Fridman
(01:42:40)
The ride is pretty short, so might as well have fun. Marc, I’m a huge fan of yours. It’s a huge honor that you would talk with me. This is really amazing and your work for many decades has been amazing and I can’t wait to see what you do at the AI Institute. I’m going to be waiting impatiently for the videos and the demos and the next robot meetup for maybe Atlas and Optimus to hang out.
Marc Raibert
(01:43:07)
I would love to do that. That would be fun.
Lex Fridman
(01:43:09)
Thank you so much for talking.
Marc Raibert
(01:43:10)
Thank you. It was fun talking to you.
Lex Fridman
(01:43:13)
Thanks for listening to this conversation with Marc Raibert. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you with some words from Arthur C. Clark. “Whether we’re based on carbon or on silken makes no fundamental difference. We should each be treated with appropriate respect.” Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.

Transcript for Omar Suleiman: Palestine, Gaza, Oct 7, Israel, Resistance, Faith & Islam | Lex Fridman Podcast #411

This is a transcript of Lex Fridman Podcast #411 with Omar Suleiman.
The timestamps in the transcript are clickable links that take you directly to that point in
the main video. Please note that the transcript is human generated, and may have errors.
Here are some useful links: 

Table of Contents

Here are the loose “chapters” in the conversation.
Click link to jump approximately to that part in the transcript: 

Introduction

Omar Suleiman
(00:00:00)
You always know when you live in Gaza that it’s only a matter of time before the next bombs drop. You know if you’re in Gaza that you are waiting for your death. People dream about going out in the world and pursuing education. People dream about going out in the world and pursuing economic opportunity. In Gaza, your idea of opportunity is an opportunity to see the next year. That has been the case. And so, when we talk about this not existing in a vacuum, if people only hear about Gaza on October 7th, that is a major part of the problem. And that is, again, part of the problem of our ignorance and our apathy. Why is it that the plight of the people of Gaza is not brought up until an attack happens on Israel?
Lex Fridman
(00:00:59)
The following is a conversation with Imam Dr. Omar Suleiman, his second time on the podcast. He is a Palestinian American, a Muslim scholar, a civil rights leader, president of the Yaqeen Institute for Islamic Research, and is one of the most influential Muslims in the world. Our previous conversation was focused on Islam. This time the focus was on Gaza and Palestine.
(00:01:26)
This is the Lex Fridman Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description.

Oct 7

(00:01:31)
And now, dear friends, here’s Omar Suleiman. What did you think, feel, and pray for in the days that followed October 7th?
Omar Suleiman
(00:01:43)
I think the first feeling was that there’s going to be a lot of death and destruction in Gaza as a result. We always kind of see this where one Israeli casualty leads to hundreds of Palestinian casualties, right? So, it’s a pretty familiar cycle in some ways where there are daily transgressions against Palestinians in the West Bank and in Gaza, the checkpoints, the aggression on Mosque Al-Aqsa, the settlements expanding, the stories of Palestinian death. And then you have rockets fired from Gaza, and that’s when the Western press catches up and starts to cover it. Israel responds with Hellfire missiles, white phosphorus bombs, and the casualties are wildly disproportionate. And so, I think that I wasn’t surprised. I prayed for the people that I knew were going to bear the brunt of this outbreak, but the outbreak was predictable.
Lex Fridman
(00:02:54)
You wrote a statement on October 9th. I was hoping to read it, if it’s okay?
Omar Suleiman
(00:03:01)
Yeah, go ahead.
Lex Fridman
(00:03:02)
Our Palestinian casualties are always your footnotes. The daily humiliation of occupation ignored, the aggression by settlers and soldiers alike on holy sites and souls, the annihilation of entire families that follows, the devastation of whatever scraps remain in the open air prison of Gaza, unsustainable and inhumane. So, if you’re waking up to a sudden interest in the region and want to know what’s been happening, dig a bit deeper than two weeks and try to read beyond the headlines of a media that has been dehumanizing us for decades.
Omar Suleiman
(00:03:39)
Again, this was not surprising. This was very predictable. If you’ve been watching what’s been unfolding before October 7th, 2021, Human Rights Watch puts out the report, Threshold reached, Israel is an apartheid state. Amnesty International 2022, the crime of apartheid, showing how all of the legal determinations of apartheid have been reached, the occupations only getting more aggressive.
(00:04:10)
Shireen Abu Akleh, a Palestinian American journalist, is shot dead in 2022 in front of the world. The United States says initially that if it is shown that Israel was complicit or that Israel carried out the execution, then there will be consequences. Of course, once it was shown that Israel was indeed responsible for the bullet that killed Shireen Abu Akleh, the United States did absolutely nothing. Shireen’s funeral was attacked. The pallbearers were beaten. Her casket almost fell. And again, the world is watching.
(00:04:46)
The aggression against worshipers in Al-Aqsa is getting worse. You have the Flag March, the Jerusalem Flag March where extremist settlers are let loose and wild on Palestinians by the thousands, chanting things like, “Muhammad is dead. We’re going to murder you, Arabs.” All with the protection of the state with Israeli soldiers. And throughout this time, it’s like something bad is going to happen.
(00:05:15)
And then 2023 comes along. You had 13,000 settler units in 2023. A plan of 13,000 settler units, the most in the history of the occupation, the most racist and extremist government, Israeli government, that you have ever had. And people don’t realize that in 2023 alone, over 600 Palestinians had already been killed. It just doesn’t make Western headlines. And so, if you wonder why the American public sees this so much differently than the rest of the world, it’s because American media shows the American public something so much different than what the rest of the world has shown. And so, this was a pressure cooker. This was going to explode. It is extremely predictable. You’ve given people absolutely no hope. And so, I think that as we’re watching that, it’s important for us to actually interrogate the ignorance that people have of the Palestinian plight, the ignorance of the root causes of this violence, the ignorance of the occupation. And also, ask yourselves, why is it that Israel can violate every single international law on the books, have all these determinations, and the United States keeps on issuing these inconsequential statements while also, at the same time, funding these aggressions?
(00:06:55)
So, it’s like, “Stop the settler violence.” The United States will issue statement after statements, “Stop the settler violence. Stop the incursions on Mosque Al-Aqsa. Stop violating the people in Jerusalem. Stop trying to wipe out the Palestinian people. Stop openly saying that there is no two-state solution, that we will never allow a Palestinian state to be established.” But at the same time, “Here’s your $3 billion check.” And if the United Nations issues any sort of resolution against Israel, or if any international body tries to hold Israel accountable, the United States stands in the way of any accountability. It’s important for us to ask why?
(00:07:36)
And so, I always tell people, “Read beyond the headlines.” Even now with the backdrop of a genocide, over 30,000 people have been killed. If you open the front page of most American mainstream sites, you will see stories about the hostages, the Israeli hostages. You will see stories about October 7th, but October 8th is missing. October 9th is missing. October 10th is missing. A hundred days of genocide are missing. And you’ll barely have a story that shows up every once in a while that is still very much so controlled by the Israeli propaganda machine, because while Israel kills Palestinian journalists, it also makes sure that American journalists are only able to tell a certain story. They’re only able to see Gaza from a certain perspective. They’re only able to speak about Gaza from a certain perspective.
(00:08:28)
And this is well-documented, that they have to review their media tapes with Israel before they can publicize them. And so, this is state propaganda at this point. The mainstream media and the United States government are in lockstep, telling a very skewed story. And that is leading to a greater sense of frustration. And I think the American public has been wronged as well by not knowing what’s happening.
Lex Fridman
(00:08:56)
You mentioned settlements. So, to you, this is bigger than Gaza. It is the West Bank. It is the Palestinian people broadly.
Omar Suleiman
(00:09:05)
Absolutely. You can’t disconnect Gaza from Palestine. You can’t disconnect the West Bank from Palestine. You can’t disconnect Jerusalem from Palestine. And you can’t disconnect the very human story from the political plight.
(00:09:19)
You interviewed Mohammed El-Kurd, met him. What did the world do when it saw the images of the Kurd household being taken over by a guy from Brooklyn or Long Island who just shows up and lays claim to their home? What did the world do when American settlers suddenly decided they could walk into historic Palestinian homes and throw people out of their homes? What did the world do? And so, yes, this is very much so connected to the broader issue of Palestinian existence.
(00:09:55)
If you realize here, we are erased in peace and we are erased in war. In peace, it’s the Abraham Accords, agreements between Israel and its Arab neighbors, which is supposedly to solve the Palestinian problem. The Palestinians are absent from their own fate, from discussions about their own fate. In war, it’s the Israel-Hamas war. It’s Israel and Gaza. Where are the Palestinian people? The millions of Palestinian people that have either been removed from their land or are being tormented on their land, where are they in this discussion?

Palestinian diaspora

Lex Fridman
(00:10:32)
What are the Palestinians in the diaspora feeling?
Omar Suleiman
(00:10:38)
I think deeply frustrated, a great sense of anger, sadness. Every single Palestinian right now knows someone that’s been killed. Every single Palestinian is a part of a story of displacement or destruction. Every single Palestinian has a relative that’s either missing a limb or a loved one. Every single Palestinian in the world is traumatized by this. And in some ways, being outside of Palestine, being away from it all hurts even more because you see your people being killed, and starved, and brutalized, and slaughtered, and you can’t do anything about it. And the people around you are justifying that slaughter.
(00:11:27)
If you turn on a TV or if you open a mainstream news site, these sites are justifying your slaughter and people are being killed over there because they look like me, because they’re Palestinian like I’m Palestinian. And so, we’re watching this in diaspora with agony. We can’t go, we can’t heal our loved ones. We can’t comfort the people that are there. I recently spoke to a doctor who’s lost 75 relatives, 75 relatives in Gaza, and he’s a medical doctor. And all he wants to do is get in there and just use his medical expertise to help his people and he can’t.
(00:12:10)
And so, we’re watching it from afar, but our hearts are there. They are in the buildings that are being destroyed. They’re in the hospitals that are being bombed. They are there and they’re with the people.
Lex Fridman
(00:12:23)
You’re somebody who’s always rushed into the midst of a crisis. So, what does it feel like on a personal level to not be able to do that here, to go to Gaza to help?
Omar Suleiman
(00:12:37)
Yeah, it’s really hard. I mean, when any group of people are killed, my instinct, and I think a lot of people is to go there to help, whether it’s a natural disaster or especially after an incident of terror, wherever it is. It’s rush there and do the best that you can to help people get through it. So, it’s been extremely hard to watch this from afar and feel like I can’t do anything about it. And so, that’s why, instead, I think that most of us are driven to continue to be the voice of the voiceless.
(00:13:19)
I always say that if they’ve made them faceless, they can’t make us voiceless. They have reduced our casualties in Palestine to a number. The number is hundreds a day, over 30,000 people. We’re averaging 10,000 people a month. The fact that they’ve been turned into faceless numbers with no stories, with no humanity, makes it that much more important for us to tell their stories here. And to remind the world that you’ve lost your humanity if you can watch this unfold and not even have the decency to call for a ceasefire. I mean, that’s where we’ve reached. That’s how low it is right now. Calling for a ceasefire has now become radical.
(00:14:07)
So, we have to remind the world that if you’re okay with the demolition of an entire town, or a city, or whatever it is that you want to call Gaza because it wasn’t always the Gaza Strip, but if you’re okay with this and you’re okay with this casualty count every single day, it’s not just them who are being killed; it’s your hearts that are dying. And I think that when I look back to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, and I mentioned this, he wrote about Vietnam. He said that if America was to succumb to its spiritual death, the autopsy would read Vietnam. I would say that it would read Gaza now.

Wael Al-Dahdouh

Lex Fridman
(00:14:48)
Speaking of the people, the faces, the voices, one of the people you’ve talked about, you’ve posted about, you’ve written about is Wael Al-Dahdouh, him being hospitalized. He’s a Palestinian journalist and the bureau chief of Al Jazeera in Gaza City. What can you tell me about this man?
Omar Suleiman
(00:15:07)
If Wael Al-Dahdouh wasn’t Palestinian, he’d be on the cover of Time Magazine right now. He would be the most celebrated journalist in the world. Wael Al-Dahdouh is from Gaza. He has been in Israeli prisons. He has been under Israeli airstrikes. He has seen the worst of the occupation before. He’s seen the worst of the genocide while on TV. I mean, and this is insane when you think about it. We have over a hundred journalists now, that’s more than any conflict in history, that have been killed. And there is sufficient evidence by international watchdogs that this is intentional. That journalists have been killed intentionally, but then their families.
(00:15:50)
Wael was reporting on TV when an airstrike hits his wife, two kids and a grandchild. He goes to the scene. And he said this, “You never expect as a journalist to be the subject of the story.” Suddenly, the camera’s on him mourning over his dead wife and kids and grandkid, and he even says it in Arabic. He says, “They’re taking it out on our children. They’re taking it out on our children.” I’ve heard this from multiple people that have had relatives targeted that, “I wish it was me instead.” He gets back on camera the same day because he feels a responsibility to continue to cover the lives of the people of Gaza. He understands that his story, as devastating as it is, is not unique in regards to the people of Gaza, that there are many people whose families have been killed in airstrikes. All two million people have been traumatized in some way. And so, he gets back on camera, tells the story again, and then he is targeted himself, his arm struck. His cameraman, Samer Abudaqa, dies in front of him. He bleeds out. Wael watches him bleed out for hours. And while any aid workers try to reach them in the building that they were in, snipers would shoot all of those that were rushing to Samer.
(00:17:24)
So, he watches his cameraman and one of his best friends bleed out to death. Wael goes to the hospital. His arm is wrapped up, gets treatment. He’s back on camera the next day. A few weeks later, another child is killed again with his friend in a car. So, this was a targeted airstrike. His son is driving. And his son and his best friend are hit in an airstrike. Wael leads the funeral prayer, is back on camera again, and speaks with such dignity, with such compassion. One of the things that always gets to me, as a Palestinian and as a Muslim too, is that we are portrayed to be these beasts and savages. Tell me a man that would be put through what Wael was put through and still stand on that pulpit and in front of the world with such dignity, with such grace. He continues to tell the story. Wael has become a hero to many of us, and he would be a hero in a world that wasn’t anti-Palestinian. And unfortunately, Wael has not only lost his family, he’s not only lost much of his own existence, but Wael is part of the greater story of erasure. So, even though he’s telling the story of the people of Gaza and he is the story of the people of Gaza, most people will never learn about Wael Al-Dahdouh.
Lex Fridman
(00:19:01)
You have posted videos and written about what is happening in Gaza since October 7th. What has been happening there, the individual stories and the broader impact on the two million people there?
Omar Suleiman
(00:19:12)
Gaza has been described as the world’s largest open air prison, unemployment, blockaded from all directions, no airport, regular added restrictions placed even on their ability to fish. So, every aspect of Gazan life has been under occupation. I would argue that it’s an injustice to even call it an open air prison because inmates are not bombed in prisons routinely by the most sophisticated weapons in the world. Regular bombardment of Gaza, every single person in Gaza has lived through multiple rounds of bombardment. It is deeply distressing.
(00:20:02)
I remember in 2021, there was an image that I will never forget of children having to go back to school after the bombardment of 2021. And next to them, they would have the empty chairs and the posters of the child that used to sit in that chair. I think what encapsulates it most for me, an image that I grew up with was the image of Muhammad al-Durrah, who was in his father’s lap over 20 years ago, and his father was begging for Israel to spare his child. And Muhammad was murdered in his lap. And you know what happened these last rounds? His other kids were murdered. So, Muhammad’s brothers were murdered and his father’s been on the run.
(00:20:53)
Every single person in Gaza has witnessed multiple wars, has witnessed the greatest suffocation of occupation, has even had their diets restricted, and has suffered under Israel state policy, which is called mowing the lawn. And everyone should look this up. This is what Israeli ministers refer to as routine bombardment of Gaza, mowing the lawn, which shows you that before they called us animals, they considered us insects. And unfortunately, the casualty counts get higher and higher every time, and people become more and more desperate, more and more helpless.
(00:21:31)
Gaza has been, unfortunately, the worst manifestation of anti-Palestinian bigotry. I mean, 60% of the population is a refugee population. What that means, and people do need to understand this, is that people move to Gaza from other parts of occupied territory to find refuge and were practically living on top of each other. There are people that are in the Gaza Strip that know that they had homes right beyond that apartheid wall and those homes were stolen from them, and they can’t even enter that territory anymore.
(00:22:10)
And they know that on the other side of that wall, there’s life. On the other side of that wall, there’s opportunity. On the other side of that wall, you have a passport, you have an airport, you have the ability to travel, you have the ability to export and import, you can dream. But behind that wall, you are to live until the next airstrike. You are to live until Israel mows the lawn again and hope that you’re not part of the grass. That’s what Gaza has been all of these years.
Lex Fridman
(00:22:38)
So, pragmatically and psychologically, it’s very difficult to flourish when you’re just waiting for more bombardment.
Omar Suleiman
(00:22:45)
Because you know that it’s around the corner. You always know when you live in Gaza that it’s only a matter of time before the next bombs drop. You know if you’re in Gaza that you are waiting for your death. People dream about going out in the world and pursuing education. People dream about going out in the world and pursuing economic opportunity. In Gaza, your idea of opportunity is an opportunity to see the next year. That has been the case. And so, when we talk about this not existing in a vacuum, if people only hear about Gaza on October 7th, that is a major part of the problem. And that is, again, part of the problem of our ignorance and our apathy. Why is it that the plight of the people of Gaza is not brought up until an attack happens on Israel?
Lex Fridman
(00:23:45)
I’ve gotten a chance to witness a destroyed school in Ukraine. That’s something that is really difficult to see.
Omar Suleiman
(00:23:57)
You have over a hundred destroyed mosques. Every university in Gaza has been demolished. We’re seeing TikTok videos of Israeli soldiers laughing and singing as they press a button. And we see the demolition of every single university in Gaza. Schools have been reduced to rubble. There’s a cultural genocide as well.
(00:24:22)
I want you to think about what you saw in Ukraine. Look, imagine coming back to school in Gaza in some destroyed building. You’re missing legs. You’re missing arms. You have white phosphorus burns. Have you ever seen what white phosphorus does to a person? There’s a reason why it’s a war crime. You have white phosphorus burns. Your mom’s dead. Your dad’s dead. All of your uncles and aunts are dead. All of your siblings are dead. Somehow you got pulled out of the rubble.
(00:24:49)
In my own family, my father’s in-laws, my father remarried after my mother passed away and they’re in Gaza, all of them were killed in an airstrike, except for an elderly aunt who somehow made it out of the rubble a day later. If you’re a child that’s been pulled out of the rubble, what are you going to grow up with? I mean, what are you supposed to feel? What are you supposed to think? And then you have racist commentators that say, “They could have turned that into a Singapore. The Palestinians are the authors of their own destruction, because if they wanted to, they could have turned this into a place of prosperity, but they keep on bringing destruction upon themselves.”
(00:25:38)
So, at the root of this is a bigotry. And again, this idea that Palestinians are savages, they’re animals, and the only way to deal with them is to continuously mow the lawn while simultaneously expanding the occupation and erasing anything that was ever called Palestine and any human being that was ever called the Palestinian.
Lex Fridman
(00:25:59)
So, those kids growing up in Gaza now, to you, they have almost no choice but to have hatred for Israel?
Omar Suleiman
(00:26:09)
It’s human. I mean, look, any child that is under that type of oppression is going to hate their oppressor. I don’t care who you are. I don’t care what you are. But here’s my problem with how that gets brought up. You’re talking about the future of the security of Israel. Even some people that speak about it seemingly from a place of being well-meaning, that say the only way that Israel can have its security is to stop killing Palestinians. And so, the future of Israel depends upon Palestinians not hating Israel so much. And so, we’ve got to stop tormenting these people so that they don’t grow up to want to torment us.
(00:26:51)
You’ve already decided then whose life is worth more than the other. And so, instead of talking about the future of Israeli lives, why don’t you talk about the present of Palestinian lives? Instead of talking about whether or not your state will be secure in the future, talk to me about why you’re killing children now. Two thirds of the 30,000 civilians are women and children. And so, we can’t talk about what these children are going to grow up with. We should talk about whether or not these children are going to grow up in the first place. And that should be what dominates our conscience right now, and what drives our policies, and what drives our emotions right now.
Lex Fridman
(00:27:35)
When I had a conversation with Elon Musk, he suggested that what Israel should do is conspicuous acts of kindness. So, do as much positive things in Gaza as possible on a basic individual human level and at a policy level at every level. What do you think about that?
Omar Suleiman
(00:27:56)
You don’t pass out candy in a concentration camp, you and the occupation. And so, there has to be a solution that is beyond merely acts of kindness. At the end of the day, if you’re occupying a people, you have to remove that occupation. Apartheid is not dealt with by acts of kindness on the part of the occupying power. Apartheid is dealt with by ending apartheid. And so, there has to be a level of accountability. It’s not just acts of kindness. It’s not just treating the people with more dignity. It’s giving them the ability to pursue their own dignity.
(00:28:35)
There’s a reason why it’s called Palestinian self-determination. The United States likes to use it in all of its inconsequential statements, that we need Palestinian self-determination too. But the United States also voted against 138 states in the United Nations to allow for Palestinian self-determination. Self-determination means I get to pursue my own course of worth. I get to pursue my own happiness. I don’t have to depend on the benevolence of my occupier and when my occupier-
Omar Suleiman
(00:29:00)
To depend on the benevolence of my occupier, and when my occupier feels like throwing me a few more crumbs, it has to end. There has to be a point now where the world says this is not sustainable. It’s not just about ending the present genocide. A ceasefire is the bare minimum. I think any decent human being would be calling for a ceasefire right now, but at some point you cease occupation, you cease apartheid because what led to the ability of Israel to carry out a genocide without any accountability was that the global arena has permitted it to do so, largely due to American obstruction of justice.

Violence

Lex Fridman
(00:29:39)
Is violence an effective method of resistance?
Omar Suleiman
(00:29:45)
So, the framework that I would propose is that Dr. King mentioned that peace is not the absence of violence, it’s the presence of justice. And so, occupation and apartheid are violent even in their most benevolent manifestations. The default of occupation is that it is unjustified. The default of apartheid is that it is unjustified, and it must be dealt with. The default of resistance to occupation and apartheid is that it is justified, but there can be transgressions even in resisting occupation and apartheid, right? And I come to this from an Islamic perspective. My moral framework is Islam. The prophet Muhammad, peace be upon Him, was outraged when he saw a woman or a child that was dead from the other side, the side of his persecutor. And so, yes, we have a saying as Muslims that they are not our teachers. Our oppressors are not our teachers, but the concept of resistance to occupation, it is morally justified. It is justified by international law. Any occupied people have the right to defend themselves.
(00:31:10)
We talk about Israel’s right to defend itself. Israel is the occupier. Any occupied people by international law have the right to defend themselves, and any occupation is unjustified and illegal. And so, that’s where I start from. That’s the point that I come to this with. I think that the problem is that the Palestinians are told, “Find better ways to resist,” and then they are demonized when they try to find any other way to resist. If you go back a few years ago, you had the Great Return March. People in Gaza marched to the wall in what was one of the most inspiring protests or demonstrations that I had ever seen, March to the Wall, nonviolent protest, and snipers took out their legs. AP actually documented that Israeli snipers had knee counts, where you had an Israeli soldier that would say, “I took out 45 knees.” They actually had a register, a scroll of knee counts. And so, you have all these kids in Gaza walking around without legs now because they were targeted by snipers when they marched to the wall.
(00:32:21)
We’re told to find methods of nonviolent resistance, but when we boycott, when we launch boycotts around the world, in response to this transgression, in response to this ongoing oppression that the world powers have shown either the inability or the unwillingness to reign in, we’re told that that’s antisemitic, even though it is based on the South African method of bringing an end to the apartheid regime there. So, don’t respond with violence. Don’t respond nonviolently. Don’t protest. Don’t try to use people power in the face of global impotence at the political level.
(00:33:04)
Instead, let’s just keep talking about the two-state solution. And while talking about the two-state solution, if you were to look at a map under every single Israeli regime, conservative or liberal, whatever it is, the settlements have expanded. More Palestinian land has disappeared, more Palestinians have been dispossessed, more Palestinians have been killed. And so, we have these little pieces of land that keep on shrinking, and Jerusalem keeps disappearing, and there’s aggression whether Palestinians are resisting or not. But then we’re told, “Why can’t you people just pursue peace? Why can’t you just believe in a better way?”
(00:33:45)
All along, we’re hearing Israeli ministers become far more radical and open about their intentions to wipe us off the face of the earth. And that is actually their policy. It’s not just slogans. It’s not fringe elements. Actual Israeli ministers starting from the prime Minister himself, who has executed a policy of the removal of all Palestinian lands and Palestinian lives. And then we’re told, “Peace, peace, peace, peace.” And it is awfully ugly when you use the language of peace to suffocate the work of justice.
(00:34:16)
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., one of his early sermons was something along the lines of, “When Peace Is Obnoxious,” when peace is obnoxious. It was in the 1950s around the Montgomery Bus Boycott, and he talked about how this obsession with the language of peace, is usually used to try to keep people in status quo and make them complacent with their miserable situation. That has been the story of the Palestinian people, that they’ve been told that if you do things differently, then you will find peace. But everything the Palestinians have tried, inside and outside, has been met with repression, the most violent forms of it there in Gaza and beyond. And so look, I start from the place of wanting to see peace. I want to see a situation in which no innocent people lose their lives, but we have to analyze the situation with some justice, with some fairness. What would any group of people do in this situation? That doesn’t mean that you hope for hell. That means that you analyze the existing circumstances of hell, which was life in Gaza even before October 7th.
Lex Fridman
(00:35:34)
That said, you did talk about [inaudible 00:35:37] and dignity, and you mentioned transgressions, so there is places where violence can go too far?
Omar Suleiman
(00:35:46)
Absolutely. So violence, again, the point is that you ask yourself why we’ve been silent about the violence all of this time. And you know what? When people say, “Well, what about this? Well, what about that?” My response is this. What I would love to see is effective international bodies of justice, being able to reign in any party that has committed an act of aggression or committed an act of injustice and hold them accountable. Any reasonable human being would say, “Yeah, you know what? There should be effective international bodies that can reign in parties that can’t be reigned in domestically, that could stop the violence. That could assign blame properly, and then have methods of accountability.” The problem is that Israel has been made invincible in the international arena because of the United States. And then we wonder why there’s such a rise in global anti-American sentiment.
(00:36:45)
It’s not because of American freedom. It’s because America is directly participating. The United States government is directly participating in the worst genocide that we have ever seen in our lives, playing out on screen, on social media, and we can’t do anything about it. So, I think that the point is that we need those international bodies. We need methods of effective accountability, and I would love to see blame properly assigned, and anyone that kills any innocent human being, taken to account, anyone that is guilty of a war crime, taken to account. We have to ask ourselves, why is it that Israel has violated over 63 United Nations resolutions, has expanded its occupation, has killed over 600 Palestinians before October 7th? Why is it that Israel cannot be held accountable? And so when you talk about words that get thrown around, that are used to justify violence against more innocent people, when I’m asked about terrorism, is it only terrorism if it’s a non-state actor, if someone’s sitting inside a room of suits, and can press a button and terrorize thousands of people and murder innocent people with no consequences, how is that not terrorism?
(00:38:11)
So, if terrorism is only to be assigned to non-state actors, then it’s a word without function. In fact, it’s a word that justifies more terror that is then reigned upon innocent populations. We have to have moral consistency. Children should not be killed. Non-combatant should not be targeted. We can all agree upon that. Why aren’t there proper investigative bodies, and then, proper international bodies of accountability then, that can execute their findings in a way that makes the world a better place. In a way that actually brings about more peace? And so, I think this is where we’re at right now, and this is the frustration, and this is the place that the Palestinians have been left.
Lex Fridman
(00:38:52)
So, to you, violence becomes terrorism when women and children, non-combatants, are killed, no matter who is doing the killing?
Omar Suleiman
(00:39:02)
Absolutely. Absolutely.
Lex Fridman
(00:39:07)
In America, for you, for other Palestinians, other Muslims in your community, what has all of this been like?
Omar Suleiman
(00:39:20)
It feels like there is a return to some of the days after 911, the dehumanization, the feeling of complete disregard for our humanity at the level of government, at the level of media. Feeling of an increase in surveillance, the feeling in an increase in bigotry. People are losing their jobs, and people are being berated on campuses, in grocery stores, and people are being killed. I went to the funeral of a 6-year-old boy who was killed directly due to anti-Palestinian propaganda. And so I think that a lot of us are feeling a return to that, but we also refuse to be cornered into a position where we are told to perpetually condemn acts of violence and not speak about the violence that’s committed against us here or abroad.
Lex Fridman
(00:40:24)
Can you tell the story of this boy, Wadea Al-Fayoume? He’s a 6-year-old Palestinian-American boy who was stabbed 26 times in his home in Plainfield Township, Illinois. It was found to be a hate crime motivated by Islamophobia, and the attacker said, “You, Muslims, must die.”
Omar Suleiman
(00:40:50)
So, before Wadea was killed, Wadea was killed on a Saturday. It was the immediate Saturday after October 7th. I remember on Friday, media starts to reach out to every Imam in the country, every Muslim leader in the country, and say, “What are you going to do about this global day of Jihad? What are you going to do about the global day of Jihad?” It’s like, “What are you talking about?” It’s like, “Well, Hamas has called for a global day of Jihad, so how are you going to stop Muslims from attacking people?” Right? So, it’s Friday, and I’m like, “Well, this is the first I’m hearing from you.”
(00:41:25)
And I remember responding to a local reporter, most people I just ignored. I responded to a local reporter. I said, “I’ve got people in my community that have already lost 10, 15 relatives at that point. Now, it’s 20, 30, and you haven’t said a word, and now you’re reaching out to me about the potential violence of Muslims in America. This is great. This is just like 911.” What are you going to do to restrain, you angry Muslims, from responding to what’s happening overseas, and responding to the call of a global day of Jihad?
(00:41:56)
Guess what? That night, this man takes out a military knife and attacks a six-year-old boy, a six-year-old Palestinian boy. By the way, it gets worse the more details that you know. And I recently had a chance to go and speak to his mom because she was in the hospital when I was there for the funeral, so I had a chance to visit her not too long ago.
Lex Fridman
(00:42:20)
And she was attacked, also.
Omar Suleiman
(00:42:21)
She was attacked first. It was actually their landlord. So Hanaan, the mother, was at home with Wadea, 6-year-old boy. Landlord comes in, and with absolutely no emotion, just charges at her, starts with her. She was able to fight him off. Stabbed her initially seven or eight times with a military grade knife. She fought him off, escaped to call 911. And while she is calling 911, she hears Wadea. Wadea ran up to the man, calling him Uncle Joe because the landlord prior to that, had been kind to them, used to give Wadea toys. Wadea had an infectious, beautiful smile. Every picture you see of that kid, beautiful, beautiful, beautiful smile. And so, Wadea runs up to him, says, “Uncle Joe.” He runs up to him to give him a hug, even though he’s carrying a military grade knife with blood on it, because Wadea doesn’t believe that harm can come to him from that man. And Hanaan didn’t think that he would do anything to her kid, even in that fit of rage. The last thing that she says she heard was, “Oh, no,” Wadea the says, “Oh, no.” And then, he starts to stab him 26 times, says, “You, Muslims, must die.”
(00:43:53)
Usually, in a scene like that, police are hesitant to classify something as a hate crime. It was classified as a hate crime the very same day. The thing is that, who’s complicit in that hate crime? What filled that man’s head for him to believe that he was doing an act of good by murdering a 6-year-old Palestinian boy? And in reality, uncle Joe was motivated by President Joe Biden, who repeated a debunked report that there were 40 beheaded Israeli babies. And he said, “I saw 40 beheaded Israeli babies.” The White House walked it back afterwards in a statement that no one reads because it was factually false. But Uncle Joe heard it, and had been binge-watching media about these violent Palestinians, and suddenly the propaganda overcame his own humanity and what he knew of that family. And he went in and ruined their lives.
(00:44:57)
And now, just like any mom, she hasn’t moved a thing. His bike is still in the same place it was. His toys are still in the same place. She’s left with this great void, this great emptiness. If that was the only crime, it would be enough to wake this country up and say, “Oh, no, this is not where we need to go. Oh, no.” Right? The last thing she heard him say was, “Oh no,” if that was it.
(00:45:24)
And I got the news, by the way, when I was ironically at a protest. We were protesting on Saturday, Downtown Dallas, and I started getting all these texts about what happened in Chicago. Oh, no. Right? No Muslims attacked anyone. The media was in a frenzy over the global day of Jihad. I got called by national news outlets and local news outlets, “What are you going to do about Muslims that are going to turn into monsters, and start killing people in the streets?” Next thing we know, we have a dead six-year-old Palestinian boy. I went to his funeral, and that’s speaks to the proximity part of things.
(00:46:09)
Yeah, it felt like stepping into Gaza for a moment. It didn’t feel like America. Didn’t feel like America. It felt like stepping into Gaza. His casket, was wrapped in a Palestinian flag. There was not just sadness at his funeral, but a deep sense of anger. At the funeral, some of his family members shouted out, “Joe Biden, you did this. Joe Biden, you did this.”
(00:46:37)
And I remember the next day, it was right after the funeral, looking at the front page of CNN, and the story of Wadea was buried in the last section, and it was right over all these meaningless ads. And I thought to myself, that’s it. If this was an Arab man, let’s be real. Let’s be honest here. If this was a Palestinian landlord that stabbed a six-year-old Jewish boy to death, this would have gotten more attention. It would’ve been the front page of the news. And rightfully so, people would have grieved over the insanity of stabbing a six-year-old boy 26 times. Wadea became an afterthought the very next day.
(00:47:32)
And so it’s an extension of the bigotry, an extension of the racism, and there’s so much that happens after that. There’s the terrible stabbing of Detroit synagogue president, Samantha Woll, and it’s horrible. She was stabbed in her driveway, immediately front page of all the news outlets. Immediately, it’s the main news story. And immediately, the implications are, “There go the Muslims. The Palestinians have lost their minds. The Muslims have… They are who we thought they were. That’s what it is. They are who we thought they were. They went and they stabbed a synagogue president.” It turned out it wasn’t a hate crime, although it’s an awful crime. It turned out it wasn’t a hate crime. Wadea is an afterthought.
(00:48:14)
I had people reach out to me afterwards expressing condolences, and I responded to them, those who have justified the genocide in Gaza but that were somehow offering condolences for Wadea privately, of course. By the way, if a Muslim would’ve committed that crime, every single Muslim leader would’ve had press in front of their door to condemn that crime. We would’ve all been made complicit.
(00:48:42)
Had people reach out to me, say, “I’m sorry about what happened with Wadea. It’s terrible. I saw you at the funeral, praying for you.” My response was, “What’s the difference between Wadea and a boy in Gaza? What’s the difference between me and Wadea?” I’m a Palestinian child. My parents made it out of Palestine. I was born in this country. If I didn’t have the opportunity to grow up here and to become the person that I became, you would’ve been justifying my murder right now. You would’ve been okay with my genocide. You would’ve been giving the talking points to the press to erase me. But you feel sorry because Wadea was killed.
(00:49:18)
And I think this is when we say that anti-Palestinian bigotry is an extension of Islamophobia. If a mosque gets targeted here, people rightfully rush to protect that mosque and say, “This is horrible, and it shouldn’t happen.” But when you have an Israeli soldier bombing a mosque and laughing like a maniac on video, and it’s going viral on TikTok, and there’s no way to reign that in. And you don’t have a word of condemnation about it. In fact, you are standing in the way of a ceasefire, then you’re a hypocrite. There’s no way around it. You are a hypocrite. What’s the difference between a mosque here and a mosque there? What’s the difference between a Palestinian life here and a Palestinian life there? If you’re okay with me being murdered there, don’t say that you care about my life here. And so that hypocrisy has been laid bare.
(00:50:03)
We have said multiple times, masks are falling, masks are falling. People that we thought were decent people, somehow have found it in themselves to justify a genocide. There is no shortage at this point of videos. And again, I could have made the excuse for you, maybe in the first few weeks, that you hadn’t seen enough. But with all social media suppression across all platforms, there isn’t a single platform that hasn’t suppressed Palestinian voices. With all that suppression, there are enough videos at this point of children whose heads have been blowing off. Of children walking around without limbs. Of parents carrying their kids in bags, not body bags, I mean grocery bags because they don’t even have body bags, and screaming out, and saying, “Why are you doing this to me? Make it stop.” And you come back, and you tell the person, ” It’s Hamas’ fault.”
(00:51:03)
Where is your humanity? Where is your sense of decency? Isn’t that the logic of the so-called terrorism that you condemn? Yeah, you can wipe out entire populations. You should have talked to Hamas. It’s Hamas’ fault. All the kids in the West Bank… Where does this end? So, what are your moral boundaries here? If that’s the logic that you’re okay with, then, in that case, when there’s a mass shooter in a school in the United States, just bomb the whole school. In fact, bomb the whole town if you can’t find the mass shooter. Where does this end for you? And so when I say people have lost their humanity, they’re killing us overseas, but their hearts are dying. People have lost their humanity. They’ve lost any sense of morality and their moral boundaries, and being there, and participating in this funeral, it was anger. I’m not used to that. I’m not used to that.
(00:52:01)
I’m an imam. I pastor to people. I went to Christchurch, and that was the worst I’d ever seen before where 50 Muslims were killed by a white supremacist, and he murdered them with such callousness. And I remember being at those funerals, and there was anger, but it was just profound sadness because at least the rest of the world could all come out in one voice and say, “That’s wrong.” Now, most of the world sees what’s happening in Gaza and says, this is disgusting. Most of the world sees this, and says, “This is a genocide.” But we happen to live in this bubble here where we’re constantly being told, “We did this to ourselves.” And that’s the same logic that led to our initial expulsion, 1948. What was the crime of those 700,000 Palestinians that were driven out of their home in 1948? What did they do? They did not commit the Holocaust. They didn’t have a mass murder of Jews at their hands. What did they do? What crime were they paying for? And so, it’s been the consistent theme, this is the story of our people, not since October 7th, this is the story of our people for the last 75 years.

Biden and Trump

Lex Fridman
(00:53:17)
There is a deep geopolitical connection between the United States and that part of the world. What is the role of US politicians in all of this?
Omar Suleiman
(00:53:28)
James Baldwin wrote about how Israel was created as an extension of United States policy to be a colonial entity at the gates of the Middle East, and to function essentially as a military base out there, and as a means of extending its policy throughout the Middle East, and it has functioned as such. The United States is not an honest peace broker. It never has been an honest peace broker. The United States has never shown any meaningful inclination towards peace. Has guarded and protected Israel from international accountability, has made Israel invincible.
(00:54:15)
The United States is not just responsible at the governmental level for the genocide. It’s responsible for letting it get to this point in the first place. We have funded that arsenal. We’ve given them the most sophisticated weapons in the world to test on the most desperate population in the world. We’ve given them the weapons. It’s been bipartisan. We have issued, at most, inconsequential statements of condemnation, but at the same time, stopped any international body of law from actually holding it accountable.
(00:54:57)
So, the United States, at this point, unfortunately, has rightfully lost all credibility. It should remove itself from this because it is not an honest peace broker. I think Americans are probably sick of us paying for wars in general. I think Americans are probably sick of our tax dollars going to funding a genocide, while we have a rise of homelessness and income disparity here in the United States. I think that Americans probably don’t like that we’re making ourselves so deeply unpopular in the world because of Israel’s actions. So, in the immediate moment, make the stop.
(00:55:42)
The United States could have had a ceasefire a long time ago. The United States could have ended this genocide right away. The reason why this is continuing is because of US foreign policy. And in the process of Joe Biden talking about managing this crisis and talking about making things better, there have only been more bills that have come out of Congress. In fact, he’s bypassed Congress to fund the arsenal, to keep replenishing the arsenal. Stop paying for weapons. Stop paying for someone else’s war crimes. Stop protecting another country as it commits these war crimes. And if you can’t be an honest peace broker, get out of the process.
Lex Fridman
(00:56:24)
So, there’s money that you just mentioned, and bills. And then, there’s rhetoric, which you also criticized, that he spoke about, the beheaded babies and things of that nature, so where has Joe Biden fallen short?
Omar Suleiman
(00:56:40)
We need another podcast. That’s going to take a few hours to talk about where Joe Biden has failed. For one, the first time he seemed to find the word Palestinian in his vocabulary was when he accused the Palestinians of lying about the death toll in Gaza. And then, that turned out to also be false. In fact, the numbers that were coming out of the Gaza Health Ministry, according to multiple international bodies, have been underreporting Palestinian casualty counts. Israeli intelligence has said that the civilian count or the death toll is actually higher than what’s been coming out of the Gaza Health Ministry, so he’s failed on that front.
(00:57:18)
He has failed to speak to Palestinian humanity. He has spoken with deep passion and concern, as has Anthony Blinken, about the devastation in Israel and the way that people are feeling in Israel and has shown nothing of that sort towards Palestinians. We don’t want the rhetoric. We really don’t want the rhetoric. When people say, “Call for a ceasefire,” the United States has had an opportunity, and has an opportunity to really walk back and reflect on its entire policy towards Israel-Palestine. This is a moment of reflection. This is a moment of…
Omar Suleiman
(00:58:00)
… of reflection. This is a moment of restoration if you want it to be, right? And to think about what we’ve enabled in the first place, he’s shown absolutely no real empathy, and I think that he is under great delusion in thinking that the Muslim community or people of conscience are going to forgive this, are going to forget this come November. You can’t tell us that, ” Well, at least I don’t have the Trump Muslim ban,” while also carrying out a genocide primarily against Muslims and think that the Muslims are still going to vote for you.
(00:58:39)
And so we will make him hear us set the polls and any politician, for Congress or otherwise, that has not called for a ceasefire that has been a part of this dehumanization, we will make sure that we cease support for them in any way as a community. It’s only right.
Lex Fridman
(00:58:59)
So Biden has lost or is losing the hearts and the support of the Palestinian people and the Muslim people in America?
Omar Suleiman
(00:59:08)
I don’t know if he ever had the hearts of the Muslim community to be honest with you. I personally was never a Joe Biden fan. I think a lot of people felt the same. This country unfortunately, the way that our political system is built is that you’re always voting for the lesser of the two evils. That’s always the way that it is, analyzing which evil is lesser, right?
Lex Fridman
(00:59:08)
Yeah.
Omar Suleiman
(00:59:27)
And when people say, “If you vote for Donald Trump,” and I’m not planning to vote for Donald Trump either, but, “if you don’t vote for Joe Biden, then you are destroying democracy.” I’m like a democracy that’s given us a choice between Donald Trump. And Joe Biden is already a failed democracy, and so he never had the hearts and minds of the Muslim community. People always saw past his rhetoric. He always has had a terrible disposition towards Palestine. He’s always had a terrible disposition towards the Muslim world. His segregationist past comes out sometimes when he starts talking about the Muslim world, and you can hear the racism in his voice and you can hear the way that he talks about Palestinian life in such devalued fashion.
(01:00:13)
So he lost us a long time ago, but he’s definitely not getting us back after this in any way. And I can’t speak for all Muslims, but I think that come November, he and all of those politicians, especially in swing states that have turned their back on the Muslim community, and not just the Muslim community, by the way. 67% of this country wants a ceasefire. Three-fourths of Democratic voters want a ceasefire. Half of Republican voters want a ceasefire. It’s not just the Muslim community. This is not some radical opinion to call for a ceasefire, and every single politician that has refused to hear us is going to pay a price at the polls, as they should.
(01:00:59)
That doesn’t mean that we’re under any illusion that the other side promises us anything better. In fact, it feels like Republicans have simply rushed to out-racist the Democrats, to outpace them in terms of talking about how they’re going to be more unapologetic in supporting Israel unconditionally. It’s been pathetic, but something has to change, and I think that Americans of conscience have to look at how this failed political system has hurt people here and abroad and talk about how to transcend that with just more humanity. Again, when you have 67% of the American public that wants a ceasefire, but only a handful of congressmen out of over 500 can muster up the courage in the face of these super PACs to say that we should stop the genocide, what are you asking for here?
(01:01:56)
You’re asking for the genocide to stop. You’re asking for Israeli hostages to be brought home. You’re asking for Palestinian prisoners to be released. You’re asking for peace and to start carving the path out to end this once and for all in the most ambiguous way possible, by the way, because there aren’t many radical American politicians. It’s the way that the system is. In the most ambiguous, bare way possible, and you can’t even bring yourself to do that. This is already a failed democracy then. All the while, again, it always boggles my mind, if you’re from the America First crew, what’s America First about? Funneling billions and billions and billions of dollars to Israel while it carries out this genocide while people are starving here.
(01:02:42)
And if you’re part of the human rights crew and progressive crew, they have a term called progressive except Palestine, right? PeP, Progressive except Palestine. Where are all your notions of social justice? You talk about policing here, but you don’t talk about who trains our police departments in many major cities and the type of brutality that’s being carried out there. You talk about human rights at the border here, but you don’t talk about the assault on people at the border there. You talk about all of these things here, but you somehow use the exact same framings against the people there. So it’s exposed, I think, the moral bankruptcy of both political polar opposites that exist in this country right now and hopefully, evoked a greater societal sentiment to say this is ridiculous.
(01:03:33)
One of the things that is happening is that more people are getting their news outside of legacy media outlets. You can’t hide that many dead babies anymore. You just can’t. More people have woken up to the Palestinian plight now than ever before. More people are outraged that this has been our American foreign policy all throughout Democratic and Republican administrations. This is what we’ve been paying for? This is what we’ve been excusing? And Israeli leaders literally spit in the faces of whoever the American president is and says, “Yeah, we don’t care what they tell us to do.”
(01:04:12)
American leadership says, “We’re pushing Israel to minimize the casualties, to get less indiscriminate with its bombing, to manage the crisis, get a few more humanitarian corridors in, to make sure that Gaza is not evacuated and not ethnically cleansed, to make sure Palestinians can come back.” And Netanyahu comes on TV and says, “From the river to the sea,” how ironic is that? From the river to the sea, and that is his policy. “We’re going to make sure that Israel controls from the river to the sea, and we’re going to push Palestinians into Sinai and Muslim countries need to take them in.”
(01:04:47)
You have Israeli ministers, national defense ministers saying things openly like, “We want to thin out the population,” i.e. ethnic cleansing. “We want to remove people, and the Muslim world needs to step up and take in these refugees.”
(01:05:06)
And the American administration or the American President says, or an American Secretary of State says, “We’re talking to them and we’re making sure that that’s not going to happen.” And if one of their ministers says something, Blinken maybe tweets out something about how that’s not going to happen, but then it happens anyway, and then we still write them the checks.
(01:05:25)
So I think most of the American public is probably going to get sick of this at some point, and just people of decency and people of conscience are going to say, “Yeah, this is not something we want to be a part of anymore.”
Lex Fridman
(01:05:35)
Do you think there’s something that Donald Trump can do to help move this in the right direction?
Omar Suleiman
(01:05:45)
Trump’s first words were about how he’s going to be worse on this. So he talked about how he’s going to deport people, revoke visas of students that are part of these pro-Palestinian rallies.
Lex Fridman
(01:06:02)
Also, the focus was on the rallies versus what’s going on abroad.
Omar Suleiman
(01:06:07)
Yeah, but look, we had a Donald Trump presidency. He moved the embassy to Jerusalem. He was not better on this. Unfortunately, this is a bipartisan problem. And so again, we’re under no illusion here. We’re not looking to Donald Trump as a savior here, but we are going to penalize Joe Biden, and I can’t speak for everybody, but I think that that’s where a lot of our minds are at right now.

Ceasefire march

Lex Fridman
(01:06:29)
You spoke at the November 4th demonstration of Washington called the Free Palestine March. It had a lot of people, several hundred thousand people there. What do you remember from that experience?
Omar Suleiman
(01:06:41)
Well, the first thing I remember is that there was no news coverage of it. So 400,000 people march on DC, one of the largest marches in history. It was nowhere to be found in mainstream media coverage. Whereas when the Stand With Israel Rally happened between the 300,000 strong Palestine rally and the 400,000 strong Palestine rally, there was a Stand with Israel rally where congressmen were bused from Congress to speak at that rally, Democrats and Republicans and high profile celebrities, and it was live-streamed across multiple places. I have to say this, the ICJ, if that wasn’t the greatest display of media bias in the domain of United States mainstream media, then I don’t know what is. They live-streamed the Israeli defense on multiple news outlets defending itself against the case for genocide and completely omitted the South African presentation of the crimes of Israel the day before.
(01:07:46)
So what I remember first and foremost about the protest is that they were nowhere to be found on mainstream media, which was expected. But what I also remember from the actual day of and from all of the pro Palestine rallies is that I have never seen a more multi-faith, more diverse group of people consistently coming out for Palestine against the genocide in Gaza than I have this time around. And I think that has been the experience all around. There has been a pronounced Jewish presence, Jewish voice for peace, if not now, other anti-Zionist Jewish groups, groups that are against the genocide, against the occupation. Former Israeli soldiers even that have been showing up at these protests. There has been a pronounced presence from Native American groups, indigenous groups, all across the board, right? Christians, Jews, Muslims. I’ve never seen more diversity at these rallies than I’ve seen this time around, which I think is a sign of where things are going.
(01:08:48)
And if you look at the under 35 opinion polls, it’s very clear that there’s a generational gap here. That the country is moving into a more coherent direction and understanding what has been happening over there, and people from all backgrounds are standing up to it now.
Lex Fridman
(01:09:07)
What do you think about the protests on campus against Israel?
Omar Suleiman
(01:09:13)
Every protest I’ve been to has had the exact same tenor, has had the exact same messaging, but you always have that idiot or two that shows up with a sign and no one knows who that idiot is, ironically. Never comes with anybody else, always shows up somehow in the middle of the protest and puts up a sign that says something completely contrary to the messaging of the protest, and then all the cameras shift towards that guy. I see it every single time. But the overwhelming tenor of all of these protests has been consistent. It’s been calling for freedom. It’s been calling for liberation. It’s been calling for an end to the genocide, a ceasefire, an end to the occupation, an end to the apartheid.
(01:09:57)
I will tell you what many people are not seeing, Columbia University, two former IDF soldiers spraying Palestinian protesters with skunk water, which is what the IDF uses on Palestinian protesters and sometimes on worshipers on their way to Masjid al-Aqsa, which has multiple health repercussions. And so I was reading about how one of the students that was sprayed on campus, that Columbia Palestinian student has showered, at this point of us doing this podcast, 11 times, cannot get the smell out of her, has suffered all sorts of health issues as a result of being sprayed. Again, people are not seeing the other side here. People are not seeing what we’ve had to deal with at these protests. The open bigotry, and I want you to think about this by the way.
(01:10:54)
People go and serve in the IDF and then come back to the United States or the United Kingdom, and they’re not stigmatized for participating in apartheid policies or participating in a genocide. How am I supposed to feel as a Palestinian knowing that this guy right next to me participated in murdering my relatives in Gaza and has open rein to say what he wants to say or do what he wants to do? And so we haven’t seen the other side of that as well, but I’d recommend to anyone that’s talking about pro-Palestine protests to actually go see one. If you go to the protests, you listen to what’s being said, and you don’t just capture them, you got 400,000 people. You’re going to find four stupid people at a protest of 400,000 people because the protest scene is always messy.
(01:11:47)
But I think that this is a sign of the outrage and the anger and the frustration that many students have about being silenced. Again, in the media, in academic settings, professors are losing their jobs. Students are having their faces put on trucks, being doxed, these shady watch lists that get put out. I’m on a few of them as well and I just don’t care anymore. But you got these shady watch lists. People are losing their jobs at law firms. They’re losing all of their future opportunities, young Palestinian students, because of something that they tweeted that’s being taken out of context 10 years ago when they were 17 years old. It’s ridiculous. And so I think that we have to listen to the overwhelming majority of voices of people that are demonstrating for justice, not demonstrating against anyone, but demonstrating for people.
(01:12:50)
Again, there’s a large pronounced Jewish presence at every single pro-Palestine March. In fact, if you look at the organizations, the groups that have taken over Capitol Hill and train stations, it’s been, If Not Now, Not In Our Name, Never Again Means For Anyone. It’s been Jewish groups, many Jewish anti-occupation groups that have been at the forefronts. And I think that that’s where we have to pay attention to the beauty of how diverse this movement for a free Palestine has actually been.
Lex Fridman
(01:13:25)
So the average sentiment is anti- occupation, not anti-Semitic?
Omar Suleiman
(01:13:33)
It’s incredibly lazy to say that anti-Zionism or that anti-occupation is anti-Semitic. First and foremost, the Palestinians are a Semitic people. That’s number one. Number two, look, I’m proud of my community. My community has stood against anti-Semitism in this country. The Muslim community has been at the forefront of condemning anti-Semitism. We have stood in front of synagogues. We have stood with the Jewish community when the Jewish community is attacked. This is about occupation. This is a story of a colonial entity that has driven us out of our homes and has done so in such a way that has forced us to try to be the voice of a people that are being exterminated overseas right now. This is not an anti-Semitic movement. This is a pro-freedom movement.
Lex Fridman
(01:14:28)
Do you think the protests ever go too far?
Omar Suleiman
(01:14:31)
The protest scene is a messy scene, and so again, you’re going to have sometimes that odd speaker or people get carried away in their emotions. And yes, sometimes people chant things or do things that are contrary to the protests. It’s pretty unfair when you judge the entire protest movement by some of these incidents that have happened at protests, and you don’t pay attention to what they’re protesting about in the first place, which is a genocide. Right now, everything is secondary to ending a genocide that is ongoing. In the course of this discussion, it’s not an exaggeration to say that at least 30, 40 people would’ve been killed just over the last few hours because we’re averaging 135 to 150 a day. So everything else is secondary to that. This is where we all need to be right now as people of conscience. How do we stop this? Because every single day is deeply costly.
Lex Fridman
(01:15:27)
Do you think there has been a rise of anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim hate in the US?
Omar Suleiman
(01:15:33)
Yeah, I think that’s factual. Look, anti-Semitism is always to be condemned. It’s wrong. It’s something that as a Muslim community and as people of conscience, we have always taken a stand against. Jewish people should not be attacked for being Jewish people here or anywhere else. Synagogues should be protected, and if a person is attacked for being Jewish, we will be the first to go and to stand with them and to reject that attack on them. And there has been, as I said, an inspiring pronounced Jewish presence in the movement to end the occupation. And so we’re being morally consistent here.
(01:16:17)
As far as the rise in Islamophobia, it is felt. It’s under-reported, and it is part of the same framing that has led to the devastation of our people overseas. So there’s a rise in Islamophobia. There’s a rise in anti-Semitism. There’s a rise in hatred. All of that is true, but there’s also an ongoing genocide, and that should be our priority right now to end.

Benjamin Netanyahu

Lex Fridman
(01:16:42)
I think we spoke last time, about a year ago, how has your view on Benjamin Netanyahu evolved over time?
Omar Suleiman
(01:16:53)
Benjamin Netanyahu has committed himself to the erasure of Palestinian people and Palestinian symbols and Palestinian land. From the very beginning of his political career, this is who he has been. We just haven’t been listening to him. He campaigned on bigotry and racism and on the promise that there would never be a Palestinian state. He campaigned on the promise that Gaza would be wiped out. He campaigned by saying, “The Arabs are rushing to the polls. We need to make sure that they don’t infect our policy.” He has always been this person. This has always been his policy. He has always indicated that genocide and ethnic cleansing is where he wants to go. So he’s simply manifesting what his message has always been, and anyone that ignores that is being disingenuous.
(01:17:50)
You can find statements from Benjamin Netanyahu in the ’80s, ’90s, 2000s. You can find him talking about this prior to October 7th and after October 7th. He’s definitely doing this now to save his political career. I think he wants to drive this as long as he possibly can because he knows that his days in office are numbered. But let’s also ask ourselves, why is it that Benjamin Netanyahu was able to rise to power in the first place? There’s something deeply troubling about the fact that his messaging ever resonated and what the prospects are for peace if Benjamin Netanyahu is able to rise with such pronounced hateful messaging.
Lex Fridman
(01:18:32)
So the claim that security of Israel is the primary concern is, you’re saying, a dishonest claim?
Omar Suleiman
(01:18:42)
I think he’s trying to secure his seat in office. He knows his days are numbered. This is not about Israel. This isn’t about the hostages for him. This isn’t about anything but Benjamin Netanyahu, he is a narcissist. He’s a tyrant. He is despised around the world, and I think even amongst Israelis, I think there’s a deep hatred for him. I think the hostages’ families know that he doesn’t care about the families or about the hostages, that he’s driving a political agenda that doesn’t care about people, not Palestinian people or otherwise.
(01:19:19)
However, the problem of the occupation is not Benjamin Netanyahu. The problem of the occupation is the occupation. Yair Lapid was the progressive, moderate alternative, and he drove just as bigoted of an agenda against the Palestinian people as possible. So to the Palestinian that’s living in Gaza or the Palestinian in the West Bank, whoever whoever’s sitting in that seat has meant the exact same thing to them. But Benjamin Netanyahu is certainly, I think, the loudest bigot that we have seen in that seat.
Lex Fridman
(01:19:56)
Do you think Israel has the right to defend his borders?
Omar Suleiman
(01:20:00)
I think Israel has a responsibility to protect those that it occupies. I think you have to ask that question differently. Noura Erakat wrote a tremendous article on this from a legal perspective. When you talk about Israel defending itself, Israel is bound to occupation law. This is the problem all along. When John Kerry said, of course, “The US is great sometimes at issuing inconsequential statements that Israel has to choose whether or not it wants to be a Jewish or a Democratic state, but it can’t be both.” Israel wants to occupy and deny, and at the same time not be held to the standards of being an occupier, but be treated as if it’s some normal state.
(01:20:48)
Those borders were drawn across occupied land and have been expanding into Palestinian territory, and people have been thrown out of their homes systematically and transgressed upon, even in the places that they fled to, which is Gaza. So when you talk about Israel having a right to defend itself, you should be talking about Israel’s duty to protect everyone under its occupation. Either lift the occupation or protect everyone under your occupation. Where are your borders? What is your responsibility? Who are you protecting? And I think that it speaks to the fact that Israeli policy considers Palestinians to be animals. They say as much and they do as much.
(01:21:31)
I’ve spoken about James Baldwin and James Baldwin talked about this pious silence surrounding Israel that we’re supposed to pretend like it’s just another state and ignore how it came into being and what it functions as. And I think that pious silence has to be broken. I remember John Stewart when he had the Daily Show several years ago, and he talked about this policy of, ” We have to defend ourselves.” And if someone was attacking your home, what would you do?
(01:22:05)
And the response was, “Well, why are you forcing people into a closet?” So you force people into this desperate situation. You drive them out of their homes, claim their homes, and then say that you’re defending yourself against them. The default is that an occupied people have a right to defend themselves. The occupier is obligated to those that they occupy.
Lex Fridman
(01:22:30)
Can you speak to this term “occupation” in Gaza? Because the people that say it is not an occupation say that Israeli troops have been pulled out from there before October 7th for many years. And to you, it still is a de facto occupation.
Omar Suleiman
(01:22:51)
Israel doesn’t get to set the terms and then define them. It is an occupation according to any international legal standard. Israel controls the movement of everyone in Gaza. It controls the air and the seas. It controls the ability to import or export. The people that live in Gaza and the people that live in the West Bank, the Palestinians have had their identity stolen from them. So there’s the freedom of movement. There is the freedom of thriving. There is self-determination. All of that has been stolen from the people of Gaza. There’s no airport in Gaza, that was destroyed by Israel as well. It is an occupation at every level and by any meaningful legal determination.

Houthi rebel attacks

Lex Fridman
(01:23:44)
What do you think about Yemen’s Houthi rebels attacking Israel in response to October 7th and then the United States and the UK initiating bombing of multiple targets in Yemen in response to that?
Omar Suleiman
(01:24:00)
Yeah. I think that it’s clear that the United States cares more about its shipping lanes than it does about Palestinian lives, and that actually has proved it. Look, I do not support the Houthis as Houthis or their policies in general, but if you look at what has transpired and what they have said, they’re attacking these ships in response to the occupation or in response to the genocide and saying that they will continue to do so, to stop business as usual until a ceasefire is reached. They have not killed anyone. They have seized ships. They have blocked the lanes, but they have said that if a ceasefire happens, they will cease their activity.
(01:24:48)
So instead of the United States trying to get a ceasefire through, the United States decided, let’s go bomb Yemen too. Let’s spend more money on weapons and killing innocent people, which shows you exactly where our policy always leads itself to, unfortunately. So I think that most reasonable people would say that the problem is not with Yemeni rebels attacking ships. The problem is with Israel attacking innocent Palestinian lives.

Hostages

Lex Fridman
(01:25:21)
You mentioned paying respects to the legacy of EBJ, Eddie Bernice Johnson, and remembering Palestinian child prisoners. Can you explain?
Omar Suleiman
(01:25:33)
So Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson was one of the few co-sponsors of a bill that has been on the floor of Congress for years, initially sponsored by Congresswoman Betty McCollum to penalize Israel for its detention of child prisoners. Thousands of children arbitrarily detained, put in military courts, solitary confinement, and yes, sexual violence that’s been documented by human rights organizations against them, and there have been no repercussions. So I want you to think about this, just the thought of conditioning aid to Israel so that it doesn’t indiscriminately bomb entire populations has not been able to find any home in mainstream American politics. For years. Just trying to stop Israel from picking up children and throwing them into military prisons where they disappear for decades at times, has not found any thrust in mainstream American politics. Whereas any resolution that is pro-Israel will make it past both chambers relatively quickly.
(01:26:48)
When people talk about Israeli hostages and then talk about Palestinian prisoners, there’s already a problem with that framing. First of all, 2. 2 million people in Gaza are hostages. Every Palestinian that live…
Omar Suleiman
(01:27:00)
Two million people in Gaza are hostages. Every Palestinian that lives under occupation is a hostage. But all of those prisoners that have been picked up, women, children, innocent people with absolutely no process of making sure that they’re treated right, or given fair trials, or even given a communication line with their families, or with any government to help them, is absolutely criminal. All of those prisoners are also hostages. When you already propose this idea that there are Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners, you’re already implying that one group is complicit in their own devastation, whereas another group has had devastation visited upon them entirely out of their own doing. So it’s important for people to learn about children prisoners who are indeed hostages to an apartheid system.
(01:28:05)
Even what happened during that four-day truce, which all of us hoped would be extended and become permanent, where 150 Palestinian prisoners were released, Israel just went and picked up another 135 in the West Bank and threw them in prisons. That’s what I mean when I say you’re not addressing the root of the problem. The root of the problem is the occupation. The root of the problem is the apartheid. The root of the problem is the desperation that then drives the creation of all sorts of circumstances that will only further lead to the devastation of everyone, right? If you don’t solve that problem. At the root of that problem is the dehumanization of the Palestinian, because no one is raising alarms for those Palestinian hostages in Israeli military prisons. No one is putting up their pictures, and no one is talking about who they are, and their human stories, and the violence that’s been wreaked against them at every level.
(01:29:06)
If you don’t solve not just the root of occupation, but also the dehumanization that drives the occupation, which is unfortunately so pervasive right now in the discourse, then you’re going to continue to have this gap in how the world sees the plight of the Palestinians and how, unfortunately, the American public sees the problem of the Palestinians.
Lex Fridman
(01:29:29)
And to you, big peace agreements of the like of Abraham Accords should include Palestine.
Omar Suleiman
(01:29:37)
Abraham Accords is nothing but an agreement in which you slap the name of Abraham on arms deals. In exchange for countries being able to undertake their own unholy pursuits, they use one of the holiest names in history and continue to erase the main victims of this atrocity. So the Abraham Accords are an insult to humanity, an insult to the Palestinians, an insult to the name of Abraham.
Lex Fridman
(01:30:10)
But do you think something like that, agreements of that nature, of that scale, could be made that include the Palestinian people and that would actually make progress?
Omar Suleiman
(01:30:22)
If they’re honest to the plight of the Palestinians. If they are honest to the roots of the problem, absolutely. Look, again, peace is sought, but peace cannot be used to silence. The entire peace process has been hung over the Palestinians all of these years while settlements continue to expand and their situation only continue to get worse. Is Israel really going to remove the 700,000, 800,000 settlers and suddenly change its tune on a two-state solution? Benjamin Netanyahu is saying right now, and he’s speaking to, unfortunately, what is clearly a majority of the Israeli public, that there will never be a Palestinian state. So these peace talks cannot be used to suffocate all of the work of justice and bringing Israel to accountability. The world has to act when they see apartheid. The world has to act when they see occupation. If the world fails to bring Israel to a place of accountability, then a few countries that have their own agendas cannot put forth anything meaningful for the victims of Israel, being the Palestinian people.

MLK Jr and Malcolm X

Lex Fridman
(01:31:41)
There’s a lot of questions I want to ask you about the nature of resistance and what is the proper way to resist. What is the practical, pragmatic, effective ways of resisting. One example that is often brought up is the difference between MLK and Malcolm X. One emphasized nonviolent resistance, the other emphasized any-means-necessary resistance. Which do you side with in general, and in this particular case of what has happened over the past 100-plus days?
Omar Suleiman
(01:32:18)
In general, that framing relies on a sanitization of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and a vilification of Malcolm X, that a lot of people do put forth and present as two polar opposites in how they approached the plight of Black people in America and resisting racism here in America. When I taught a course at Southern Methodist University on MLK, and Malcolm X, and Islam, and the Civil Rights Movement, what I’d often do is I’d give my students a set of quotes. I would say, “Assign this to Malcolm or Martin.” and they’d always get it wrong, right? You can find quotes from MLK in Breaking the Silence, and especially when he took a stand against the Vietnam War, that sound so radical when you compare them to the image of MLK. And Malcolm is, of course, turned into this militant, angry Muslim who just wanted violence and was seeking chaos here in the United States.
(01:33:22)
So let’s be clear about something here, that Malcolm never himself was part of any violence. Malcolm never did anything violent. Malcolm found it hypocritical to commit the oppressed people to nonviolence while not restraining the oppressor from its violence. I agree with Malcolm. It is absolutely hypocritical to focus your attention and your energy on the oppressed people, and committing them to nonviolence, while not directing your attention to the oppressor. When you have such asymmetry, when you have a clear aggressor and aggressed upon, you have a clear colonial entity and a clear colonized people, you focus your energy on restraining the colonial power. You focus your energy on restraining the oppressor, not the oppressed. That was Malcolm’s point, and it’s clear in his messaging throughout his religious growth, because, of course, Malcolm did evolve as a person. But Malcolm found it deeply hypocritical to commit the oppressed to nonviolence.
(01:34:26)
Malcolm also had a deep understanding of the way that brutality here, state violence in the United States was connected to its state violence abroad and American imperialism as a whole. Malcolm was the first to speak on Vietnam, the first major African American leader to speak on Vietnam. Martin followed. Malcolm also went to Gaza in 1964. 1964, went to Khan Yunis, which is now under heavy bombardment, and Malcolm penned an essay on Zionism, and connected Zionism to American imperialism and the broader implications of America’s foreign policy. So Martin and Malcolm, if you look at them in the capacity of what’s happening right now, where I would say you can find something that is deeply profound, James Cone wrote a book called Malcolm & Martin: Dreams and Nightmares. He wrote something profound to the effect that Martin tried to liberate white people from their own racism, whereas Malcolm tried to liberate Black people from the effects of that racism on them. They both played a deeply important role.
(01:35:42)
Self-determination is crucial to maintain the fuel of a movement. I think one of the things that probably deeply frustrates those that have sought the erasure of Palestine is that Palestinian consciousness has only continued to grow after 75 years. Palestinians in diaspora and Palestinians within occupied territory all are deeply rooted in their Palestinian identity and existence, and they’re not going away.
(01:36:14)
So I think that that’s where the function is important of this, whereas those that are complicit in the oppression need to be liberated from their own oppression and liberated from what they’re participating in. Most Americans that I talk to, that have absolutely no idea about what’s going on, when they come to hear just a few stories of the plight of the Palestinian people, and the types of brutality that we have encountered, wake up to this and say, “Oh, my God. This is what my tax dollars go to? This is what I’m a part of?” Right? So we have to liberate people across the board from being oppressors or from being oppressed.
Lex Fridman
(01:36:55)
What do you think about the seeming fact the majority of Palestinians support the October 7th attacks?
Omar Suleiman
(01:37:03)
You have to see their world through their eyes. You can’t try to see their world through your eyes. If you live under occupation, you’re routinely harassed at Israeli checkpoints. The occupation is expanding into your territory. You’re meeting families regularly that have been thrown out of their homes and that are looking for a new place in this shrinking territory. You deal with routine airstrikes. You have no way to get out. You have no way to grow. You don’t even have a passport. Your education is subpar. Your standards of living are lower than the rest of the world. And all you hear from the other side, which dominates the discourse and dominates every element of your existence, are promises of complete erasure.
(01:37:59)
I mentioned 2023, 13,000 new settlement units being advanced. If that happened anywhere, right? Just think about what that means when you clear out a village or two, and it’s not that big of a territory, right? When you know that that’s happening, and when you have been subjected to that, anyone that claims to be supporting you or uplifting you from that state of misery is going to have sympathy. Whether you agree with their mission, or their methods, or not, it’s human. It is human that if anyone says that they are going to get you out of this misery, and inflict pain on those who have given you a life of pain, and promised you a future of pain, you’re going to have sympathy to that group whether you agree with them or not.
(01:38:54)
I think that the question also has to be asked, what about the Israeli public? Israel holds all of the power in that region, holds all of the power over that territory. Is able to dominate the expansion of its own territory and diminish any Palestinian territory. Is able to place restrictions whenever it wants on Palestinian movement, trying to get to their holy sites or otherwise. Whether it’s Masjid Al-Aqsa, or the Holy Sepulchre, or the Church of Nativity, right? The majority of the Israeli public, before October 7th, unfortunately, according to all polls, favors a nondemocratic regime, the end of a two-state solution, does not care about the plight of Palestinian people, the majority of the Israeli public. Why is that? And what does that mean for Palestinians, right? Especially now after this genocide, the vast majority of the Israeli public does not favor a ceasefire, right?
(01:39:56)
What are we supposed to do when we see mainstream media coming out of Israel, pop culture, TikTok videos that only speak to a greater desire to eliminate the Palestinian people, right? So anyone that says that they are going to support your plight, whether you agree with their mission or their methods, is going to resonate with that child that has grown up in those desperate circumstances. Bassem Youssef had an interview with Piers Morgan and he was talking about this. He literally gave it a human story. If you’re a child that’s grown up, you’ve lost limbs, your parents are dead, your friends are dead. You have been made a refugee two or three times already. You have no future in sight, and then someone comes to you and says, “I’m going to help you and I’m going to fight back on your behalf.” of course, it’s going to resonate. It’s human, right? So I think that it’s important for us to see the world through their eyes, rather than try to see the world through our eyes.
Lex Fridman
(01:41:04)
So as Malcolm X did, you’re calling for highlighting the asymmetry in violence and asymmetry in moral reasoning.
Omar Suleiman
(01:41:14)
Absolutely. It’s important. You’re not going to be able to solve this problem unless you’re able to do that. When Malcolm said that if you stick a knife nine inches into my back and pull it out six inches, that’s not progress. Progress is healing the wounds, and you’re not even willing to acknowledge that the knife is there yet. Those that don’t acknowledge what is determined now by any international human rights organization, even Israeli human rights organization, B’Tselem and others, to be apartheid, a state of apartheid and a state of occupation, and now an unfolding genocide, are not partners for peace.
Lex Fridman
(01:42:03)
It just hurts me to think how long it takes to heal. Even if the healing begins now, with the knife metaphor, it’s just going to be generations. Because people don’t forget when your father and mother were murdered, or somebody that you know in your family was killed. They don’t forget.
Omar Suleiman
(01:42:32)
Look, I think the point is that we have to come to terms with the fact that the trauma of the past does not justify the murder of the present, and the fear of the future does not justify the murder of the present. The urgency of the world right now should be entirely focused on ending this atrocity that, unfortunately, the world has become so complacent with. Again, prior to October 7th, the status quo was not acceptable, and there was no means in sight in the global arena to rein this in, to make Israel more accountable to stop this.
(01:43:20)
I do believe in the power of healing. I do believe in the power of growth. I do believe that we have seen ugly episodes of history before that have been rectified. I also believe in the heart of my people. I believe that the Palestinian people are people of resistance, they’re people of resilience, they’re people of courage. They’re people of benevolence and magnanimity, and they’re people who have been made to grow under the worst of circumstances. I don’t see, in the hearts of young Palestinians that have been tormented, I don’t see darkness. I see light. I see the ability to still laugh and find joy despite everything that’s happened. So I think that the urgency right now just has to be towards ensuring that they have a life, that they’re not being killed anymore.

Palestinian refugees

Lex Fridman
(01:44:22)
I was wondering if you can comment on a idea and notion that comes up often in conversations about this, of why can’t other nations in the region take in Palestinian refugees?
Omar Suleiman
(01:44:41)
I think that we have to tackle what’s implied by that at multiple levels, and I actually want to walk back. I was listening to Nikki Haley, when she said in one of her interviews, “Why is it that you think no one wants to take the Palestinians in?” She had this deeply disturbing laugh to it. Or Ben Shapiro, when he said, “Israelis like to build and Arabs like to bomb crap and live in their sewage.” Or, “Why is it that no one wants to govern the Palestinians?” suggesting that Palestinians are ungovernable and not fit to bring into your countries, and that’s why they’re being turned away.
(01:45:27)
You know who else faced that bigotry? Jews trying to escape the Holocaust. 1939, 300,000 Germans applied for refuge here in the United States. I think only about 10,000 were allowed in, and we also turned away ships of Jews that were seeking refuge here in the United States, on what basis? That they were national security threats and could not be trusted. They could not be taken in. That’s the same bigotry that’s driving this, and I want you to think about it from that perspective. How deeply offensive that is when you have millions of Palestinians in diaspora. Where have Palestinians caused trouble where they’ve gone? Everywhere Palestinians are, they have overcome significant hurdles to become scientists, and doctors, and to grow themselves, and to grow the places that they’re in. Where have Palestinians that have been displaced all over the world caused issues for people, right? It’s both racist and factually incorrect.
(01:46:39)
That’s not the right question that should be asked. The question that should be asked are, why are these people driven from their homes? Not, why won’t other people around them open their homes to them? So I’ll just share with you that, even on a personal level, it’s really interesting, because sometimes on Twitter or wherever it is, it’ll be like, “Go back home.” Right? “Why don’t you go back home?” And I’m sitting there thinking to myself like, “Sure. My parents were driven from their homes. Yeah, sure. I was born in this country as a consequence of bad policy.” Now, I embrace my complicated identity in that regard, and I hope to be productive as an American, but I am a Palestinian. And Palestinians in diaspora that have been fortunate enough to have the ability to build and to overcome circumstances should not be an excuse for eliminating the Palestinians that remain in their homes under that torment. So this bigotry is not new, unfortunately. Its manifestation is ugly, and we have to push back on it whenever it shows itself, no matter who it’s being spoken about.
Lex Fridman
(01:47:58)
How difficult has it been for people in Gaza to flee?
Omar Suleiman
(01:48:03)
I mean, they’re blockaded from all directions. There is nowhere for people in Gaza to go. They cannot get out, and the reality is that they don’t want to leave. They do not want to leave. The Palestinian people want to live in their land, in their homes, and to continue to produce an extension of the beautiful culture and legacy that was handed to them. They don’t want to leave. In fact, those that have fled for whatever reason, or have been able to get out for medical treatment, or because they have some sort of citizenship in other countries, all they’re talking about is going back and rebuilding. You can’t bomb Palestine out of our hearts. You cannot starve Palestine out of our hearts. I think that’s a critical mistake that Israel is making. It thinks that if it destroys Gaza enough, if it wipes out all the buildings, that people will never want to come back. But we don’t want to go anywhere, as a Palestinian people, in a way that would remove us from our homes.
Lex Fridman
(01:49:17)
The Palestinian people are proud people.
Omar Suleiman
(01:49:20)
Yeah, you’ve met a lot of them, right? When you sat with Mohammed El-Kurd, or people in East Jerusalem, what those people have been subjected to, the harassment. Think about the tenacity and the character that it takes to still try to walk back into your home after an intruder has been brought in by the state, that’s sitting in your living room, that is pushing you around, and you’re saying, “I’m not leaving my home.” This is literally what’s been happening in East Jerusalem, and we’re not going anywhere. I think those of us that are in diaspora, Palestine is not leaving our hearts, and those of us that are still there are not leaving their land. The world has to make the occupier more accountable, not tell the occupied how to cope.
Lex Fridman
(01:50:12)
Do you ever imagine that if your family did not flee and you were now living, say in Gaza, what you would be doing?
Omar Suleiman
(01:50:25)
I think about what could’ve been all the time. I actually mentioned this in the first D.C. protest, that I remember getting a news notification just prior to October, with my name in it. I always get these notifications, right, if my name has been mentioned in an article. So, “Oh, your name has been mentioned in an article.” and it was a 16-year-old Omar Suleiman who was murdered in the West Bank. He literally had my name. I held up his picture and I realized that could’ve been me. So I think of why God chose me to not be there, and hopefully Him choosing all of us that are not there to be for those that are still there, to be their voices. I’m grateful and I’m also in pain. I’m grateful for the opportunity to be able to speak on their behalf, but I’m also guilty that they have to bear the brunt of this evil hatred that unfortunately displaced our parents in the first place.
Lex Fridman
(01:51:43)
You mentioned that Palestinians invoke the plight of Indigenous people like Native Americans. What works and doesn’t work about this analogy?
Omar Suleiman
(01:51:53)
I think that there’s a powerful connection between the Palestinian people and the Indigenous in this land and in other places that have been wronged. We are living here in the United States on stolen lands that is drenched in the blood of the Natives, and that was built upon with the blood, sweat, and labor of enslaved Africans that were brought from overseas. It’s a great evil that we have to reckon with constantly, so I think that’s the power of solidarity. If you look in Canada and you look in places like Australia, there has been a refocus on the crimes against the Indigenous of those places.
(01:52:37)
I think that what makes the Palestinian plight deeply painful, and maybe where the analogy even doesn’t do justice, is that from the river to the sea is less than 500 times what the United States is in terms of land. It’s not that big of a piece of land. The original lie was, “A land without a people for a people without a land.” The problem was that there were people on that land that were forcibly removed. So I think that the sheer size, right? We’re talking about a tiny piece of land, and a lot of people that were removed forcibly from their land, and that continue to be brutalized under those miserable conditions.

Mohammad and Jesus

Lex Fridman
(01:53:32)
Why is Palestine a special place, a holy land?
Omar Suleiman
(01:53:40)
It’s the land of prophets. It is a land that holds deep significance, obviously to Jews, Christians, and Muslims. It’s the land of Abraham, peace be upon him. It is the land that has such a rich history to it that connects multiple peoples in multiple ways. It’s precious. I think that history, while it tells the story of tragedy and struggle over that piece of land, also tells a beautiful story of sanctity.
Lex Fridman
(01:54:12)
You mention Abraham, prophets. Prophet Muhammad is deeply venerated in Islam, obviously, but other prophets are as well, Jesus being one of them. What are the similarities and differences in the teachings from these two prophets?
Omar Suleiman
(01:54:33)
Well, Islam refers to this idea of submission to one God and attaining peace in the process. And refers to the way of life that prophets have all come with, which is this idea of monotheism, and serving that one God in the way that he commands you to serve him. So to us, as it says in the Quran that we do not distinguish between the prophets, all of the prophets came with one message, one mission. There’s a coherence in the creed. There is a beauty in the foundation of what would become the legislation of each of those prophets, and we see them all as siblings in prophethood.
(01:55:20)
So we say, “Abraham, peace be upon him.” We say, “Jesus, peace be upon him.” We say, “Moses, peace be upon him.” We say, “Muhammad, peace be upon him.” We believe that Moses came to confirm what came from Abraham. Jesus came to confirm what came from Moses. Muhammad came to confirm what came from Jesus. They upheld the same message. God did not change over time, nor did the centrality of his message of monotheism change over time, and so to us, it’s one beautiful house. There’s a saying from the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, where he describes the house of prophethood, each prophet being a brick, and him simply being the last brick of a beautiful house. And so we love the prophets of God and we believe that they-
Omar Suleiman
(01:56:00)
And so we love the prophets of God and we believe that they each came with the legislation that was necessary for the time, but with the same message.
Lex Fridman
(01:56:11)
So the message is fundamentally the same. Is there a difference in emphasis, for example, the emphasis on love with Jesus?
Omar Suleiman
(01:56:19)
Yeah. It’s like when you talk about MLK and Malcolm to an extent, except there was actually some difference, right, between MLK and Malcolm. I just think that the difference is exaggerated between them. But I don’t think that Moses didn’t emphasize love, but Jesus emphasized love. And then Muhammad didn’t emphasize love, peace be upon them all. I think that they each emphasized the same attributes and names of God and ways of knowing God. But there were, of course, changes within legislation, changes within the divine law, but the divine spirit remained the same. And so I don’t see them as being counter to each other, nor do I see that any prophet betrayed the message that came before them. I think they’re all part of the same beautiful message that we have to be at harmony with our creator and that we turn towards him for our guidance, and that when we do so, we establish a greater existence here on earth. And so I think that that’s something that’s consistent throughout the message of all the prophets.
Lex Fridman
(01:57:31)
You have been longtime friends with and had amazing conversations with people of other faiths, Christian, Jewish. How has the events of October 7th and the days after affected this in the United States? Your ability to have interfaith conversations, connections, relationships, friendships.
Omar Suleiman
(01:57:57)
Complicated. Very complicated. And it’s not just Muslims and Jews, it’s also Christian Zionists. Christian Zionism is at the root of the problem, in my opinion, especially when we talk about what drives America’s unshakable, unconditional commitment to Israel. It’s devastating, I think, to Palestinian Christians in particular when Israel can bomb some of the oldest churches of Christianity in Gaza and kill Palestinian Christians, and Palestinian Christians are barred from going to the Holy Sepulcher or to their places of worship in Bethlehem or Jerusalem, and Christians here in the United States turn their back on them.
(01:58:43)
I think that it is particularly outrageous. So it’s complicated. Look, I expect more from people in the face of a genocide. We don’t have to agree on all the particulars, but we can agree that what is happening is morally outrageous. And so I think that I’ve had a few people that have reached out and said, “I want to say something, but I can’t.” And I’ve had to respond with, that’s not good enough. So I think that we have a problem, and instead of focusing on that problem, I’d like to focus on the more morally consistent voices across faiths that have risen to the moment rather than those that have failed.
Lex Fridman
(01:59:32)
So you wish more rabbis would be able to have a conversation like we’re having today and also not allow it to be seen as them turning their back on their religion?
Omar Suleiman
(01:59:46)
Rabbis, pastors, again, it’s not just Jewish leadership; it’s also Christian leadership. I think that it’s important for those that have claimed to be allies in the fight against Islamophobia, to see that you cannot be opposed to Islamophobia while also extending anti-Palestinian bigotry.
Lex Fridman
(02:00:09)
Yeah, one of the things since we last spoke, I’ve gotten to meet a lot of Palestinian Christians, including in West Bank, and that was fascinating. And those are beautiful people.
Omar Suleiman
(02:00:20)
I think people should watch Reverend Munther Isaac’s sermon on Christmas, Jesus in the Rubble. It was deeply profound. I had a chance to speak to Mitri Raheb from the Lutheran Church there as well. No, they’re devastated. It was eyeopening to many people here when Justin Amash, who was a Republican congressman, right, Palestinian Christian, Republican congressman, posted about his own family dying in one of the church bombings. So it’s strange, strange times. And I think that it shows that the philosophy of hate that drives this terrible policy is secular at it’s root and not religious.
Lex Fridman
(02:01:10)
One of the criticisms of Islam points to specific verses of the Quran and the criticism being that it is not a religion of peace. Can you speak to that?
Omar Suleiman
(02:01:25)
So objectively speaking, if you were to take the verses of the Quran about violence and compare them just from a purely percentage-based comparison to the New Testament and the Old Testament, you would find less verses about war in the Quran than the Old Testament or the New Testament. And there are plenty of studies to speak to that. Deeper than that, contextualizing the birth of Islam, the revelation of the Quran, which was over 23 years in response to deep persecution of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, makes it very clear that none of those verses are what they’ve been made out to be. If Muslims believed that they had to kill people wherever they are, mankind would not exist. There are two billion of us, right? If we believe that we were called by the Quran to hurt people and to kill people simply for being non-believers, right, it would not make for a sustainable world.
(02:02:26)
So Islam is not violent. And I think that the history of Muslims also bears witness to that. The history of Islam is a history of contribution, is a history of building, is a history of medicine, and science, and math. And of course, Muslims have sometimes fallen short of Islamic standards in the past and in the present. But if you look at the overall history of Islam and the history of the Muslim community, that’s not the case. And when you look at the present Muslim community around the world, Muslims do not account for a greater proportion of violence than other faith communities. And again, the word terrorist is a functionless and meaningless word, because, to me, it’s no less violent if it’s commanded by a head of state or by a government than by a non-state actor. So Muslims do not account for a greater portion of violence now, nor have they accounted for a greater portion of violence in the past.
Lex Fridman
(02:03:34)
Why do you think these narratives have taken hold in present discourse, at least in the United States?
Omar Suleiman
(02:03:39)
Because they allow for greater violence against the Muslim community domestically and abroad. The United States has launched wars against primarily Muslim countries, right? And has a particularly violent foreign policy towards the Muslim world. And the Muslim community here in the United States has dealt with, unfortunately, multiple aggressive iterations of programs of suppression and surveillance under Republican and Democratic administrations. And so there’s a convenience to that Islamophobia. There’s a convenience to that framing of the Muslim community that also distracts from other forms of violence that are deeply pervasive and present, including the ones that are committed by the government itself.

Al-Aqsa Mosque

Lex Fridman
(02:04:25)
If it’s okay, you’ve mentioned al-Aqsa Mosque a couple of times. I would love it if you can describe why it is such an important place, a holy place for Muslims in general, but also for this particular crisis that we have been speaking about today.
Omar Suleiman
(02:04:45)
So Muslims honor the history of all of the prophets. So all of the prophets that have walked in that place, all of the prophets that have worshiped in that place, all of that makes it sacred. So it’s not separated from Muslims, from post-Muhammad, peace be upon him, versus prior to Muhammad, peace be upon him, in terms of the sanctity of that place. So we honor it. And Masjid al-Aqsa in particular is the place where the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, leads the other prophets in prayer in the night of what’s known as Al-Isra’ wal-Mi’raj, the night journey of the Prophet, peace be upon him, and then he ascends to the heavens and back. And it’s also the first Qibla, which is the first place of direction of prayer for us. So before Muslims faced Mecca and prayer, for the first half of Islam, they actually faced towards Jerusalem in their prayer.
(02:05:41)
It was our direction of prayer, and it remained a fundamental part of our faith, fundamental holy sanctuary. There are three sanctuaries in Islam, Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem, and Masjid al-Aqsa is precious to us. And so you can imagine then the pain of watching innocent Palestinian worshipers being stomped on by Israeli soldiers or skunk water being sprayed on people as they’re trying to walk in, or tear gassing taking place in the nights of Ramadan in that place.
(02:06:15)
The restrictions on people that live right next to it and that cannot pray in it due to the certain classification of Palestinian that they’ve been given or the age, because, generally speaking, if you’re younger, you’re not allowed to go to Masjid al- Aqsa, even if you live within the occupied territories. So it’s tough to watch such a sacred place with such an ugly occupation. But I’ll also say this, that the sanctity of a human being, the sanctity of just one person is greater than the sanctity of any place of worship to us. So the sanctity of one individual in Gaza or one individual in Jerusalem is greater to us than the sanctity of a place of worship. But it is all certainly interconnected.
Lex Fridman
(02:07:01)
That’s a really powerful idea. The value of a human being is greater than even the al-Aqsa Mosque. That’s a foundational idea for Islam.
Omar Suleiman
(02:07:14)
The Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, says to the Ka’bah itself that the value of a believer’s dignity and honor is greater than the value of the structure itself. And so when I see a person in Gaza aggressed upon, when I see one [foreign language 02:07:36], when I see one child, that’s greater to me than even al-Aqsa. But al-Aqsa is at the heart of who we are as well. And it’s certainly at the heart of the Palestinian cause. It’s a place of prophets, and it’s a place that should be treated prophetically.
Lex Fridman
(02:07:57)
You mentioned to me that since October 7th, a lot of young people in the United States and in general have been showing interest in Islam. First of all, can you explain what you’ve been seeing and experiencing in terms of that trend?
Omar Suleiman
(02:08:12)
Yeah, we have Quran TikTok trends where you had a few people that went on camera and said, “I’m reading the Quran for the first time.” And I think that that’s the beauty of the faith of the people of Gaza, the beauty of their resilience. When you’re looking at these people living what’s hell on earth, but they’re seeking paradise outside, and they’re able to still be inspired towards words of faith, and determination, and certainty, you’re like, what is their secret? What are they reading? What are they on that allows them to still face this brutality with such grace, right?
(02:08:51)
I mean, they’re not shouting profanities. They’re not shouting words of emptiness or despair, but rather they are pouring out their hearts that are full of faith for the world to see. And I think that a lot of people have seen that and said, what is that? And so we’ve had multiple people come to the mosque. I’ve never seen more people become Muslim in my life, but not just that, but gain an appreciation for Islam. Like, what type of an engineering is there that allows for people to have that type of faith? So people are opening the Quran for the first time. People are asking questions about Islam in a way that shows that they’re inspired, even though they’re heartbroken by what they’re seeing.
Lex Fridman
(02:09:41)
What’s a good way to get introduced to Islam, the faith, the spiritual experience of it?
Omar Suleiman
(02:09:49)
Well, I think, look, you go to our websites, you go to whyislam.org, you come to Yaqeen’s website, yaqeeninstitute.org, you go to multiple Islamic websites to get those questions answered. But there’s nothing like going to a mosque. There’s nothing like actually going to a mosque, and meeting Muslims, and asking questions. And I tell people, you have to step out of your comfort zone and go there and let your world be complicated a bit, experience it, listen to the sermon, meet people from different backgrounds, and ask questions. Muslims love to be asked, by the way, about their faith because they’re so sick of hearing other people talk about it. So Muslims love to be asked about their faith. Palestinians love to be asked about Palestine because they’re so sick of other people talking about it. So ask questions, and you will have them answered. But there’s nothing like a physical connection. There’s nothing like a human connection. So definitely try to reach out to your local Islamic organizations and meet people.
Lex Fridman
(02:10:57)
How difficult is it to convert to Islam?
Omar Suleiman
(02:11:01)
It takes 20 seconds, man.
Lex Fridman
(02:11:07)
Okay. [inaudible 02:11:07] Simple enough.
Omar Suleiman
(02:11:11)
There’s no pool, there’s no baptism. I often joke with people, I’m like, all right, we got the pool in the back. We’re going to do the baptism now. It’s literally testifying to the oneness of God and testifying that Muhammad is his final messenger. And so that’s called the Shahada. And when you testify to the oneness of God and to the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, being his final prophet, you are accepting what’s known as the six articles of faith. Six articles of faith are belief in one God, belief in the angels, belief in the messengers. So you can’t be a Muslim without believing in Jesus, or Moses, or Abraham, or Muhammad to believe in the messages that God has spoken to humanity through divine revelation. The Quran being the last revelation to believe in the day of Judgment and to believe in divine decree and predestination.
(02:12:10)
So those are six articles of faith. So when you testify to the oneness of God and to the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, being the final messenger. That’s called the Shahada. You embrace the package of those articles of faith. That’s the implication. Then you learn the prayers, learn to fast in Ramadan. You give what’s known as Zakat, the mandatory charity, 2.5% of your retained earnings, and Hajj, which is the pilgrimage to Mecca, if you can. So that’s the growth part, the journey. Once a person takes the testimony, they then grow. It’s really interesting because we always have those people that convert to Islam, like a week before Ramadan or even a day before Ramadan. So you’re Muslim and you got to fast the next day, and that’s always a challenging experience for people, but a fulfilling experience for many people when they embrace Islam at that point. And again, I mean, it’s simple. And I think that the beauty of Islam to many people is in its simplicity, one God, one humanity, one body of prophets, and one community.

Ramadan

Lex Fridman
(02:13:22)
Because for you as a Palestinian-American this year, the Ramadan perhaps would be especially difficult spiritually. What are you anticipating? What do you think is the difference this year?
Omar Suleiman
(02:13:50)
I hope and pray that we have a ceasefire before Ramadan. I hope that at that point we’re rebuilding Gaza, talking about rebuilding Gaza, and helping people that have been damaged in so many different ways. I hope that Ramadan is turning a corner. Every Ramadan, the aggression against the Palestinian people seems to grow. So we’re usually dealing with last the 10 nights of Ramadan, and then the incursions on Masjid al-Aqsa, really sour it for the entire Muslim world because you’re watching worshipers being assaulted in one of the holiest places in the world. And at the same time, you’re trying to find your deep connection, your own deep, holy connection in Ramadan. This time we’re going in, and if this is still ongoing, we are dealing with a continued genocide. So I think that the mood has been somber in the community. The mood has been different from anything I’ve ever seen before. So I anticipate this Ramadan would be different from anything we’ve ever seen before. I think the focus will continue to be on Gaza, and on either stopping the aggression on Gaza, or beginning the rebuilding of Gaza.
Lex Fridman
(02:15:12)
So a general heaviness permeates just your prayers and your thoughts throughout this?
Omar Suleiman
(02:15:18)
Yeah, I mean, look, every sermon I’ve given since October 7th has had to have some inclusion of this because it’s what’s on everyone’s hearts and minds. We also have people in our communities that have lost 20, 30, 40 people in our midst. It’s not the same. If we start to have refugees or people that escape for medical treatment or that are able to get out through Egypt and join their families. It’s becoming more real, right? It’s becoming more personal for people. So I think that Ramadan will surround both in terms of messaging as well as community, the pain of the moment with a prayer for hope and healing.
Lex Fridman
(02:16:08)
Not to put you on the spot, but in your sermons, in your private life, what is the passage in the Quran that is one you find yourself returning to often?
Omar Suleiman
(02:16:23)
The part of the Quran, I get asked this question, that resonates with me most usually has to do with what is heaviest for me at the moment. There is a verse in the chapter of Mary, a part of the verse, [foreign language 02:16:42]. Your Lord does not forget. Your Lord does not forget. And so, as you see what’s transpiring right now, our hope is not in creation, our hope is in our Creator. And our hope is not in this life, our hope is in the afterlife. And so that verse deeply resonates because I think that many of us often wonder how are they going to build? How are they going to get past this? And we know that God has a way of restoring everything. God will restore everything, if not in this life, then in the next.
Lex Fridman
(02:17:27)
So there’s an eternal flame of hope that burns there.
Omar Suleiman
(02:17:33)
Yeah, and the people of Gaza have it. The people of Gaza have it. You can be more easily deluded by this material world if you’re hostage to it. But the people of Gaza have never been deluded by the material world because they never really had it. They’ve always been attached to a greater idea, to a greater place. And so it is part of the secret ingredient that they have, that they believe in something greater than this. And so you can’t survive hell on earth unless you believe in paradise outside of it.

Hope for the future

Lex Fridman
(02:18:15)
When you look far into the future, 20, 30, 40 years from now, we’re doing another podcast, and 80s and 90-years-old, what do you hope to see in the Middle East? What do you hope to see change in the Middle East and the United States as a people, as a set of policies, cultures, nations?
Omar Suleiman
(02:18:42)
I think that the nation-state model and nationalism are becoming so unsustainable just with the growth of refugee populations, desperate refugee populations. The rise of, unfortunately, fanaticism and fascism in different parts of the world, climate, and all that that presents to us in terms of displacement. We’re going to have to figure out how to function as a world rather than as nations and states. We’re going to have to figure out how to not see everyone outside of our borders as threats and people that are different from us within our borders as threats. We’re going to have to start seeing people as people. And so my hope would be that we would have made people uncomfortable enough to transcend some of the barriers in their hearts and some of the barriers that we have in the world that don’t allow us to see other people as people. And then that drives horrific policies towards people that are so distant from us.
Lex Fridman
(02:20:02)
You have been fearless in walking through the fire. What gives you strength psychologically to keep going, to speak out, but just also maintain an optimism and a hope for the future?
Omar Suleiman
(02:20:17)
I don’t believe that anyone gives me success or causes me failure without the permission of God. I don’t seek fuel from anyone else. I don’t seek hope from anyone else. I believe in a creator that has a greater plan, and I want to be a greater part of that plan. And I’m inspired by the resilience of the people of Gaza. I’m inspired by the resilience of my parents, and our grandparents, and Palestinians around the world that have refused to succumb to their erasure, that have refused to give up. And so we have both the energy that we need and we have the examples that we need. The energy is from above. The examples are all around us.
Lex Fridman
(02:21:09)
Well, Omar Imam, this is a huge honor to once again speak with you. And I just want to say thank you, not just for this, but for many private notes you have sent me of kindness, and support, and love through some of the low points, as silly as they are for me personally. So it’s just great to be able to call you a friend and to be able to have you in my corner. I’m forever grateful to you for that.
Omar Suleiman
(02:21:42)
I appreciate it. Thank you so much, man.
Lex Fridman
(02:21:44)
And thank you for talking today. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Omar Suleiman. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you some words from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. “We shall overcome because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” Thank you for listening, and hope to see you next time.

Transcript for Ben Shapiro vs Destiny Debate: Politics, Jan 6, Israel, Ukraine & Wokeism | Lex Fridman Podcast #410

This is a transcript of Lex Fridman Podcast #410 with Ben Shapiro vs Destiny Debate.
The timestamps in the transcript are clickable links that take you directly to that point in
the main video. Please note that the transcript is human generated, and may have errors.
Here are some useful links:

Table of Contents

Here are the loose “chapters” in the conversation.
Click link to jump approximately to that part in the transcript:

Introduction

Destiny
(00:00:00)
Something has to happen with Iran. There has to be some diplomatic bilateral communication there.
Ben Shapiro
(00:00:04)
No. What has to happen is the containment of Iran.
Destiny
(00:00:06)
History moves in one direction.
Ben Shapiro
(00:00:07)
Why?
Destiny
(00:00:09)
Because of time.
Ben Shapiro
(00:00:10)
Communism, Nazism, all of that was a regression from what was happening at, for example, the beginning of the 19th century into the 20th century.
Destiny
(00:00:16)
In what way?
Ben Shapiro
(00:00:17)
Do you think that today Donald Trump knows that he lost the election?
Destiny
(00:00:20)
Absolutely.
Ben Shapiro
(00:00:21)
I don’t.
Destiny
(00:00:22)
This is one of the areas where we get into this, I don’t understand if there’s brain-breaking happening or what’s going on. I don’t know what world we can ever live in where we say that Trump is less divisive for the country than Biden.
Ben Shapiro
(00:00:33)
Joe Biden literally used the Occupational Safety and Hazard Administration to try to cram down vax mandates on 80 million Americans. That’s insane.
Destiny
(00:00:41)
What about supercalifragilisticexpialidocious?
Ben Shapiro
(00:00:43)
What about pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis?
Destiny
(00:00:45)
Yeah, or the science terms.
Ben Shapiro
(00:00:45)
Yeah, exactly.
Destiny
(00:00:46)
Or what about the 7,000 letter thing that’s from part of a biochem.
Lex Fridman
(00:00:49)
I got my education in the Soviet Union. So we just did math. We didn’t run any of this.
Ben Shapiro
(00:00:53)
That’s why you’re a useful person.
Lex Fridman
(00:00:54)
Does body count matter? The following is a debate between Ben Shapiro and Destiny. Each arguably representing the right and left of American politics respectively. They are two of the most influential and skilled political debaters in the world. This debate has been a long time coming for many years. It’s about 2.5 hours and we could have easily gone for many more. And I’m sure we will. It is only round one. This is the Lex Fridman Podcast to support it. Please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here’s Ben Shapiro and Destiny.

Liberalism vs Conservatism


(00:01:36)
Ben, you’re conservative. Destiny, you’re a liberal. Can you each describe what key values underpin your philosophy on politics and maybe life in the context of this left to right political spectrum? You want to go first?
Destiny
(00:01:50)
Yeah. So I think that we have a huge country full of a lot of people, a lot of individual talents, capabilities, and I think that the goal of government, broadly speaking, should be to try to ensure that everybody is able to achieve as much as possible. So on a liberal level, that usually means some people might need a little bit of a boost when it comes to things like education. They might need a little bit of a boost when it comes to providing certain necessities like housing or food or clothing. But broadly speaking, I mean, I’m still a liberal, not a communist or a socialist. I don’t believe in the total command economy, total communist takeover of all of the economy, but I think that broadly speaking, the government should kick in and help people when they need it.
Lex Fridman
(00:02:32)
And that government can and should be big?
Destiny
(00:02:34)
Not necessarily. I noticed that when liberals talk about government, especially taxes, it seems like they talk about it for taxes sake or bigness sake. So people talk about taxes sometimes as like a punishment, like tax the rich. I think taxing the rich is fine insofar as it funds the programs that we want to fund. But Democrats have a really big problem demonizing success or wealth. And I don’t think that’s a bad thing. I don’t think it’s a bad thing to be wealthy, to be a billionaire or whatever, as long as we’re funding what we need to fund.
Lex Fridman
(00:03:03)
Ben, what do you think it means to be a conservative? What’s the philosophy that underlies your political view?
Ben Shapiro
(00:03:07)
So first of all, I’m glad that Destiny, you’re already coming out as a Republican. That’s exciting. I mean, we hold a lot in common in terms of the basic idea that people ought to have as much opportunity as possible and also insofar as the government should do the minimum amount necessary to interfere in people’s lives in order to pursue certain functions, particularly at the local level.

(00:03:33)
So a lot of governmental discussions on a pragmatic level end up being discussions about where government ought to be involved, but also at what level government ought to be involved. And I have an incredibly subsidiary view of government. I think that local governments, because you have higher levels of homogeneity and consent are capable of doing more things. And as you abstract up the chain, it becomes more and more impractical and more and more divisive to do more things.

(00:03:59)
In my view, government is basically there to preserve certain key liberties. Those key liberties pre-exist the government insofar as they’re more important than what priorities the government has. The job of government is to maintain, for example, national defense, protection of property rights, protection of religious freedom. These are the key focuses of government as generally expressed in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. And I agree with the general philosophy of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

(00:04:31)
Now, that doesn’t mean by the way, that you can’t do more on a governmental level again as you get closer to the ground, which by the way is also embedded in the Constitution. People forget the Constitution was originally applied to the federal government, not to local and state government. But if I were going to define conservatism, it would actually be a little broader than that because I think to understand how people interact with government, you have to go to core values.

(00:04:50)
And so for me, there are a couple of premises. One, human beings have a nature. That nature is neither good nor bad. We have aspects of goodness and we have aspects of badness. Human beings are sinful. We have temptations. What that means is that we have to be careful not to incentivize the bad and that we should incentivize the good. Human beings do have agency and are capable of making decisions in the vast majority of circumstances. And it’s better for society if we act as though they do.

(00:05:17)
Second, the basic idea of human nature. There is an idea in my view that all human beings have equal value before the law. I’m a religious person, so I’d say equal value before God. But I think that’s also sort of a key tenet of Western civilization being non-religious or religious, that every individual has equivalent value in sort of cosmic terms.

(00:05:36)
But that does not necessarily mean that every person is equally equipped to do everything equally well. And so it is not the job of government to rectify every imbalance of life. The quest for cosmic justice, as Thomas Sowell suggests, is something that government is generally incapable of doing, and more often than not, botches and makes things worse. So those are a few key tenets and that tends to materialize in a variety of ways. The easiest way to sum that up would the traditional kind of three legs of the conservative stool, although now obviously there’s a very fragmented conservative movement in the United States would be a socially conservative view in which family is the chief institution of society, like the little platoons of society as Edmund Burke suggested, in which free markets and property rights are extraordinarily valuable and necessary because every individual has the ability to be creative with their property and to freely alienate that property.

(00:06:34)
Finally, I tend toward a hawkish foreign policy that suggests that the world is not filled with wonderful people who all agree with us and think like us. And those people will pursue adversarial interests if we do not protect our own interests.
Destiny
(00:06:46)
Can I ask a question on that? I’m so curious.
Lex Fridman
(00:06:47)
Okay.

Education

Destiny
(00:06:49)
I’m excited for this conversation because I consider you to be really intelligent, but I feel like sometimes there are ways that conservatives talk about certain issues that seem to defy logic and reason, I guess. And I’m sure you feel the same way about… Well, I feel the same way about progressives, but even some liberals for sure. Before I ask this question, it’s going to relate to education. We can agree broadly speaking that statistics are real and that not everybody could do everything. So for a grounded example, my life was pretty bad. I got into streaming and I turned my life around and that was really cool. But I can’t expect everybody to do what I did. Right? Like everybody being able to join the NBA or to be like a streamer.
Ben Shapiro
(00:07:27)
Of course, everybody has different qualities. Sure.
Destiny
(00:07:29)
Okay. So I used to be a lot more libertarian when I was 20, 21. And one of the things that dramatically changed my view on government, manipulation of things in the, I guess, in society when it came time to deal with my son and the school that he went to. And one of the things that I noticed was when time to send my son to school, I could either do private education or I could do public.

(00:07:51)
Personally, I did 12 years of Catholic private education. However, the public schools in Nebraska, depending on where you lived, were very, very, very good. I opted for a certain district, I bought a house there, I moved there, and then my son was able to go to those schools. And he’s been going through those schools and the difference of availability of technology, these kids are taking home iPads in first grade. They’ve got huge computer labs and everything. Do you think that there is some type of, I don’t want to say injustice or unfairness because not even looking at it that way, just pragmatically that there might be children that are in certain schools that if they just had better funding or more access to technologies or things available to them, that those kids would become more productive members of society that would like a little bit of a help that they could actually achieve more and do better for all of society?
Ben Shapiro
(00:08:39)
So I think that on the list of priorities when it comes to education, the availability of technology is actually fairly low on the list of priorities.
Destiny
(00:08:46)
Sure. The two things I’ve heard are food availability, and I think air conditioning I think are the two biggest ones that I hear, but sure.
Ben Shapiro
(00:08:51)
Well, I mean the biggest thing in terms of education itself, not just the physical facilities that we’re talking about, would actually be two parent family households.
Destiny
(00:08:59)
Sure.
Ben Shapiro
(00:09:00)
Communities that have fathers in them. It’s actually the number one decisive according to Roland Friar and many studies done on this particular topic. And the idea that money alone, that investment of resources is the top priority in schooling is belied by the fact that LAUSD, which is where I went to school when I was younger, they pour an enormous amount of money into LAUSD. We’re talking about tens of thousands of dollars very often per student, and it does not result in better schooling outcomes.

(00:09:25)
So when you say, if we could give every kid an iPad, would you give every kid an iPad? The question is not, if I had a replicator machine from Star Trek, would I give everybody an enormous amount of stuff? Sure, I would. Every resource is fine. It every resource is limited, and you have to prioritize what are the outcomes that you seek in terms of the means with which you are seeking them.

(00:09:47)
And so, again, I think that the question is… I quibble with the premise of the question, which is that, again, the chief injustice when it comes to education on the list of injustices is lack of availability to technology or that it’s a funding problem. I just don’t think that’s the case.
Destiny
(00:10:02)
Sure. And I can half agree with you there, but I don’t think any amount of changes in the schools will create two parent households. We can’t bring a-
Ben Shapiro
(00:10:10)
I totally agree with you. That’s why I think that the fundamental educational problem is not in fact a schooling problem. I think that it preexist that.
Destiny
(00:10:17)
Sure. Now, I feel like this is kind of the conservative merry-go-round where it’s like, what can we do to help with schools? So two of the things that I’ve seen I think that are usually brought up in research is one is air conditioning that children in hotter environments just don’t learn as well. And then the second one is access to food. So kids that are given a breakfast or a lunch that’s provided at school increases educational outcomes.

(00:10:38)
Now, I agree that neither of these things might be determinative in, well, 20% of kids were graduating and now 80% of kids are graduating. Or these kids are all going with their GEDs into the workforce, and now these kids are all suddenly becoming engineers. But in terms of where we can help, do you think there should be some minimum threshold or minimum baseline of… At the very least, every school should have a non-leaky gym or every school should have… If children can’t afford lunch or breakfast like some sort of food provided or every school should have these baseline things?
Ben Shapiro
(00:11:07)
So again, I’m going to quibble with the premise of the question because I think that when it comes to, for example, food insecurity, school food programs… Again, you can always pour money into any program and at the margins create change. I mean, there’s no doubt that pouring money onto anything will create change in a marginal way. The question is how large is the margin and how big is the movement? So the delta is what I’m looking at.

(00:11:28)
I think that you’re starting at a second order question, which is what if we ignore what I would think are the big primary questions of education, namely family structure, value of education at home. How much you have parents who are capable or willing to help with homework? What are the incentive structures we can set up for a society that actually facilitate that? How local communities take ownership of their schools is a big one, right?

(00:11:48)
All of these issues we’re ignoring in favor of, say, “Air conditioning or lunch programs.” And so in a vacuum, if you say air conditioning and lunch programs sounds great in a vacuum. In terms of prioritization of values and cost structure, are those the things that I think are going to move the needle in a major way in terms of public policy? I do not. And in fact, I think that many of them end up being disproportionate wastes of money. I’ve talked before pretty controversially about the fact that an enormous amount of school lunch programs are thrown out.

(00:12:17)
An enormous amount of that food ends up in the garbage can. Is there a better way to do that? If there is a better way to do it, then I’m perfectly willing to hear about that better way to do it. But it seems to me that one of the big flaws in the way that many people of the left approach government is what if we hit every gnat with a hammer? And my question is, what if the gnat isn’t even the problem? What if there is a much bigger substructure problem that needs to be solved in order to… If you’re shifting deck chairs on the Titanic, sure, you can make the Titanic slightly more balanced because the deck chairs are slightly better oriented. But the real question is the water that’s gaping into the Titanic, right?
Destiny
(00:12:50)
Yeah. And I agree with you 100%, but again, I feel like we’re on the conservative merry-go-round then of never wanting to address-
Ben Shapiro
(00:12:57)
That’s not a conservative merry-go-round. I can give you 10 ways.
Destiny
(00:12:59)
Well, sure. So here would be the merry-go-round. I would say that there is a minimum funding for schools that I think would help children, and then we go, “Well, the thing that would help them the most is two parent household.” Then they go, “Okay. Well, two parent households actually aren’t the problem. The issue is access to things like birth controls that people don’t have children early on.” And it’s like, “But the issue isn’t actually birth control, the issue is actually you need a certain amount of money to move out early and to get married and then to have a two-parent household.” So it’s actually like economic opportunity.
Ben Shapiro
(00:13:21)
No.
Destiny
(00:13:22)
Well, it’s not…
Ben Shapiro
(00:13:23)
Just two parent households. That’s it.
Destiny
(00:13:24)
But what are the pre-cursor-
Ben Shapiro
(00:13:26)
Don’t fuck people before you’re married and have babies.
Destiny
(00:13:27)
Sure.
Ben Shapiro
(00:13:27)
Done.
Destiny
(00:13:28)
That’s great. We can say that and try to fight against however many hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution, but people will have sex and people will make babies.
Ben Shapiro
(00:13:34)
And then they used to get married. The vast majority of people in this country with kids used to be married. The vast majority of people with kids in this country now are not married increasingly.
Destiny
(00:13:44)
But a lot of those-
Ben Shapiro
(00:13:44)
It’s obviously a societal change. Something changed. It wasn’t human evolution.
Destiny
(00:13:46)
But a lot of those things in terms of resting on whether or not people get married, have to do with financial decisions. Do you have the money?
Ben Shapiro
(00:13:52)
People are worse off now than they were 50, 60 years ago when the marriage rates were higher.
Destiny
(00:13:54)
People are delaying the start of their careers because education is going to be increasingly important.
Ben Shapiro
(00:13:58)
So in other words, people are richer now and they have more education now, and yet they’re having more babies out of wedlock now because they’re richer and have more education?
Destiny
(00:14:05)
I’m saying that one of the biggest indicators for whether or not somebody is willing to get married is how much money both people are making if they can move out of their household. People don’t tend to want to get married at 22 when they’ve just finished college, when they don’t have the money to move out and they can’t afford a house.
Ben Shapiro
(00:14:16)
Because we have changed the moral status of marriage in the culture. Meaning that everyone poor, rich and in between used to get married. By the way, a huge percentage of marriages in the United States used to be what they would call shotgun marriages, meaning that somebody knocked somebody up and because they did not want the baby to be born outside of a two-parent household, they would then get married.
Destiny
(00:14:32)
Do we think that shotgun marriages though are a way to bring back equilibrium to education?
Ben Shapiro
(00:14:37)
Yes, absolutely. Yes, 100%. A child deserves a mother and a father because that is the basis for all of this, including education.
Destiny
(00:14:44)
Do we think that shotgun marriages are… Well, let’s say this. Do we think that that’s a reasonable direction that society would ever take? Or is this-
Ben Shapiro
(00:14:51)
Yes. It was the reasonable direction for nearly all of modern history
Destiny
(00:14:53)
Was, but history moves in one direction.
Ben Shapiro
(00:14:55)
Why?
Destiny
(00:14:56)
Because of time.
Ben Shapiro
(00:14:57)
People don’t think that’s… In what ways?
Destiny
(00:15:00)
I don’t think we’ve ever regressed social standards back to like, “Oh, well, let’s go a hundred years back and do things that used to exist before.”
Ben Shapiro
(00:15:06)
The entire left right now is arguing that we regressed social standards by rejecting Roe v. Wade. So that’s obviously not true.
Destiny
(00:15:11)
The Roe v. Wade is not a social standard. It’s a supreme court ruling, number one. But number two, if you read the actual majority opinion on Roe v. Wade, we can see that socially we ever actually never made huge progress on how society viewed abortion. This has always been an incredibly divisive thing. Even that was, I think, part of Alitos writing on it was that things like gay marriage, for instance, we’ve kind of moved past, and it’s not really as debated anymore, but abortion was never a subtle topic despite Rove v. Wade.
Ben Shapiro
(00:15:33)
The notion of the the arc of history constantly moves in one direction is belied by nearly all of the 20th century.
Destiny
(00:15:39)
What do we mean by that? [inaudible 00:15:42] women’s rights? Civil rights?
Ben Shapiro
(00:15:42)
Barbarism, communism, Nazism, all of that was a regression from what was happening at, for example, the beginning of the 19th century and the 20th century.
Destiny
(00:15:49)
In what way?
Ben Shapiro
(00:15:51)
Nazis and communism weren’t a regression from what was going on in 1905?
Destiny
(00:15:54)
Well, in terms of communism being a regression, for instance… I’m not Not a communist, but the industrialization of the Soviet Union happened under communist society, the industrialization-
Ben Shapiro
(00:16:03)
Except murder of tens of millions of people.
Destiny
(00:16:04)
Yeah. There’s-
Ben Shapiro
(00:16:07)
I consider that regression, a moral regression, which is what we are talking about now, moral regression. And you’re suggesting that moral regression, I wouldn’t term. I would term return two traditional values a moral regression. You would. But your suggestion is that history only moves in one direction, and I’m suggesting that history does not only move in one direction, it tends to move actually back and forth.
Destiny
(00:16:22)
Sure. I don’t think that all of history moves in one direction. There are going to be wars, there are going to be times of peace. I think in general, we’re more peaceful now than we have been in the past, but I think when we look at the way that people live their lives, I think that we tend to move in a certain direction socially. So when it comes to things like racism or when it comes to things like slavery or women’s rights, I think that there are two huge things that probably aren’t changing in the US and one is access to contraception and one is women working jobs.

(00:16:45)
I think that these two things are probably huge things that are moving us off of shotgun marriages or getting married very early on, and I don’t see… Do you think that those two things are going to change fundamentally?
Ben Shapiro
(00:16:54)
First of all, what the data tend to show is that actually more highly educated people, as you are saying, tend to get married more. So the idea is that women getting an education somehow throws them off marriage. It’s the opposite. Usually it’s women who are not educated-
Destiny
(00:17:06)
But those women aren’t getting shotgun marriages. Those women aren’t having children.
Ben Shapiro
(00:17:09)
But now you’re shifting the topic. My topic was how to get more people married. And then you suggested that higher levels of education are delaying marriage and making it less probable. What I’m telling you, because this is what the data suggests, is that actually as you raise up the educational ladder, people tend to be married more than they are lower down on the educational ladder. If you’re a high school graduate, you’re less likely to be married than if you’re a postdoc.
Destiny
(00:17:33)
I agree with you, but that’s because one of the biggest precursors to getting married is having a level of economic stability. So as people get more educated, they obtain this economic stability and then they’re in a more comfortable position to explore more serious relationships.
Ben Shapiro
(00:17:43)
There’s another confound there. I mean, the confound is that people in stable marriages tend to be the children of stable marriages, and there’s only one way to break that cycle, which is to create a stable marriage, and that is something that is in everyone’s hands. Again, this notion that it is somehow an unbreakable, unshatterable barrier to get married and have kids, I don’t understand where this is coming from. Why is that such a challenge? It’s not a challenge.
Destiny
(00:18:03)
I don’t it’s unbreakable or unshatterable. The initial point was for school, if we can provide a minimum level of educational stuff for children, that’d probably be good. But when we retreat back to, well, it has to be the families that are fixed first, fixing families is a multivariate problem that so many [inaudible 00:18:19]
Ben Shapiro
(00:18:19)
I’m fine within my local community. Again, I’ve suggested that there’s a difference between local community and federal. I’m fine with my local community voting for school lunches or air conditioning or whatever it is that we all agreed to do. Because the more local you get, the more homogeneity you get in terms of interest and the more interest you have in your neighbors. All of that is fine. I’m part of a very, very solid community. In our community, we give to each other. We have minimum standards of helping one another.

(00:18:41)
All that is wonderful. When it comes to the actual problem of education, what I object to in the political sphere, and this happens all the time, is everybody is arguing on top of the iceberg about how we can move the needle 0.5 percentage points as opposed to the entire iceberg melting beneath them. And we just ignore that and we pretend that that’s just sort of the natural consequence of thing. The arc of history suggests that people are never going to get married again.

(00:19:04)
Well, I mean, actually what the arc of history suggests realistically speaking is that the people who are not getting married are not going to be having kids. And what it also suggests, the people who are married are going to be having kids. So the demographic profile actually over time is rather going to shift toward people who are having lots and lots of kids. I’m married, I have four kids. Everyone in my community is married. That’s like minimum buy-in my community is four kids.

(00:19:24)
So what’s happening actually in terms of demographics is that the people who are more religious and getting married are having more kids. And so if you’re talking about the arc of history shifting toward marriage, I would suggest that actually demographically over time, long periods of time, not over one generation, over long periods of time, the only cure for low birth rate is going to be the people who get married and have lots of kids.
Destiny
(00:19:42)
I don’t necessarily disagree with any of that, but I’m just saying that, again, on the… I know you’re upset when I bring up the term merry-go-round. I think that there are good conversations to be had about people getting married because stable families produce stable children that are less likely to commit crime, that are more likely to go to school, that are more likely to be productive members of society, et cetera, et cetera.

(00:19:58)
I’m not going to disagree with you on any of that. All of that is true. It’s just frustrating that sometimes when you bring up any problem, all of it will circle back to other things that makes it seem like we can’t make any progress in any area without fixing something [inaudible 00:20:10]
Ben Shapiro
(00:20:10)
In what way? I literally just told you that on the local level, I’m fine for people voting for [inaudible 00:20:13]
Destiny
(00:20:13)
For instance, on the local level. So for school funding, school funding is done, I think generally per district. So what do you do when you have poor districts that can’t afford air conditioner for their schools?
Ben Shapiro
(00:20:23)
I mean, the idea there would be that presumably if the society, meaning the state, and I generally don’t mean the federal state. I mean the state of California, for example, decides that everybody ought to have air conditioning. People will vote for air conditioning, and that’s perfectly legal. I don’t think there’s anything morally objectionable about that per se.
Destiny
(00:20:40)
Cool.
Ben Shapiro
(00:20:40)
I also don’t think that that’s going to heal anything remotely like the central problem.
Destiny
(00:20:43)
Sure. I agree.
Ben Shapiro
(00:20:43)
And I think that what tends to happen in terms of government is people love arguing about the problems that can be solved by opening a wallet. And nobody likes to solve a problem by closing their sex life to one person, for example, or having kids within a stable religious community. The things that actually build society… I’m fine with arguing about each of these policies and whether we apply them or not is a matter generally of pragmatism, not morality.

(00:21:10)
It’s a matter of incentive structures, not per se morality, because incentive structures do have moral underpinnings. There’s such a thing as… For example, if you’re going to use a welfare program, you have to decide how effective it is to what crowd. It applies where the cutoffs are. Does it disincentivize work, does it not? All of these are pragmatic concerns. But on a moral level, the generalized objection that I have to people on the left side of the aisle is that they like to focus… In these conversations very often it feels as though it’s a conversation with people who are drunk, searching under the lamp for their keys. The problems they want to look at are the problems that are solvable by government, and then all the problems they don’t want to look at, which are the actual giant monsters lurking in the dark and not particularly solvable by government are the ones they want to ignore and assume are just the natural state of things. And I don’t think that’s correct at all.
Destiny
(00:21:54)
And I 1 billion percent agree. But then obviously my criticism for the conservative side is the exact opposite where there are parts where government could remedy some issues. For instance, children having sex with each other and producing other children out of wedlock. Sometimes having afterschool programs is nice to prevent that. I didn’t have time for these things. When I was in school, I was doing football practice, I was doing cross country practice. I went in early for a band. I agree with you that sometimes people only focus on one end of the problem as I hate to be that guy, but as somebody that… Have you ever watched The Wire?
Ben Shapiro
(00:22:21)
Sure.
Destiny
(00:22:22)
I’m not going to cite The Wire as a real life example, but obviously there’s only so much you can do in a school when the children coming in are so beyond destroyed because of the family life and everything prior to them even getting to school that day. So I agree. Government is not like the solution to broken families. That would never be the case.
Ben Shapiro
(00:22:36)
And it’s actually not the solution to education depending on the kind of solutions that you’re talking about. Some solutions, yes. Some solutions, no.
Destiny
(00:22:43)
Yeah. The only thing I’m looking at is, as I said earlier, just these minimum threshold things where it’s like, where can government make… Because you mentioned marginal, which I think is a really good way to look at things. Marginal costs and marginal utility to things where the first thousand dollars per student you spend might give you a huge return, but the extra 20,000 after is just a waste.
Ben Shapiro
(00:22:59)
I think these are all pragmatic discussions.
Destiny
(00:23:00)
Sure, of course.
Ben Shapiro
(00:23:00)
And actually, this is what we used to hash out in legislatures before they turned into platforms for people grandstanding. But yes, sure.
Destiny
(00:23:05)
Okay.

Trump vs Biden

Lex Fridman
(00:23:06)
As we descend from the heavens of philosophical discussion of conservatism and liberalism, let’s go to the pragmatic muck of politics. Trump versus Biden. Between the two of them, who was in their first term, the better president? And thus who should win if the two of them are, in fact, our choices should win a second term in 2024. Ben?
Ben Shapiro
(00:23:30)
Sure. So in terms of actual job performance, you have to separate it into a few categories. In terms of actual performance informed policy, I think Trump’s foreign policy record is significantly better than Biden’s, the world being on fire right now, being a fairly good example of that. And we can get into each aspect of the world being on fire and where the incentive structures came from and how all of that happened in a moment.

(00:23:53)
When it comes to the economy, I think that Trump’s economic record was better than Biden’s. Doesn’t mean he didn’t overspend. He did. He wildly overspent. But he also had a very solid record of job creation. A huge percentage of the gains in the economy went to people on the lower end of the economic spectrum. Actually, the gross income to the average American was about $6,000 during his term. The unemployment rates were very, very low before COVID.

(00:24:18)
I think that you almost have to separate the Trump administration into sort of before COVID and during COVID, because COVID obviously is a black swan event, the most signal change in politics in our lifetime. And so governance during COVID is almost its own category, which we can discuss. But in terms of foreign policy, in terms of domestic policy, I think that Trump was significantly better than Biden has been. And that’s on the upside for Trump.

(00:24:40)
On the downside, for Biden, obviously you’re talking 40 or highs in inflation. You’re talking about savings being eaten away. You’re talking about everything being 20 to 30% more expensive. You’re talking about massive increases to the deficit, even at a rate that was unknown under Trump. The deficit under Trump raised by about a little under a trillion dollars every year up until 2020. Again, 2020 was COVID year, so everybody decided that we’re going to fire hose money at things.

(00:25:01)
But then Joe Biden continued to fire hose money at things in ’21, ’22, and ’23. That obviously is, in my opinion, bad economic policy. And then you get to the rhetoric, and you get to the stuff that Donald Trump says. As I’ve said before, my view is that on Donald Trump’s epitaph, on his gravestone, it will say, “Donald Trump. He’s said a lot of shit.” I think that Donald Trump does say a lot of things. I think that that is basically baked into the cake, which is why everyone who’s bewildered by the polls is ignoring human nature, which is at the beginning when you see something very shocking, it’s very shocking.

(00:25:33)
And then if you see it over and over and over, and over for years on end, it is no longer shocking. It’s just part of the background noise like tinnitus. It just becomes something that your brain adjusts for. And so do I like a lot of Donald Trump’s rhetoric? No, and I never have. Do I think that that is dispositive as to his presidency? No, I do not. When it comes to Biden, again, I think he’s underperforming economically. I think that his foreign policy has been really a problem.

(00:25:57)
Even the things I think he’s done right are, I think, band- aids for things that he created by doing wrong. And when it comes to his own rhetoric, you can argue that it’s grading on a curve because Trump was coming in with such wild rhetoric that just a maintenance of that wild rhetoric doesn’t really change again the baseline. For Biden, he came in the same way that Obama did on the soaring rhetoric of American unity.

(00:26:20)
Trump came in and he is like, “Listen, I’m the president for what I am, and I’m going to say the things I want to say. I’m beyond the toilet and I’m tweeting.” We’re like, “Okay, that’s what it is.” With Biden, he came in with, “I’m a president for all Americans. I’m trying to unify everybody.” And that pretty quickly broke down into a lot of oppositional language about his political opponents in particular, an attempt to lump in, for example, huge swaths of the conservative movement with the people who participated, for example, in January 6th, or who were fans of January 6th, and the sort of lumping in of everybody into MAGA Republicans who wasn’t personally signed on to an infrastructure bill with him.

(00:26:56)
That sort of stuff I think has been truly terrible. I thought his Philadelphia speech was truly terrible. And again, I think that you do have the problem of he is no longer capable of certainly rhetorically unifying the country when every speech from him feels like watching Nik Wallenda walk across a volcano on a tightrope. It really is like you’re just sort of waiting for him to fall.

(00:27:16)
I mean, it’s sad to say. I mean, the other day he was speaking for what was, in effect, his campaign kickoff, and this was in Valley Forge. I mean, Jill rushed up there. As soon as he was done, Jill rushed up there like she’d been shot out of a cannon to come and try and guide him away so he didn’t become the Shane Gillis Roomba. And that’s not really… Let’s put it this way. It does not quiet the soul to watch Joe Biden rhetorically. Again, that’s a different problem than Trump’s problem, but that’s my analysis.
Destiny
(00:27:47)
This is one of the areas where we get into this, I don’t understand if there’s brain-breaking happening or what’s going on. I don’t know what world we can ever live in where we say that Trump is less divisive for the country than Biden. I think it is so patently obvious. Trump is so divisive. Not only does Trump make an enemy out of every person in the opposition party, he makes an enemy out of his own party and every single person around him. We all watched him bully Jeff Sessions. We all watched him bully his own party on Twitter. We all watched all of these people walk away from him.

(00:28:18)
Even recently, I think the Secretary of Defense Esper and John Kelly, the chief of staff were saying, “I think Trump is a threat to democracy.” You’ve got all of his prior people that were around him, some of his closest allies. You’ve got Bill Barr that won’t co-sign a single thing that he says. You’ve got all these people that he used to work with that all say, “Trump is a horrible, evil person. He’s ineffective as a leader. He doesn’t accomplish anything.” And he didn’t.

(00:28:43)
To say that Biden has failed at bipartisanship when we’ve gotten the CHIPS Act, we’ve gotten the IRA, we’ve gotten the ARP, we’ve gotten the Bipartisan Infrastructure bill, when we’ve gotten all this major legislation that is working in this historically divided Congress as opposed to Trump that got us tax cuts and deficit spending. I don’t understand where we ever are in this world where Biden is somehow-
Destiny
(00:29:00)
I don’t understand where we ever are in this world where Biden is somehow more divisive than Trump. Even the speeches that Ben is bringing up, they always bring up… I remember that one. I think we might’ve even done it on our episode. The one speech that Biden gave where at one point that the background is red and probably-
Ben Shapiro
(00:29:17)
[inaudible 00:29:17] speech I referenced.
Destiny
(00:29:17)
… Yeah. And they’re like, “Oh my God, it’s over. This is the end.” And then meanwhile, you’ve got Donald Trump coming into office saying things like, “If you burn the flag, you should have your citizenship revoked” or talking about MSDNC, that I’m going to investigate every single one of these media organizations for corruptness. I’m going to open the libel and defamation laws. I’m going to take all of these guys to court. You’ve got this weird Project 2025 stuff where is it John Paschal, I think, is talking about we’re going to investigate all of these people and we’re going to try to throw crimes at all these people.

(00:29:48)
Trump is like the most divisive president I think we’ve ever had, at least in my lifetime of being an American citizen. And the rhetoric from him is just, it’s on a whole other level in terms of the demonization of political opponents. I mean, this is a guy that’s known for giving his political opponents bad nicknames, right? That’s what Trump does.

(00:30:08)
It’s funny, but even as a resident of Florida, if Florida had another natural disaster, do you think Trump would withhold aid because you had… I think that was one of the few nice things that DeSantis actually said about Biden was that like, “Hey, listen, when the buildings collapsed in I think was Miami Beach.”
Ben Shapiro
(00:30:24)
Surfside. Yeah.
Destiny
(00:30:24)
Yeah, that for the hurricane stuff, that Biden was there. He was saying, “If you guys need aid, however many billions, you can have it.” Meanwhile, Trump, I think, was threatening to withhold federal funding from blue states that wouldn’t… I think it had to do with the National Guard stuff, the deployment of the National Guard, that they weren’t doing enough for the riots and Trump was threatening to withhold aid from some of these blue states. Yeah, Trump is literally the most divisive person in the world. I don’t see how on any metric he has ever succeeding in the divisive category.

(00:30:52)
In terms of the economy. I do think it’s funny that Republicans are very keen to say that, “Well, we can’t really grade Trump post-COVID” because obviously, COVID messed everything up, which is fair. But pre-COVID, what did Trump do? He did deficit spending tax cuts. He presided over historical low interest rates and an economy that was already like blazing past the final years of Obama. We were posting all time highs in all the stock markets in 2013 onwards. Unemployment rates were falling. Now under Biden, unemployment rates are even lower than they were under Trump. But it sucks that for Trump, we can say, “Well, we can’t really hold him accountable for 2020. That was COVID.”

(00:31:25)
Well, all we have for Biden is post-COVID. We don’t have any pre-COVID Biden economy. And it was the same thing for Obama too, coming in right after the housing collapse as well. And it sucks that Republicans are able to walk out of office having burned the entire American society to the ground economically. And now, we’ve got to try to evaluate, “Okay, well, what did Obama do during his first two to three to four years just trying to recover from where the housing crash left it.” And then we look at Biden now who’s trying to recover from COVID and now we’re grading him on a totally different scale than what Trump is being graded on. Yeah, that sucks, I think. We can go into-
Lex Fridman
(00:31:58)
Can you comment on the foreign policy policy?
Destiny
(00:32:00)
On the foreign policy, I’m going to be honest, I am very liberal. I’m very not progressive. I’ll probably come off as more hawkish than others because I’m not a big fan of this, which also, I mean, if Ben agrees, I think people like Trump are going to be the most dovish, isolationist people ever. They don’t want to do anything internationally. They just want to protect America, be at home, protect our economy, don’t do anything internationally, which is why he was constantly undermining NATO and constantly attacking all of the European Union and cheering on the UK for Brexiting away from the EU.

(00:32:34)
I think that being said, I think that Biden has done a phenomenal job when it comes to foreign policy. I think that the coalition building was so important for Ukraine, Russia, and I’m so happy that he decided to go to our European allies and our NATO allies and try to build a coalition of people to help Ukraine, so that that wasn’t only the United States.

(00:32:53)
Personally, especially after doing a whole bunch of research, I do tend to side with Israel over Palestine in a lot of the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts. I’m glad that Biden, while remaining a staunch defender of Israel, is trying to rein in some of the more aggressive posturing towards the Palestinians and the Gaza Strip. I’m proud that Biden said, “Hey, listen, we are going to delay some of these attacks. Hey, listen, we are going to allow humanitarian aid here. Hey, listen, we are going to try to not kill as many Palestinian people down there” while still signaling that he would be a staunch supporter of Israel in the conflict, assuming the civilian casualties don’t go too high.

(00:33:29)
For foreign policy, I mean, blemishes, I mean, the biggest one you can give to Biden is Afghanistan and the pull-out there. But man, are we going to talk about the Inspector General report that says that one of the biggest reasons why the Afghanistan pull-out was so disastrous was because of the Doha Accords where Donald Trump headed talks that didn’t even include the Afghanistan army. I mean, these were disasters. When Biden took office, we had 2,500 troops left in Afghanistan. What was the options even afforded to Biden at that point?

(00:33:59)
Obviously, you’ve got the abandonment of the Kurds in Northern Syria for the Turkish armies to lay waste to. You’re talking about Iran and North Korea, although I’m not sure where Ben would land on those, but yeah, that’s a broadly [inaudible 00:34:11].
Lex Fridman
(00:34:11)
That’s a lot from both, right? You want to pick at something where you disagree with here?
Ben Shapiro
(00:34:14)
Well, I mean, there’s a lot. So I want to ask a few questions on each one of these.
Destiny
(00:34:19)
Yeah, sure.
Ben Shapiro
(00:34:20)
So let’s talk about divisiveness for a second. So there’s no one who can make the case that Donald Trump is not divisive. Yeah, of course, he’s incredibly divisive. It’s a given. Do you treat Biden’s rhetoric with the same level of seriousness that you treat Trump’s rhetoric, or I should probably put that the other way around. Should we treat Trump’s rhetoric with the same level of seriousness as Joe Biden or, say, Barack Obama’s rhetoric?
Destiny
(00:34:43)
I’m going to try to be concise when I say this. Broadly speaking, especially in studying Israel, Palestine and Ukraine, Russia, I try not to take politicians at their word because sometimes, they just say stuff to say stuff. I understand that. But broadly speaking, I’m going to look at the rhetoric and the actions and I am going to grade them the same. So yes, I would hold Biden and Trump to the same standard.
Ben Shapiro
(00:35:00)
Right, so my feeling is, and this is one area where for clarification, we’re going to have a division, is that I of course don’t treat Trump’s rhetoric in the same way that I treat Biden’s or Obama’s. He’s utterly uncalibrated and he says whatever he wants to at any given time and it doesn’t even match up with his policy very often.
Destiny
(00:35:14)
Can I ask you, for our head of state, our chief executive, shouldn’t rhetoric be arguably one of the most important things that he does?
Ben Shapiro
(00:35:23)
The answer would be yes. And now, I’ve been given a choice between a person who I think in calibrated ways says things that are divisive and a person who in uncalibrated ways says things that are divisive. And so the evidence that Joe Biden is divisive is every poll taken since essentially August of 2021. He is, by all available metrics, incredibly divisive. A huge percentage of Americans are deeply unhappy not only with his performance, but don’t believe he’s a uniter. That’s just the reality. And that may just be a reflection. I mean, honestly, we may be putting too much on Trump or Biden personally. It may just be that the American people themselves are rhetorically divided because of social media, and social media can, in fact, be assessable and [inaudible 00:36:02].
Destiny
(00:36:02)
One thing that I would ask you about that, though…
Ben Shapiro
(00:36:05)
Sure.
Destiny
(00:36:05)
… is I agree, especially when you look at the favorability, but sometimes, when I look at these polls, when you start to disaggregate them by party, I wonder if it’s actually is Biden historically divisive or I’m trying to think of a really polite way to say this. The people that like Trump worship Trump. I don’t know. One of the most prescient things that Trump could have probably ever said was that I could kill someone on Fifth Street and nobody would hold him accountable. So is it really that Biden’s historically divisive, or is it that every single Trump supporter will always say that Trump is great [inaudible 00:36:32].
Ben Shapiro
(00:36:31)
No, the reason I would say that Biden is, in fact, historically divisive is because Republicans felt much more strongly about Barack Obama than Joe Biden, actually.
Destiny
(00:36:40)
I agree. But they didn’t feel as strongly about Trump as they did about Romney or McCain. Right?
Ben Shapiro
(00:36:44)
In what way? I mean-
Destiny
(00:36:45)
The allegiance to Trump.
Ben Shapiro
(00:36:47)
… oh, no, there’s certainly more allegiance to Trump than there is to Romney or McCain, largely because Trump won in 2016. But beyond that, the point that I’m making is that if you’re looking at the stats in terms of divisiveness, Republicans always find the Democratic president divisive. The question is where the rest of the country is. And right now, there are a lot of Democrats who either don’t agree with Biden or find him divisive. There are a lot of independents who find them divisive.

(00:37:08)
So when we’re comparing these things, I don’t think they’re leagues apart in terms of the divisive effects of what they say, right? And I’m separating that off from the inherent content of what they say because obviously, what Trump says is more divisive just on the raw level. I mean, if he’s insulting people as opposed to Joe Biden doing MAGA Republicans, if I were to just… if I were an alien come down from space and look at these two statements, I’d say this one’s more divisive than this one. But then, there’s the reality of being a human being in the world and that is everyone has baked Donald Trump into the cake. And Joe Biden, again, started off with a patina of being non-divisive and now has emerged as divisive.

(00:37:42)
If you don’t mind, I actually want to get to the foreign policy questions because this one is actually slightly less interesting to me.
Destiny
(00:37:45)
Sure. Can I ask just one quick thing, I guess.
Ben Shapiro
(00:37:48)
[inaudible 00:37:48], go for it.
Destiny
(00:37:48)
We can say the reality of it and we can look at opinion polls. What if we look at legislative accomplishments? Like Biden is working on a 50-50 divided Senate. Donald Trump had both House of Congress and the Supreme Court and got no major legislation passed.
Ben Shapiro
(00:38:01)
Well, I mean, he did lose Congress in 2018.
Destiny
(00:38:05)
But prior to that, we got the Infrastructure bill, I think, in one year, which Trump promised for his entire presidency, didn’t get anywhere on it.
Ben Shapiro
(00:38:12)
I mean, yes, his Republican base was not in favor of mass spending on infrastructure and neither am I. So there’s that. I think that’s mostly a state and local issue.
Destiny
(00:38:18)
But they were in favor of mass spending for tax cuts?
Ben Shapiro
(00:38:21)
That’s not a spending. It-
Destiny
(00:38:21)
I mean, effectively it is, right?
Ben Shapiro
(00:38:24)
Effectively, it’s not.
Destiny
(00:38:25)
If you’re cutting tax receipts, but you’re not changing the level of spending like Biden did with the IRA.
Ben Shapiro
(00:38:30)
Again, we have a fundamental philosophical difference here. I think that when the government takes my money, that is not the government somehow being more fiscally responsible, and when the government allows me to keep my money, I don’t see that as the government spending. I see that as my money and the government is taking less of it.
Destiny
(00:38:45)
That’s great, but at the end of the day, the government is still going to be in a deficit spending and they’re going to have to borrow money from the Treasury.
Ben Shapiro
(00:38:49)
Right, we have a spending problem, in other words, not a receipts problem is the case that I’m making.
Destiny
(00:38:52)
Right.
Ben Shapiro
(00:38:52)
The problem with Donald Trump is not that he lowered taxes. The United States has one of the most progressive tax systems on the planet, and in fact, if you wish to have a European style social welfare state, what you actually need is to tax the middle class to death, the reality is that the top 20% of the American population pays literally all net taxes in the United States after state benefits and all of this.
Destiny
(00:39:09)
Sure.
Ben Shapiro
(00:39:09)
So if you actually wanted to have the kind of social welfare state that many liberals seem to want to have like Northern Europe, for example, you’d actually have to tax people who make 40, 50, $60,000.
Destiny
(00:39:19)
And I don’t want that. I agree with that, but how do you explain the lack of legislation, I mean, if he’s such a uniter.
Ben Shapiro
(00:39:24)
Because I think the Republican party itself is quite divided, and I think that Trump can-
Destiny
(00:39:27)
But isn’t that his job? He’s the head of the Republican Party. He’s the president, Republican President of the United States.
Ben Shapiro
(00:39:31)
I mean, again, I don’t think that Joe Biden has passed wildly historic legislation, other than-
Destiny
(00:39:36)
The infrastructure bill was the largest [inaudible 00:39:38].
Ben Shapiro
(00:39:38)
So here’s the problem. If you’re a Republican, the only bills that you can get consensus on tend to be bills that either… let’s be real about this, that are tax cuts because as you would, I think, agree with. When it comes to polling data, Americans constantly say they want to cut the government and then the minute you ask them which program, they have no idea what they’re…
Destiny
(00:39:57)
Right.
Ben Shapiro
(00:39:57)
… right, exactly. And so it’s much harder to come up with a bill to cut things than it is to come up with a bill to add things, which is why spending was out of control under Trump as well. But there are some Republicans who still don’t want to spend on those things, right? So inherently, the task that, this goes back to the first question, the task that Republicans think government is there to do is different than the task that Democrats think that government is there to do. So the way that the very metric of success for a Democratic president versus Republican president, namely, for example, pieces of legislation passed. As a Republican, one of my goals is to pass nearly no legislation because I don’t actually want the government involved in more areas of our life.

(00:40:32)
I want to ask a couple of questions on the foreign policy. Sure.
Destiny
(00:40:35)
Yeah. Okay, wait, real quick, just so for instance, Donald Trump wanted to punish China and he wanted to bring microprocessor manufacturing to the United States. Biden did that with legislation with the CHIPS Act. You talk about spending being out of control, and I mean, I can agree with that. I think anybody that looks at the numbers has to agree with that. But why not pass legislation like the Inflation Reduction Act, which is at least spending neutral, right? Why are there not bills where Donald Trump could take-
Ben Shapiro
(00:40:57)
Well, first of all, I think that whenever the government says something is spending neutral, it rarely materializes that way. That is not going to be a spending neutral bill. [inaudible 00:41:02].
Destiny
(00:41:01)
Sure, but there’s difference between at least they say it’s spending neutral versus this is a $500 billion bill over 10 years.
Ben Shapiro
(00:41:07)
Well, but again, I don’t see a tax cut as a matter of spending neutrality. The big problem is they keep spending, not that they are allowing me to keep the money that I earned and they did not earn, but [inaudible 00:41:16].
Destiny
(00:41:15)
Okay. So then just to understand, so if somebody just did massive reductions in tax receipts, so tax cut after tax cut after tax cut, but they didn’t change spending at all, you wouldn’t consider that an increase in deficit spending or out of control spending. You would just say they’re just tax cuts?
Ben Shapiro
(00:41:29)
No, the opposite. I would consider it a wild overspending, meaning-
Destiny
(00:41:34)
Okay. So then was it under Trump then when he did the tax [inaudible 00:41:36]?
Ben Shapiro
(00:41:36)
… I mean, the deficit spending, by the way, under Biden is way worse than it was under Trump.
Destiny
(00:41:39)
Of course, but we’re in post-COVID, right?
Ben Shapiro
(00:41:41)
COVID ended effectively… I mean, you live in Florida. COVID effectively ended in the state of Florida by the middle of 2021.
Destiny
(00:41:46)
Yeah [inaudible 00:41:47].
Ben Shapiro
(00:41:47)
Even if you’re a vaccine fan, by April, May of 2021, there was wide availability of vaccines, whether or not you like the vaccines, and at that point, we were done. [inaudible 00:41:55].
Destiny
(00:41:55)
I agree. But we’re in a post… how many trillions of dollars have been dumped in worldwide that are leading to inflation, right? The inflation is a worldwide issue right now because of the economy shutting down for a year or two. It’s not like those effects are gone in one year, right? COVID might be gone, but the after effects of all the stimulus spending and the unemployment and everything else.
Ben Shapiro
(00:42:11)
The definition of inflation is too much money chasing too few goods. So pouring more money on top of that makes for more inflation. That’s what it does.
Destiny
(00:42:17)
Sure. I agree. But there’s also the definition of when do you deficit spend is when economies are headed for recessions, right, rather than when economies are doing really well that we’re under Trump and he was deficit spending, whereas Biden can at least make the argument that I ought to be deficit spending because the economy is heading for potential recession.
Ben Shapiro
(00:42:31)
So here’s the thing. I don’t think that the economy was actually headed for a recession. In fact, if you look at the economics statistics-
Destiny
(00:42:37)
And every economist said it was.
Ben Shapiro
(00:42:38)
… no, [inaudible 00:42:39].
Destiny
(00:42:39)
They’re still saying that there’s a recession coming, right?
Ben Shapiro
(00:42:41)
But that was largely because of the after effects of inflation, meaning if you inflate the economy, what you are going to end up doing is bursting a bubble and then when that bubble bursts, you’ll get a recession. I mean, that was the basic idea, right? The idea, the question was whether you’re going to get a soft landing. But if you actually look at, for example, the employment statistics or the economic growth statistics in the United States, what they look like under the last year’s Obama and then Trump, I mean, this is what the chart looks like. Because it looks like this and then it hits March of 2020. It goes like that, right, and then by September, it bounces back up, right? It’s a V-shaped recovery, and then it starts to peter out.
Destiny
(00:43:09)
Sure. A lot because of the American Recovery Plan, right, that Biden did as well.
Ben Shapiro
(00:43:13)
I mean-
Destiny
(00:43:13)
4 million jobs. Yeah.
Ben Shapiro
(00:43:14)
… no, I’m not going to attribute it to that because the rates of growth in job growth from September, October, November were actually very similar to the rates of job growth after Joe Biden took office. What you see is actually kind of a straight line. I mean, what the chart looks like-
Lex Fridman
(00:43:15)
Let’s get on.
Ben Shapiro
(00:43:27)
In any case, okay, on the foreign policy stuff, this is getting abstruse.

Foreign policy

Destiny
(00:43:31)
[inaudible 00:43:31].
Ben Shapiro
(00:43:30)
But on the foreign policy stuff, so the questions that I have with regard to Biden on foreign policy, very, very simple question. Do you think that the situation in the Middle East is better now than it was under Donald Trump?
Destiny
(00:43:51)
Probably. That’s a hard one.
Ben Shapiro
(00:43:54)
Why?
Destiny
(00:43:55)
The factors that I’m making right now are obviously you’ve got the Israel- Palestinian War that’s going on right now, which is kind of bad, but broadly speaking, I’m not sure how much that affects the Middle East as much as the collapse of Syria. 2013 Syrian Civil War sent millions of immigrants throughout all of Europe-
Ben Shapiro
(00:44:12)
Which was under…
Destiny
(00:44:13)
… which was under Obama and continued under Trump.
Ben Shapiro
(00:44:13)
Right.
Destiny
(00:44:15)
Trump didn’t do anything to alleviate any of the Syrian Civil War. [inaudible 00:44:18].
Ben Shapiro
(00:44:18)
Why did Syria end up as a preserve of Russia again?
Destiny
(00:44:22)
How did Syria end up as a preserve of Russia?
Ben Shapiro
(00:44:24)
Yes. Why did it end up being essentially a client state of Russia?
Destiny
(00:44:28)
I know that Putin enjoys access to the ports down there. I don’t know. You tell me.
Ben Shapiro
(00:44:32)
I mean, the reason is because Barack Obama suggested that there was a red line that would be drawn in the face of chemical weapons used.
Destiny
(00:44:36)
Sure.
Ben Shapiro
(00:44:36)
Bashir Assad then used chemical weapons in Syria, and Barack Obama was unwilling to then essentially create consequences for Syria in the form of any sort of Western strike and so instead, he outsourced it to Russia. This is 2013, 2014.
Destiny
(00:44:49)
Sure. Do you think there might’ve been some hesitancy after seeing how Libya ended up that maybe us intervening [inaudible 00:44:55].
Ben Shapiro
(00:44:54)
Who’s president during Libya? Yeah. I mean, [inaudible 00:44:57].
Destiny
(00:44:59)
But what does that have to do with anything, though? I’m just saying there might’ve been a mistake learned.
Ben Shapiro
(00:45:01)
The point that I’m making is that actually the Middle East, I mean just historically speaking, was historically good under Donald Trump. I mean, it’s very difficult to make the case that either before or after Trump were better than during Donald Trump.
Destiny
(00:45:10)
Was it? I don’t think that Trump contributed to the Syrian situation improving much. He wrecked a lot of-
Ben Shapiro
(00:45:18)
I mean, he wrecked ISIS. He did wreck ISIS, which was in the [inaudible 00:45:20].
Destiny
(00:45:19)
I mean, ISIS had been getting wrecked by the Kurds in Iraq, by every single person, by Assad’s army, by Putin, by Turkey.
Ben Shapiro
(00:45:26)
[inaudible 00:45:26].
Destiny
(00:45:26)
Literally, everybody was fighting against ISIS at that point.
Ben Shapiro
(00:45:29)
There’s a spike in violence and then the Trump… I mean, you get credit for when you’re president, presumably. I mean, things got better with ISIS under Trump.
Destiny
(00:45:36)
I mean, yeah, they did. I mean-
Ben Shapiro
(00:45:37)
Things got worse with ISIS under Obama.
Destiny
(00:45:40)
… for sure.
Ben Shapiro
(00:45:40)
He called them the JV squad, and then they became not the JV squad.
Destiny
(00:45:44)
But I don’t know if ISIS is originating in Syria and Baghdadi and all of the growth of that is necessarily Obama’s fault. I know that we like to say that Obama created ISIS. I don’t know if you say that, but I’ve heard that saying a lot. I think that’s a little bit simplistic. I don’t think that when I’m looking at actions that presidents have taken, the biggest criticism I have for Middle Eastern policy is I think the Doha accords were a disaster and I think that’s one of the biggest blemishes that we have right now. I would also argue that moving the embassy to Jerusalem was also kind of silly and arguably contributed to some of the conflict we see right now between [inaudible 00:46:16].
Ben Shapiro
(00:46:16)
No, I’ll argue precisely the opposite, especially given the fact that after the movement of the embassy to Jerusalem, the Abraham Accords continued to sign and actually expand and that if Donald Trump had been elected, I have no doubt in my mind that Saudi Arabia would now be a part of the Abraham Accords. In fact, that was basically pre-negotiated and then when Joe Biden took office, Joe Biden took a very anti-Saudi stance on a wide variety of issues. The biggest single effect in the Middle East of Joe Biden’s presidency, and again, I agree with you that not every foreign policy issue can be laid at the hands of a president. Joe Biden’s main approach to the Middle East was very similar to the Obama approach, which is why the Middle East was chaotic under Obama and chaotic under Biden and that was to alienate allies like Saudi Arabia and Israel and instead, to try to make common cause or cut deals with Iran.

(00:47:00)
What that did is incentivize terrorism from Iran. What we’re watching in the Middle East is Iran attempting to use every one of its terror proxies in the Middle East and it was specifically launched in an attempt to avoid what Biden actually was trying to do, which was good, which was after two years of failure with Saudi Arabia, try to bring them into the Abraham Accords, right? That was what was burgeoning at the end of last year and Iran saw that and Iran decided that they were going to throw grenade into the middle of those negotiations by essentially activating Hamas. Hamas activates. Hamas commits October 7th. Israel, as a sovereign nation state, has to respond to the murder of 1,200 of its citizens in the taking, kidnapping of 240. Israel has to do that not only to go after its own hostages and try to restore them, but also to reestablish military deterrence in the most violent region of the world.

(00:47:40)
Hezbollah gets active on Israel’s northern border. Hezbollah is an Iranian proxy. They get active on the northern border. The Houthis in Yemen get active. The only reason all this is happening at the same time is because Iran is doing this, right?
Destiny
(00:47:53)
[inaudible 00:47:53].
Ben Shapiro
(00:47:53)
Not just that, they’re threatening global shipping.
Destiny
(00:47:56)
Sure.
Ben Shapiro
(00:47:56)
If you’re talking about the effects of global supply lines, which I totally agree, had a major inflationary effect on the economy, thanks to COVID. Right now, the cost of shipping is nearly double what it was just a few weeks ago and that is because a ragtag group of Houthi barbarians are attacking international shipping and forcing everybody to stop using the Bab-el-Mandeb freight, instead of going around the Cape of Good Hope in Africa.
Destiny
(00:48:17)
Sure.
Ben Shapiro
(00:48:18)
All of that is the result of the fact that Joe Biden reoriented the United States in the very early days in favor of a more pro-Iranian stance. He appointed Robert Malley to negotiate the Iran deal who, as it turns out, was using proxies. Many of his aides were actually taking money from Iran. The Biden administration, literally one of their first acts was to delist the Houthis as a terror organization and sanctions against the Houthis. These are all moves that Biden made very early on. They were disastrous moves. But when it comes to domestic policy, I think he hasn’t been nearly as damaging in domestic policy as-
Destiny
(00:48:18)
Wait, wait. Domestic policy. Let’s do…
Ben Shapiro
(00:48:18)
Foreign policy.
Destiny
(00:48:47)
… sure, sure. So just on a couple of Middle Eastern things. So one of the big things that threw the Middle East into disaster was what we all traumatized by it now was the Iraq invasion [inaudible 00:48:56] Republican president.
Ben Shapiro
(00:48:56)
Sure.
Destiny
(00:48:57)
You hear that, right?
Ben Shapiro
(00:48:57)
Sure.
Destiny
(00:48:58)
The deposition of Saddam Hussein and everything that followed after probably contributed more to the growth of ISIS and the destabilization of that entire region probably more than anything else. I think that prior to Bush for Clinton and even at the beginning of Bush’s presidency, we were on some kind of road to normalcy with Iran, which I think has to happen whether we liked them or not until Bush, for whatever reason, decides to throw Iran into the Axis of Evil.
Ben Shapiro
(00:49:21)
You emphasized that we’re on a road to normalcy with Iran in the 1990s.
Destiny
(00:49:23)
We do in the… wait, what?
Ben Shapiro
(00:49:25)
That we are on a road to normalcy with Iran in the 1990s.
Destiny
(00:49:27)
My understanding is that, yeah, from the late ’90s and prior to the Axis of Evil labeling of Iran, that there was going to be some path forward to where we could start to normalize relationships with them.
Ben Shapiro
(00:49:36)
I find that very difficult to believe, and I don’t see a lot of evidence. I mean, we can just disagree on that.
Destiny
(00:49:41)
Sure, okay, yeah, sure. We can disagree on that, but I know that once I [inaudible 00:49:43].
Ben Shapiro
(00:49:43)
By the way, the after effects, just a quick note, the after effect of the Iraq War that was the most devastating was the increase in power of Iran.
Destiny
(00:49:48)
I agree, yeah, because of the destabilization of Iraq and Iraq not having a government there that was functional for at least a decade.
Ben Shapiro
(00:49:55)
And was, in fact, a Sunni government, right? Originally, it was a Sunni government. The Sunni army was one of the worst things that the Bush administration did.
Destiny
(00:50:01)
Banning all the former Ba’ath party [inaudible 00:50:03].
Ben Shapiro
(00:50:02)
Sectarian, yeah.
Destiny
(00:50:03)
All horrible under a Republican president.
Ben Shapiro
(00:50:06)
Don’t disagree.
Destiny
(00:50:07)
That that probably contributed more to ISIS, to the growth of power in Iran, maybe even to the destabilization of Syria, probably more than anything that Obama did. Also, when we look at Iran funding people in the region, I don’t disagree with that as well. I think Iran is the number one instigator of bad-guy things right now in the Middle East. Iran, the IRGC I supported when Donald Trump killed Soleimani. I think that was a great thing. I think that Iran is a major problem.

(00:50:30)
However, I don’t know if the path forward is constantly being a belligerent to Iran or trying to figure out some road to normalcy. I don’t know if the collapse of Iran or the destruction of that country, considering how unpopular the Ayatollah even is there. The citizens of Iran, I don’t think, are big supporters of the government there. I feel like moving on a path where, let’s do our nuclear inspections. We had that Iranian nuclear deal that Trump pulled out of. Let’s do the nuclear inspections. Make sure you’re not on the way to nuclear weapons. Let’s unfree some funds. Let’s move in some direction where we get on a good term with you. I feel like that’s the most important thing that needs to happen in the Middle East. As much as people like to look at the Abraham Accords, who cares if… what was it? Bahrain, I think Oman. I think [inaudible 00:51:10].
Ben Shapiro
(00:51:10)
UAE, Morocco.
Destiny
(00:51:10)
The UAE and Morocco… like all of these people, even Saudi Arabia already have like de facto normalization with Israel anyway. They’re all trading [inaudible 00:51:18].
Ben Shapiro
(00:51:17)
No, I mean, to pretend that anybody even 15 years ago would’ve been talking about normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel is insane. I mean, that’s insane.
Destiny
(00:51:26)
They were already on that path. They were already de facto trading partners with each other. They had already been collaborating [inaudible 00:51:34].
Ben Shapiro
(00:51:33)
That’s a wild claim that Israel and Saudi Arabia were going to normalize 15 years ago?
Destiny
(00:51:38)
15 years ago might’ve been a wild claim, but after Turkey, after Jordan, and then in the past 20 years of economic relations and ties with each other, all of the leadership in the Middle East and you’ll agree with this. Look at Israel. Then they go, okay, well, we’ve got Palestinians who God bless them, do nothing, and then you’ve got Israel, which is on a region with no natural resources to somehow become an economic giant. They’re good to trade with their population’s educated. They have military power. All of the leadership in these Middle Eastern countries are wanting to be friendly with Israel and are engaging in trade de facto with Israel and the idea that the UAE and Bahrain were brought in to say like, oh, well, now we’re going to officially say this.
Ben Shapiro
(00:52:15)
Those were the first steps toward obviously the formation of a new Middle East in which economics would predominate over sectarian conflict. The chief obstacle to that is Iran. I agree. The notion that negotiations with the Ayatollah, were going to be a solution to any of this is, but do we think Absolutely. The night,
Destiny
(00:52:32)
Is it the Abraham Accords that’s convincing Saudi Arabia to take a stance against Iran?
Ben Shapiro
(00:52:37)
No. I mean, they’re
Destiny
(00:52:39)
Already fighting. They’re already fighting with each other. Right. I don’t think the Abraham Accords moved us any closer towards any type of real peace in the region. It has to happen is something has to happen with Iran. There has to be some diplomatic bilateral communication there.
Ben Shapiro
(00:52:49)
No. What has to happen is the containment of Iran, which was what was taking place with the increased normalization with the Sunni Arab world and Israel combined with significant economic sanctions. The notion that there’s this far-fetched notion in foreign policy circles that diplomacy can sort of be wish cast out of thin air. That if you sit around a table that you can always come to an agreement with somebody. The Ayatollahs do not have common interests with the United States. They do not, and this idea that they’re willing to take money in exchange, for example, some sort of peaceful acquiescence to Israel’s existence is obviously untrue, literally,
Destiny
(00:53:23)
Historically. Hasn’t that been the case though, that you’ve had a region with tons of sectarian violence for a long time, and then finally Turkey was like, you know what? This isn’t worth it. The United States paid them a lot of money. They had conversations with Israel, and you know what? The economy, the economic gains, same thing with Jordan. Same thing with
Ben Shapiro
(00:53:40)
Turkish politics, but the situation with Turkey was actually quite warm between Israel and Turkey in the nineties when you had the sort of secular Muslim regime
Destiny
(00:53:52)
In the nineties, but they signed
Ben Shapiro
(00:53:53)
Out of Turk in place, and now Erdogan has joined in the fray. Erdogan is significantly more radical than
Destiny
(00:53:59)
What came before. Sure. I’m so sorry if I said Turga in Egypt, my
Ben Shapiro
(00:54:02)
Bad. Egypt
Destiny
(00:54:05)
In terms of Egypt and Jordan, right, we’re the first two you
Ben Shapiro
(00:54:08)
Need big, so here’s the thing. Is it possible that you could theoretically come to a deal with Iran only with a new leadership crew? Okay. This is true for every peace agreement in the region. You could not, Israel could not have made peace with. Well, they
Destiny
(00:54:20)
Made peace with Egypt, and Sadat was the leader for Yom Kippur.
Ben Shapiro
(00:54:23)
They did not make peace with Nasser. Right. The point is that this is a different regime. You need a different regime,
Destiny
(00:54:28)
But I’m saying the same regime that part of the Yom, Kippur war was the same regime that negotiated peace with Israel.
Ben Shapiro
(00:54:34)
I mean, that’s true. It is also true that that is a relationship that could be cultivated specifically because it was Sadat who made clear he was going to come to the table. Have the Iranians ever made clear that they would come to the table over, for example, the existence of the state of Israel?
Destiny
(00:54:48)
No.
Ben Shapiro
(00:54:50)
That is not a thing that’s going to happen, but
Destiny
(00:54:51)
I think people probably thought the same.
Ben Shapiro
(00:54:53)
Every single one of their proxy rules, every one of them not only calls for the destruction of the state of Israel, they also call for the destruction of America. I mean, this is literally the Houthi slogan. They’re busy hitting ships, and their slogan is literally Ahu Akbar, death to America, death to the Jews, death to Israel. It doesn’t fit on a bumper sticker, but it’s not all like catchy, but that is in fact their slogan. The notion that the regime that propagates that is going to be approached with diplomacy is not only wrong, the problem is that it’s easy to say the stakes of diplomacy are okay, so we try to talk jaw-jaw is better than war-war. Sure. The only problem is that in the Middle East, weakness is taken as a sign that aggression might be an appropriate response. That is how things work in the Middle East, and the fact that Barack, that Joe Biden rather came into office with an orientation toward continuing the Obama policies in Iran has led to conflagrations these sort of brushfires breaking out everywhere that Iran has borders with either the West or Israel or both. Right. Any place that’s happening, it’s leading to Brushfires because again, the logic of violence in the Middle East is not quite the logic of violence in other places in the world. By the way, I think the logic of violence in the Middle East is actually closer to what most international politics looks like than we wish that it were. I mean, I think that’s part of what’s happening in Ukraine as well, which brings me, by the way, here’s my question about Ukraine. Well, just real quick-
Destiny
(00:56:13)
So you think that for Iran, right, a country that has been sanctioned for God knows how many years now, you think that for Iran just continuing to sanction them and contain them is an effective way, is more effective than trying to engage them in bilateral or multilateral peace talks?
Ben Shapiro
(00:56:26)
Yes, 100% and the proof is in the pudding.

Israel-Palestine

Lex Fridman
(00:56:28)
Before we go to Ukraine, can I ask about Israel? So you’re both mostly in agreement, but what is Israel?
Destiny
(00:56:34)
I don’t know if I’d say that.
Lex Fridman
(00:56:35)
Okay, but as I’m learning what is Israel doing right? What is Israel doing wrong in this very specific current war in Gaza?
Ben Shapiro
(00:56:47)
I mean, frankly, I think that what Israel’s doing wrong is if I were Israel, again, America’s interests are not coincident with Israel’s interests. If I were an Israeli leader, I would’ve swiveled up and I would’ve knocked the bleep out of Hezbollah early. What does that mean mean? What does that mean? So I would have Yoav Galant, who is the defense minister of Israel, was encouraging Netanyahu, who’s the prime minister and the war cabinet, including Benny Gantz. People talk about the Netanyahu government. That’s not what’s in place right now. There’s a unity war government in place that includes the political opposition. The reason I point that out is because there are a lot of people politically who will suggest that the actions Israel is currently taking are somehow the manifestation of a right-wing government. Israel currently does not have a quote, right-wing government, they have unity government that includes the opposition.

(00:57:27)
In any case, Yoav Galant was urging in the very early days of the war that Israel should turn North and instead of hitting Hamas, they should actually take the opportunity to knock Hezbollah out because Hezbollah is significantly more dangerous to the existence of the state of Israel than Hamas. I actually agree with that. As far as what Israel has been doing wrong in the actual war, I mean, I think that, again, from an American perspective, I think that Israel is doing pretty well from an Israeli perspective via Israeli. I would actually want Israel to be less loose about sending its soldiers in on the ground level. So Israel’s attempting to minimize civilian casualties, and the cost of that has been the high.
Ben Shapiro
(00:58:00)
… on the ground level. So Israel’s attempting to minimize civilian casualties, and the cost of that has been the highest military death toll that Israel has had since the 1973 Yom Kippur War. I mean, I personally know, through one degree of separation, three separate people who have been killed in Gaza, and that’s because they’re going in door to door, it’s because they’re attempting to minimize civilian casualties and they’re losing a lot of guys in this particular war. The problem that Israel has had historically speaking is that Israel got very complacent about its own security situation. They believed the technology was going to somehow correct for the hatred on the other side of the wall. That, okay, so our people have to live underground for two weeks at a time while some rockets fall, but at least it’s not a war.

(00:58:40)
And that complacence bred what happened on October 7th. So to me, what Israel did wrong was years and years and years of complacence and belief in an Oslo System that is at root a failure because you cannot make a peace agreement with people who do not want to make peace with you. So that’s what I think Israel is doing wrong. I have a feeling that there’s going to be wide divergence on this point.
Destiny
(00:59:02)
Maybe. So in terms of broadly speaking, I generally oppose settlement expansion is a thing that Israel does incorrectly that I think is kind of provocative to at least all the Palestinians in the West Bank, and it probably energizes hatred in the Gaza Strip for them as well. In terms of conducting warfare, the one thing that I always say to everybody, especially Americans, is you can’t evaluate things from an American perspective. It’s very stupid. It happened a lot with Ukraine where people are like, “Oh, well, they work with the Nazis?” and “Weren’t the Soviets the good guys?” And it’s like, well, in other parts of the world, it’s not quite as simple. And I think the same is true for Israel-Palestine, that a lot of Americans will analyze the conflict as just being one between only Israel and Palestine, which it’s not, it’s a conflict between Israel and then Palestine, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Iran. Right now, it is.

(00:59:51)
However, one area where I’ll break with, Ben, is I think that minimizing civilian casualties and everything is very, very, very important I think on the Israeli side. I don’t think it’s important so that the US will stay with them because I think the US is probably going to stick with Israel as long as they’re not doing anything crazy, and I don’t even think it matters for the international community. It definitely doesn’t matter for the UN because Jesus Christ. However, I think it’s really, really, really important that… I think that in the Middle East, broadly speaking, I think that leadership, especially in the Gulf, has gotten over the Palestinian issue.

(01:00:22)
I think that leadership is kind of like they don’t care as much anymore, but the populations still care quite a bit. And I think that the main issue that Israel could run into is if the civilian death toll does climb too high, and if they start to hit this 40, 50, 60,000 number of civilian casualties, they run the risk of the civilian populations in the surrounding Middle Eastern states becoming so antagonistic towards Israel that they start to take steps back towards normalization in the region.

(01:00:47)
So for instance, I know that Bahrain, I think, already pulled out their ambassador to Israel. My guess is going to be it’s temporary. I know that on the public speaking side, you’ve got a lot of people condemning Israel for the attacks. And on the private side, you’ve got people telling Israel, “Please kill all of Hamas because this is untenable and nobody wants to work in this situation.” I don’t know if this ended up being true or not. I’m guessing it didn’t, but I saw on a couple of Twitter accounts, it was leaked that potentially, Saudi Arabia was considering installing a government in the West Bank that they would run.
Ben Shapiro
(01:01:18)
No, I mean, I think Israel would love nothing better than that, but that is [inaudible 01:01:21].
Destiny
(01:01:21)
For sure.
Ben Shapiro
(01:01:22)
One of the big problems in the Middle East is literally no one wants to preside over the Palestinians. No one. In the Arab states, Israel, no one.
Destiny
(01:01:29)
So I think the issue, and I’m largely actually, I’m very sympathetic towards the Palestinians because I think that since ’48 and onwards, I think that all of the Arab states super gassed them up on that. They wanted the Palestinians to fight because they wanted to fight with Israel. However, as time has gone on and they’ve realized that it’s kind of a lost cause, states have started to drop out. So you’re getting these bilateral peace treaties with Egypt and with Jordan, you’re getting multilateral agreements like the Abraham Accords, and now, the Palestinians are looking around. I’m like, “Okay, well, you guys told us to fight all this time, and now, the only people that we have supporting us are Iranian proxies.” So the Palestinians are in a very weird spot where they’ve lost all their support.

(01:02:06)
Yeah, I think that Israel, what I would say to be, quote, unquote, “critical” of Israel is Israel needs to take strong steps towards peace that probably involves them enduring some undue hardship. So not the October 7th attacks, because Jesus, that’s way too much, but other types of attacks that they might have to deal with that might cause some civilians to die that they don’t come out over the top with and retaliate with if there’s ever going to be peace in that region. However, another thing that I’ve always said is a huge problem between Israel and Palestine is I think that both sides think that if they continue to fight, it will be good for them. But the problem is one side is delusional. I think Israel wants to continue to fight because they get justifications for the annexation of the Golan Heights. They get justifications for expansions, especially in the Area C that, I think, they’re probably going to try to annex soon. They get justifications for the increased military posturing towards the Gaza Strip and the embargoes.

(01:02:59)
And Israel is right that if the conflict continues, really, the situation only improves for Israel over time. But the Palestinians also all believe that if they keep fighting, they thought this since 2000 under Arafat, that if they just keep fighting, they’ll get better gains too. But that’s not the case.
Lex Fridman
(01:03:12)
Is there a difference between Palestinian citizens and the leadership when you say that?
Destiny
(01:03:16)
I love all people. I love all people around the world, and I think that when we analyze issues, I think that we have to be very honest with what the people on the ground think. And the idea that Hamas is just this one-off thing in the Gaza Strip is not only incorrect with the situation on the ground, it’s also incredibly ahistorical. And the idea that the Palestinians in the West Bank, of which I believe the most recent polling shows, I want to say 75 to 80% support the October 7th attacks. Palestinians, in general, want to fight in violent conflict with Israel. That’s not just the position of the government. That’s not just people. There’s a reason why Abbas doesn’t want to do elections in the West Bank, and it’s because the Palestinian people really do want to fight with Israel.

(01:03:57)
But to combat that problem is like you have to get the UN on board, we’ve got to do an actual addressing of the Palestinian refugee problem, which is handled like a joke right now. Iran has to be brought to the table in terms of negotiations. There has to be huge efforts made to economically revitalize these Palestinian areas. Even though they’re one of the highest recipients of aid in the world. You have to do something about the embargo and the blockade and the Gaza Strip, which isn’t just maintained by Israel, it’s also maintained by Egypt. You should ask why. Yeah, there’s a lot of things that have to happen to fix that problem. But the reality is I don’t think Israel really wants to because they get to continue their expansion into the West Bank, and I don’t think anybody around the world really cares that much because in a month, we won’t be talking [inaudible 01:04:36].
Ben Shapiro
(01:04:36)
I will argue with that. The idea that Israel does not want to end the conflict is belied by the history of what just happened with the Gaza Strip. So when we talk about settlements for example, Israel did have settlements inside the Gaza Strip. There were 8,000 Jews who were living inside the Gaza Strip in Gush Katif. Up until 2005, they withdrew all of those people, I mean, took them literally out of their homes, and the result was not the burgeoning of a better attitude toward the state of Israel with regard to, for example, the Palestinian population in Gaza. In fact, it was more radical in Gaza than it was in the West Bank. The result was obviously the election of Hamas, the October 7th attacks, in which unfortunately, many civilians took part in the October 7th attacks. There’s video of people rushing, who are civilians and dressed in civilian clothing, into Israeli villages.
Destiny
(01:05:22)
Oh, careful. Not always the same thing.
Ben Shapiro
(01:05:23)
Well, no, no. That is 100% true, obviously. And when it comes to Area C and Israel’s supposed deep and abiding desire for territorial expansion in Area C. Area C, so for those who are not familiar with the Oslo Accords, and again, this is getting very abstruse, but the Oslo Accords are broken down into three areas of the West Bank. Area A is under full Palestinian control. That’d be like Jenin and Nablus, the major cities, for example. There’s Area B, which is mixed Israeli-Palestinian control, where Israel provides some level of military security and control, and then there’s Area C. And Area C was like to be decided later. It was left up for possible concessions to the Palestinian authority if the Oslo accords have moved forward. Those are disputed territories. There is building taking place in Area C by both, actually no one talks about this, but by Palestinians as well as Israelis.

(01:06:10)
And the question as to whether if Israel stopped building, there’ve been many settlement freeze in the past, including some undertaken by Netanyahu, and it actually has not done one iota of good in moving the ball forward in terms of actual negotiations. Again, the biggest problem is that the leadership for Palestinians has spent every day since, really, ’67. It’s not even ’48. Because between ’48 and ’67, Jordan was in charge of the West Bank and Egypt was in charge of the Gaza Strip. And at no point did either of those powers say, “Hey, maybe we ought to hand this over to an independent Palestinian state.” Which was originally the division that was promoted by the UN Partition Plan in ’47. Because of that, the leadership post ’67, and really, starting in ’64, the Palestine Liberation Organization was founded in ’64, and it called for the liberation of the land in ’64. They had the West Bank and they had the Gaza Strip. So they’re talking about Tel Aviv.

(01:07:02)
When it was founded in ’64, the basic idea, as kind of indicated by that, was Israel will not exist, and that was a promise that’s been made by pretty much every Palestinian leader in Arabic to the people that they are talking to. Yasser Arafat famously would do this sort of thing. He’d speak in English and talk about how he wanted a two-state solution, and then he’d go back to his own people and say, “This is a Trojan Horse and we’re going to…” If Israel could, if you think that Israeli parents want to send their kids at the age of 18 to go and monitor Jenin and Nablus and be in Khan Yunis, you’re out of your mind. You’re out of your mind. Israelis do not want that. In fact, Israelis didn’t want that so much that they allowed rockets to fall in their cities for full on 18 years in order to avoid sending soldiers en masse back into the Gaza Strip.
Destiny
(01:07:45)
True. But I think Israel does want to continue to expand settlements into the West Bank, right? They want to continue to build, they want to have all of Jerusalem, East Jerusalem as well.
Ben Shapiro
(01:07:52)
Well, I mean, East Jerusalem has already been annexed. So East Jerusalem is, according to Israel, a part of Israel. That’s not a settlement.
Destiny
(01:07:56)
Sure.
Ben Shapiro
(01:07:56)
Okay. So there’s that. With regard to does Israel have an interest in expanding settlements in the West Bank? Why would they not until there’s a peace partner?
Destiny
(01:08:04)
Sure.
Ben Shapiro
(01:08:05)
[inaudible 01:08:05].
Destiny
(01:08:05)
That’s what I mean. But I’m saying as long as the conflict continues, because even when you talk about-
Ben Shapiro
(01:08:08)
But no, your suggestion is that they’re incentivizing the conflict to continue so they can grab more land.
Destiny
(01:08:12)
Well, no, let me be very clear. I don’t think there’s a… So some people say, for instance, they’ll take that one quote from Netanyahu and they’ll try to say that he was funding the people on the Gaza Strip by allowing Qatari money to come in, even though he was actually speaking in opposition to Abbas, allowing the Gaza Strip to fall for Netanyahu to clear it out for him and they give it back, et cetera, et cetera. I’m not claiming those theories. I’m just saying that I think that Israel will take a relatively neutral stance towards conflict and enduring, because as long as the conflict endures, and as long as the settlements can expand, I think that ultimately benefits Israel.
Ben Shapiro
(01:08:42)
I think there would be… Let’s put it this way, if suddenly there are arose among the Palestinians, a deep and abiding desire for peace approved by a vast majority of the population with serious security guarantees, I think you’d be very hard-pressed to find Israelis who would not be willing to at least consider that. [inaudible 01:08:57] not expanding bathrooms [inaudible 01:08:59].
Destiny
(01:09:00)
I would’ve agreed with you on October 6th. I think we’re probably a year or two away from that right now.
Ben Shapiro
(01:09:04)
No, no. But no, the point I’m making is that Israelis now realize that the entire peace process was a sham, meaning the people who were on the other side of the table were using it as a Trojan Horse in the first place. The death of Oslo is not the death of Israeli hopefulness. It’s the death of the illusion that on the other side of the table was anyone worth bargaining with. That’s what’s happening, and that’s why you have this sort of insane disconnect right now between the United States and the Israeli government. Again, it’s a unity government. No one in Israel is talking about making concessions to the Palestinian authority for a wide variety of reasons, including the fact that Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah continues to pay actual families of terrorists who killed Jews.
Destiny
(01:09:35)
Sure, the Martyr fund. Yeah.
Ben Shapiro
(01:09:35)
Right. And the fact-
Destiny
(01:09:37)
Which is from the moderate West Bank.
Ben Shapiro
(01:09:39)
Right, exactly. So again, the taste in Israel for this is even the people who are the Hilonim, those are the most secular people in Israel, which was, by the way, the place that was attacked on October 7th. I mean, what people should understand is that October 7th was not an attack against settlements in the West Bank. It was an attack on peace villages that were essentially disarmed, and many of these people who were killed were peace activists who were literally trying to work with people in Gaza to get them… I mean, it’s mind-boggling. That’s why you’ve had this ground shift in Israel. The next 20 years in Israel is going to be about security and economic development. Period, end of story. Everything else goes second, third place.
Destiny
(01:10:12)
And I will say, I agree essentially with everything you’re saying. Not to loop back on another topic, but this is one of the reasons then why I was so critical. I don’t want to say critical, but kind of nonchalant about the Abraham Accord because they didn’t address anything with the Palestinians whatsoever. They brought countries that weren’t super relevant to the conflict. They didn’t bring in Qatar, which is where a lot of the money and support for the Gaza Strip comes from. It didn’t involve Iran at all. They involved bilateral [inaudible 01:10:33].
Ben Shapiro
(01:10:32)
No, but it’s totally changed the mentality, and this is why what I’m seeing right now, this is why… Listen, I think that Biden has done better than I certainly expected him to do in terms of support for Israel. Obama was way less supportive of Israel than Biden by every metric. With that said, the rhetoric that he’s been using recently and the blanket have been using recently about Israel needs to make painful concessions for peace, Israel… Re-centering, this issue at the center of relations in the Middle East is doomed to failure.

(01:10:55)
The magic, magic is a strong word… The benefit of the Abraham Accords was proof of what you’re saying, which is true, which is that all of these surrounding countries, in reality, have abandoned the idea that there’s a centrality to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. That is not the central conflict in the Middle East. And by the way, one of the reasons it’s not the central conflict in the Middle East is because actually, ironically, because of the rise of Iran. It’s SUNY states that are largely signing up with Israel because they’re realizing they need some sort of counterweight to a burgeoning nuclear power in Iran.

Russia-Ukraine

Lex Fridman
(01:11:25)
Can we talk about Ukraine?
Destiny
(01:11:26)
Sure.
Lex Fridman
(01:11:27)
Do you have a disagreement with what Destiny said?
Ben Shapiro
(01:11:31)
My main problem with Biden’s policy with regard to Ukraine is that he outsourced the end goal of the war to Zelenskyy early on. Now, that might make sense if that goal were something that he was willing to fund to the point of achievement or if Zelenskyy could have achieved it on his own. But right now, and this has been true since pretty early on in the war, it’s a point Henry Kissinger made, that pretty early on in the war, it was very clear that for example, Crimea was going nowhere. The Russians had control of Crimea, barring the United States giving permission to fly F-16s over Crimea, nothing was going to change over there. The same thing was true in most of the Donbas, in Luhansk and Donetsk. That was not going to change. Zelenskyy’s stated goal, and you understand it, he’s the leader of Ukraine, is that there was a predation on his territory in 2014 and that the Russian sent their little green men across the border, and then they took all of these areas. And so he, as the leader of Ukraine, is saying, “Okay, I want all of that back.”

(01:12:25)
Now, the reality is that the US’ interests had largely been achieved in the first few months of the war, meaning the revocation of the ability of Russia to take Ukraine and just ingest it. And two, the devastation of Russia’s military capability. I mean, Russia has just been wrecked. I mean, the military is in serious straits because of the war in Ukraine. From an American perspective, I’m very much pro all of that. I think that we have an interest in Ukraine maintaining a buffer status against a territorially aggressive Russia. I think that the United States does have an interest in degrading the Russian military to the extent that it can’t threaten the Baltic states or threaten Kazakhstan or other countries in the region. The problem I have with Biden’s strategy is as always, I think that it’s a muddle, and I think muddles tend to end with misperceptions.

(01:13:10)
War tends to break out and maintain because of misperception, misperception of the other side’s strength, the other side’s intentions, and all of the rest. People misperceive what’s going to happen. They say, “I’ll cross that line and nothing will happen.” This is what Putin thought. He thought, “I’ll cross that line. They’ll greet me as a liberator. And because the United States just surrendered in Afghanistan, essentially, they won’t do anything, and the West is fragmenting because NATO’s fragmenting and all the rest of this.” And obviously, he was wrong on all of those scores.

(01:13:32)
The problem for Biden is that as with virtually every war, no end line was set. And so it became out recently that it was widely reported that actually there was a peace deal that was on the table in the first few months that Putin was on board with that basically would’ve seeded Luhansk and Donetsk and Crimea to Russia in return for solidification of those lines. American and Western security guarantees to Ukraine, right? Ukraine wouldn’t formally join NATO, but there would be security guarantees to Ukraine. We’re ending up there anyway. It’s just taking a lot more money and a lot more time to get there.
Lex Fridman
(01:14:04)
And do you think Trump would’ve helped push that peace?
Ben Shapiro
(01:14:07)
Yes, and I think that Biden actually did Zelenskyy a bit of a disservice because Zelenskyy knows where this war is going to end, and it’s not going to end with Luhansk and Donetsk and Crimea in Ukrainian hands. It’s just not going to, and he knows that. What actually, in my opinion, Zelenskyy needed was for Joe Biden to be the person who foisted that deal upon him so that he could then go back to his own people and say, “Listen, guys. I wanted all those things, but the Americans weren’t willing to allow me to have all those things.” And so we did an amazing job, we did a heroic job in defending our own land. We devastated the Russian military even though no one expected us to, but we can’t get back those things because it’s unrealistic to get back to those things because America basically, they’re a big funder and they’re the ones who want the deal.

(01:14:46)
Instead, what Biden said, and this was reported in the Washington Post last year, the Biden administration said, “We’re going to fight for as long as it takes with as much as it takes.” And when they were asked until when, they said, “Whatever Zelenskyy says.” And that’s not a policy, that’s just a recipe for a frozen conflict with endless funding. Now, it may be that Putin has walked away from the table and that deal is no longer available. If that deal is available right now, I certainly hope that’s being pursued behind closed doors. My main critique again of Biden is that when you outsource the end goal to another country without stating what America’s interest is, that’s a problem. I also think that Biden did really quite a poor job of sort of explaining what America’s realistic interests are. I don’t like it when American leaders… It’s weird for me to say this, but I’m not a huge fan of the we’re in it to protect democracy kind of rhetoric because frankly, we are allied with many, many countries that are not democracies, and that’s not actually how foreign policy works.

(01:15:41)
We should, as an overall 30,000-foot goal, advance democracy and rights where we can, but the reason that we were fighting in favor of Ukraine, and when I say fighting, I mean giving them money and giving them weaponry, the reason that we were doing that in favor of Ukraine is not because of Ukraine’s long history of clean voting and non-corruption. The reason that we were doing that is to counter Russian interest in the region. I mean, it was a pure, real politic play, and that real politic play is hard to deny no matter what side of the aisle you’re on. I think that what many Americans are going to, are reverting to is we have no interest there. Why are we spending the money there and not spending the money here? And that kind of stuff. And that argument can always be applied unless you actually articulate the reason why it is good for Americans beyond simply the ideological for the United States to be involved in a thing.

(01:16:26)
So for example, I think right now, when Biden is taught, I think that what Biden just did, the United States as we speak, is striking the Houthis. I think that that’s a really, really good thing. I think that’s a necessary thing, and I think American people should understand why that is happening. It’s not because of, quote, unquote, “ideology”. It is, I mean, on a very root level, but really, it’s because you’re screwing up the straits. I mean, you can’t do that. You can’t screw up free trade, and Americans have an interest in not seeing all of our prices at the grocery store double and triple because a bunch of ragtag pirates akin to the Barbary pirates from 1800 are bothering everyone. Right?
Lex Fridman
(01:17:00)
So Ben said a lot there. Do you disagree with any aspect on the Ukraine side [inaudible 01:17:04]?
Destiny
(01:17:04)
A little bit, yeah. I think on the macro, I agree. Maybe we get into weasel a little bit on some things. On the final thing that he said, though, I wish that Americans could have honest conversations about foreign policy. I think that it would just be better for everybody. I don’t know if it’s Red Scare after the Cold War where it was literally the behemoths, we’re fighting against communism and we felt like after ’91, every single foreign policy decision needs to be able to be explained in seven words, like he’s the bad guy, and that’s it. I wish we had more honest conversations about what our foreign policy interest is in a particular region, because I don’t think most Americans honestly could even articulate why Israel would be an important ally or why it’s important to defend Ukraine against Russia or why should we care about Taiwan at all. I don’t know if most Americans could articulate anything there, even though they might have very strong opinions about why we ought to be involved in certain conflicts. So I do agree with that. I wish we had more honest conversations about foreign policy. In terms of how Biden has handled Ukraine. The things that I liked the most were one, that he was very clear in the beginning about what we wouldn’t do. So Biden saying that, “We’re not going to do not a red line, no-fly zones over Ukraine. We’re not going to be deploying troops on the ground in Ukraine. We’re not going to be doing anything that would have US soldiers and Russian soldiers crossing swords with each other. That’s not going to happen.” I liked that he made that very clear at the beginning, and I liked that he coalition-built between NATO and the EU to get people to send funds, training, soldiers, airplanes and everything to Ukraine. I thought those two things were really good. In terms of basically writing Zelenskyy a blank check, I would like to hope that Biden and the entire United States learned a lesson from Iraq and Afghanistan, that open-ended missions with unlimited budgets and no clear goal are like the worst foreign policy decisions you can ever do. They’ve defined US foreign policy for the past two or three decades, which is unfortunate, but seems to be the case.

(01:18:57)
My feeling would be, and this is just a feeling, I don’t know if internal cables have leaked that say otherwise, is the Biden administration has probably always had a quiet position of at some point, there’s going to be an off-ramp here, and I think even a month or two ago, I think those talks were being leaked, that discussion had begun with Zelenskyy looking for an off-ramp. But publicly, of course, the United States is never going to come out and say, “We are going to support you guys to fight as much as you want for three months. And then after that, it’s no more.” Obviously, that can’t be the statement. It’s always going to be that, “We’re going to support you in your fight against Russia [inaudible 01:19:28].”
Ben Shapiro
(01:19:28)
Yeah, we tried that under Obama with Afghanistan. It was terrible.
Destiny
(01:19:30)
Sure. You can’t-
Ben Shapiro
(01:19:31)
We’ll escalate the troops levels to X, but only for six months and then we’ll [inaudible 01:19:34].
Destiny
(01:19:34)
You just can’t do that. It’s always going to come off as, “We’re going to support you forever and as long as it takes and as long as you need, whatever we have to do to defend freedom and democracy in your country.” And any other statement would be absurd. So I can understand why it feels like on a public level, a blank check and an indefinite time period was granted to Zelenskyy, but I don’t think that’s going to be the case. I think, again, I hope we’ve learned our lessons in the Middle East about the forever wars, that this isn’t going to be a forever funding to Ukraine to fight for as long as they want. I do disagree. I feel like we’re playing a little bit retrospectively, saying that, “Well, it’s obvious that they’re not going to capture the Donbas. It’s obvious that they’re not going to capture Crimea.” I agree, for Crimea, that was incredibly obvious, but it was also really obvious that in two weeks, Russia would own Kyiv and Ukraine was going to be Belarus 2.0.

(01:20:14)
I think that even for a lot of military people and analysts around the world, that that was an expectation or at least a significant probability. Nobody knew, the phrase that’s thrown right now is paper tiger, that Russia’s military was as ill-equipped as they were. So I can understand why, especially if you’re Ukraine and if you’ve repelled an invasion from one of the world’s largest armies, why you might feel like, “Well, fuck it, let’s fight for a few months. Let’s fight for a year. Let’s see what happens.” And I can understand the United States supporting them, but I agree that there has to be some reasonable off-ramp, but we’re not going to fight forever. I think the US State Department has already begun those conversations with Zelenskyy to look at what that off-ramp looks like. But yeah, I’m not too sure other than explicitly stating publicly you can only fight until this date. I don’t really know what else I would… I don’t think the Biden administration should have done that. I don’t know what else-
Ben Shapiro
(01:21:02)
Do you think Biden should cut this deal on the funding? Meaning there’s this $105 billion deal that’s been held up by debate between Republicans and Democrats over border. So basically, it contains $60 billion for Ukraine, $14 billion for Israel, another several billion dollars for Taiwanese defense against China, and then includes some border funding and some border provisions. Republicans want the border funding and the border provisions because we can get into the illegal immigration issue, but that’s a pretty serious issue, and Biden Democrats have been unwilling to hold that up, and that seems to me like just from, put aside Republicans, Democrats, it seems like political malpractice, meaning there’s a widespread perception in the United States that the border’s a disaster area. Joe Biden wants these things. Many republicans don’t want these things. If he caves on the border stuff, he gets all the things that he wants, and he’s going to be able to go back to the moderates in the country and say, “I did something about the border.” It seems like such an obvious win.
Destiny
(01:21:48)
If he caves on the border stuff, you mean on the Ukraine stuff?
Ben Shapiro
(01:21:50)
Yes, because then he gets the whole package, meaning he can go back to his own base and he can say, “Listen, guys, I want it to be easy on the border. The Republicans forced me to it, but we needed the Ukraine aid. We needed the Taiwan [inaudible 01:21:59].”
Destiny
(01:22:00)
Honestly, you’re going to be more educated than me on this. I don’t like, or maybe I just don’t know enough. I don’t like the principle that when we negotiate things in the United States, there’s like 50 million hostages at all points in time for every single thing. Like, “Oh, boy, here comes the debt ceiling. What do the Republicans want? What do the Democrats want? Oh, boy, we can’t fund our government.” But I mean, obviously, the argument is going to be that if the Ukraine funding doesn’t come in this bill, and if Biden and his administration feel like it’s really important that not unilaterally, but as a single issue, it’s not going to pass. So I would say that at this point, and I don’t know what the conversations look like between the Biden administration and Zelenskyy, I would say at this point, that it’s probably fair to start making contingencies on the money that we give to Ukraine that, “Listen, this conflict has waged on now. Now, we need to start looking for potential peace. We can’t just write you an unlimited check.” So I mean, if those strings are attached, I’d be okay with it. But the broader question of is it okay to make this particular piece of legislation with all this funding contingent on the Ukrainian funding? I mean, that just seems to be the way the government works now, unfortunately.

January 6

Lex Fridman
(01:23:02)
Quick pause, bathroom break. One of the big issues in this presidential election is going to be January 6th. It’s in the news now, and I think it’s going to become bigger and bigger and bigger. So question for Destiny first. The Donald Trump incite and insurrection on January 6th, 2021.
Destiny
(01:23:22)
Absolutely. This is probably ignoring every other issue we’ve talked about, of which I think there are plenty that I would say disqualified Trump from holding office. I think that the conduct and the behavior leading up to and including January 6th, I think is wildly indefensible. I am excited to see Ben try to… Yeah, the three to four stages are the taking what I think any reasonable [inaudible 01:23:48] knowingly false information about elections being rigged or ballot box is being stuffed, or Ruby Freeman running the ballots three times in Georgia. Taking that knowingly false information and trying to call state secretaries and stuff to have them flip their electoral vote, that was horrible. The plot that Eastman hatched in order to have these false slates of electors where all seven states had citizens go in and falsely say that they were the duly elected electors that could submit votes to Congress, that was insane. That happened. Asking or begging Pence to accept these false states of electors initially, and then just say you should just throw it out completely and throw it to the house delegation, which was majority Republican, that was absolutely unbelievable.

(01:24:36)
And then on the day of January 6th, trying to capitalize on the violence by him, Giuliani, and Eastman making phone calls to senators and congressmen saying, “Well, don’t you think maybe you guys should delay the vote a little bit? Don’t you think they’re just really mad about the election?” I think he said to McCarthy, “They’re more upset than you.” And his utter dereliction of duty and not doing anything to stop the rioting that happened on January 6th because he was too busy taking advantage of it, I think all of these things are horrible. I look forward to seeing the Jack Smith indictments play out in court, maybe even the Georgia RICO case. But yeah, I think all of these things are unfathomable, and I think when you look at the plot from start to finish, clearly, the goal the entire time was to circumvent the peaceful transfer of power. That was the goal from start to finish, whether it was through false claims, whether it was through illegal schemes, or whether it was through violence at the Capitol to delay the certification of the vote.
Lex Fridman
(01:25:28)
Ben.
Ben Shapiro
(01:25:29)
So I’m glad you’re excited. It’s always fun. So there are two elements to incitement of insurrection. One is incitement, the other is insurrection. So incitement has a legal standard, so does insurrection. Neither of those standards are met. So if you’re asking me, morally speaking, did Donald Trump do the right thing between November 4th and January 6th? I said, I will continue to say no, he did not. I think he was saying things that are false with just factually false about his theories with regard to the election, about the election being stolen, about fraud. This is all adjudicated in court. He did not even bring many of the claims that he has brought publicly and all the rest of that. If we’re talking about incitement of insurrection as a legal standard, he doesn’t meet any of those standards.

(01:26:05)
When it comes to incitement, it has to be incitement to immediate lawless action. That’s the standard for incitement. And I’m very meticulous in how I use this because I happen to speak publicly a lot, and that means there are lots of people who listen to me, which means some of those people are probably crazy and some of them may go and do a crazy thing. Did I incite them? The media tends to use the word incitement very loosely with regard to this sort of stuff, in the same way that Bernie Sanders, quote, unquote, “incited” the congressional baseball shooting. He did not. Bernie Sanders has a lot of things I disagree with. I think Bernie’s a schmuck, doesn’t matter. He did not incite that.

(01:26:34)
So saying bad things is not the same thing as inciting violence. Inciting violence, the legal standard in the United States is, I want you to go punch that guy in the face. That’s inciting. With regard to insurrection, typically, in insurrection, and there are some descriptions in case law, though none in statutory law as far as [inaudible 01:26:50]. The typical description in case law is the replacement of one legitimate government of the United States with another by violent means. The notion that Donald Trump coordinated any such insurrection is belied by the FBI itself. The FBI put out a report in, I believe it was…
Ben Shapiro
(01:27:00)
… is belied by the FBI itself. The FBI put out a report in, I believe it was August of 2021, suggesting that there was no well-coordinated insurrectionist attempt coordinated by the White House. In fact, what you had was Donald Trump thrashing around like that weird alien in the movie, Life. I don’t if you ever saw it with Jake Gyllenhaal, where he’s like kind of thrashing up against this glass box, just an alien just thrashing up against the glass box. That I think is more what you were seeing from November 4th to January 6th.

(01:27:25)
And then again, the claim that January 6th itself was an insurrection… I’m not aware that anyone was charged with actual insurrection. There were some people who were charged with seditious conspiracy. There are insurrection statutes that do exist. No one was charged under those particular statutes. There were some people who you could say informally had insurrectionist ideas. Those would be the people who wanted to hang Nancy Pelosi or kill Mike Pence, and those people are in jail right now. And the election went forward. The election was certified. Mike Pence presided over the certification. Mitch McConnell presided over the certification. Joe Biden has been the President for the last three years.

(01:28:01)
Donald Trump, by the way, was still President at that point. If he had actually wanted to do what other people who’ve actually launched coups have done, he would’ve theoretically called the National Guard not to put down the riot but to actually depose the sitting Government of the United States in the name of a specious legal theory. He did not do that, he did not attempt that. Nobody working for him did that. The most you can say, I think, about what everybody was doing… and I don’t want to say everybody. We can talk about Trump because this is really about Trump.

(01:28:28)
He used a phrase that Trump was disseminating knowingly false information. The word that’s carrying a lot of weight there is the word knowingly. Knowingly implies a knower. Do I think the information he was disseminating was false? Yes. Do I think that Donald Trump has unique capacity to convince himself of nearly anything that is to his own benefit? Absolutely. And I think that that’s actually what Donald Trump was doing there, and the evidence for that is Donald Trump being a human and all of us watching him for the last several years.

(01:28:54)
So the idea that he knew it to be false, I’m not even sure those standards apply in any… just assessing him as a human, which is really what we’re being asked to do because there’s an intent element to this crime. Do you think that today, Donald Trump knows that he lost the election?
Destiny
(01:29:09)
Absolutely.
Ben Shapiro
(01:29:10)
So I don’t, actually. I think that-
Destiny
(01:29:13)
So I’m glad that you have the attorney background. When we are assessing mens rea, when we’re looking at certain criminal statutes where intent is required, it’s a reasonable person standard, right?
Ben Shapiro
(01:29:14)
Well-
Destiny
(01:29:22)
Would a reasonable person have known that they were-
Ben Shapiro
(01:29:24)
No, it depends on the mens rea standard. So it’s not the same in every case. If you have to establish individual intent, then it’s not enough to say a reasonable person should have known. That would be enough for a negligent statute.
Destiny
(01:29:35)
Sure, but for-
Ben Shapiro
(01:29:35)
Usually when you’re talking about reasonable person statutes, just legally speaking, a reasonable person statute is should a reasonable person have known. That’s when you get to manslaughter. You can’t do a reasonable person standard on first degree murder.
Destiny
(01:29:45)
So for-
Ben Shapiro
(01:29:46)
You have to establish actual motive and first degree murder.
Destiny
(01:29:47)
But for first degree murder, you don’t need the statement of, “I plan to kill this person,” or “I intend to kill this person.”
Ben Shapiro
(01:29:55)
No. No, you need a-
Destiny
(01:29:55)
We can prove that state of mind from a ton of other circumstantial evidence.
Ben Shapiro
(01:29:57)
Correct. Yes, sure. You can prove it.
Destiny
(01:29:58)
So I feel like my feeling for Donald Trump was there were all these people around him that he trusted to investigate election fraud. He trusted Barr and the DOJ. He asked Pence, his Vice President, to look into it. He asked his chief of staff, he asked his legal counsel. He asked so many people that, ostensibly, he trusts them if he’s asked them to look into it, and when all of them looked into it and reported back to him, “No, we found nothing.” Unless we’re going to literally make the concession that Trump might actually be a delusional psycho man, at that point, should he not have realized, well, okay, maybe this thing-
Ben Shapiro
(01:30:26)
I think he should have realized the day of the election that he lost the election, but that’s not what-
Destiny
(01:30:29)
Sure. But I’m saying that, at that point, should he not have known that for him to go and propagate those claims that he’d asked all of the people he trusted to research, and then for him to take those claims to Michigan and to Georgia and then publicly and to try to convince people to throw out the election. You don’t think that-
Ben Shapiro
(01:30:45)
But you’re doing the same thing. You’re reverting to should a reasonable person have known. Yes, a reasonable person should have known. Did Donald Trump know? That’s a different question, and so conflating those two questions is going to get you into some messy territory. By the way, this is why Jack Smith charged the way Jack Smith charged.
Destiny
(01:30:58)
Yeah, which was-
Ben Shapiro
(01:30:59)
But Jack Smith did not charge conspiracy. Jack Smith did not charge insurrection. He did not charge seditious conspiracy, right?
Destiny
(01:31:05)
But I think for Jack Smith-
Ben Shapiro
(01:31:07)
Jack Smith is a good lawyer. What he’s doing is he’s actually broadly, I would say pretty obviously, expanding statutory coverage in weird areas in order to cover a thing that doesn’t quite fit into any of these legal categories. But the point that I’m making is that Jack Smith is on my side of this. He doesn’t think that he can actually establish the intent necessary to convict under a seditious conspiracy or an insurrection charge.
Destiny
(01:31:29)
I agree with that, but I think a lot of the underlying facts though, because he does bring up those calls to Raffensperger in Georgia, he does bring up and the indictments that they were knowingly false information. So it seems like that’s going to be part of the case. Maybe not to convict on any of the four particular charges that he mentioned, but it seems like that’s probably going to be part of what he’s going to have to establish in court to convict Trump.
Ben Shapiro
(01:31:47)
So I want to look at the actual text of the charges. So I’m sorry that I don’t have them memorized. I believe one’s a fraud charge that generally does not apply to cases like this. Generally, the fraud charge is like you’re trying to steal money from the Government. One is-
Destiny
(01:31:59)
Sure. Fraud has been used pretty broadly in the past though. Because Smith has done oral arguments in response to a lot of the claims by Trump’s lawyers. This was one of them. The infinite civil and criminal immunity was another one of them where he cites past cases where these types of things, because I think it was to defraud of civil rights, I think was the fourth charge.
Ben Shapiro
(01:32:13)
Right. So the defraud of civil rights is usually somebody standing in the actual voting house door and preventing you from voting, not you have a specious legal theory that you espouse in court about whether those votes should be thrown out.
Destiny
(01:32:24)
Sure, although I don’t like… when we say specious legal theory and novel application, which I do agree, some of these in some ways is novel. I don’t think we’ve ever also had a President try to do this before. It is a novel situation-
Ben Shapiro
(01:32:36)
Well-
Destiny
(01:32:36)
… where somebody has resisted the peaceful transfer of power this clearly in so many different ways.
Ben Shapiro
(01:32:40)
Well, if you’re talking about the legal cases, I mean that’s not true. Gore sued in 2000. I mean, if we’re talking legal cases, right?
Destiny
(01:32:47)
If this was comparable to Gore, then-
Ben Shapiro
(01:32:48)
I’m not saying it’s comparable to Gore. I’m saying that if the idea is that espousing a legal theory in court amounts to de facto some form of election-
Destiny
(01:32:56)
Well, I’m just saying that Gore-
Ben Shapiro
(01:32:57)
… denial or interference in some way, that’s not true. As a general principle, it’s over inclusive.
Destiny
(01:33:04)
Sure. Gore wasn’t trying to de-certify the vote though for states. Right? They challenged their thing to the Supreme Court, they lost their case in the Supreme Court and then power transfer happened afterwards.
Ben Shapiro
(01:33:12)
Right, and Donald Trump had a bunch of legal challenges, and then he had a rally, and then there was a riot, and then he left power.
Destiny
(01:33:16)
Yeah, but the Eastman theory of what Pence could do in Congress is a far cry away from-
Ben Shapiro
(01:33:22)
A truly shitty theory. I mean, make no mistake. It’s a really shitty theory.
Destiny
(01:33:24)
But not just shitty. I think that if any Democrat had done this, I feel like we’d be looking at it in a far different lens. As in we would be using terms like attempted coup, a subversion of peaceful transfer of power. If a Democrat Vice President had tried to essentially say that in Congress, they could throw away the vote.
Ben Shapiro
(01:33:44)
So I think what I want to get to here actually, so we can be more specific, is why are these terms important? We agree on, largely speaking, what happened. I think, the characterization of the term, we keep kind of bouncing around between two different categories, and I want to make sure we-
Destiny
(01:33:44)
We can dump the legal stuff actually-
Ben Shapiro
(01:34:02)
Okay. So we’re just talking… Fine, fine, fine.
Destiny
(01:34:03)
We’re not looking at incite… because like you said, Jack Smith… nobody’s charging with incitement, and I don’t believe insurrection is part of that. So we’re dumping legal. Just in terms of like a President that is trying to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. So we do call that a bloodless coup or a coup or whatever contemporaneous term you want to use.
Ben Shapiro
(01:34:17)
So prevent the peaceful transfer of power with all means or using means that are inappropriate, not quite the same thing. Meaning means that-
Destiny
(01:34:25)
Using means that are inappropriate or illegal.
Ben Shapiro
(01:34:26)
Okay. So illegal? I don’t think so. I don’t think that these charges actually meet the criteria for the various charges, and we can discuss each case if you want. As far as inappropriate, sure, I think tons of inappropriate stuff. I mean, inappropriate seems not-
Destiny
(01:34:42)
The reason why I don’t like the word inappropriate though is because then conservatives are very quick to say, “Well, sure he was inappropriate, but everybody who’s inappropriate.”
Ben Shapiro
(01:34:47)
I mean, I’ll concede that he’s more inappropriate than others. I just don’t see that-
Destiny
(01:34:50)
Okay, the most inappropriate?
Ben Shapiro
(01:34:51)
Sure. I mean-
Destiny
(01:34:52)
Okay. That’s important to me though. Does it not bother you that Donald Trump sought, through legal and extralegal and Trump magical ways of trying to entrench his power as President passed when he should have been able to? Is that not something that was incredibly troublesome?
Ben Shapiro
(01:35:09)
I mean, the question to me is… the bigger question that I think the Democrats are trying to promote in this election cycle, which is this means he’s a threat to democracy sufficient that if he were to win the election, there would not be another. And my answer that is-
Destiny
(01:35:24)
But he tried to do that last time. Could he not try it next time?
Ben Shapiro
(01:35:26)
I mean, he could try to do whatever he wants, presumably, and he would fail the same way that he did last time.
Destiny
(01:35:30)
Why do we think that?
Ben Shapiro
(01:35:31)
Because he failed.
Destiny
(01:35:33)
So [inaudible 01:35:33]-
Ben Shapiro
(01:35:33)
Because there was a riot and in three hours… Yes.
Destiny
(01:35:38)
Lord, save me. Let’s say hypothetically Giuliani was the next head of the Department of Justice, Giuliani was the next Attorney General.
Ben Shapiro
(01:35:46)
How would he be confirmed?
Destiny
(01:35:49)
Well, I’m not entirely sure because so much of the Republican party, despite feeling like they don’t support Trump when it comes time to actually back him in Congress-
Ben Shapiro
(01:35:56)
Also, I would have to check whether he would be barred by a criminal conviction from holding… I don’t know the answer to that.
Destiny
(01:36:02)
Sure. Well, yeah, especially with the 14th Amendment. We’re figuring out a lot of this right now. Yeah, but I mean, say if not Giuliani, say if there are any other number of insane people that Trump could theoretically put on his side of the Government that wouldn’t tell him no next time, because there were a lot of people that rebuked him. There were Republicans in a lot of the states. Right? Raffensperger is one of them. There were Republicans in his own administration. You’ve got Rosen. You’ve got Barr. There was his own Vice President. But theoretically next time, and I feel like last time going in, I’m going to do a little bit of mind reading and macro… Maybe you’ll agree, maybe you’ll disagree.

(01:36:35)
I think that Trump kind of thought… One, I don’t think Trump knows much at all about how the Government works. I think we probably agree with that. I think Trump probably thought that if he had people that were at least in his party and kind of camp, that they’ll basically do whatever needs to be done to give him what he wants, and with no respect for process. But now that he sees that, well, it’s not enough to just have allies; I need people that are fiercely alleged to me, would we not be worried that a guy that tried to essentially steal the election for real wouldn’t try to pick people that would be more amenable to his plans in the next administration?
Ben Shapiro
(01:37:04)
I believe in the checks and balances of American Government. I believe they worked on January 6th. So if you’re asking me, do I think that Trump has bad intent or could have bad intent with that sort of stuff, sure. Do I believe that the guardrails held and will continue to hold? Also sure.
Destiny
(01:37:18)
So if somebody was running and they blatantly said, “I…” I don’t want to use the fascist word, but if they said, “I want to be an authoritarian, I’m going to abolish all elections,” you would say, ” Sure, he’s saying that, but I don’t think he can actually do it. So it’s okay if he runs for President.” You don’t care at all as long as you feel like the guardrails [inaudible 01:37:36]?
Ben Shapiro
(01:37:36)
I mean, I might prefer other candidates, but I think that also one of the things that you do is that politicians… Again, this would be an exceptional circumstance, but politicians constantly make promises about the things that they’re going to do and then don’t fulfill, and we tend to take those out in the wash, meaning that, if I promise that day one, as Donald Trump has pledged to do that, he’s going to deport literally every illegal immigrant into the country, do I think he’s actually going to do that? I mean, I really highly doubt it. He didn’t do it last time he was in office. There are many examples of this.
Destiny
(01:38:03)
I agree.
Ben Shapiro
(01:38:04)
Here’s my question. Do you think the guardrails are going to fail to hold?
Destiny
(01:38:07)
I’m not sure.
Ben Shapiro
(01:38:08)
Really?
Destiny
(01:38:09)
Yeah, because I think the issue is one, when it’s election time, Republicans are spineless in office, and I don’t know how many congressmen would support what he wants just because they want to win reelection or because they think it’s inevitable anyway.
Ben Shapiro
(01:38:20)
I mean, I think that one of the things that happened in 2022 is Democrats ran directly on this platform, and a bunch of Republicans who were running on this platform. Literally every Secretary of State who ran on the Donald Trump, we should deny elections platform, lost in every state.
Destiny
(01:38:33)
Sure, but are there Republicans that have been-
Ben Shapiro
(01:38:34)
A great way to lose local office is this.
Destiny
(01:38:36)
Sure, but I mean, look at what happened with like Kinzinger and Cheney, right, who were very staunchly anti-Trump after J6 for that select committee, right? Kinzinger even run again, and Cheney lost her election by I think the widest margin that anybody has ever lost an election ever, in the history of all of US politics.
Ben Shapiro
(01:38:54)
Right, yeah. People who were not yet born voted against her, yes.
Destiny
(01:38:54)
Yeah. I guess it’s a surprising position to me for me, if we’re looking at principled stances of Government, the idea that a man who has… and I think we both agree on this, that Donald Trump’s only allegiance is to Donald Trump, right? We agree on that. The only thing he cares about is Donald Trump.

Abuse of power

Ben Shapiro
(01:39:08)
I don’t think it’s the only thing he care about it. I think it’s certainly the largest thing he cares about.
Destiny
(01:39:10)
It’s the largest thing he cares about, right?
Ben Shapiro
(01:39:10)
Sure.
Destiny
(01:39:11)
So you’ve got a man who only cares about himself.
Ben Shapiro
(01:39:14)
Welcome to politics. I mean, it may more-
Destiny
(01:39:16)
But that’s not even-
Ben Shapiro
(01:39:16)
It may be more with Trump, but it’s certainly not unique to Trump.
Destiny
(01:39:19)
I think that the issue with Trump too though is I think he’s even a threat to the Republican party in which I think… I think you would mostly agree with me, maybe not overall, but on every individual point. Trump picks bad candidates. He has no concern for the future of the Republican Party. For instance, I think there is a chance… I don’t think it’ll happen because of the polling looks now, but if Trump didn’t get the nomination, I think Trump would say, screw it and run as an independent because he thinks he can win or whatever.
Ben Shapiro
(01:39:41)
I doubt that he would do that, but theoretically-
Destiny
(01:39:44)
It’s possible.
Ben Shapiro
(01:39:45)
Yeah. I mean, again-
Destiny
(01:39:45)
He was really content to throw Georgia… the two runoff elections under the bus because Raffensperger didn’t support him for the election stuff.
Ben Shapiro
(01:39:52)
What is all of this in serVice of? What’s the generalized argument that you’re making. I’ll go back to my question.
Destiny
(01:39:58)
[inaudible 01:39:58]-
Ben Shapiro
(01:39:58)
Do you think if Trump wins, there will be no more elections?
Destiny
(01:40:02)
I don’t-
Ben Shapiro
(01:40:03)
Put a percentage on it. What percentage do you think that that’s a reality, that if Donald Trump becomes President-
Destiny
(01:40:06)
Comes general Trump wins, I think there is a 100% chance that he will try to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. In terms of would he succeed-
Ben Shapiro
(01:40:12)
I can guarantee you he will not do that.
Destiny
(01:40:14)
Why is that?
Ben Shapiro
(01:40:14)
Because he’s in the second term and he’s no longer eligible, and he will believe he won and he will leave.
Destiny
(01:40:17)
But hasn’t Donald Trump himself joked about running for a third term?
Ben Shapiro
(01:40:20)
That’s not-
Destiny
(01:40:21)
I think that having a third term-
Ben Shapiro
(01:40:22)
What has Donald Trump not joked about? I mean, for god’s sake.
Destiny
(01:40:25)
Okay, hold on. Here’s another-
Ben Shapiro
(01:40:28)
If you want to prevent him from creating a revolution, you probably should actually just appoint the President and he can’t run again, so…
Destiny
(01:40:32)
Here’s another broad argument that I don’t like in favor of Trump, and this was brought up earlier in terms of we talk about not grading Presidents on a curve, but then earlier we said we take Biden’s rhetoric seriously-
Ben Shapiro
(01:40:40)
No, I totally grade Trump… No, I 100% grade Presidents on a curve. Are you kidding?
Destiny
(01:40:43)
Oh, okay. Well, then I feel like-
Ben Shapiro
(01:40:44)
I grade pretty much everybody on a curve.
Destiny
(01:40:44)
I feel like-
Ben Shapiro
(01:40:45)
I don’t treat my seven-year-old the same way that I treat my nine-year-old. And I don’t treat Trump the same way I treat Biden.
Destiny
(01:40:49)
Sure, but I don’t like that it feels like we’re treating Donald Trump like a seven-year-old or a nine-year-old. I think we should treat him like the President of the United States. I don’t think having a President that has taken concrete steps to prevent the transfer of power, which he did with the electorate sham, which he did with Pence, and which he did with trying to capitalize on the J6 violence. A President that’s taken concrete steps towards coup-ing the Government essentially. I don’t know why that guy, we’d say, “Well, it’s Trump, he does Trump things. The guardrails held. They’ll probably hold next time. Let’s throw him in.”
Ben Shapiro
(01:41:11)
I mean, when we say we shouldn’t, do you mean that he should be actually barred from office?
Destiny
(01:41:15)
I’m just talking about support form. I don’t even think Republicans should support Trump. You lose your incumbent advantage. The guy’s obviously self-destructive. He’s destructive to the political party itself.
Lex Fridman
(01:41:24)
Do you think he should be on the ballot? You think there’s a case to be made to remove him from the ballot?
Destiny
(01:41:30)
I think there’s a case to be made, but man, the phrasing… For as much as our Governmental founding fathers and everybody else wrote nice amendments and wrote nice in the Constitution, some of the phrasing is very, very, very… And the section three, the not requiring any type of actual conviction, I don’t have a strong feeling on it. I will say I’m very interested in reading the majority opinion from the Supreme Court. I seriously doubt the Supreme Court is going to uphold that States should be able to decide if they leave him off the ballot or not. I think for the political future of the United States, it’s probably not healthy that the leading opposition candidate is now going to be barred from the ballot. It’s probably not healthy for us, because then what-
Ben Shapiro
(01:42:08)
You want to talk about threats of democracy, that would be a pretty serious one, applied across the board by-
Destiny
(01:42:13)
It would be. However, that threat to democracy was earned by Donald Trump and the conservatives that supported him. I think conservatives made a dangerous gamble when they threw Trump into office, and now all of the fallout from that is something that we all as Americans have to deal with.
Ben Shapiro
(01:42:25)
I mean, I think that the unprecedented legal theory that a state can simply bar somebody from the ballot in an informal way, believing that he’s, quote, unquote, an insurrectionist is pretty wild. I mean that is-
Destiny
(01:42:36)
We can say it’s pretty wild, but there is an amendment in the Constitution, the 14th Amendment, that says that if they have engaged in this, they shall not be, or you shall… I don’t remember the phrasing because it doesn’t require conviction, but it’s a self-executing, arguably thing.
Ben Shapiro
(01:42:47)
If we’re getting into constitutional law, I mean there are a number of provisions that suggest that this is, number one, not self-executing. I mean, minority opinions in the Colorado Supreme Court case are pretty thorough. The number one contention, which is that this is not self-executing because other elements are not self-executing, that ignores subsequent actual law that happened. I mean, the Congress passed a law, for example, in 1872 defining who was an insurrectionist, who is not an insurrectionist for purposes of elections. In 1994, Congress passed a law that specifically defined insurrection as a criminal activity so that somebody could theoretically be convicted of insurrection and therefore ineligible to run for office.

(01:43:20)
It is unlike, say, the analogs that are used by the majority opinion, like age. Obviously this is not the same thing. We can all tell what somebody’s age is by looking at their birth certificate. I can’t tell whether somebody’s an insurrectionist without any reference to a legal statute or definition of the term.
Destiny
(01:43:34)
I would also be careful with that because remember, one of Trump’s first big political actions was challenging Obama’s birth certificate.
Ben Shapiro
(01:43:40)
And I thought that was dumb at the time, but in any case…
Lex Fridman
(01:43:43)
I like that you both said, 100% chance that Trump will try to go for third term and 0% chance, which statistically-
Ben Shapiro
(01:43:50)
Third term? He’s done, man. Are you kidding?
Destiny
(01:43:51)
He would want to.
Lex Fridman
(01:43:51)
But try.
Ben Shapiro
(01:43:52)
Trump’s going to walk around, hands up high. He’s going to be like, “I’m a two-term President. I’m the only President since Grover Cleveland…” He wouldn’t know, but since Grover Cleveland who served two non-consecutive terms. I kicked Joe Biden out of office and I kicked Hillary Clinton out of office. Dude would be… he’d be living large. Are you kidding? He doesn’t want the presidency anymore after that.
Destiny
(01:44:06)
I think it’s scary that Donald Trump… It feels like for all of the accusations that are made sometimes against Democrats, like Biden is ordering Garland to investigate Donald Trump and blah, blah, blah, it seems like Donald Trump would actually do that with his DOJ. Would give them orders.
Ben Shapiro
(01:44:21)
He didn’t. He didn’t. He didn’t do it with his DOJ.
Destiny
(01:44:22)
Well, he kind of did though, right? So for instance, with Jeffrey Clark, Jeffrey Clark went to Rosen and Donahue and said, “Hey, listen, I need you guys to sign off on a letter that we’re going to use, essentially to bully states into overturning their elections by saying we found significant election fraud.” And part of that threat was Jeffrey Clark saying, “Listen, if you’re not going to do it, Rosen, Trump’s going to fire you and just make me the acting attorney general.” That was the threat that he carried, and I think Trump repeated that threat in a meeting later on that was only rebuked when I think like half the White House staff said, “If you do this, we’re resigning.”
Ben Shapiro
(01:44:53)
Okay, so that’s a slightly different topic because now you’re getting into all the election shenanigans and all of this, but-
Destiny
(01:44:57)
Sure. I’m just saying he threatened to fire his acting attorney general if he wouldn’t carry the same platform essentially. If Trump could order his DOJ to do something, would he? It’s not beyond the pale for him, right?
Ben Shapiro
(01:45:08)
It’s not beyond the pale for him to order them to do it, and then it’s not beyond the pale for them to reject him doing that, which is the story of his entire administration-
Destiny
(01:45:12)
I agree.
Ben Shapiro
(01:45:13)
… whereas Joe Biden orders his DOJ to do things and then they just do them.
Destiny
(01:45:15)
Well, we can get into the specifics there. It-
Ben Shapiro
(01:45:20)
This is one of the big problems that I have with… I mean, for example, all the talk about Trump tyrant, Trump executive power… I mean, Joe Biden has used executive power in ways that far outstrip anything that Donald Trump-
Destiny
(01:45:29)
Every President has been stretching and stretching and stretching executive power. That’s-
Ben Shapiro
(01:45:33)
Joe Biden has gone well beyond anything Trump even remotely attempted to maintain via just pure executive power. And actually Trump’s use of executive power is nowhere near even what Obama’s was. Obama used executive power [inaudible 01:45:44] ways.
Destiny
(01:45:43)
I mean, Trump’s inability to get border policy passed literally had him using executive power to march the military down to the border to do border policy. I mean-
Ben Shapiro
(01:45:51)
I mean, Joe Biden literally used the Occupational Safety and Hazard Administration to try to cram down vax mandates on 80 million Americans. That’s insane.
Destiny
(01:45:59)
Sure, but why can’t-
Ben Shapiro
(01:46:00)
He literally said, ” I cannot relieve student loan debt,” and then tried to relieve hundreds of billions of dollars in student loan debt.
Destiny
(01:46:05)
Yeah, but what happened to that?
Ben Shapiro
(01:46:07)
It got struck down by the Supreme Court, and then they still did it. They still did it. Biden brags about it. He brags about having relief [inaudible 01:46:13].
Destiny
(01:46:14)
For what he was able to relieve, which I think were related to particular types of student loan debt. But I’m just saying that well, the guardrails are holding with Biden as much as they’re holding with Trump. The only difference is that once Biden exhausts his executive power, he’s not running around lying to people or trying to extort people or trying to and concoct insane schemes.
Ben Shapiro
(01:46:31)
Well, I mean, here’s the way I would think of this. Think of the guardrails holding as the filter, meaning the coffee is in the filter. What you want is going to get through and all the stuff that the guardrails prevent the other stuff from getting through. Now the question becomes what liquid are you pouring into the filter? Meaning if the filter exists, if the guardrails hold, and if Donald Trump can’t steal elections, what’s the policy that comes through the other end of the filter? The policy I get from Donald Trump on the other end of the filter is a bunch of stuff that I like. The policy that I get from Joe Biden on the other end of the filter is a bunch of bullshit I don’t. So that’s the basic calculation.
Destiny
(01:47:01)
Okay, so then the idea is essentially that Donald Trump’s rhetoric is insane, but we don’t care. Donald Trump would probably try to steal an election if he could, but he probably won’t be able to.
Ben Shapiro
(01:47:11)
He’s not going to do it again. I told you. He’s not-
Destiny
(01:47:14)
You don’t think he has any… Why not?
Ben Shapiro
(01:47:16)
Because he won’t be eligible to be on the ballot in… I mean, by the way, you want to talk about 14th Amendment? That’s where the 14th Amendment applies. Okay? That’s where it actually applies, meaning he’s not qualified to be on the ballot in 2028 if he’s the President of the United States. States can literally, in self-executing fashion, take him off the ballot. Just like he’s passed the age of 35, once you have been President two times, you’re no longer eligible to be President of the United States.
Destiny
(01:47:39)
Why-
Ben Shapiro
(01:47:39)
Then you actually have a strong case to keep him off the ballot.
Destiny
(01:47:42)
Yeah, but why would the 14th Amendment stop him if he thought Vice President Pence could unilaterally decide the outcome of the election?
Ben Shapiro
(01:47:48)
When he’s not on the ballot? So now your theory is that he’s going to get re-elected, and then in 2028, he’s not even going to be on the ballot and he’s going to direct his new Vice President, Kerry Lake, to simply declare him President of the United States when he has not been on a ballot?
Destiny
(01:48:02)
I don’t know what the scheme would be. I think we can kind of laugh and say there’s no scheme we could even concoct, but I think that-
Ben Shapiro
(01:48:08)
Macho, like with the machine gun, he’s going to walk into the-
Destiny
(01:48:10)
I think the issue though is that the idea of electing another President that has tried to circumvent the peaceful transfer of power using extralegal means and then pretending like we can’t concoct a single scheme that he could try to circumvent other legal processes to have a third term or to have a longer term or to install who he wants as the next President… When a person has already shown you who they are and when every single person around him agrees with that, when every single person that’s worked with him, save for, what? Sydney Powell, Eastman and Giuliani, which I don’t think anybody would want to throw their lot in with those three, it just seems wild to me that we would say like, “Yeah, we’re just going to go ahead and trust this guy with another term or President, but he can’t run for a third term, so it’s fine,” when there’s like 50 million other things he could concoct-
Ben Shapiro
(01:48:50)
I’ll make you the case that if you want him not to make election trouble, you should elect him President in the next election cycle, and then he will be ineligible.
Destiny
(01:48:56)
Okay. I find that be a wholly unconvincing argument, but okay.

Wokeism

Lex Fridman
(01:49:00)
Well, recently in the news, the Presidents of Harvard, Penn and MIT failed to fully denounce calls for genocide, and that rose questions about the influence of DEI programs at universities. And so maybe either looking at this or zooming out more broadly at identity politics at universities or identity politics, wokeism in our culture, how big of a threat is it to our culture to Western civilization, Ben?
Ben Shapiro
(01:49:30)
So obviously I’m going to say it’s a huge threat. The reason that I think this is a huge threat… I want to give a definition of wokeism because people are very often accused of not using wokeism properly or believing that it’s sort of a catchall phrase. I don’t think it’s a catchall term. I think that wokeism has its roots in postmodernism, which essentially suggests that every principle is a reflection of underlying structures of power, and that therefore any inequality that emerges under such a system is a reflection, again, of that structure of power.

(01:50:01)
That used to be applied in sort of Marxist ways, the suggestion being that economic inequality was the result of misallocation of power in the structure preserved by an upper crust of people who wanted to cram down exploitation on people. That was sort of the Marxist version of postmodernism, and that got transmuted into sort of a racial version of postmodernism in which the systems of the United States are white supremacist in orientation, and are perpetuated by a group of people who are in fact in favor of the preservation of white power and white supremacy. That is the generalized theory of Critical Race Theory as proposed by, for example, Jean Stefancic and Richard Delgado in their book on Critical Race Theory.

(01:50:41)
That has taken a softer form that we refer to as DEI. The key in DEI is the E, meaning equity. So equity is a term that does not mean equality. People mix it up. Equality is the idea that we all ought to have equal rights, that we all ought to be treated equally by the law. Equity is the idea that if there is an inequality that emerges from any system, it is therefore due to discrimination, and the best way to tell whether somebody has been victimized is by dint of their race, and we can tell whether you’re a member of an oppressed group or an oppressor group by the intersectional identity that you carry, and by the nature of your group’s success or failure predominantly along economic and power lines in American life.

(01:51:22)
This means that if one group is predominantly successful economically, they must be a member of the victimizing class, and the only corrective for that would be, as Ibram X. Kendi likes to suggest, effectively anti-racist policies, racism in the serVice of destroying racism. That you’re going to have to in order to correct for discrimination that’s baked into the system. That’s incredibly dangerous. It leads to a victim-victimizer narrative that is unhealthy for individuals and terrible for societies. It relieves people of individual responsibility and it destroys the very notion of an objective metric by which we can decide meritocracy and meritocracy is the only system human beings have ever devised that has positive externalities in literally any area of life.

(01:52:06)
Every other distribution of wealth, power done along other lines that is not having to do with merit, has negative externalities. Every system having to do with merit has positive externalities because presumably the most effective and useful people are going to succeed under those systems. That’s the very basis of a meritocracy. And the externalities of that mean that other people benefit from the meritorious and excellent performance of those people.
Lex Fridman
(01:52:29)
Maybe it would be good to get your comments… your old stomping ground Harvard. Do you think the President Harvard should have been fired, forced out-
Ben Shapiro
(01:52:37)
I mean, I think she should’ve been fired not over the plagiarism allegations. I think she should have been fired based on her performance just at that congressional hearing. If the word black had been substituted for Jew in that statement by Elise Stefanik, that she was asking about-
Destiny
(01:52:51)
Or trans.
Ben Shapiro
(01:52:52)
… or literally any other minority in America, maybe with the exception of Asian, then the answer would’ve been very different coming from Claudine Gay. With that said, I don’t think the firing of Claudine Gay really accomplishes very much. Did she get what she deserved? Sure. Does that mean that the underlying DEI equity-based system has been in any way severely damaged? No. I think that this is a way for universities, this is true for McGill and Penn also, to basically throw somebody overboard as the sacrifice to maintain the underlying system that continues to predominate at American universities where they spend literally billions of dollars every year on DEI initiatives and diversity hires and diversity administrators and all of this.

(01:53:31)
I mean, one of the costs of education escalating is in the massive administrative function that is now undertaken by universities, as opposed to teaching and cost of dorms and such.
Lex Fridman
(01:53:42)
You guys probably agree on a lot of this, right?
Destiny
(01:53:44)
Kind of. Maybe, yeah. I don’t know what makes things do this, but it feels like we can never have a good thing and then have it end as a good thing. Things always get taken to their extreme, and then we have to fight on those extremes. I would argue that… Back in my day, we called it SJWs, Social Justice Warriors, before it became woke. I think it was like 2013 onwards, whatever. There are aspects to wokeism that I think are good. Like I like the additional representation that we have in media now. I like how, as much as people complain about the internet and how it’s regulated, that there are way more groups that are represented on the internet, whether we’re talking X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, or Facebook or whatever. Or whether we’re pushing women’s achievements in school and in the wider workforce. I think that these are all good things.

(01:54:31)
The issue that you run into is people don’t ever have a stopping point, and I think people kind of get lost in this woke-for-woke-sake thing where we start to see these very weird workings of these academic, I guess, arguments that are used for really horrible things. So for instance, I think that you can talk about in the United States, things like white supremacy or things like Oppression or certain demographics, especially with Jim Crow laws and pre-Jim Crow, and you can even talk about effects from that.

(01:54:58)
But then when you run into this weird world where we’ve kind of worked these things so that not only is white supremacy still as present today as it ever has been, well actually black people and other minorities can’t even be racist. They don’t have the power to, because we’re going to use a different definition of racism and we can only talk about punching up as opposed to punching down. And then we’re actually going to say it’s totally okay for these people to say or do whatever they want, and it’s never bad. But white people, who have always been the oppressors, even if you’re like a trailer park guy whose family’s addicted to meth, you have all this privilege, etc, etc.

(01:55:24)
I think that you run into these issues where woke ism, it starts off as a really good idea and I would argue has achieved really good things, especially in regards to women’s education and everything, and then it just gets so academia-ized… There’s a word there, academic, whatever, where you take something and you put it into school too much and then it comes out as some Frankenstein cancer baby of horrible things, such that today when I’m reading stuff, and I know Ben is the same way, if I even hear somebody say the word anti-racism, I’m probably ignoring every other thing you have to say.

Institutional capture


(01:55:50)
If you utter the word like colonial anything, I’m probably going to say you probably don’t have anything good to say. Yeah, a lot of it has just taken way too far. But you know what I will blame on some of this is I will blame conservatives for some of this-
Destiny
(01:56:00)
But you know what I will blame on some of this is I will blame conservatives for some of this because I think one issue that happens, and I think Ben might even agree with me here too, is I think there’s two huge problems that have happened in the United States I think broadly speaking is that, one, we become more different than we ever have been. And, two, we become more similar than we ever have been. And when I say this, what I mean is like we’re splitting off into these groups and then these groups are enforcing this insane homogeneity between these two separate groups. I think one of these schisms has been conservatives’ reluctancy to participate in things related to higher education.

(01:56:33)
For a long time, conservatives are saying, oh, the educational institutions are against us. Rush Limbaugh talks about how evil the colleges are and blah, blah, blah. And then what happens is conservatives are less and less willing to engage in them. So then you get this scenario or this environment where everybody that’s engaged in academia on the administrative side are fucking insane. They’re even more so to, and I also want to draw a distinction between the administrators and the faculty because oftentimes when you’re reading story after story after story of all of these insane admins that are pushing further and further left, usually the faculty is fighting against it. A lot of the tenure professors, a lot of people in their departments are saying, hold on, well, we actually don’t agree with this.

(01:57:09)
But I feel like, because conservatives for so long have demonized these institutions rather than critically evaluated them and tried to have honest critique and engagement, that they’ve just completely broken off. And when you only have a bunch of lefties or righties together, all they’ll do is they veer off even more into their insane directions. I feel like that’s a big problem that we’ve run into in the country to where conservatives have totally broken off some conversations, broken away from where they won’t participate in them anymore, and then the people that you have left just run as far to the left as possible.
Ben Shapiro
(01:57:39)
Certainly when you look at certain institutions, I think that one of the things that people on both sides of the aisle are constantly looking at is has the institution suffered such capture that there is just no capacity to fix it? And when you talk about the universities, I’m not going to blame conservatives for the failure of the universities because they haven’t been present in major positions at universities since effectively the late 1960s. You can go read Shelby Steele’s work on this where he talks about how he used to be, he’s now a conservative black person. He was a liberal black person at the time. He was actually quite a radical black activist at the time in the ’60s. And he talks about walking into the office of liberal administrators who were largely on his side with regard to civil rights, and being a radical, him claiming that the systems of the university were inherently broken, were inherently wrong, unfixable.

(01:58:24)
And he talks about this, it’s a very evocative episode where he’s talking about how he’s smoking, and as he’s smoking, the ash is growing more and more, and the ash falls down on this very expensive carpet. And the president of the university who’s listening to him rant and rave, Shelby Steele says, “I thought he was going to say something about this. I mean, I was wrecking a thousand dollar carpet in his office being a jackass, and instead, I could see him wilt inside. I could see him collapse. He didn’t have the institutional credibility or sort of the spiritual strength to just say, ‘Listen, I agree with you on some of these things, but you’re acting like a jackass.'” And what you see in the late 1960s and early 1970s is in fact the collapse of these institutions to the point where, by the time I was going to college, there was this radical disproportion between conservatives and liberals.

(01:59:08)
The problem is that when it comes to a system like the universities, basically you have to separate the universities off into two separate categories. One is STEM, where the universities are still pretty damn good. American universities, when it comes to STEM, are still leading universities in the world. Harvard’s main creations these days are coming from actual hard science field. Then you have the liberal arts field in which you basically have a self-perpetuating elite because that’s actually how dissertations work. If you have somebody who’s very far to the left and you decide that you’re going to write a dissertation on the history of American gun rights, the chances that that is going to be approved by your dissertation advisor are much lower than if you happen to write something that tends to agree with the political positions of your dissertation advisor. Now, listen, I think there are open and tolerant professors, even in the liberal arts at these universities.

(01:59:48)
I went to these universities. I went to UCLA, I went to Harvard Law School. When I was at Harvard Law School, one of my favorite professors was Lani Guinier. Lani Guinier, they tried to appoint her, I believe, Secretary of Labor under Clinton. And she was too liberal and she got rejected. So she was like a full- on communist. By the time I went there, she was great. We had debates every day. It was wonderful. She used to write me recommendations for my legal jobs. After we left, Randall Kennedy, I don’t agree with him very much. Randall Kennedy was terrific professor. There are some professors who are like this. Unfortunately, there tends to be, in these echo chambers, more and more ideological conformity that is rigorously enforced, and it is by left on left. So, for example, when I was at Harvard Law School, the president of the university was another president who ended up being ousted, Larry Summers.

(02:00:26)
Larry Summers had been the Secretary of Treasury under Bill Clinton, and he made the critical error of suggesting that perhaps the dearth of women in hard sciences in prestigious positions was due to possibly two factors that people were refusing to talk about. One was the possibility that women actually didn’t want to be in hard sciences at nearly the rates that men do, which happens to be true. And, two, was the distribution of STEM IQ, which is something that you certainly were not allowed to talk about. The idea that the men’s bell curve when it comes to IQ, particularly on STEM subjects, tends to be shallower than the women’s bell curve. So when you get to the very end of the bell curve, what you tend to see is a lot of really dumb guys and a lot of really smarter guys.

(02:01:01)
And so when you’re talking about the top universities, maybe that has something to do with the disproportion. And he’s trying to explain that to say that our systems are not discriminating if we end up with more men than women, maybe more men are applying and more men are qualified. That’s quite a… He was ousted for that by a left-wing faculty and general alum network at Harvard University. There’s a lot to blame conservatives for surrendering the playing field. I totally agree that conservatives should not have surrendered the playing field in some institutions. Colleges were surrendered a lot earlier than 20 years ago. They were surrendered in the late 1960s, early 1970s.
Destiny
(02:01:32)
I think that, a couple of things. One of the big issues that I have with this, I don’t know if we call it era of Trumpism or populism, is this total disregard for institutions and this disconnect from participation in the system. So it’s one of the big things that I fight with progressives about, who cares because they’re all 20 years old, they don’t vote anyway. But it’s another thing that I noticed with a lot of people that are Trump voters, Trump fans, or whatever, is this idea where we say, this institution is irrevocably destroyed, it’s irredeemable, it can’t be saved. Nothing that we do can fix it. And I think that what that leads people to doing is, one, they disconnect further.

(02:02:08)
And then, two, there’s a general hopelessness when it comes to how society is ran or structured, such that you fall into that populist brain rot of the only person that can save me is Donald Trump. I can’t trust literally anything. And I think that when you start driving people into that direction, all it does is it further amplifies all the problems that you’re complaining about. So that’s one of the reasons why when we talk about conservative participation, I want there to be more conservatives that are trying to participate in academia. But I feel like the leading thought or the leading speaking out against it is basically saying it’s a waste of time. It’s completely lost.
Ben Shapiro
(02:02:38)
So I think that the alternative to that is that you are seeing on the right a growth of, for example, alternative universities, saying-
Destiny
(02:02:44)
Yeah, but this is the worst thing.
Ben Shapiro
(02:02:45)
No, I don’t think so at all. I think competition is a great way of incentivizing some change on behalf of universities that may have forgotten that there’s an entire another side of the aisle in the United States, meaning-
Destiny
(02:02:54)
No shot. I don’t believe. I don’t think even you think that.
Ben Shapiro
(02:02:56)
So first of all, first all, let me be clear.
Destiny
(02:02:57)
Go ahead.
Ben Shapiro
(02:02:59)
I think the entire educational system at the upper levels, if you’re not in STEM, is a complete scam. I think it’s a complete waste of money. I think it’s a complete waste of time. And I think that it’s all it is is a formalized, very expensive sorting mechanism for people of IQ. That’s all it is. People take an SAT, you go to a good school, you take four years of bullshit. I know. I did it at UCLA. And then, we analyze based on your degree where you should go to law school. I could have gone directly from high school to law school with maybe one year of training, and then done one year of law school, and been done. Okay. The reality is that this is a giant scam, and this is, again, it’s a bipartisan problem, but it’s just a generalized problem. You want to talk about things that hurt the lower classes in the United States? The bleeding of degrees up is so wild and crazy. There’re so many jobs in the United States that should not require a college degree that we now require a college degree to do because there was this weird idea that came over Americans where they mistook correlation for causation. They would say, oh, look, people who go to college are making more money than people who don’t go to college, therefore everyone should go to college. Well, maybe the reason is because people who are going to college were better qualified for particular jobs because, on average, not all the time, but on average, a lot of those people were smarter and making more money because of that. And so all you’ve done is you’ve now created these additional layers of stratification. So a person who used to be able to get a job with a college degree now has to have a postdoc degree in order to go get that degree.

(02:04:10)
A person who used to be able to just graduate high school, now it’s de facto, you got to go to JuCo, and then you got to go to college, or nobody’s even going to look at your resume. It’s really, really terrible for people who can’t afford all of that. It’s led to this massive increase in educational cost that is inexplicable other than this particular sort of bleed up. And by the way, federal subsidies for higher education, again, one of my problems with federal subsidies for higher education, I’d love for everyone to be able to go to college if qualified to do so and if it is productive. But one of the things I did when I went to law school is I took loans because a bank said I was going to get my money back if I got a law degree from Harvard. But you know when you’re not going to get your money back? If you’re a bank, you’re not going to lend to some dude who wants to major in Art Theory because is that a good bet? There’s no collateral.

(02:04:50)
If I give a loan for a house, I can go repossess the house. How do I repossess your garbage college degree from UCLA? There’s no way to do that. This is the broader conversation about education in general. I think the educational system is cruising for a bruising, and I think all that’s necessary for it to completely collapse on the non-STEM side where you actually learn things is for people who employ to simply say, give me your SAT score and I will hire you for an apprenticeship directly out of high school. That it would cut out so much of the middleman. But as far as the general point that you’re making about institutions, I may disagree on the education and how far it’s gone. In general, I agree with you. So in general, I agree. And, I guess, to use my favorite longest word in the English language here, I would consider myself in many cases an anti-disestablishmentarianist.
Lex Fridman
(02:05:34)
Nice.
Ben Shapiro
(02:05:35)
See that? I like to drop that because if you’re an establishmentarian, that means you like the establishment.
Destiny
(02:05:39)
The opposite is disestablishmentarianism.
Ben Shapiro
(02:05:40)
Disestablishmentarianism, right? So I’m an anti-
Lex Fridman
(02:05:41)
Can you say that word, Destiny?
Destiny
(02:05:42)
That’s the one we all learned growing up, anti-disestablishmentarianism.
Ben Shapiro
(02:05:44)
There you go.
Destiny
(02:05:45)
The longest word in the dictionary.
Ben Shapiro
(02:05:48)
And so he is also. But I think-
Destiny
(02:05:48)
Then some candidate group say, what about supercalifragilisti- and then you’re-
Ben Shapiro
(02:05:50)
What about [inaudible 02:05:51]?
Destiny
(02:05:50)
Or the science terms.
Ben Shapiro
(02:05:53)
Exactly.
Destiny
(02:05:53)
Or what about the 7,000 letter thing that’s from part of biochem.
Lex Fridman
(02:05:56)
I got my education in the Soviet Union, so we just did math. Didn’t learn any of this.
Ben Shapiro
(02:06:00)
That’s why you’re a useful person.
Destiny
(02:06:02)
Soviet Union Math. Was that one plus one, how to make that equal three?
Ben Shapiro
(02:06:04)
We know long words, and he streams on the internet, and I talk for a living, so anyway. But the point is that I don’t disagree that there is a general populist tendency on all sides of the aisle to look at the institutions and then throw them overboard. I think that some of that is earned by people who are in positions of power at institutions who have completely undermined the faith and credibility of those institutions. I think that you have to examine institution by institutions, which ones are salvageable and which ones are not. So I’m not a full anti-disestablishmentarianism. I’d be partially in that camp. There are certain institutions like higher education in the liberal arts that I think we may be better off without. And then there are certain institutions like, say, participation in American government where when people talk about we need a revolution, like, no, we don’t. That’s not a thing. We need an evolution. We need change. We can use the system. But I think you have to establish, you have to look at it industry by industry, just institution by institution.
Destiny
(02:06:58)
On that position, are institutions, do you think Biden or Trump would salvage you more?
Ben Shapiro
(02:07:01)
As far as the institutions?
Destiny
(02:07:02)
Yeah.
Ben Shapiro
(02:07:02)
I think the institutions in the United States at the governmental level are robust. I think the social institutions are fair.
Destiny
(02:07:06)
But I’m just curious on your general view of institutions, do you think Biden or Trump would salvage you more on how you view them?
Ben Shapiro
(02:07:11)
I mean, I think that, in rhetoric, Biden would, and then I think that he would tear out the face of the institution wearing it around like a mask, like Hannibal Lecter. I mean-
Destiny
(02:07:18)
Even though he resisted some people’s calls to pack the court and…
Ben Shapiro
(02:07:22)
Yes, because I think that his use of executive power was greater than that of Donald Trump. The power that he had, he used to greater effect than Donald Trump. Donald Trump, again, thrashed up against the sides of the box, but could not get out of it.
Destiny
(02:07:34)
For just real quick, because that answer went a lot farther than the initial question. But just on the real quick thing, the reason why I, again, my main problem that I feel like we have today in society is people are getting into their own bubbles. The idea of having conservative schools and liberal schools seems like the saddest thing in the world to me. I would want conservatives and liberals going to school together because I think these people need to interact with each other more, if for no other reason than to say that the other person is not an actual monstrous, horrible entity that wants to destroy the country.
Ben Shapiro
(02:07:59)
Listen, I think a classically liberal idea for many schools would not be a bad thing. I think it would be a good thing. I just wonder if that’s salvageable. And if it’s not salvageable, then the answer to that is to actually create alternative institutions.
Destiny
(02:08:08)
I feel like the biggest issue that we have is people are they sort into these different phantom worlds to where, even if you live in the same city, there are totally different worlds that exist between liberals and conservatives. And I feel like one of the big barriers to people understanding the other side, sometimes it’s just a little bit of information or a little bit of firsthand experience. So in terms of information, I’m sure you saw, I don’t know if this is a full-on study, but they were talking about how some huge percentage of students would change their mind on from the river to the sea when you told them what from the river to sea, actually-
Ben Shapiro
(02:08:36)
What the river was and what the sea was?
Destiny
(02:08:37)
Yeah. Or when you said like, what does a one state solution mean? A lot of them, such that the numbers went from 70% to 30% in terms of support would fall. And it wasn’t because you were doing a radical redefining their whole ideology. You were just giving them a little bit more information. And then something that I’ve seen on a firsthand level is when I go and speak or do debates at universities, sometimes I’m in very, very, very conservative areas. Some of my fans are trans. Having a trans person show up and talk to conservatives for a little bit, not in a speech, but just in a bar or a setting, a lot of them walk away. They’re like, oh, not every trans person is like this insane lunatic from Twitter that is a fucking, an actual crazy person. And then for some of my fans, when they hang out with conservatives like, oh, these guys are actually pretty friendly. I thought they would’ve all been homophobic, racist, transphobic, and evil, but they’re not. They’re just like normal people. I feel like we need more of that-
Ben Shapiro
(02:09:16)
I totally agree with that. Certainly.
Destiny
(02:09:17)
And I feel like on our social media platforms, on our algorithms, and our schools, I feel like we’re sorting harder and harder and harder, and any type of rhetoric that encourages the sorting is really bad and damaging. We need to continue to mix up. And there’s other things I wanted to talk about, but Lex is opening his mouth.
Lex Fridman
(02:09:31)
Destiny, the uniter. Wow.
Destiny
(02:09:32)
Like Biden. Not like Trump.

Monogamy vs open relationships

Lex Fridman
(02:09:36)
As we approach the end, let us descend into the meme further and further. Ben, you’re in a monogamous marriage. And Destiny, you’ve been mostly in an open marriage until recently. How foundational is marriage, monogamous marriage, to the United States of America? Can open marriages work? Are they harmful to society? Ben.
Ben Shapiro
(02:09:58)
Marriages are the single most important thing that people can do in the United States because the things within your control are easier to control than the things outside your control. People tend to think about big political change, obviously about things they can do to change the entire system, but the reality is the thing that you can do that best changes society is to get married and have kids and raise your kids responsibly. That is the single best thing that you can do. Can an open marriage work? I mean, I think that it depends on your definition of work. So in my version of work, the answer is no, because what you actually need in order to facilitate the healthy growing of a child is a father and mother who are committed to each other. All ideas about there being no emotional component to sexual activity are completely specious. That it is true for men, that it is for women, but it’s not true for either.

(02:10:41)
The idea of a full commitment to a human being with whom you genetically create children, which is typically how we’ve done it throughout human existence, is in fact the fundamental basis for any functional civilization. It allows for the transmission of culture and values. It allows for the transmission of beliefs and responsibility. And it gives the great lie to both, the communitarian lie, the atomistic individualist lie. The communitarian lie is that you belong to the giant community of man, which is not true because you have a family. And your allegiance should be and is naturally to the members of your family first. That’s how we learn, and then we expound that out.

(02:11:21)
And it also is a lie to the notion that we are all atomistic individuals with no responsibilities. We are born into a world of responsibilities. Everyone is born into a world of responsibilities, and rules, and roles. And those are good. And if we do not actually socialize our children that way, there will be, number one, no children. Number two, there will be no healthy children. Number three, there will be not the foundation for either social fabric, which is the real glue that holds together society or for a functional government. So, yes. Yes, monogamous marriage. I’m a fan. 15 years married, four kids. Yes.
Lex Fridman
(02:11:55)
Destiny, what do you think?
Destiny
(02:11:56)
I think that when we talk about relationships or marriage, I think something that’s really important is we have to talk about whether or not children are being discussed or not. Because I think once you introduce the child aspect, I think the style or the type of relationship that you do is going to become way more important than whatever exists prior to that. I would agree, for instance, in terms of what Ben is saying, that there is probably going to be some structure that is ideal for the care and the raising of a child. I think that having a child gives you a much bigger buy-in to society because now, all of a sudden, you care about a lot of things that you might not have before because not only do you exist in society, you can’t just run. Now you’ve got a child that exists there and you’ve got to ensure that everything functions smoothly, not just for you, but for that child as well.

(02:12:34)
And, arguably, although we’re getting into weird places I guess in the world now, children are the primary conduit for where you transmit cultural values and everything. The one kind of weird thing that we are coming up against, that we have been coming up against now for some number of decades and we’ll continue to is as societies progress, seems like people are having less children. And I actually don’t know 100% what the answer is to that question.
Ben Shapiro
(02:13:00)
I do.
Destiny
(02:13:00)
I’m sure you do. I mean, an implementable answer that works that we know we can get everybody on board with. It seems like, for a large part of human history, having children, and it still is, having children is awesome, and children are cool and children are magical and miraculous and all of this, but you didn’t really have much competing for your attention to have a child. When you hit a certain age and you started working, especially if you’re a woman, I mean, childbirth is kind of the next step. And then having a family, raising your children, and then doing that was kind of the next step. Nowadays, especially with women being able to work, especially with women having access to birth control, there’s a lot available in the world that’s competing for the interest of people that could otherwise be having children such that we’ve almost flipped it, such that, as Ben brought up earlier, wealthy people tend to have less children than not wealthy people, or unless you’re part of particular religious communities that push childbirth a lot.

(02:13:46)
I don’t know if I would say there exists a moral imperative on an individual to have children. I think that there’s a lot of interesting arguments down that path. I don’t know if we’re quite at the point yet where we need to say like, oh my God, we’re running out of people. We need to have more kids. I don’t think we’re quite there yet, but we are seeing weird demographic trends that are having big impacts on how countries are playing out. For instance, the fact that we have a disproportionately huge aging population that needs to be taken care of with medical expenses and everything, that vote in different ways than our younger population, and that when they die off, the way that society is going to look is going to be a lot different. I don’t actually have a, I’m not entirely sure what the future’s going to look like in terms of pushing people to have kids when every single industrialized country, as they become more industrialized, have fewer and fewer and fewer children.

Rapid fire questions

Lex Fridman
(02:14:29)
Rapid fire questions.
Ben Shapiro
(02:14:32)
My answer was go to church.
Destiny
(02:14:33)
Religion, yeah. I figured.
Lex Fridman
(02:14:35)
Well, we could talk about religion, but that’s not rapid fire at all. Let me ask, this is from the internet, does body count matter?
Destiny
(02:14:42)
Jesus Christ. You’re really bringing up the red pill stuff.
Lex Fridman
(02:14:47)
Are you avoiding answering?
Destiny
(02:14:48)
I mean, it’s totally, it depends on who you are. If you’re somebody that doesn’t care about it, it doesn’t. If you’re somebody that does care about it, yeah, it does, of course. Depends on the-
Ben Shapiro
(02:14:48)
The answer is yes.
Lex Fridman
(02:14:56)
Okay. Should porn be banned?
Destiny
(02:14:58)
No.
Ben Shapiro
(02:15:01)
If you could do it, yes. There is no benefit to pornography. It’s a waste of time and destructive to the human soul.
Lex Fridman
(02:15:10)
I can’t believe I’m asking this question. Is OnlyFans empowering or destructive for women?
Destiny
(02:15:17)
Jesus. These are rapid fire?
Lex Fridman
(02:15:19)
Yeah, just you can’t-
Destiny
(02:15:20)
I mean, it’s probably empowering for the ones that are making a lot of money off it. It probably feels disempowering for others that feel affected by the cultural norms set by women that do OnlyFans. There’s my rapid fire answer.
Ben Shapiro
(02:15:28)
It’s destructive to even the ones who are making a lot of money because when you degrade yourself to being just a set of human body characteristics that other people jack off to, it’s bad for you and it’s bad for them.
Lex Fridman
(02:15:38)
Is rap music…
Ben Shapiro
(02:15:40)
Absolutely.
Lex Fridman
(02:15:41)
Have you evolved on this or-
Ben Shapiro
(02:15:43)
Have I evolved on this? So again, I’m going to go to what’s the definition of music? My original argument about rap was that music involves the following three elements. Rhythm, melody, harmony. Rap typically involves maybe one of those. There maybe, maybe a melody, maybe sometimes. So it depends on the kind of rap. With that said, I could be convinced on this issue. But, listen, I’m a classical violinist. I mean, it’s how I was raised. I listen to Beethoven and Brahms and Mozart in the car with my kids. So is it comparable, is it in the same category as Beethoven, Brahms, and Mozart? I have a very hard time sticking it in the same category as that.
Lex Fridman
(02:16:23)
All right. You’re both world-class debaters, even public intellectuals, if I can say that.
Destiny
(02:16:31)
Jesus.
Ben Shapiro
(02:16:32)
[inaudible 02:16:32] real hard here.
Lex Fridman
(02:16:33)
I know. You both care about the truth. What is your process of arriving at the truth?
Destiny
(02:16:41)
I think it’s really important to, everybody will say that they’re objective and that they are nonpartisan. I think it’s really important to have mental safeguards for bad opinions. So, for instance, a couple of things that I’ll ask myself is for a particular debate that I’m having, can I argue convincingly both sides of the debate? If I can’t, I won’t bother having the debate because I realize that I’m probably too partisanly dug in if I can’t even represent an opposite argument here. Another question that you might ask yourself is like, well, what would it take to convince you out of a certain position? If you feel very strongly that Medicare for All is a good system by which to run the United States healthcare, and somebody says, well, what would it take you to convince you otherwise? If you can’t even fathom, well, what would it take to convince me otherwise, you’re probably too dug into a position.

(02:17:23)
So I think if you go through life saying, well, I try my best to be unbiased rather than saying, I try my best to be aware of my biases because the latter is more realistic and the former is literally impossible unless you’re a computer. So I think having actual mental practices that you engage in to try to counter some of the biases that you have is more important than trying to pretend that you’re free of all biases and then consuming all your media from one source.
Lex Fridman
(02:17:47)
Ben?
Ben Shapiro
(02:17:49)
I mean, I agree with a lot of that. I think that the easiest practical guide is read a bunch of different things from a bunch of different sources, and where they cross is probably the set of facts, and then everything else is extrapolated opinion from different premises. That’s sort of the short story. So read the New York Times and Breitbart, and they’re going to disagree on a lot, but if the core of the story-
Lex Fridman
(02:18:09)
And the Daily Wire.
Ben Shapiro
(02:18:10)
Certainly read the Daily Wire. If you read the Daily Wire and you read the Washington Post and there’s a nexus of the same thing, then you can pretty well guarantee that, at least, if we’re all blind men feeling the elephant, at least, if we’re all feeling the trunk, we know that there’s a trunk there. You may not know what the elephant is.
Lex Fridman
(02:18:26)
And if you’re feeling frisky, then watch Destiny as well.
Destiny
(02:18:31)
Thanks.
Lex Fridman
(02:18:31)
You’ve talked about having a conversation, debating Ben for a long time. What is your favorite thing about Ben Shapiro?
Destiny
(02:18:40)
My favorite thing about Ben Shapiro is, at least when we’re in election season, he’s very critical of his own party. I appreciate that. I feel like Ben generally tries to adhere more to the fact-based arguments than other conservatives that I listen to, which is something that I appreciate because it’s more fun to fight on the factual grounds of discussing things like foreign policy or whatever, rather than people that only inhabit the idealistic or philosophical grounds because they don’t want to learn about any of the facts. So I appreciate that.
Lex Fridman
(02:19:07)
Ben, you’ve gotten a chance to talk to Destiny now. What do you like about the guy?
Ben Shapiro
(02:19:11)
A lot of the same sorts of things, but it’s really fun to see how you do your process. That is a cool thing. That is a cool thing. And it’s a gift to the audience because, honestly, doing what we do, so much of what we do is sitting and reading and being behind closed doors and educating yourself and talking with people. But getting to watch you do it in real time is a really cool window into how people think and how people learn. So that’s a really neat thing.
Lex Fridman
(02:19:30)
Well, gentlemen, this was incredible. It’s an honor. Thank you for doing this today.
Ben Shapiro
(02:19:34)
Thanks a lot.
Destiny
(02:19:35)
Thanks for having me.
Lex Fridman
(02:19:36)
Thanks for listening to this debate between Ben Shapiro and Destiny. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, let me leave you with some words from Aristotle. The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.

Transcript for Matthew Cox: FBI Most Wanted Con Man – $55 Million in Bank Fraud | Lex Fridman Podcast #409

This is a transcript of Lex Fridman Podcast #409 with Matthew Cox.
The timestamps in the transcript are clickable links that take you directly to that point in
the main video. Please note that the transcript is human generated, and may have errors.
Here are some useful links:

Table of Contents

Here are the loose “chapters” in the conversation.
Click link to jump approximately to that part in the transcript:

Introduction

Matthew Cox
(00:00:00)
She found $40,000 in cash in my freezer one night. So she’s like, “What is going on?” So we have this conversation and I tell her, “Look, people are looking for me.” “Who?” “Law enforcement.” “Which ones?” “All of them.” She’s like, “For what?” I go, “Mostly bank fraud.” And she’s like, “Well, how are they not finding you? I mean, people know you like your general contractor,” which I met four months before, this guy, six months before, this one, two months before. She’s like, “So-and-so, so-and-so…” And I’m like, “Right. Right.” She’s like, “I mean, they’ve got your name, they’ve got your… I go, “Well, that’s identity theft.” And she was like, “What do you mean?” I said, “Well, my name’s not… it’s not Joseph Carter.” “What is your name?” I go “Look, don’t even worry about it.”
Lex Fridman
(00:01:02)
The following is a conversation with Matthew Cox, a conman recently released from federal prison where he served 13 years for bank fraud, mortgage fraud, identity theft, passport fraud, and other charges. He has admitted guilt to all of it. He has written true-crime stories of many of his fellow prisoners. And now he continues this work by interviewing criminals about their crimes on his YouTube channel that I recommend called Inside True Crime. Exploring the mind of a criminal is exploring human nature at the extremes, often in its most raw and illuminating form. And that is something I definitely want to do with this podcast to understand the human mind and everything it is capable of. This is the Lex Fridman Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here’s Matthew Cox.

Mortgage fraud


(00:01:59)
What was the first crime you committed?
Matthew Cox
(00:02:03)
The first mortgage I ever did.
Lex Fridman
(00:02:04)
A mortgage is me borrowing money from a bank to buy a house.
Matthew Cox
(00:02:08)
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(00:02:09)
How can you find a way to commit crime in this? How can you do fraud in this space?
Matthew Cox
(00:02:16)
It’s very difficult for the average guy to commit fraud because there’s so many safeguards set up. If you were to go in and say, “I make $300,000 a year,” “Okay, well, we want your W-2s, we want your pay stubs. We’re going to call your employer. We’re going to check to make sure your employer… how long they’ve been incorporated. We’re going to check to make sure they’re registered.” It’s like your whole plan fell apart because the average guy can’t do that. He can’t even come up with the pay stub and W-2.

(00:02:43)
So the average person, or “I’m going to put down this much money,” but you’re going to borrow that money from the seller. Okay, well then they start asking for bank statements. “Where did the money come from? How long has it been in your bank?” You can’t even have it put in your bank for a day, get a letter. It’s got to have been there for 90 days or 60 days, depending on the bank. And so there’s all these ways… For the average person, it’s very difficult to commit fraud. The average guy that works at Walmart and makes $60,000 a year, and he’s been there for five years and he saved his deposit, that’s really the guy that those transactions are set up for. To borrow a mortgage from Bank of America, that’s the guy they’re looking for.
Lex Fridman
(00:03:24)
So to commit fraud in this space, you have to misrepresent some aspect of your identity, of how much you’re worth, how much money you have, this kind of stuff?
Matthew Cox
(00:03:33)
Right. You have to be able to lie to the bank. Anytime you lie to the bank, you’ve committed fraud. And it’s funny, when I was doing it, I would say, “Ah, it’s in the gray area.” There’s no gray area. You’re either lying in some capacity or you’re not. So for instance, the very first loan I did, my borrower had been 30 days late on her rent. So they’re really looking at the last two years. So when you go into the bank, most of what they’re asking is a two-year window.

(00:04:09)
They’re saying, “How long have you been on their job?” They care about two years, and “How long have you been at your residency?” They’re looking for two years. Now, you could be at three places in two years. That’s fine. As long as you consistently paid for two years. Well, she had been in an apartment complex, but she’d been 30 days late. Now she caught it up, but she was late. The bank doesn’t want to lend you money if you’ve been 30 days late. So I was a broker and I whited out the 30-day late. I just got rid of it. And my manager is the person that told me to do it. She said, “It’ll be fine.” And she was right, it was.
Lex Fridman
(00:04:52)
What did it feel like? So that was the first fraudulent action you committed.
Matthew Cox
(00:04:56)
Yeah, I was worried. I always say I sweated bullets for four or five days, but I was concerned and I don’t know that I was concerned that I had broken the law. I was concerned because I was behind on my truck payment, I was behind on my mortgage. I had banked on being a mortgage broker, and I’d gone deep, deep behind on all my bills to do this. So in the last minute when this loan isn’t going to close and I have to commit fraud to make that happen… And my fear was they were going to figure it out and maybe I’d get fired. I didn’t think I was going to go to jail because my manager assured me, “You’re not going to jail. You’ll get fired at best.” So my concern was they were going to catch it and I get fired and I wouldn’t get paid. I needed that money so bad.
Lex Fridman
(00:05:56)
So we’ll maybe paint the picture here. Where were you working? Who was the manager?
Matthew Cox
(00:06:00)
The manager, it’s funny because I don’t think I ever really mentioned this, her name was Gretchen Zaas. I don’t mind saying it because she eventually ended up going to jail for fraud. Her name was Gretchen Zaas and she was a manager. I was working for a company called Eagle Lending, and it was in Tampa, and this was my first month. So it was my very first deal, three or four weeks into that first month. And I walk in, I put the file in front of my manager, she looks through everything. “Oh, great. Good. Good.” And put this one piece of paper over here and sat there. And then when she was done, I said, “What’s going on?” She goes, “Perfect. File’s perfect.” She goes, “But your borrower was 30 days late on her rent,” and she says it’s done. She’s like, “That’s a deal killer.” And I was like, “Oh my gosh, what do I do?” And I remember she pulled out a thing, a whiteout. Remember a whiteout? Not that it sticks, but the one that…
Lex Fridman
(00:07:00)
Okay.
Matthew Cox
(00:07:01)
And she started going… And I was like, “What?” She goes, “If I was you…” And she handed… She said, “I’d white it out. Make a copy, stick it back in the file.” She said, “It’ll be fine.” I was like, “That’s fraud. I could go to jail.” And she was like, “They’re never going to catch it.” She said, “Look, I do stuff all the time.” She said, “They’re not going to catch it, and nobody’s calling the FBI.” She goes, “Worst case scenario, if underwriting catches it, then they’ll fire you. That’s it. Nobody’s calling… You’re not going to jail.” And I trusted her. I was like, “Okay.” And so I did what she said. I stuck it in the file. And I mean, like I said, for four or five days, I was like, “Oh my God, I’m so scared.”
Lex Fridman
(00:07:45)
How old were you at this point?
Matthew Cox
(00:07:46)
Probably 29. I think it was 29. I had gone to college and so many things had not worked out. I got a degree in fine arts. There’s not a lot of people looking for anyone with a fine arts degree. And I tried to be an insurance adjuster. Tried that for about a year, year and a half, that didn’t work out. Ended up working construction for a few years. And so finally the girl I was dating said, “You got to be a mortgage broker.” She’s had just started in the mortgage industry. And she was like, “You have to do this. You were born to do this. This is perfect for you.”
Lex Fridman
(00:08:31)
What did she see in you?
Matthew Cox
(00:08:32)
She said, “You’re a salesman.” Because I was like, “I can barely balanced my checkbook. I don’t know anything about numbers.” And she was like, “It has nothing to do with that. It’s sales. It’s putting together deals. You’re good at that. You’re good at negotiating. You’re a natural salesman.” And I figured I need to try something.
Lex Fridman
(00:08:53)
So what aspect of mortgages is sales and deal making, what aspects require the charisma that you clearly have?
Matthew Cox
(00:09:02)
Well, one, you have clients that have lots of options. They can go to Bank of America, they can go to SunTrust, they can go to Chase. They have options if they have perfect credit. I ended up working for a company that was a subprime lender, and those people didn’t have a lot of options. Honestly, by the time they got to Eagle Lending, their options were over. So what ends up happening is you’re negotiating with sellers. You would think that a lot of the stuff in that industry that real estate agents should do, the brokers end up doing because real estate agents are used to… You meet them at the house or they take you to several houses, they open the door, they walk around, they write up a contract that’s legit, a legit contract, and you’re already pre-approved. Everything works out. But subprime, that’s not the case.

(00:10:03)
You got borrowers with horrific job history. They don’t have enough of the down payment. Maybe they have the down payment, but they don’t have the closing costs. So you have to go to the real estate agent and say, “Listen, I need you to raise the purchase price and have the seller pay the closing costs,” which is legal to a degree, but that’s not how they wrote up the contract. So now you’re having to get them to rewrite the contract or there’s little things you’re trying to do. And the more deals you get done, and the more you deal with certain real estate agents, the more you start to realize that they’re… You know which ones are completely above board and which ones are willing to twist the rules.
Lex Fridman
(00:10:49)
And a lot of it works on personal relationships.
Matthew Cox
(00:10:52)
Right. Right. For some reason, people tend to like me and trust me. I don’t know why. It hasn’t worked out for so many people, but people naturally seem to trust me. And so if I say, “Hey, I can close the loan, but you got to do this. It’ll be cool. Don’t worry, we do it all the time,” it’s like my third loan and “I’ve been doing this for years.” And they go, “Oh, okay.” And then they raise the purchase price, they add some money, they have the seller of the house give the borrower some money, they stick it in the bank or they put it in Escrow, the closing company. Now you’re starting to massage deals.
Lex Fridman
(00:11:30)
What was the second time you committed a crime? So how did it start to evolve from the whiteout?
Matthew Cox
(00:11:35)
Well, I mean, when that went through, I think a normal person probably would’ve said, “Wow, it was a one-time thing. Got away with it. I’m good.” But for me, it just emboldened me. I just got a check for, I don’t know what it was, 25, $3,500. I was thrilled. And by that time, I was already working on another deal. But that guy, he made… I forget, it’s something like… He had made, let’s say $45,000 the year before in his W-2, based on his current track record or his year to date of his pay stub, he made just enough money. But if you factored in last year’s W-2, he was shy. So if I changed that 45,000 to 51,000, then the loan closes. I get a check for 3,500 bucks. He gets into a house. I’m doing him a favor. I’m doing God’s work. So I fix it.

(00:12:43)
I kick back. I’m terrified a little bit, worried about it. Sure enough, it closes. Four or five days later, they call me, “He’s ready to close.” A week later, we close. I get a check. Next guy that comes in… I mean, I got very, very quickly… I was concerned, “Do you have a house? Do you have a deal? Is it ready? I can get you done.” Now, if you were in bankruptcy or something, there’s some things you just… You’d pull their credit and you just couldn’t help them. If they had a 550 credit score or something and no job. I mean, it had to be within reason, but very quickly it was changing W-2s, changing pay stubs, changing appraisals, fixing, like I said, verifications of rent. So it evolved very quickly for me.
Lex Fridman
(00:13:28)
And you’re essentially helping people.
Matthew Cox
(00:13:30)
That’s what I told myself.
Lex Fridman
(00:13:32)
Giving them a chance. People that have been really struggling financially in life. So you’ve been telling yourself that you’re doing a good thing for people.
Matthew Cox
(00:13:43)
I told myself that right up until… That those loans were solid and I was helping those people out, right up until I went to prison. And I was in prison and I had to write… The government asked me to write an ethics and fraud course to help teach the nation’s mortgage brokers. All loan officers and brokers have to take… I think it’s nine hours of continuing education every single year. And I was approached to write the ethics course, and it was about that time and about the same period of time I was writing my book, and I started reflecting on what I had done.

(00:14:28)
And the truth is, and this is a horrible thing to say, because the first time I ever heard somebody say this, I remember thinking, “Oh, that’s a horrible thing to say.” Some people should not own a house. They shouldn’t be allowed to borrow. They’re not in a position financially. And there were many occasions where I put someone in a house that they 100% swore they could afford. I was helping them. I told myself I was helping them, and a year and a half later, they’re going into foreclosure. Their stuff’s on the corner, they don’t know where to go. And the truth is that I’m not smarter than the actuaries that came up with those underwriting guidelines.
Lex Fridman
(00:15:10)
So in this whole process, how are you making money? Are you taking a percentage?
Matthew Cox
(00:15:15)
Broker fee. Yeah, I charge a broker fee, or you charge yield spread. So yield spread is… Let’s say the interest rate is 8% interest. If I charge them 25 basis points over the 8%, so I charge them eight and a quarter, 8.25, then I get 1% of the loan back as a fee. So if I charge them 8.5%, I get two points back. So if it’s a $100,000 piece of property and the bank says your interest rate is going to be 8%, and I tell you 8.5 and I’m charging you a $3,500 broker fee, now I’m making $5,500. So on even a $100,000 loan, you could make a nice chunk of change. I mean, it’s-
Lex Fridman
(00:16:03)
So how much gray area is here? You said that there really isn’t when you’re lying or not, but it feels like there is.
Matthew Cox
(00:16:10)
Well, every time I change something, it wasn’t gray area, I just committed fraud. At this level, you either meet the guidelines or someone has massaged it in such a way that they’ve committed fraud and that’s it. And there’s tons of ways where you can commit fraud and they just can’t figure it out. Does that make sense? I mean, you’ve committed fraud and it’s like they’ve looked at the entire… They look at all the documents and they double check everything, and they know there’s fraud in here and they just can’t find it.
Lex Fridman
(00:16:40)
Just because they can’t find it doesn’t mean it’s not fraud.
Matthew Cox
(00:16:42)
Exactly, doesn’t mean it wasn’t fraud.

Creating fake people

Lex Fridman
(00:16:44)
As part of this, you did a lot of fascinating things. One of the things you did, you talked about creating synthetic people, meaning creating fake identities. What does it take to do that well?
Matthew Cox
(00:16:57)
So your credit profile is made up of your name, date of birth, your address, and your Social Security number. And then there’s other things where you work, that sort of thing. But what people don’t realize is there’s so many people out there that think that the credit bureaus already know who you are, but the truth is, the first time the credit bureau has ever heard about you was when you told them. The first time you applied for a credit card, they created a credit profile at that moment. Prior to that, they had no idea. So the first time you apply, you give them your full name, date of birth, Social Security number and your address, and they create a credit profile and they say, “Hey, no record found of this person. He has no credit, nothing, probably got denied.”

(00:17:53)
Well, what I realized through the course of… Because eventually I ended up leaving that one company and I opened my own mortgage company. When I opened that mortgage company, I was on the inside. Does that make sense? I wasn’t just a broker that was sitting out with everybody else and would periodically come in and ask questions or would call underwriting, but I really didn’t understand what was happening and exactly what the underwriting guidelines were. Now, I was actually talking to the underwriters and you’re talking to the owners of the lending institutions and the banks, and you’re talking to all of the account executives.

(00:18:33)
And now, it wasn’t just Eagle Lending I was talking to, there were 40 different account executives coming in on a weekly basis trying to get us to sign up with their lender. And they’re on the inside coming in, showing you programs and saying, “Look, if your borrower is self-employed, we don’t ask for this or this, we just ask for them to say to say they’re self- employed.” Liar loans. You’ve heard the term liar loans?
Lex Fridman
(00:19:02)
No.
Matthew Cox
(00:19:03)
Okay. Or no doc loans where they don’t ask for any documentation. If he’s got over, let’s say, a 700 credit score and he says he’s been a plumber and he works for himself, and he’s got over a 700 credit score, he just has to say he’s worked for himself for over two years, and-
Lex Fridman
(00:19:17)
They don’t ask any other questions.
Matthew Cox
(00:19:18)
They don’t ask for any documentation. He’s got the money in the bank. He’s got a 700 credit score, says he’s been on the job for two years, he’s self-employed. We’re going to raise his interest rate by 1%, and that’s it. He’s got the loan. But you start to know how things work because I hired a bunch of brokers to work underneath me, and when they would get caught, I would get the phone call.

(00:19:44)
So I get the phone call from the owner of a bank or a lending institute, a lender, and that lender says, “Hey, Matt, we got a problem.” I’m like, “What’s up?” He’s like, “Listen, we caught a fake W-2.” I’m like, “What do you mean?” “Yeah, your broker so-and-so sent us a file and this person had… There’s two fake W-2s and we’re assuming the pay stubs are fake.” And I’m like, “Are you serious? How did you even catch that?” And they go, “Oh, well, here’s what we did. We checked with sunbiz.gov,” which is the Secretary of State’s website that registers corporations. “And we checked, and the tax ID number didn’t match.” And now I know every W-2 has to have a matching tax ID number for whatever corporation issued it.
Lex Fridman
(00:20:34)
So there’s a sequence of checks they do to detect fraud in different documents like W-2s?
Matthew Cox
(00:20:38)
Right.
Lex Fridman
(00:20:39)
And then you’re slowly learning-
Matthew Cox
(00:20:41)
Yeah, exactly.
Lex Fridman
(00:20:42)
What’s the process for detecting-
Matthew Cox
(00:20:43)
I mean, I had a pretty good understanding anyway, but so I’m starting to learn that-
Lex Fridman
(00:20:47)
It’s common sense understanding. Yeah.
Matthew Cox
(00:20:48)
So I’m putting these things together. And I remember one time I had a woman come in and she came in and she had perfect credit. She had like a 750 credit score. I mean, it was perfect. And she came in and one of the brokers came in and said, “Hey, man, can I show you something?” I was like, “Yeah, what’s up?” He goes, “Look,” he said, “I’ve got this woman’s W-2s here.” I said, “Okay.” I looked at them and he goes, “Here’s her credit report.” And he goes, “Here’s the application. This is the Social Security number.” I went, “All right.” And he said, “This is the Social Security number on the W-2.” And I went, “Okay.” Keep in mind, you go to get a car loan or credit card, they never asked for these things.

(00:21:29)
I’m really shocked he even noticed it. I probably might not have even caught it, but they were different. And I went, “Really?” And he goes, “Yeah,” he said, “She just brought them in. She’s here.” And I was like, “Oh, bring her in here.” So she came in, sat down, I said, “Listen, here’s what we just found.” And she was like, “Oh, okay. You know what? I don’t want the loan. I just… I go, “No, no, no, no, no.” I said, “Listen, you’re getting a loan. You got a 750 credit score. I don’t care what we have to do. We’re getting you the loan. I just want to know what’s going on. How did you get 750 credit scores under this Social Security number when clearly this is your real Social Security number? You’ve been working for this company for 10 years, and your credit profile says it’s only three years old. And I was like, “What happened?”

(00:22:13)
And what she told me she did was she went through a divorce. She had been married for 10 years, used her husband’s… I mean, his surname for 10 years. So she has no credit under her maiden name. But when they got divorced, she switched to her maiden name because when she tried to get anything in her husband’s surname, it was denied, bad credit. So he had bad credit. Their credit went bad. So she switched to her name and a friend told her if she needed to get her electric or anything turned on, she could use her name and use her daughter’s or son’s Social Security number, which was like a four-year-old kid. So she used that and it went through, she had to put a deposit down, but it went through at least, it wasn’t denied. So that went through.

(00:23:07)
Then she went and she applied for an apartment with that. Sure enough, it went through. She had no credit, but they said, you don’t have bad credit. So she said once she moved into the apartment, she then started getting these pre-approved credit cards. So she goes, “But I knew I had applied there using my son’s Social Security number,” let’s say. So she started filling those out, and sure enough, she got a credit card and then she got two, and then she got a pre-approval from Ford Motor Credit. She went and got herself a new car, got approved. She’d been making the payments ever since. She has a 750 credit score. She thought she’d try her hand at buying a house in his Social Security number, and we caught it and she got a house in that name. We closed it. I just was like, “Wow, this is great.”
Lex Fridman
(00:23:53)
Can I ask you a question about that? Because it seems like she’s able to pay for everything.
Matthew Cox
(00:23:58)
Right.
Lex Fridman
(00:23:59)
So while this is highly illegal, is it unethical? It’s unethical in that it’s messing with the system on which a lot of people rely, but it feels like there’s some aspect of the system that’s broken in that it doesn’t give people like her a second chance.
Matthew Cox
(00:24:19)
She could have claimed bankruptcy and then two years later… Listen, two years out of bankruptcy, you can go into Bank of America and get a conventional mortgage, assuming you have perfect credit outside the bankruptcy, you have the down payment, you make enough money, there’s a whole bunch of underwriting guidelines you have to meet. But that’s possible. But you’re right. For instance, she wasn’t getting an apartment with her bad credit, she wasn’t getting her utilities turned on. She wasn’t getting any of those things done.
Lex Fridman
(00:24:48)
So getting your life back on track is just harder.
Matthew Cox
(00:24:50)
It’s extremely hard.
Lex Fridman
(00:24:51)
So there’s a temptation to take the shortcut and the shortcut is often going to be illegal.
Matthew Cox
(00:24:56)
Right. And she stumbled into it, but she basically explained it to me, and I don’t think she had walked out of my brokerage office before I went, and I just started making up names. And I think I went into our file cabinet and grabbed some people’s 1040s, which we had, their tax returns and looked up children’s Social Security numbers and just grabbed some random kids’ Social Security numbers and their name and went and pulled them. But I changed their date of birth to be an adult. Pulled it, and sure enough it came up, “No file found.” It didn’t say fraud alert or fraud or anything. They didn’t say mismatched this, mismatched that, didn’t say anything. It just said, “No file found.” Well, then we went and we applied for a couple credit cards using a child’s Social Security number, and then we went and pulled our own credit report.

(00:25:52)
And sure enough, it didn’t say no file found. It just said that there had been two inquiries applying for credit cards. So I was like, “Wow, that’s a credit profile.” So that turns into me calling Social Security and trying to get them to issue me Social Security numbers to adults that had never had a Social Security number issued to them. I need to get a Social Security number to give me a clean Social Security number. But I called up, and of course, I’m a novice, I don’t really know what I’m doing. So I call up and I say, “Hey, yeah, I never had a Social Security number issued.” And they were like, “How old are you?” And I was like, “I’m 31 years old.” And they were, “Yeah, that’s not possible. Do you have a driver’s license?” “Yeah.” “You have a bank account?” “Yeah.” “You have a Social Security number. Bring your driver’s license in and we’ll pull it up.” Okay, well, that’s not going to happen.

(00:26:51)
Hang up, call back. “Hi, my son is seven years old or three years old, and he never had a Social Security number issued.” “Oh, okay. Was he born in a hospital?” “Yes.” “Well, he has one. He has one. Go ahead and get your son, come in here…” No, I’m not doing that. Hang up, call back. So I called back probably 10 times, and eventually someone said… I kept altering it, kept altering what I was saying until I got to the point where I was saying, “My son was born with a midwife, not in the hospital. And the pediatrician told us that we need to get Social Security to issue a Social Security number.”

(00:27:43)
And they would say, “Well, he should have issued it. But that does happen sometimes. So bring your son in and you can fill out the paperwork. We’ll have one issued. First, we’ll check to see if he never had one issued. And if he hasn’t, we’ll issue one.” And so then it turned into, “My son is out of the country and I need this.” And then that turned into, “Oh, I’m sorry. Well, how old is he?” I was like, “He’s three.” And they go, “Well, I’m sorry if he’s over the age of 12 months old, he has to come in.” Hang up the phone, call back. “My son is 10 months old, he’s out of the country, born with a midwife, never had a Social Security number.” And then they go, “Oh, okay, that’s fine. Just get his birth certificate and his shot record and you can come in, fill out the paperwork, we’ll issue you a Social Security number.”

(00:28:33)
And that’s what I did. So I figured out how to create a birth certificate. I ordered the security paper where you make a copy. It says, “Void if copied.” I ordered had to order a bunch of that, and I went online and figured out how to make a fake birth certificate. It was great too, because the county actually, they give you a blank form and then they actually show you what it looks like filled out, like a handwritten one filled out. So I knew if he was born this day, he got these shots. Two months later, he got these shots. Six months later he got these shots. So I just filled it out. I even had to order a seal. So you have to have a seal that says “Hillsborough County Vital Statistics” or “Richland County Vital Statistics” or something. And I couldn’t get anybody to make that.

(00:29:23)
So I changed it to Richland County Office of Virtual Records. And then I took 220 grit sandpaper and hit it over and over and over again to wear it down. And then I did the embossment on the corner and I printed it on the security paper, embossed it. Nobody looks at those things. You could see Richland County, you could kind of see that. And really, they just grab it and they go like this. This is what you realize after you… When I started getting driver’s licenses issued by the state DMV, I figured out eventually it was easier to just go into the DMV and have them give me a driver’s license than actually make one. But you notice they would just grab the thing, they’d feel the form and go, “Okay,” they don’t even look at it, which is upsetting if you put as much work into these documents as I am for them to go, “Okay. Yeah, that’s good. Sit over there.” I felt like going like, “Hey, bro, take a look at this. This is artwork.”
Lex Fridman
(00:30:25)
Yeah. But they’re looking for the low hanging fruit of crappy fraud?
Matthew Cox
(00:30:31)
Right. Yeah. This stuff was right through.
Lex Fridman
(00:30:34)
Okay, so birth certificate gets you a Social Security number. So it’s interesting because you’ve done a lot of different approaches to creating synthetic people. There’s homeless people involved. So sometimes it’s grounded in real people or real names.
Matthew Cox
(00:30:56)
Right.
Lex Fridman
(00:30:56)
Some part is fake, some part is real sometimes, and sometimes it’s completely all fake.
Matthew Cox
(00:31:00)
Right, because now I have the name, I have the Social Security number. And what’s great is they mail you. What’s even better is then you get to pick whatever name you want. Because when you pick your child’s name, he doesn’t even have to have your last name, you pick any name. So I would pick a name and I’d just say, “Oh, my wife’s last name is this” If they questioned it, which they never did. I’ve got a Social Security number, and then I would go apply for credit cards and I’d get denied of course, but they would all offer me a secured credit card. So I’d then fill out the secured credit card and I’d send the bank the money, and they would give me a secured credit card for $500, $300, $1000, whatever it was. And then once you start making the payments, I pulled the credit and a credit profile shows up saying that this 31-year-old man with the Social Security number that I know was issued a couple of months ago, has three credit cards.

(00:31:57)
They don’t even say secure. They just say, ” This credit card is $500. It was issued by Bank of America. This one was issued by Capital One, this one…” So I’ve got three of them, but I had no credit scores. So at that point, I kind of kicked back and waited and I just kept making payments. And I remember thinking to myself, “I’ll bet you that the credit bureaus don’t generate credit scores for at least a year.” And I was like, “God, this is going to be a year long process.” And while that was happening, I was starting other ones because I figured at least in a year I’ll have a bunch of these… We call them phantom borrowers, but now they call them synthetic identities. So at least I would have these synthetic identities and maybe I could do something with them. But what happened was at six months, I went and I randomly pulled the person’s credit, and he had 705 credit scores, 705, 701, 695. I was like, “Oh, my God.” You only needed a 620 to get a 95% loan from the bank. So-
Matthew Cox
(00:33:02)
Borrow to get a 95% loan from the bank. So I was like, “Oh my God, this is amazing.” Sure enough, a month later, the other ones I had started, all of them, bam, bam, bam.
Lex Fridman
(00:33:13)
So what do you do with a phantom borrower? How do you make money on this?
Matthew Cox
(00:33:17)
So I think most people, if you were just a scammer or a fraudster, you would probably just get credit cards and maybe build up that history or maybe try and borrow a personal loan, which is limited. Personal loans used to be, you could go to an FDIC insured bank, which borrows money. The personal loans they lend out at the max $15,000. So you could do that.
Lex Fridman
(00:33:52)
So you can go through this whole process of creating a fake identity, getting a card, paying it off, building up credit, and then you get $15,000 at the end or so.
Matthew Cox
(00:33:59)
Right. You get 15. Maybe if you want to keep making the payments, if you could wait a year, you could probably get 15,000, you could maybe get 20, 30,000 and a bunch of little smaller ones. You get 7,500. There was a $7,500 from Citibank, $5,500 from American General. So you maybe get, what? 25,000, maybe 30,000 in personal loans.

(00:34:22)
Maybe you could then get another 20 or 30,000 in regular credit cards. 10,000 here, 8,000, 5,000, and then you go to the lower department store cards and you go to Home Depot, you get 1,000, you get 500. So it ends up being maybe you can get 50, 60,000, maybe if you really good, you could get up to 80 or 100,000 in credit cards and personal loans if you really knew what you were doing. But-
Lex Fridman
(00:34:49)
Per person, per identity?
Matthew Cox
(00:34:50)
Per identity. But I had the ability to leverage those perfect credit profiles against properties, and I mean, ultimately that’s what I end up doing so each one of those identities was worth a few million.
Lex Fridman
(00:35:09)
Can you explain how that works, so to leverage them against property? So how does that work with the mortgage?
Matthew Cox
(00:35:14)
So what I did eventually, I mean this is down the road, but at this point when my whole life had kind of gone off the rails. I was on federal probation, and so what I decided I was going to do was start running a scam, a much larger scam. And what I was going to do was I was going to start flipping properties, right? Buy houses cheap, fix them up and sell them.

(00:35:41)
There’s an area of Tampa called Ybor City. So I was going to start flipping houses in Ybor City. I thought, “Okay, I can buy these houses for,” you could buy a really crappy house at that time for 50, $60,000, let’s say 50. And then you could put $25,000 into it in renovations. You could renovate it for 25 and maybe you could get an appraisal for 100. So I thought what I could do is, “I can buy these houses, renovate them and sell them to regular people.”

(00:36:24)
But I also had been working on the synthetic identities. And then I thought, “well, or I could just sell them to synthetic identities.” And then I wouldn’t have to dump 25,000 into it, right? And these guys are perfect. They have perfect credit. I can provide W-2s and pay stubs because by this point I’m manufacturing businesses. So I’ve incorporated businesses, I’ve got websites for the businesses, W-2s, pay stubs, so these guys look perfect.

(00:36:51)
So I figure I’ll buy these properties for 50,000, sell it to these guys for 100. Maybe I’ll pocket 40 or 50,000. I don’t really have to do anything. But that seemed shortsighted. So I thought, “What would be even better is that if I did a little bit of renovations and then I sold it for much higher.” Maybe I put 10,000 clean up the outside of it, because these guys don’t care what the inside of the property looks like. They don’t exist.

(00:37:15)
“But how am I going to get an appraisal for $100,000?” Well, you know how appraisals work? Okay, so the bank sends an appraiser out, or at that time you could provide an appraisal. They can review it. So they’ll do what’s called a desktop review. They review it on the computer and they never go out to the property or they send someone out. They call that, it’s a field review. They send someone out and they just look at the house. They don’t go in it though. So I have to clean up the outside of the house.

(00:37:53)
But the problem is if you’re trying to sell that house for let’s say 200,000, the other houses, they have to pick three comparable sales in the area that are also going to support a $200,000 sales price.

(00:38:11)
Well, there’s no other house that’s selling for 200,000 near this house. So I thought, “If I want to get these things appraised for 200, 250,000, I have to have comparable sales and that appraisal is going to be reviewed.” So what I did was I went out and I bought this house for 50,000 and I recorded the sale at 200,000.

(00:38:41)
So when you buy a house for $100,000, you pay $700 in dock stamps. But if you pay an extra 700 bucks, the sale shows up for 200,000. I’m buying these things for 50, so I’m paying $350 and I’m just paying an extra $1,050. So it ends up being $1,400, but the sale shows up at 200,000 on a house. That’s a crack house I bought for $50,000.

(00:39:11)
Now I go, I trim the trees, we mow the yard, we clean up the porch, we put the porch rail on maybe, we paint it real nice. We black out all the windows. You can’t see inside, but from the curb it looks great. I get an appraisal. So I do that with that house. I do that with another house all within a mile. So I buy four houses knowing there’s a subject and three comparables for all of them.

(00:39:37)
So the first thing I did is I bought four houses for 50,000, 60,000, 40,000 and I recorded the values at 210, 200, 190. So I get an appraiser to come out there. He appraises it. Of course, he says, “It’s horrible,” but there’s comparables here. Now, of course it is in bad shape, and he says, “It’s in bad shape,” but I go ahead and I correct all that. So I correct it.

(00:40:02)
So now if you review the appraisal and you’re in California, or even if the appraiser comes to the house and looks at it from the street, it looks fine. But the truth is, I’ve got $60,000 into this property and you’re appraising it for 200,000. So the bank, they’re not going to lend 200, but they’ll lend one 190. So the bank is ready to lend this synthetic borrower $ 190,000 on a house that I have 60,000 in. So I schedule a closing and we close on the house and I walk away with $60,000.

(00:40:45)
And the thing is, the problem was is by the time I got to this point, I knew so many people in the industry, nobody had to really at that point show up. Although I’ve had people show up for the synthetic identities and sign for them. Almost all the closings, nobody ever showed up.

(00:41:03)
I just showed up and said to the title agency and said, “Hey, my borrower, he’s at work right now. He can’t make it. Can I just take the file and I’ll have him sign all the documents at his work and I’ll bring them back. He’s like an hour and a half away from here. I’ll be back in two or three hours.” And they’re like, “Oh, wow, man, Matt, thank you so much”. And they would give it to me and I’d go sit in the parking lot and I’d sign all the documents and I’d wait an hour or two and I’d come back in and say, “Here you go.”
Lex Fridman
(00:41:32)
How were you able to keep all of this in your mind because you have to not slip up in any of these conversations?
Matthew Cox
(00:41:37)
It’s pretty easy for me to keep everything in the correct category. Does that make sense?
Lex Fridman
(00:41:48)
Sure.
Matthew Cox
(00:41:49)
I’m not great at a lot of things, but this I was very good at.
Lex Fridman
(00:41:53)
Well, there’s these phantom people that exist and they were becoming real people in your mind, as in you’re able to tell good stories with those people, right? Because if you’re talking to the appraiser, you’re talking to everybody involved.
Matthew Cox
(00:42:09)
Well, keep in mind, the appraiser almost never meets the borrower. Never. 99.99% of the time they never meet them.
Lex Fridman
(00:42:17)
But you have to talk about them?
Matthew Cox
(00:42:19)
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(00:42:19)
So I guess what I’m asking is you’re able to converse fluently about these synthetic identities.
Matthew Cox
(00:42:26)
Yeah. They all had different jobs. They were all on the job for five years. A lot of it was-
Lex Fridman
(00:42:34)
Sure. There’s a template.
Matthew Cox
(00:42:36)
Exactly.
Lex Fridman
(00:42:38)
I got it.
Matthew Cox
(00:42:38)
Listen, as a matter of fact, almost every one of them had the same birthdate because who knows? So it wasn’t difficult and keep in mind, a lot of the brokers barely ever meet the borrower. They call in on the phone, but it didn’t matter anyway, because I’m walking in saying, “I got a slam dunk deal for you.” And they’re like, ” Oh, wow, Matt, you got the W-2s, the pay stubs. You got all their rental history, you have everything done. It’s perfect. Thank you so much.” They’re happy to do it.

(00:43:09)
“Hey, I’ll print up the docs and I’ll have them go sign it.” “Great. Wow, thank you.” Assuming they didn’t already know about it, and almost everybody involved in this by the time I was done, was involved. There was probably 15 or 20 people that all knew what was going on.
Lex Fridman
(00:43:23)
The full of it? They knew the full depth of it?
Matthew Cox
(00:43:26)
Yes. Maybe not 100% everything, but they definitely knew this is fraud.
Lex Fridman
(00:43:32)
And they were still going along with it?
Matthew Cox
(00:43:36)
Keep in mind that even when, I’ll give you an example. One of my, let’s say, and this happened with almost all of them, was, he would buy five houses. So the basic design was I buy the houses, I record the values higher, and this person buys all five houses, refinances them. He ends up borrowing a little bit over a million dollars in his name.

(00:44:11)
Then of course, then I go and I get personal loans from several banks. I get credit cards. I run up all of his credit cards. By this point, I’ve got 10, $20,000 worth of credit cards in the guy’s name. So the guys are all worth a million, a million and change. Well, once I stop paying, you start getting letters from the collection companies, right? From the banks, and then they sell them off. So after about three months, you’re getting tons of letters.

(00:44:37)
And what I would do is I would take my borrower’s name, I would go online and I would find, or I’d go in the newspaper and I would find an article about, let’s say a 12 car pile up. So there’s a huge accident on I-4. It’s very dangerous. So there’s a 12 car pile up, and someone in the accident was life flighted to Tampa General Hospital.

(00:45:04)
I would cut and paste that article and I would just insert my borrower’s name into the article saying that, “Brandon Green was life flighted to Tampa General Hospital. He’s currently in critical condition.” I would then print that article out on newsprint. I’d then make a copy of it. Cut it up, make a copy of the newsprint, highlight his name, and I would write a letter from Brandon Green’s fictional sister to the collection companies saying, “Several months ago, my brother was in a horrible car accident. He is currently…”

(00:45:41)
They’ve got the article, they have the highlighted name. He clearly was in this accident. “He is currently in a coma, and the doctors say, ‘Even if he wakes up from the coma, he will never work again.’ So you might as well just foreclose. Stop writing us letters and take the houses back.” And that’s all they’re looking for, is a reason.

(00:46:02)
At this point, even if they look into Brandon Green, they can’t figure out if he’s a real person or not because he’s got a social security number and everything went bad at the same time. He’s got multiple rental properties or his primary residence, all of his credit cards went bad, everything went bad. We have an excuse. We have a letter. That happens. People get divorced, they lose their job, they get in accidents. It’s reasonable.
Lex Fridman
(00:46:27)
When they look into it, it all looks legitimate.
Matthew Cox
(00:46:30)
Even if they ordered another appraisal, by this point it’s not four comparable sales or three or four comparable sales, by this point it’s 10, 15, 20, 30, 40, 50 because I kept making more and more of these guys.
Lex Fridman
(00:46:43)
What was your, just almost like a tangent, what’s your thinking process? There’s a lot of cleverness going on here. So the car pile up as a solution. The newspaper and you mail it. Are you sitting there alone and thinking through this? How do you come up with that idea? It’s a very interesting, a very clever, innovative idea.
Matthew Cox
(00:47:05)
So at first, I thought about making a fake death certificate. He died. But I thought, “I don’t know what if,” some of these places had primary mortgage insurance, “what if the primary mortgage insurance, what if they try and claim because he was dead or I don’t know. I don’t know that side.” So I’m like, “I don’t want to do that. I want to do something that’s semi verifiable and a third party’s telling you this is what happened.”

(00:47:32)
I thought, “Well, like the newspaper, or do I claim bankruptcy?” And I’ve done that. I’ve gone and got the bankruptcy forms. You can go to the bankruptcy court and they’ll give you forms to mail to all of your creditors. You mail them and they stop contacting you. They wait to be located or notified by the bankruptcy court. But my fear there is, “Nobody’s ever going to notify them. I’m not going through bankruptcy for one of these guys.”

(00:48:01)
So it was like, “This is a better bet than just writing a letter saying, ‘I’m going through a divorce. My wife’s keeping those houses. That’s her problem.'” There’s lots of things you could do, but to me this was, “How do you shut it down without him dying? How do you shut that down?” This is how you shut it down. He’s in a coma. He’ll never work again. He was in a car accident. Here’s the proof. He can’t even write you. I’m his sister. I wrote you the letter.
Lex Fridman
(00:48:29)
It’s a one-time letter that seems to tie up all the-
Matthew Cox
(00:48:33)
Exactly.
Lex Fridman
(00:48:33)
… loose ends.
Matthew Cox
(00:48:34)
Exactly. I don’t know exactly what sparked that as much as there were so many other avenues that I could have gone that I just didn’t know.
Lex Fridman
(00:48:46)
But you were thinking through all those different avenues?
Matthew Cox
(00:48:48)
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(00:48:48)
Are you mostly thinking alone?
Matthew Cox
(00:48:51)
I mean, I had guys I was bouncing-
Lex Fridman
(00:48:53)
Ideas.
Matthew Cox
(00:48:54)
… ideas off of. There were other guys that were involved in the scam. I think that scam ended up making, I think the FBI said it was 11.5 million or something. But there were so many other people that were involved in that scam that were, this guy’s getting 50, this guy’s getting 17,000, 20,000, 25,000. And we’re just doing it constantly.

(00:49:19)
And so the bank would foreclose on that property. They’d take it back. They’d put it back on the MLS. They put it back on the MLS for 200,000. It wouldn’t sell. Then they’d drop it to 150. It wouldn’t sell. Then they’d drop it to 125, 130. It wouldn’t sell. They’d drop it to 90 and somebody would buy it for 90. It wasn’t worth 90. But by that point, we’d done so many houses at that point the whole area shot up.

(00:49:47)
The FBI said we did 109 houses. I don’t think that’s true. But-
Lex Fridman
(00:49:53)
Wow.
Matthew Cox
(00:49:55)
… When I end up leaving Tampa after that scam falls apart, and the FBI shows up, Forbes came out with an article, whatever six months later, and they said that, “The Ybor City zip code was one of the top 20 fastest growing appraising areas in the country.” And everybody was like, “Oh, that’s Matt, because this place is a dump. This is a horrible place.” And I remember one time, I had talked to a guy years later, and he was like, “All the comparable sales have dried up. When you left, there was just nothing even close to 200,000.”

Arrested by FBI

Lex Fridman
(00:50:33)
You mentioned right before telling the story of this elaborate scam that you were on federal probation. How did that happen?
Matthew Cox
(00:50:41)
So I mentioned that I owned the mortgage company.
Lex Fridman
(00:50:43)
Yes.
Matthew Cox
(00:50:43)
So I had started a mortgage company. I had maybe a dozen guys working for me, and there was fraud. I would say it wasn’t all fraud, but whatever, 60, 70% of it was fraud that was going in there. And from the outside of that business, it looked very legitimate. We were an FHA approved lender. We were a VA approved lender. We did conventional, probably signed up with 40 or 50 subprime lenders. But there was a considerable amount of fraud. It became a game, right?

(00:51:23)
I started getting just more and more creative. Like I said, every time I would get away with something you become emboldened by it. It’s like, “Nice.” ” Hey, the underwriter’s looking for this and looking for this.” And you sit there and go, “Man. What am I going to do? You know what we could do? We could create our own bank.” “What?” “Yeah. Here’s we’re going to do. We’re going to go on…” How do they know if this bank exists? These people are in California, they’re in New York. They don’t know.

(00:51:48)
“So what we’re going to do is we’re going to go online,” and keep mind, this is 2000, 2001. The internet’s in its infancy still, right? I remember GoDaddy, I think had just come up with a site where you could build your own website. How cool is that? So I go online with a buddy of mine, and we create something called the Bank of Ybor. We cut and pasted things that we liked from other banks. We got a 1-800 number you could call, or a 186 number, whatever it was, and you could call it, and it would go to a voicemail.

(00:52:28)
So we set up this bank, and then I ended up making bank statements, which by this point, I already had been making bank statements to prove someone has their down payment. Because a lot of times people, they have good enough credit to borrow 95% or 90%, but they don’t have their down payment. So we’d raise the purchase price high enough to cover their five or 10% down payment.

(00:52:50)
We would bring their down payment for them, or we’d have the owner of the house bring the down payment for them. Then we would have a check cut out of the clothing statement to a construction company that I owned, and we get our money back. So they get into the house for 100% financing or 110%. Some of them turned into one 130. We want to pay off their car, give them an incentive to sign. They still don’t have the money to buy it. So we are doing all kinds of insane things.

(00:53:23)
Well, at some point, remember Gretchen Zayas, my old manager?
Lex Fridman
(00:53:32)
Yeah, the original.
Matthew Cox
(00:53:33)
Yes.
Lex Fridman
(00:53:33)
The OG.
Matthew Cox
(00:53:34)
She came and worked for me for a short period of time, and then she and her husband went and opened their own mortgage company, which you should have known it was going to be fraudulent from the get go because it was was called Creative Financing. It was CFM, Creative Finance. No, Creative-
Lex Fridman
(00:53:54)
Creative was in the name.
Matthew Cox
(00:53:55)
Yeah, Creative was in the name.
Lex Fridman
(00:53:59)
It’s really on the nose.
Matthew Cox
(00:54:00)
So she’s doing very well and we became very close by the way. Where we’d go on vacation, went to Puerto Rico together. I got married at the time. I was married. Our kids play together. We babysit. We go to each other’s parties. We’re close. We’re good friends. And she’s got her own mortgage company. She calls me up periodically and asked me, “Hey, can you make a W-2?” Or, “Hey, can you make me a pay stub?” “Sure, no problem.” We’re friends. That’s what fraudulent friends do.

(00:54:32)
So if I needed somebody to verify rent or verify somebody’s rental history or employment, she had a cell phone, she would answer that sort of thing for me. Well, what ends up happening is she gets in trouble. She starts doing fraudulent loans for some guys, and these guys are doing what’s called a cashback scam. So they’re getting a half a million dollar loan on a house that’s worth $300,000. So they’re buying the house for whatever, 600,000. It’s really only worth 300, 350.

(00:55:21)
But she happened to be in an area where she could get the appraisal jacked up. So they buy the house, they get two, $300,000 back, and it’s a straw man’s scam, right? It’s a cash back straw man’s scam. So this is a real person that’s buying the house. He’s got perfect credit, but he’s willing to ruin his credit to get a couple 100,000 in his pocket. So he never has any intentions. So it’s not a synthetic identity. It’s not a stolen identity. It’s a straw man. He’s not a fake person, but he’s just a straw man. He’s a stand in.

(00:55:53)
So he stands in, he signs the paperwork, he buys the house. They end up getting two, 300,000. Well, this guy buys like five houses, so it’s two, $3 million. They’ve lost six, $700,000 and these guys never even make the first payment. They just let them go into foreclosure. So the bank immediately investigates and realizes this is fraud.

(00:56:15)
So the FBI comes in, they grab Pete and Gretchen. She has to hire an attorney, of course, and she doesn’t get thrown in jail or anything. They just come to their office and they tell them they’re investigating them. They know what’s going on and they’re like, “Well, look, we want to talk to you. You’re going to be indicted.” “Okay.”

(00:56:31)
So she comes to me. Well, actually Pete came to me and said, “Look, Matt, can you refinance our house and get us 75,000 out to pay our attorney?” I said, “No problem.” Gretchen gives me W-2s, pay stubs. The whole thing’s fake. I refinance. I get a second mortgage on her house. $75,000, they pay their attorney.

(00:56:51)
Their attorney immediately says, “You need to wear a wire on this guy. He just got you $75,000. I don’t know how you got $75,000. The attorney knows something’s wrong because the attorney’s like, “Your whole mortgage company was just shut down. There’s no way you could borrow $75,000.” So he is like, “This guy’s doing fraudulent stuff.” And she says, “Yes, of course he is.” And he says, “You need to work with the FBI, wear a wire against this guy.”

(00:57:16)
So she calls me one day and says, “Listen, I got to talk to you. The FBI is asking questions about you.” And I go, “What?” And she goes, “Yeah.” I was like, “Meet me at the pizza place down the street. So don’t come into my office,” because everybody knows she’s been indicted. Everybody in her office quit. When the FBI shows up and gives you a business card and announces they’re the FBI, everybody quits. So I said, “Don’t come here.” Because they already know they’re already concerned.

(00:57:42)
So I go and I meet her and Pete, and we sit down at a restaurant, a little pizzeria. I sit down and she starts telling me that the FBI is asking questions about me. And I’m like, “Well, what are you talking about? What are they asking?” And she goes, “Look, they came in, they took all our files.” And I was like, “I didn’t know any of this.” I’m like, ” When did this happen?” She’s like, “A couple of weeks ago and they have some of your files.”

(00:58:05)
Because I had closed several loans for my wife at the time. We were buying rental properties. My wife didn’t have a job. So it’s all fraud. But I could not close those loans at my mortgage company because I own the property. So I’m selling those properties. I bought properties, renovated them, and sold them to my wife to get around something called seasoning.

(00:58:35)
Seasoning says you have to wait six months to a year to refinance at the market value. Otherwise, if you want to refinance, that’s fine, but you have to refinance at the price you purchased the property at. But I bought these properties for 80 or 100,000, renovated them, sold them for two, 300,000 to my wife, who didn’t even get a big mortgage. We were just trying to get around a guideline. But my wife was not working, and I provided W-2s and pay stubs.

(00:59:03)
So when she says all this, she says, “They’re looking at the loans you gave me, at your wife’s loans.” And I went, “Oh my God.” I said, “Well, you didn’t tell them that the W-2s were fake, did you? You didn’t tell them the pay stubs were fake, did you? You didn’t tell them that the down payments were? You didn’t tell them that we were married, did you?” I mean, just absolutely buried myself.

(00:59:27)
And as I’m telling her this, I kind of caught myself and I went, “Okay, wait, wait, wait a minute. Look. Okay, here’s what you’re going to tell them. You’re going to tell them you never met her. She called on the phone.” I start trying to devise a plan that will answer their questions without getting my wife in trouble or them in trouble. And if nobody cooperates, the whole thing should shut down. It doesn’t go anywhere. There’s nowhere for them to go if everybody just kind of stonewalls them.

(00:59:58)
So as I’m saying all this, Gretchen says, “Matt, we can’t lie to the FBI.” And I go, “What are you are you talking about? You’re already lying to the FBI. I mean, you’ve been lying to the FBI. I mean, I just refinanced your house.” And before I can really say anything, Pete jumps up, her husband stands up, and he says, “We’ve never lied to the FBI. We may not have told them everything, but we’ve never lied.” And I thought, “Who are you talking to?”

(01:00:26)
I know that’s not true. So you’re not saying that for my benefit. So I kind of look at them and I’m like, “What?” And I remember looking down, and this may mean nothing, but both of their cell phones were right next to me, right? And I remember they were probably just wearing wires. But I just remember thinking, “Those cell phones are microphones.”

(01:00:49)
They probably weren’t. But I remember thinking, “Oh, wow.” And I looked at her and I went, “Wow.” And I said, “Well, I hope you’re going to get something for this.” She immediately starts crying and she says, “Matt, I’m sorry. I have a kid. I can’t go to jail.”
Lex Fridman
(01:01:07)
Do you have kids at that point?
Matthew Cox
(01:01:08)
Yeah, I have a kid. I have a kid. And I was like, “Wow.”
Lex Fridman
(01:01:14)
What have you learned about friendship from that? Loyalty?
Matthew Cox
(01:01:18)
Oh, there’s no… It’s sweet.
Lex Fridman
(01:01:21)
That must have hurt.
Matthew Cox
(01:01:22)
It’s cute. I mean, I love the idea of it.
Lex Fridman
(01:01:25)
You don’t think that?
Matthew Cox
(01:01:26)
No. I’ll tell you why. So I go back to my office. I remember I told her, I said, “Tell the FBI agent to call me on the phone. Do not come to my office.” So I go back, I’m still trying to figure out how to weather this, right? I go back, I sit down. The phone rings. My secretary comes in and says, “Hey, Agent,” I’ll never forget the guy’s name, “Agent Scott Gale with the FBI.” And I was like, “Okay, he’s on the phone.”

(01:01:52)
She’s standing there. I was like, “Close the door. Get out and close it.” She’s like. So I get on the phone. He asked me if I’ll come down. I said, “Yeah, absolutely. Let’s schedule it for next Tuesday.” I put it off four or five days. I go to my brother-in-law immediately, who’s a lawyer. And he says, “Oh, yeah.” I don’t really tell him exactly what’s going on, but I tell him, “This is what’s happening kind of and I may be in trouble. I need a federal defense attorney.”

(01:02:21)
I don’t even know what a federal defense, I don’t even know the difference. But he said, “You need a federal defense attorney. It’s the FBI.” So we meet a couple lawyers. I end up getting a lawyer. I give him 75 grand. Initially, he had me convinced I was probably going to go to jail for a few years, but really that’s what they kind of do to justify you giving them $75,000.
Lex Fridman
(01:02:45)
Right.
Matthew Cox
(01:02:47)
But the more I thought about it and read, he gave me the guidelines, that supposedly the fraud that I had committed and the guidelines that oversaw that. And I read it and I was like, “I’m not really in trouble here because I’m looking at a felony, but I’m not going to go to jail.” Because there was no potential for the bank to lose money.

(01:03:14)
Because I bought the house with a hard money loan and then I renovated it with my own cash. And when I sold it, it appraised at 250,000. My ex-wife borrowed 180. So there’s plenty of equity. If the whole thing had gone into foreclosure, they still would’ve got their money back. And to be honest, by the time all of this happened, there was only three properties. It was five, but we’d already sold a few. At this point, we’d just sold another two. There’s like one or two properties left.

(01:03:43)
So at that moment, we were selling them. So I was like, “No,” I kind of argue with him. But then he wanted 75 grand. I gave him 75 grand. And then he comes back and he says, “Good news. There was no potential fraud. So I can get you three years.” Now here’s the thing, here’s what I always kind of look back at. When I first went into his office, he said, “Listen, you haven’t been indicted yet. I spoke with the FBI, I spoke with the US attorney, they believe, and they’ve been told…”

(01:04:16)
He said, “Look, they didn’t tell me exactly what they have, but they said what the evidence that they have on you based on two confidential informants, that you cannot go to trial.” And I was like, “Right.” of course I knew that one. And I was like, “Okay.” He said, “But you haven’t been indicted yet and they are fairly certain that you’re running a mill, right? A fraud mill over there, and that you guys are churning out fraudulent loans.”

(01:04:45)
“Now they can’t come and raid your office and do anything about it yet because so far they only have you. But here’s what I’m saying,” he said, “I can keep you from being indicted. It’s called a pretrial intervention where we go in and what we’ll do is you go in, talk to the FBI, you go grab a bunch of your mortgage broker’s most egregious files. Grab them, bring those files to the FBI. Go work with the FBI, they will indict them and you will not be indicted.”

(01:05:27)
And I said, which I kick myself to this day. I said, “Absolutely not. I’m not going to snitch on them. I’m not going to cooperate. I’m not going to,” I’d seen the Godfather, you’re not supposed to cooperate. You’re supposed to be loyal. “I’m not going to do any of that.” And so I say all of this where looking back, if I could go back in time, I would’ve gone into our weekly meeting with a dolly and I would’ve walked in front of everybody and scooped up two or three of the file cabinets and put them in the back of a truck…
Matthew Cox
(01:06:03)
… of everybody and scooped up two or three of the file cabinets and put them in the back of a truck and said, “Listen, you guys are going to be talking to the FBI soon. I suggest you get attorneys.” And I would’ve driven off but I didn’t. I thought, “No, be loyal. Don’t do that.” And what happened was when the other thing falls apart, when the next scam falls apart, every one of these people go to the FBI. Like they’re not even coming to them. These guys are going to the FBI with lawyers. “I want to cooperate. I want to tell you what Cox did. I want to help. I want to” … and I’m thinking I never had to get indicted to begin with.
Interviewer
(01:06:41)
So you think that most of these people, from your experience, are going to sacrifice all integrity. That’s a funny word, sacrifice-
Matthew Cox
(01:06:49)
I’m not sure that applies to this, but that’s all right.
Interviewer
(01:06:53)
They’re going to sacrifice friendships and loyalty just to save their own ass.
Matthew Cox
(01:07:00)
Yeah. I only had one person that did not talk to the FBI. I had one person that every time the FBI or the Secret Service went to that person’s door, she said, “Don’t come to my house again. I don’t have anything to say about Matt. I have nothing to do with any of this. Talk to my lawyer.” And this happened over and over again. And that’s my ex-wife. She’s a gangster.

Omerta: Code of silence

Interviewer
(01:07:24)
So are there people in this world you trusted or you still trust?
Matthew Cox
(01:07:30)
The problem is eventually I cooperate. And at the time, I didn’t want to cooperate. I didn’t believe in cooperation. But after seeing how many people cooperate and the way the system is set up, I think that my understanding of loyalty is vastly more realistic now. And I think that if you are committing crime, if you are absolutely like the things I did, I did a bunch of scumbag things. I mean, I’m not killing people, but I’m doing scumbag things. I’m lying, cheating, stealing. I’m a thief. You boil down to it. That’s what I am. So you can’t go around behaving like a scumbag, dealing with scumbags and then expect those same scumbags to suddenly abide by some kind of a street code and not roll over on you. And it does happen, but it’s in the 90 percentile of people that cooperate, 90 something percent. And people cooperate when they’re not even looking at any real time.

(01:08:46)
So if you’re looking at 30 years, and especially after going to prison, you go to prison and it’s like this guy’s a standup guy over here, he got 30 years. He could have cooperated against all of his co-defendants but he didn’t. Nobody comes to see him. His wife divorced him. His kids ended up in foster care. His friends are cleaning out his house. Nobody puts money on his books. Nobody comes to see him. Nobody answers his phone. Nothing. He took 30 years. Most of those guys turned around. They end up getting indicted for other things. Years later, they cooperate. And the best thing this guy’s got going for him is that he can walk around and say, well, he’s a stand-up guy. That guy’s going to the same halfway house as me. He’s going to do 30 years where I’m going to do 10.
Interviewer
(01:09:39)
A stand-up guy meaning he never snitched.
Matthew Cox
(01:09:41)
Right.
Interviewer
(01:09:42)
And so everybody’s seeing this example and saying, “Well, I’m going to snitch then.” But it sounds like what people are doing is they’re virtue signaling, like they would never snitch and actually do secretly.
Matthew Cox
(01:09:59)
I mean I remember I talked to one of the COs at the prison one time and I said, “Shit, 50% of the guys here snitched.” He goes, “It’s more than that.” “But listen,” he goes, “a hundred percent of them are lying about it.” He said, “There’s nobody here that’s going to tell you they snitched. Nobody.”

(01:10:20)
So there’s guys, tons of them that cooperate. If 80-90% of defendants cooperate, you start doing the math. And if you ask 10 guys in prison, all of them say, “I didn’t cooperate. I didn’t cooperate. I didn’t cooperate.” Okay. Well, you ask a hundred. “I didn’t cooperate.” Nobody’s going to say, “I cooperated.”
Interviewer
(01:10:38)
Does that break your heart a little bit that people back stab each other like this?
Matthew Cox
(01:10:44)
It does. It does but I have such a low opinion of people. You know what I’m saying? I don’t expect … It’s not that I don’t like people. It’s that I just don’t expect anything of them. I don’t expect you to look out for me. There was a time when I did. I thought, “I look out for you. You should look out for me.” But I just don’t expect that anymore.
Interviewer
(01:11:06)
See, but I think humanity flourishes because there is a lot of people out there that do the thing that is difficult to do in terms of integrity.
Matthew Cox
(01:11:17)
That may be but these aren’t people with integrity. These are criminals. If these were decent human beings, and all of them will tell you, “Well, why’d you do that?” “Oh, I was a drug addict” or “I needed the money.” Well, if you were a decent human being, you would have gotten off the drugs. You would’ve gone and gotten three jobs. You can work 80 hours a week. I’ve done it. You can work 84, 85, 80. You can work 90 hours a week. You can do that. “Oh, I did it for my kids.” No, you’re lazy. You could have worked three jobs for your kids. Instead, you decided to sell methamphetamine. “Well, I was addicted.” You could have gotten off meth. It wasn’t important. It was the easy way out. You’re not someone with integrity.

(01:11:56)
So for you to sit there and say, “Hey, I’m going to act like a scumbag, but now I got caught or you got caught and I don’t want you to tell on me.” Well, you’re a guy that robs banks. You stick guns in people’s faces. You kidnap people, you torture people. You sell drugs. You’re not a moral, ethical person, but you want everybody else to hold up to some ethical code while you’re robbing grandma. That’s not right. So I get the whole omerta code, and there was a time when I was delusional enough to believe that. But after going through it, no. And after going through it multiple times, no.
Interviewer
(01:12:43)
I have to really think about that. I deeply appreciate your honesty on this. There’s all kinds of criminals in this world, and they all have all kinds of stories. And your story is one of … I don’t know if it came from desperation versus a love of this kind of game. Like wasn’t part of it an attraction to the creative aspect of this, of breaking the rules when nobody else can and you figure out a way to do it?
Matthew Cox
(01:13:38)
I think initially it was I needed the money. That’s the first thing. You say, “Oh, okay. Well, I need” … and if you ask most guys, “Oh, well, man, I needed the money.” You needed the money. And I definitely needed the money. But then you get $50,000 in your bank and then you get a hundred, and then it’s 200, and then it’s half a million and then it’s a million. And what the hell are you still committing fraud for? You’ve got half a million or a million dollars in the bank or worth of real estate, or you’re making five, $10,000 a month just in rental income. Why are you still committing fraud?

(01:14:16)
So I think it morphs into the creativity, in part, for me. And two, it was a chance for me to prove to everybody how smart I was. It was done out of desperation initially, and then it just turned into pure narcissistic arrogance. “Look at me, look at how I can do things that nobody else can do. Look how smart I am. I just walked into Bank of America, handed them seven documents that were all fraudulent and they cut me a check for $250,000. Like, wow, I’m amazing. And guess what? They’re never going to get their check. And they won’t even know where to start to try and find the person because they’re looking for a phantom.”

(01:15:05)
And you feel great. I felt great. I felt like James Bond. I felt like 007. It was amazing. And it feeded my need to feel important, even if that was a lie, because all that success was just a lie.
Interviewer
(01:15:29)
Well, no, you were good at it.
Matthew Cox
(01:15:31)
I was good at it, but it’s not-
Interviewer
(01:15:34)
It was illegal.
Matthew Cox
(01:15:35)
It’s not like I’m Elon Musk. You know what I’m saying? It’s not like I’m an exceptional human. I’m an exceptional human being at a horrific thing, at committing fraud.
Interviewer
(01:15:46)
Well, the question is how many people are getting hurt? Because-
Matthew Cox
(01:15:50)
The thing is, initially, nobody got hurt. That’s the thing. Nobody ever lost any money directly. I didn’t go and say, “Give me $50,000” and I ran off with your money. I wasn’t doing that. And that was a great justification. But at some point, and we’ll get into that, I take off on the run and people do lose money. I didn’t take that money directly. And for some reason, in my sick mind or whatever the case may be, that seems like a distinction to me that makes me feel okay, is that I never said, “Give me 300, give me $10,000,” and I ran off with it.

(01:16:29)
But I put people in a position where I damaged the title to their house and they had to go get a lawyer to fix that and so they had to go pay a lawyer $10,000. So I absolutely caused that person … To me, it’s you’re a victim and I owe you that money. And it was a shitty thing to do because, even at the time, I was like, “Oh, they’ll make a couple of phone calls, it’ll be fine.” It wasn’t fine. And if I had really put any thought into it at all, I would’ve known it’s going to going to really affect these people. And those people had done nothing wrong with the exception of trusting me. They rented me their house or they owner financed their house. They made the mistake of bumping into me and now they owe $10,000, $20,000 and I’m sure a ton of anguish.
Interviewer
(01:17:28)
So what happened when you were caught that first time?
Matthew Cox
(01:17:32)
So I was caught. I got three years probation. I took the probation.
Interviewer
(01:17:39)
What does that involve?
Matthew Cox
(01:17:40)
Initially, it was just a slap on the wrist.
Interviewer
(01:17:45)
Were you allowed to still practice-
Matthew Cox
(01:17:48)
Okay. So I wasn’t. I couldn’t own the mortgage company anymore. That was a good question because you would think wouldn’t it be great if I could keep on going? But what they said was you have to forfeit your brokerage license and your brokerage business license. And what I did was I transferred my brokerage business license to a guy that essentially bought my business. They allowed me to work as a consultant in the mortgage industry because my lawyer goes to the judge and says, “What else can he do?” And so I have a friend, his name’s Dave Walker. He was a CPA. He came in and he bought my business and he paid me like $9,000 a month and that covered my bills. My wife and I got divorced, so she’s my ex-wife.

(01:18:44)
And I don’t know what to do. I could have … You look back and it’s like I could have claimed bankruptcy. I could have moved into my parents’ spare room, something like that, because I lost everything in my divorce. I had huge child support payment. Not that that has anything to do with my ex-wife. I absolutely signed up for that. I wanted to pay that but it was a chunk of change. So we’re talking about a couple thousand dollars a month for child support. She got all of the apartments that we had. We had about a million, million and a half dollars’ worth of apartments, which isn’t a lot now, but that’s probably five or six million dollars now. So she got all the apartments, so she got everything. So now I’m sitting here/ I can’t be a mortgage broker. I can get my $9,000, but I have to help this guy run this company, train people, do that sort of thing.

(01:19:47)
So what I decided to do was I was going to start flipping houses.
Interviewer
(01:19:52)
Legitimately or not?
Matthew Cox
(01:19:53)
Well, initially, I thought about doing it legitimately but at the same time I was also in the middle of figuring out how to make these synthetic identities. So I’m making the payments every month. Remember? Two months in, three months. No credit scores. No credit scores. No credit scores. And I’m also saying I’m going to start buying houses, renovate them, sell them. So the truth is we actually renovated probably one house completely. I remember it was on 26th Street. We renovated the house completely-
Interviewer
(01:20:25)
On the outside and the inside?
Matthew Cox
(01:20:27)
Yeah, outside, inside. It’s done. It’s good.
Interviewer
(01:20:30)
Okay, great.
Matthew Cox
(01:20:31)
Me and this guy, actually Dave, Dave Walker, the guy that bought my business. So we renovate it and it just so happens at the same time, I go to pull credit one day and, wow, 700-plus credit scores. And I went we don’t have to sell this thing at all. I can sell it and put it in this guy’s name and let him refinance it. So that’s what we did. I ended up selling it to this synthetic identity.
Interviewer
(01:20:59)
Do you remember the first synthetic identity, the name?
Matthew Cox
(01:21:02)
The first one was a Joel Cologne, and then I started getting creative because the ones after that, I started naming … So I had Joel Cologne and an Alan Duncan, but then I … Do you remember the movie, Reservoir Dogs?
Interviewer
(01:21:16)
Mm-hmm.
Matthew Cox
(01:21:17)
So I started naming the characters after guys in the Reservoir Dogs. So I had a James Red, I had a Michael White, Lee Black. I had William Blue, David Silver, Brandon Green. So then I start developing these guys. Now I thought, “Oh, forget those normal things. I’m going with the Reservoir Dogs.” And I thought it was so cute too.
Interviewer
(01:21:44)
Do you think, in retrospect, that was a mistake?
Matthew Cox
(01:21:45)
It was so stupid. That was just … There’s so many things, so many mistakes I made. I mean within the fraud there are mistakes I made, but other than just the overall committing fraud, but it was just like I thought it was so cute. And then you get in front of the judge and the judge is hearing about the Reservoir Dogs and Mr. Green and Mr. Black, Mr. White, Mr. This, Mr. That. And he’s looking at me just like, “You jackass.” And what am I saying? I’m like, “Yeah, I thought that was cute.” But nothing’s cute. Plus I’m making fake banks.
Interviewer
(01:22:18)
What’s the purpose of the fake banks?
Matthew Cox
(01:22:19)
Well, sometimes you have to have your down payment in the bank. So they want three months’ worth of bank statements to see that, “Hey, he’s got his $50,000 in the bank.” And then the more properties you buy, they start to want to see what’s called reserves. They want to make sure that you can pay all your mortgage payments. If this guy loses his job, can this guy maintain all these mortgage payments for the next six months? And, see, they do that and they think you’re going to go, “Oh, no, he can’t do it.” They go, “Well, then we won’t lend it.” Well, when they do that to me, I go, “Of course, I do. Of course he’s got it. Let me send you over the bank statements. Oh, you want to call the bank? Call them.”
Interviewer
(01:22:59)
So there’s a phone number. There’s a website.
Matthew Cox
(01:23:01)
Yes. You can call. We’ll get on there. I’ll do the whole … “Hold on. Okay. What’s the name again? Do you have the account number? Hold on.” You wait a little bit and you come back. “Oh, okay, I got it here. I can’t tell you the exact amount right now, but what was his balance last month?” And you tell, “Oh, yep, that’s it. Exactly. Okay, thank you.” Click.
Interviewer
(01:23:23)
Would you do different voices or would you be-
Matthew Cox
(01:23:25)
No, I’ve done different voices or I’d just have somebody else do it. Gretchen would’ve done it or one of the brokers. Susan would’ve done it, one of the brokers that worked for me, or Kelly or Johnny Moon. I have so many guys and they just get on the phone and they do it because they’re all doing something fraud and we’re all working together. So, “Hey, I need you to call this guy. I need you to call this guy and verify this and say” … “I’m at the bank? Okay, I’m at the bank. Okay, cool.” And they call back and-
Interviewer
(01:23:50)
Does this feel like an organized system or was it more improv, just like dealing with the different situations?
Matthew Cox
(01:23:55)
The government would definitely say it was organized. I always say it was … You’re a bunch of, you’re just a bunch of guys it. You’re joking around with everybody and you’re helping each other, and it’s not like everybody’s kicking up to Tommy.
Interviewer
(01:24:12)
And then all these new puzzles come up and you figure out ways to solve these puzzles.
Matthew Cox
(01:24:16)
Right. You go in and you say, “Hey, I’ve got this loan. I need to get this loan. If this guy’s trying to buy this house and I need a loan that looks like this, where can we go?” And by the way, they cannot order a copy of his tax returns, so you don’t want to have to sign what’s called a 4506. So they’re like, “Oh, okay. Listen, so-and-so’s got a program.” And you go back and forth, “but you have to have this much in reserves. But you got the bank?” “Yeah, yeah, I got the bank. I could do that.” So you go in and you throw it out there to five or six guys and you’re going to come up with an answer.
Interviewer
(01:24:46)
So you’re on probation here. Just to self-reflect, did you start doing this while on probation because of the money or because it gave you meaning?
Matthew Cox
(01:24:58)
God, I mean a big part of that, the reason is I did not want to move back in with my parents and I didn’t want my father to see me struggling, and I didn’t want him to … My success, he had no idea, my success had been the first time he’d ever really been proud of me. Does that make sense?
Interviewer
(01:25:26)
Your financial success?
Matthew Cox
(01:25:27)
Yes.
Interviewer
(01:25:27)
At which point? When was the first time you told him you did something and it was like you could sense him being proud?
Matthew Cox
(01:25:33)
Oh, when I became a mortgage broker. When I became a mortgage broker and I went to work for the company, and we’re talking about within a week I got a client. Three days later, I got a client. A week later, got a client. Two days later, got a client. I closed four loans my first month and my dad was like, “Well, how much money are you going to make?” And I’m like, “Well, I’m charging this much, this. I got a point on the back. I got this. Boom. I’m thinking I’m going to walk home after taxes like 10, 11,000.” “Jesus God Almighty, are you serious? Well, see. Don’t start counting your chickens before that.” And then, whatever, three weeks later, four weeks later, boom, I got a check. It’s like $9,000 or something. And then the next month, it’s 12 and the next month it’s 16. And then they make me a manager and it just-
Interviewer
(01:26:23)
He didn’t know any of it was illegitimate.
Matthew Cox
(01:26:25)
No, he thinks, “My son, he’s brilliant. He’s great. He’s wonderful.” Was certainly not proud of me prior to that. But my dad was athletic. He was extremely bright. I mean brilliant. And I was a kid who had to be put into special schools, who barely graduated high school, who ended up going to college and getting a degree in fine arts because I was never going to be able to get a degree in business. It wasn’t going to happen.

(01:27:02)
So when I graduated college, I remember, with the degree in Fine Arts, he said, “The best thing you could do with that is maybe you could draw caricatures at Disney World.” You know what I’m saying? Which wasn’t a compliment. It wasn’t like, “Hey, you could draw” … And then I turned around and I tried to go to work for State Farm Insurance which is who he worked for. He worked for them for 40 something years, and I failed the aptitude test. So then I went and worked for another insurance company and I was an insurance adjuster, but I couldn’t keep up with the workload. Then I end up working construction. I’m still barely paying my bills. That’s basically where my dad felt like that’s … He was polite to me. We were cordial. But yeah, I think he felt he deserved a better kid.
Interviewer
(01:27:54)
Well, when you started doing mortgages, that’s when he was like-
Matthew Cox
(01:28:00)
Of course. He was like-
Interviewer
(01:28:01)
This kid’s got something.
Matthew Cox
(01:28:04)
I was driving a new … I just pulled in in a new car and I just bought a house that was four or five blocks away from his house, from where I grew up, from where he lived at that time, six blocks away from where my sister’s married to her lawyer husband. I’m doing pretty good. And then, within three months, my new wife, we buy a quadplex, and then we’re buying a triplex and another quadplex and a 10 unit and a duplex and another duplex and a quadplex. And it’s like what the hell’s going on? This guy is blowing up. He’s going on vacation here and vacation here.

(01:28:44)
So when the FBI comes in and they indict me, and I take the three years’ probation, probably the worst thing in the world other than going to prison would’ve been just having to just sell everything and go move in and start over and sell used cars. Not that there’s anything wrong with selling used cars, but I just felt like I just didn’t want to disappoint him any more than I already had. So I thought, “I’m going to flip houses and then I’ll start maybe a development company. So I’ll buy some vacant lots and all this and that.” The problem is these houses I’m buying for 50,000, if I fix them up and sell them, maybe I make $20,000, $25,000. And then you got to find a qualified borrower. It’s very hard to find a qualified borrower that wants to live in Ybor City back then.

Fake ID’s


(01:29:35)
I still think it’s rough but those same houses are going for three and 400,000. So I’m buying houses. I got to get qualified borrowers. I do all the renovations. It’s a nightmare. Looking back, it’s like, “Well, then you got to bite the bullet. It’s just what you have to do.” I didn’t want to do that. I didn’t want to do it. Whether it was laziness or, I don’t know, I just thought, “I’m good at this. I’m going to run. I’m just going to start running a scam. I’m going to figure out how to drive the prices up, buy the houses for 50, record them at 200,000, and then have these synthetic identities, buy all the properties, refinance them, pull out the cash, make six months’ worth of payments, let them all go into foreclosure.” And that really, really started working well, very well.

(01:30:26)
I had one time where I had a guy, it was James Red, the synthetic identity was James Red and he had bought two or three houses, and there was somebody at the office who was friends of somebody who knew the title company where we were closing the loans, and he called her, her name was Mary, and said, “Mary, this guy, James Red, like Cox is doing something shady. James Red doesn’t even exist.” She goes and looks at her last couple files and she realizes, of course obviously, this guy never showed up. She remembers Cox picked up the files, and he’s saying he doesn’t exist. So she freaks out. She calls the mortgage broker. Mortgage broker calls me, mortgage broker calls me up and says, “Listen, Mary said she’s not closing the next loan unless James Red shows up.” And I went, “Wow, that’s a tough one.”

(01:31:22)
And she’s like, “Okay, so what do you want to do? Do you want to go to another title company?” We’re supposed to close in three days, two, three days. I said, “Well, I mean he’s going to have to show up then. I’ll figure it out. Give me a couple of days. Let me figure this out.” And she’s like, “Okay, well, I don’t know how that’s going to happen. He didn’t exist.” Keep in mind at this point I don’t need IDs. I don’t need a real ID. I figured out how to make a real ID. I could make one. I could take sandpaper and sand off the information on a regular ID, and then I would print the corrected information in reverse on a piece of transparency, and I would glue it over there and you could still see the holograms and stuff. It actually worked pretty good. It’s not going to pass mustard with a cop but somebody at the bank like I was able to go in and I would open a bank account with it.

(01:32:11)
Well, so one of the things I had done when I was closing these loans was I would go online and you have to pick a photo of somebody to put on the driver’s license. So I’m not making a fake ID for all these guys because I don’t need a fake ID for all these guys, not with my picture on it, but I need a copy of an ID, but I need a picture. Where do I get the picture? So I go to Hillsborough County’s arrest website, and I would find people that I knew that had been arrested. So I found a guy named Eric Tamargo who had been arrested. He had, I don’t know what it was, a DUI or domestic violence. I forget what it was but there was a picture of him.

(01:33:01)
So I print out the picture, I cut it up, I paste it onto a driver’s license, and I make a copy of it for James Red. That’s what I’ve been giving the title people. When I would close, I’d sign all the documents and I’d leave them that copy so that it looked like they made a copy of it. And then they would notarize all the documents, even though they’d never seen this person. They have a copy of his driver’s license. Everything’s signed. Cox said he signed it. It’s good, notarized. Here’s your check. So what I do is I think let me see if I can get Eric to do this. I knew he’d been to prison before, so I call up Eric and I remember one of my buddies like, “He’s never going to do this.” And I was like, “I think he will. I think he will.”

(01:33:46)
And that’s really that kind of like, “You think? What do you think? No.” “Let me try. Let me call him.” “I don’t know, bro.” That’s the kind of conversations you’re having but really, looking back-
Interviewer
(01:33:56)
I would love to hear the opener few sentences that you have with him.
Matthew Cox
(01:34:00)
I can tell you exactly what I said because it’s burned in my mind. He comes in. So what Eric was doing at that time, he was actually working for us. He worked for somebody else, but periodically we’d buy a house and we’d call him up and we’d say, “Hey, can you and your boss, can you guys come over and trim the trees of this house? Trim all the trees, take all the crap in the yard, clean it up?” They go, “Yeah, sure, no problem.” Because that’s what he did, worked for a handyman service. So they would come and they’d clean it up and they’d do that.

(01:34:24)
So I said, “Can you come over?” And he goes, “Yeah.” So he comes to the office, whatever, a few hours later, and he comes in the conference room. I said, “Hey, Eric, what’s going on?” And he says, “How’s it going?” I said, “Listen, I’m going to tell you something. I need a favor.” He’s like, “Okay, cool. What is it?” I said, “You know all these houses we’ve been having you go and clean up?” He’s like, “Yeah.” “You painted that one house. You did this.” “Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know. I know.” “Right. So here’s what we’ve been doing. I’ve been buying these houses for $50,000, recording them for 200, and then I have these fake people buy them.” And I explain, I just lay it out for him and he’s like, “Wow.” He’s like, “Fucking, bro, that’s ingenious, man. That’s smart.” Like, “Wow.”

(01:35:07)
I was like, “Okay. Yeah, I know. That’s great. So here’s the thing.” I said, “The title company, who’s been closing some of these loans, and we have a closing in a couple of days, she wants this guy James Red to show up, and I need someone to show up as James Red.” And he goes, “Wow.” He goes, “Who are you going to get to do that?” And I was just thinking just like, “You’re not understanding. I’m not confiding in you because I need a friend.” And I looked at him, I said, “Well, I was thinking you might do it.” He was like, “That’s a big favor.” I said, “It is a big favor.” “I could be in a lot of trouble.” And I said, “I know.” And he goes, “Well, wait a minute. I can’t go.” He said, “You have to give these people a driver’s license. You said the driver’s licenses, you were using mugshots. You said she’s closed a couple of these. She’s seen this guy’s picture.”

(01:35:55)
And I go, “She has seen his picture.” I said, “The thing is for James Red, I pulled the mugshot offline of you when you were arrested a couple of years ago.” And he jumps up and he goes, “You motherfucker.” And I go, “Whoa, whoa.” I said, “Eric, wait a minute. Hold on, hold on.” I said, “Listen, I only did that because I knew if it came down to this moment, you were the only person that I knew that could pull this off, that’d have the balls to walk in and do it.” And he sat there and he went, “Yeah, you’re right. You’re right.” And I couldn’t believe he fell … Listen, this guy would beat the brakes off me.

(01:36:32)
He’s like five ten, five eleven. He’s boxed. He’s a big guy. So it’s like I’ve weathered that part of the storm. And he sat there and he goes, “Right, right.” And he goes, “Well, I’m not doing it for free. I’m not doing it for nothing.” I said, “No, bro, of course not.” He’s like, “You’re making a lot of money.” I said, “Well, keep in mind a lot of that money goes back in the property. It’s not like we’re walking away with” … I think I said tens of thousands. We’re really walking away with hundreds of thousands. “It’s not like we’re walking away with a bunch of money, Eric. We got to buy more properties. We got to keep it going. We got to make the payments.” “I know but still I could get in a lot of trouble.” I said, “I understand, bro.” I go, “Well, what do you want?”

(01:37:09)
And I remember thinking if he asked for more than 10 or 15,000, I’ll do it myself. We’ll just change title companies and we’ll go and I’ll do it myself. And he sat there and he went, “I want $500.” And I went “$500?” Listen, I almost started laughing. I put my hand over my mouth. I was like, “$ 500? It’s going to take you 30 minutes.” And he’s like, “I don’t care, bro. I could get in a lot of trouble.” I was like, “Well, I’m not paying you now. You got to sign first.” And he’s like, “Oh, you know I’ll sign. I’ll sign. I know you’re good for it.” For 500 bucks. I made a fake ID for him. He goes into the place, he signs James Red. Comes out.

(01:37:53)
What was funny about that was when we walked into the title company, we’re sitting in the lobby and Mary comes walking out, she looks at me and she goes, “Mr. Cox. I don’t know why you’re here.” She goes, “I told Kelly” … that was the broker … “I told the broker that I’m not closing the loan unless James Red shows up.” And Eric stands up on cue and he goes, “I’m James Red.” And she goes, “Hold on a second.” She runs in the back, comes back with a file, opens it up, looks at the picture, and she’s like, “Oh, I’m so sorry. Give me five minutes. I’ve got the file.” Prints up the docs. He goes in, signs.

(01:38:30)
And when we’re there, she’s passing out the checks, 5,000 here, 25,000 here, 35,000 here, 7,000 here, 6,000 here. So he sees all these checks and I’m like, “Oh, I got that. I have the construction company. No, no, no, I have that. I’ll take care of that. I’ll take care of that.” So I get all the checks and I leave. We go sit in my Audi and he sits down and he’s like, “Bro, that’s a lot of money.” “A lot of that money goes back into the properties, Eric.” And he’s like, “Ah, still, bro.” And I counted out 500 bucks. But listen, a week later-
Matthew Cox
(01:39:03)
And I counted out 500 bucks. But listen, a week later, we had another closing. So he comes in, I said, “Hey, bro.” He says, “Hey, what’s going on?” And I said, “I need you to do the James Red thing.” He goes, “Yeah, I’ve been thinking about that. I did that way too cheap.” I said, “I get it, man. Well, how much do you want? What do you want?” And I’m thinking, “If it’s more than 10 or 15, I’ll do it myself.” He sits there and he goes, “I want a thousand dollars.” I go, ” A thousand dollars, oh my God.” So, I gave him a thousand dollars and he did another one.

(01:39:39)
But by that point it was like five or six. We’d done five or six with that guy. After five or six plus the credit cards, plus all the other things, their credit scores start dropping. If it was 700, now it’s down to like 600. And at 600, you couldn’t really borrow enough to make it worth it. So I go, “No, I have other people in the wings, waiting.” I’d go out and I’d run up the credit cards and pull all the money out of the banks and close the accounts and then stop paying.
Interviewer
(01:40:10)
And you said a lot of people knew.
Matthew Cox
(01:40:12)
Yeah.
Interviewer
(01:40:12)
So, he was one of the people and then-
Matthew Cox
(01:40:14)
He was one of the people.
Interviewer
(01:40:15)
Why do you think nobody said anything?
Matthew Cox
(01:40:18)
Well, I mean, I think everybody was making money. At that time, I had an appraiser. Eventually I ordered appraisal software and I just start doing the appraisals to myself. Why give this guy 500 bucks?
Interviewer
(01:40:29)
So you were doing the appraisal yourself? How’s that possible? Is there a check against that, is there-
Matthew Cox
(01:40:37)
There is. It’s funny. Nobody ever questions that. You actually have to have a license to get the appraisal software. So, I get an appraiser’s that we’re working with, I get her license and I create an email address as her.
Interviewer
(01:40:57)
Ah, so it was a synthetic appraiser.
Matthew Cox
(01:40:59)
Right, it was a real person. But I ended up ordering the appraisal software by emailing, it was called Alamo Appraisal Software. So, I end up emailing them as her, and they go, “Well, we can’t sell you the software unless, we need a copy of your license. Boom, here’s your license.” So, I send them the license and then we paid for it with a credit card. You could go get a green dot card, you go put 500 bucks on it, or a thousand. The software was like 1500 bucks or something, back then, it was a long time ago. So 1500 bucks, they mail it to us, and now I’ve got the software. So, now I can do the appraisals myself.
Interviewer
(01:41:41)
What stops you from appraising it, not for 200,000, but even more.
Matthew Cox
(01:41:45)
There’s no comparable sales. So, no matter what you send to the bank, they’re going to look at it. They’re going to have, their in-house appraiser is going to do a desktop review. He’s going to go online, he’s going to check to make sure all the appraised, all of the comparable sales are sold for what you said they sold for, are the same square footage, were built, what the pictures look like, how far they are. He is going to double check everything, but he’s some guy who’s on salary and he does whatever, 40 or 50 these a day or something. It doesn’t take him long. So, it’s cheaper that way, where we pay for the appraiser, appraisals, the whole thing.
Interviewer
(01:42:22)
Got it. So everybody’s getting paid.
Matthew Cox
(01:42:24)
Right.
Interviewer
(01:42:24)
So at this point, I’m doing that, right?
Matthew Cox
(01:42:27)
Yeah.
Interviewer
(01:42:28)
And I’m getting caught periodically.

(01:42:30)
Can you give an example? What do you mean getting caught?
Matthew Cox
(01:42:32)
I’m living in Tampa Heights, which is right next to Ybor City in Tampa. So, these are all little suburbs of Tampa, and they’re all built back in the 1920s, 1890s, 1910s, 1920s. So, I bought this eight-unit building. I renovated it into a triplex. I mean, I’m driving an Audi. I’m dating a woman that I should not have been dating. I don’t know what she was thinking. So we are going on vacations, everything, life’s good. But every once in a while where things happen, you get a phone call, “Hey, this is what just happened.” One time I got a phone call from same broker, Kelly. Kelly calls me up and said, “Listen, we got a problem.” This was, I want to say this was Alan Duncan. This was one of the first ones that I had done. We used him.

(01:43:28)
So, she calls me up and says, “Listen, Alan Duncan never made his first mortgage payment.” I had a friend of mine, or one of my co-defendants, when we closed on that loan, we both got checks for whatever, 40 or 50 grand. Keep in mind, we’re also buying, some of this money’s going into a business account. We’re buying property. So it’s not like I’m pocketing hundreds of thousands of dollars or even 20 or $30,000 on every closing. I’m more like, I’m getting 25, 10, 20, and this guy’s getting 10 and this guy’s getting 15, and then we’re taking 60 and we’re putting it into the business account. We’re buying a bunch of vacant lots, or we’re building some new houses. So we’re trying to take all this and turn it into a development company. But we still have to pay our bills. So, my buddy’s got to go to Amsterdam at least for two weeks. He’s from Belgium. Apparently you have to do that at least once a year. When I gave him the check, I said, “Here’s the 20 grand or 15 grand, but you got to make the payments on this thing for the next six months.” He goes, “No problem.” I said, “Okay.”

(01:44:46)
So, she calls me up a month and a half later and says, “Hey, Alan Duncan did not make his first payment.” And I went, “Oh my God.” He was actually renting the apartment downstairs for me. So, I run downstairs and I open the door and I go, “Bro,” I’m like, “did you make Duncan’s payment?” And he turns around and he’s like, “Is it due?” And I was like, “Oh my God.” So I run back, I grabbed the phone, I’m like, “He didn’t make it. He didn’t make it.” She’s like, “Okay, well here’s what’s happening. The account executive is calling. They’ve got the file.” It was South Star Bank. “South Star Bank has it. They reviewed it. They’ve already been ordering documents. They’re said there’s a problem there. It’s falling apart. The whole thing’s falling. They know something’s wrong.”
Interviewer
(01:45:32)
But they don’t know exactly what. It’s just something suspicious, or what?
Matthew Cox
(01:45:35)
She didn’t tell me that on the phone.
Interviewer
(01:45:36)
Okay.
Matthew Cox
(01:45:37)
She’s saying there’s something wrong. They’re freaking out. Because the account executive didn’t really know. She just got a phone call saying, “Hey, have you ever met this broker? Did she meet the guy? Who is the guy? He hasn’t paid. We’re calling the sale. Nobody’s answering.” And really, most of this was my buddy Rudy’s fault. He’s just not doing any of this stuff, any of the things he’s supposed to be doing. So, we go to the office and I call South Star Bank. I get the secretary and I said, “Look, I need to talk to,” whatever the guy, the big guy was. One of them was the president and one was somebody else, vice president. So I said, “I need to talk to, So-and-So, the vice president.” And she says, “I’m sorry, he’s in a business meeting.” I said, “Well, listen, tell him this is Alan Duncan. You need to go tell him its Alan Duncan’s on the phone right now. I’m sure he wants to talk to me.” And she’s like, “All right, hold on.”

(01:46:25)
I mean, 20 seconds later, speakerphone. ” Hey, Mr. Duncan, this is so-and-so, and I’m here with our lawyer and the president of the bank and our head of fraud. We were just discussing you.” And I was like, “Okay, I understand that I haven’t made my first payment. I said, it actually came back in the mail. I had the wrong address. That was completely my fault and I apologize.” I said, “But I can get you a cashier’s check. Today I will overnight it, no problem. Hope that’s going to be okay.” They said, “Wait, we’re way past that, way past that.” I said, “Okay, well, what’s the issue?”

(01:47:06)
They were like, “Look, to be honest, I don’t think I’m talking to Alan Duncan. I don’t think there is an Alan Duncan. I mean, your social security number was issued a couple of years ago. We called the bank.” We had gone with our SunTrust Bank, so it was a real bank, but it wasn’t our normal bank. And they called. ” They don’t have any record of you.” And I was like, “Well, I’ve never been happy with SouthStar Bank. It sounds like a banking error.” And they’re like, “Yeah, I don’t think this isn’t cute.”
Interviewer
(01:47:40)
He says, “I don’t think I’m talking to Alan Duncan right now.”
Matthew Cox
(01:47:43)
Right.
Interviewer
(01:47:43)
And you were-
Matthew Cox
(01:47:45)
Terrified.
Interviewer
(01:47:46)
But you have to be playing it Cool, I guess.
Matthew Cox
(01:47:49)
What am I going to say? “No, you’re talking to Matt Cox”? I can’t say that. I’m just, got to keep running with it. Just like, “Okay, well look…” And he’s like, “We called the DMV, they don’t have a list for you in their website. We don’t think you exist. We’re still waiting for a phone call back from so-and-so and so-and-so.” And I’m just like, “Oh my God.” I said, “Have you called the authorities yet?” And they were like, “No, we haven’t, but once we put our file together, we will.” Then the head of the fraud department, they said, “Oh, by the way, Mr…” I forget his name, but the head of the fraud department worked for the FBI for 10 years or something, or 12 years.

(01:48:35)
By the way, the broker is there and my buddy Rudy is there. And I mean, he’s pacing the room, she’s in tears, crying. And I’m like, “Okay, well fellas,” I say, “Where’s this headed? Where’s this going? What are we doing?” So, they’re kind of chuckling and joking about it. I remember thinking, “What’s the deal? It’s weird.” And I said, “Look, let me just pay you back.” They said, “Ah, we’ll get the money. We’re not worried about it.” I said, “You don’t seem worried about the money, about getting any of the money back. Why don’t you just let me, I’ll cut you a check. I can get you the money back. What do I owe?” I owed them 150 or something. I forget exactly. It was nothing. I’m like, owe you 150,000. Let me cut you check for 150,000.

(01:49:22)
They were like, “No, no, we’ll get the money back when we foreclose on the property.” That’s when I was like, “Oh, they think the property’s worth like a $195,000 or something.” I went, “Oh,” I said, “I understand. Okay, so do you have the appraisal in front of you?” They were like, “Yeah.” I said, “Open it up.” I said, “Take a look at comp number one. That’s owned by a guy named name Lee Black. Comp number two is owned by whatever, David Silver,” whatever the names were. I’m like, “Black, Silver, Red.” I said, “I am all those people.” And I said, “Let me tell you what I’ve done.” And I tell them, just laid out, “Boom, boom, boom, boom.” I said, “So you can call the FBI, but you’re not going to get all your money back. Or you could let me give you your money back and we can let sleeping dogs lie. The whole thing goes away. I apologize. I had every intention of making all the payments. It’s a glitch. You caught me. My bad.”

(01:50:31)
So, these guys are all just like, “Oh, my God.” Now they put me on hold, they’re looking through the file, they come back. And I remember at some point we go back, forth, back, forth, and finally they come back and they said, “Listen, you still have the money?” I said, “Yeah.” Well, first they come back, they threaten me, “Oh, well, when we give this to the FBI, you’re…” I said, “That’s not true. I said, the money was deposited into a bank account. It has since been moved. The bank account has been closed. It’s been removed in cash. That money has gone. You will never see that money. I will be cutting you, if I pay you back at all, it’ll be from another account.” So, the FBI agent ends up saying, “He’s right. Even if we caught him red-handed, the likelihood that any of these funds will ever be recouped, is zero.” There’s almost no money is ever recouped.

(01:51:20)
They put me on hold again and they come back and they go, “How quickly can you get us a cashier’s check?” That day I go get them a cashier’s check, overnight the cashier’s check. They never called the FBI. They never did anything. Now, at that point, we actually ditched that Alan Duncan. I remember at that point we went to the mall, ran up all the credit cards and just threw everything away and walked away, because it was shot. That guy was shot. I think we borrowed, whatever, $800,000 or $900,000 in his name.
Interviewer
(01:51:54)
So with the banks, it’s really, really all about the money.
Matthew Cox
(01:51:57)
Listen, when I go on the run, I got one where I was caught so red- handed, it’s insane how bad it was. Listen, that’s nothing. I got caught by Washington Mutual one time. I was caught by Washington Mutual where we had done six owner-occupied duplexes. So, if you say you’re going to live in a house, you can get about 95% financing. But if it’s an investment property, you got to put down 20%, you get about 80% financing. So, a buddy of mine who was a sheriff’s deputy, we had his wife buy, I’m going to say six owner-occupied duplexes, saying she lived in every single one of them.

(01:52:44)
Well, you can’t owner-occupy six dwellings. That’s fraud. Now granted, her W-2s and pay stubs were correct, but she didn’t put the down payments down. Even the down payments we didn’t put down, we actually got cash back. But months later, the lawyer from Washington Mutual ends up calling the mortgage broker and saying that they ended up with two of the owner-occupied duplexes, because Washington Mutual had a credit line extended to one of the lenders who’d lent the money. So, it actually was Washington Mutual. So, it was a couple months later when they went to sell it, they package them together and sell them, they realized we have the same customer with two duplexes, side by side, both owner-occupied. This is fraud. She comes in, she tells me, “Oh my gosh, this lawyer’s on the phone. This is what happened.” I’m like, “Oh wow, this is horrible.”

(01:53:41)
I end up getting on the phone with him. We have a conversation and he’s like, “Look, this is a big deal. We could call the FBI.” I’m like, “Look, who knows who was involved in this? Maybe somebody on your side was involved, maybe somebody on my side. I don’t know what my mortgage broker did. I’ll deal with her on my own. Why don’t you just let us refinance the properties?” Not only did we talk him into allowing us to refinance the properties, he gave us a reduced balance of what we owed him. Because we couldn’t borrow enough to pay him off. So, they took like a $20,000 hit just to refinance those properties. Never called the FBI, never did anything. Absolutely fraud.

(01:54:27)
I had a broker one time, we got caught with over a million dollars in loans that he had done that were fraudulent. Pinnacle Bancorp, which was out of Chicago, the owner called me, and he was like, “Look, your mortgage broker did this.” There was a bunch of canceled checks. They were fake canceled checks. So, they looked like they had run through the bank for somebody’s rent, but they hadn’t. Does that make sense? You pay your rent, they deposit it, it goes to the bank and they’ve got all the numbers and everything. Well, I had a bunch that were blank, that all you had to do was fill out your borrower’s information and then you cut and pasted his name and his address at the upper left-hand corner. You make a copy of it, it looks like canceled checks. We had 24 of them. Well, one of my brokers was using them for all of his files. Even if the person really had a rental history, he didn’t want to order it. He just did this, it was easier.
Interviewer
(01:55:19)
It’s faster, yeah. Wow.
Matthew Cox
(01:55:22)
So they catch a million dollars worth of loans. They called me up, and then they caught another million dollars, but they had already sold them to Household Bank. So, while I’m on the phone with the owner, his name’s Gary, and we’re talking, he’s like, “Look, this is what we found. This is this. This is what happened.” And I remember I said, “Gary, at the end of this conversation, if you think I’m cutting you a check for a million dollars,” I said, “I just don’t have it. I don’t have it.” This was when I owned the mortgage company. He says, “No, I’m asking you for your word that if any of these come back on us, they’re in Florida, they’re in your area. You’ll help us get rid of the properties. We’ll foreclose. We’re going to have to resell them. I don’t want to be flying down there. Just help us get rid of them.” I said, “Absolutely, of course, no problem.”

(01:56:10)
I said, “Well, what are you going to do with them?” He goes, “Well, they’re going to be a part of a package, like a $3 million package we’re selling to Household Bank.” The other ones they had caught had already been sold. The ethical thing to do is to contact Household Bank, say, “We will buy those back. We are going to take care of…” It’s not what happened. In fact, Gary flew down a couple weeks later, took me and several of the brokers, not that broker, but several of the brokers out to dinner, had a few drinks, and he openly admitted. He’s like, “Look, I don’t care if all the loans have fraud in them, as long as they don’t come back on me. That’s what I’m concerned about.” Because there was a clawback clause for one year. He’s like, “So, if they can perform for one year, I don’t care.” That was it.
Interviewer
(01:56:55)
How many people in the industry do you think are operating like this? And by this, I mean in the aforementioned gray area.
Matthew Cox
(01:57:10)
I would say there’s probably, after the 2008 financial crisis, I would say it cleaned up considerably. But I would say at this point it’s just as bad as it ever was. Keep in mind, a lot of the loans that caused the problems, they call liar loans, no qualification, no qual loans, no income. Well, those loans, they exist again. There are subprime companies that are doing that again. I don’t think they call them subprime anymore. So, they got some other name.
Interviewer
(01:57:53)
Yeah, rebranded.
Matthew Cox
(01:57:54)
Yeah, they’ve rebranded a little bit, but it’s happening all over again.
Interviewer
(01:57:58)
It just seems the whole real estate slash banking system is very prone to this kind of corruption.
Matthew Cox
(01:58:08)
But how can you fix it? A lot of the things they fixed, a lot of the manipulation they fixed. But if you tighten it too much, then the average person can’t get a loan. And the thing is, some of these loans, sometimes changing a W-2, should that person have gotten into that house? No, he shouldn’t have, he didn’t qualify. But he makes all of his payments. So it’s like, is it a fraudulent loan? Yeah, but it performs.

(01:58:39)
So, I would say that, I forget what the FBI statistic was. It was like 20% or 30%. Prior to the financial crisis it was like 20 or 30% of bank loans, they were saying, that contained some kind of fraud, even if it was just a lie. If you want to cut 30% out of… That’s a ton. That’s a ton.

Getting caught

Interviewer
(01:59:04)
So, you’re on probation and you’re almost getting caught, you’re almost getting caught, and you’re doing these really large-scale scams. How does it get to the point where you’re on the run?
Matthew Cox
(01:59:19)
I’m doing multiple scams. So, it’s not just that I’m doing the scams with the Reservoir Dog scams. I’m not just doing those guys. I’m also creating other identities because I’ve got other people that are involved. They want to do a scam. So, this chick I was dating, she wanted to run a scam. So, I set up a scam. It’s semi-complicated, but the bottom line is she ends up stealing a real person… We steal a real person’s identity. I have a real person’s identity. We get a driver’s license in her name, open up some bank accounts, go rent a piece of property in her name, and I transfer the deed or the deed from the property out of the real owner’s name, I transfer it into her stolen identity. We then refinance the house like three or four times. So, she starts going to these different closings. Her name is Allison, and she’s pretending to be a Puerto Rican woman named Rosie de Perez. Allison has brown hair and blue eyes. Rosie De Perez clearly doesn’t. So Allison, when we make the ID, she dyes her hair black, curls it a little bit, and gets the pictures taken of herself before she goes to the first closing to get a check for like a hundred thousand dollars. We’ve got three of these scheduled. She changes her hair color, she dyes it back like a dirty blonde, and she goes to the first closing and she gets a check, a check for 100,000, let’s say. I don’t know what it was like 95 or 105, whatever, roughly $100,000. She gets a check at the closing, they give it to her. We then go to the next closing. Well, at the next closing, the title person has her sign all the documents, but she’s looking at her like something’s not right. Looks at her ID, makes a copy of the ID, looks at it and says, “This doesn’t look like you.” And she’s like, “You don’t look Hispanic.” And she’s like, “I’m half Hispanic.” But keep in mind the photograph was her. So she’s saying, “This doesn’t look like you,” but it’s her. Granted she had the curly hair a little bit, but that’s it. So Allison is like, “It’s me.” And she’s like, “Look, I’m not going to give you the check. Let’s just sign the documents. You can get the check. I’ll let you know.”

(02:02:10)
She goes, gets in my car. She says, “Yeah, listen, there’s a problem.” So we’re driving down the road, she explains it to me. I realized, “Okay, that’s done. It’s over. We’re not going back.” She’s like, “What about the other closing?” “No, no. No more closings, we’re done.” And it was probably more of a yell, screaming and yelling like, “What the hell did you do? I told you not to change your hair. Why would you change your hair?” When she came in the day before, and I was like, “What did you do? What did you do?” And she’s like, “I changed my hair. What’s the big deal? It’s still me.” Sure enough.

(02:02:42)
It’s not that I knew that that was going to happen, but why tempt fate?
Interviewer
(02:02:47)
How’d you meet Allison?
Matthew Cox
(02:02:49)
She was a mortgage broker.
Interviewer
(02:02:50)
Okay.
Matthew Cox
(02:02:54)
Sorry, she worked for another mortgage company. She couldn’t get a loan closed. The owner of that mortgage company called me and said, “Look, we got a loan, we need it closed.” And I said, “Great.” And when guys would call me, I’d say, “Great, I’ll come pick it up. I’ll give you a $300 or a $500 referral fee.” “No, no, it’s a couple hundred thousand dollars. We want to close it.” “Well, then close it.” “I can’t close it. We need a W-2 or we need this. We need that. We can’t figure out how to do it.” So, I go over there and typically I convince them, just give it to me or it’s not going to close. But you’d have to see this chick, she was gorgeous. She was gorgeous, very flirtatious. Made me feel like I was thin and handsome. So, she gets whatever she wants.

(02:03:41)
So, I’m like, “Okay, look, here’s what you do.” And I explained to her, “Do this, do this, this. Send it here. It’ll close.” And we closed it. Well, then she starts calling me, “Hey, how’s it going?” We go to lunch. Next thing you know, we start sleeping together. She realizes what’s happening. She says, “I want in on this.” So, now we do the closings. We’re on our way. I say, “Look, that check’s dead.” She goes, “What about the other one?” I go, “No, no, it’s all dead. We’re walking away.” Now, it was easy for me to say, because for me, I had money. She’s going through a divorce, she’s broke. None of this did I take into consideration at the time, by the way, to me it’s like, “Nah, that’s dead. We’re done. We’ll start over again.” To her, in her mind, that was a million-dollar scam. She was about to end up getting whatever it was, half or one-third of half a million dollars in the next week. Now she’s got nothing.

(02:04:42)
So, she says, “Look, let’s at least cash this one.” I had a buddy named Travis Hayes, we actually, we’ve been friends since high school. We were best friends, really close friends in high school. We were still close. Travis was running a scam. Hers was in Clearwater, his was in Orlando. So, I’m all over the state at this point. So, he’s running an Orlando scam that’s already yielded half a million, maybe more. We’re still refinancing properties, right? So he’s about to close on another half a million dollars worth of properties.

(02:05:24)
He’s got a bank account that’s open. She says, “Let’s give it to Travis, have him deposit it in his account.” He’s already pulled out like 300,000 out of the account. And she’s like, “Shouldn’t be a problem.” I was like, “No, no, no.” And she goes, “Let me call him.” I think I called him and I explained the situation. He said, “Do you think it’s okay?” And I said, “No, I don’t think it’s okay. I don’t think it’s okay at all.” And he’s like, “Nah, it’s not a big deal. Just give me the check.” So, I give him the check. He goes, he deposits the check. They say they’re going to hold it until it clears. That was kind of a thing back then. It takes, I don’t know, I don’t know how long it took, five days, six days, whatever it was. He was supposed to go back and it would’ve cleared and he would’ve been able to start pulling money out. So, I call him one day, because Allison’s bugging me. So I call him and I go, “Hey, where are you at?” He goes, “I’m actually on my way to Orlando.” And I said, “Oh, okay, so you let Allison know I’m not getting any money.”

(02:06:21)
He said, “The bank manager called and said that because the check was over a hundred thousand dollars, they have to witness me endorsing the back of the check. Or they had to see my something.” For me to come in, I’m like, “Whoa.” I said, “Something’s wrong. Something’s wrong. Don’t go to the bank.” “What do you think is wrong?” I go, “I think the cops are waiting for you. That’s what I think is wrong.” And he goes, “No, the cops aren’t.” He goes, “Man, I’m in the parking lot right now. I just pulled into the parking lot. There’s no cops.” I’m like, “They’re not going to be in squad cars.” And he’s like, “No.” He said, “It’s fine. You’re overreacting, bro.” And I’ll never forget what he said. He said, “You’re shaking like a little girl, bro. Calm down. I got this. I’m cool with the manager.” The manager, because you’ve chopped it up with the manager, he’s going to let your fraudulent check go through.

(02:07:06)
So, he walks in, the cops are in there, they locked the door. He told me later, they closed the door, locked it. The cops are in there. They grab him, and they bring him downtown. He didn’t say anything. He won’t say anything. That’s not true, by the way. So, here’s what he told me, he wouldn’t say anything, “I told them, ‘I’m not talking to you, coppers.'”
Interviewer
(02:07:29)
Oh, he told you, but he actually did tell him.
Matthew Cox
(02:07:31)
He actually did talk to him. What ends up happening, is we can’t get in touch with him. So, we’re calling and calling, calling. Then, finally I decide, “You know what? I’m not going to call his cell phone anymore. I’m going to call the synthetic identity’s number.” So I go and I call the synthetic identity’s number. I call and somebody answers, and I go, “Hey, is so-and-so there?” And it’s a gruff, authoritarian voice. This is law enforcement. He goes, “No, this is officer so-and-so. Who’s this?” I was like, “Oh, this is Lee Black.” He goes, “How do you know so-and-so?” I was like, “Oh…” Click, and I just hung up, and I called from a pay phone.

(02:08:20)
So, I turned around and I said, “He got arrested.” Then later on that night, he showed up on the county website, the arrest website, showing he had been arrested. The next day he calls me and he asked me to get him out of jail. Like, “Hey, you got to go.” So, I have to give his brother-in-law money. We get him out of jail. He actually got out-
Interviewer
(02:08:44)
[inaudible 02:08:45]?
Matthew Cox
(02:08:45)
Yeah, he got out for nothing. And here’s where I should have known that he was cooperating. It went from like $300,000 bond down to like $10,000. So it’s a thousand bucks. So right then, I didn’t know it at the time, but obviously that means we’re going to let him out of jail. He’s cooperating. So, they let him out of jail. I go and I get him a lawyer, a state… This was state, by the way. It wasn’t federal. So I get him a lawyer for like $15,000.

(02:09:14)
He comes, of course, he tells me, “Look, they asked me a bunch of questions. I told him that…” He made up some story about he’s working with another guy, but he doesn’t know the guy’s name. He made up a name. He has this whole kind of thing where he tells them about me, but not me. None of the numbers led anywhere. So they all lead to cell phones that are only being used for those scams. So it’s a dead alley or a blind alley. I’m like, “Okay, okay.” And I’m paying him. He’s coming in, “Man, my truck’s no good. I need another truck.” I buy him another truck. “Hey man, the electric is going to get turned off and I don’t have… I need a thousand dollars.” “Of course, here’s a thousand dollars. I’m embarrassed you had to ask. Here’s a thousand.” A week later, he needs 2000 for this, a thousand for this, 2000 for this. He wants to start a tree-trimming company. He needs to buy a tree-trimmer. “How much are those? 5,000? Of course, $5,0000.” So I give him another 25,000, starts like a tree-trimming business, which he runs to this day.

(02:10:17)
What I don’t know, is that the whole time he’s actually working with a task force that’s been put together.
Interviewer
(02:10:25)
Federal, or…
Matthew Cox
(02:10:26)
This is state at this point. It’s a state task force because there’s multiple counties involved at this point. It wasn’t hard for him to explain. This comes back to Reservoir Dogs. All he had to say to the officers was, “Listen, you got to let me go. I can’t do any prison time. I’m going to tell you about a much, much bigger scam.” And they go, “Okay, well how can you prove that scam?” “Pull up Hillsborough County’s Tax Appraiser website. Okay, look up the name James Red. Look, all of these were bought six months ago. Six months later, they’re all in foreclosure. Pull up Lee Black. All of these were bought. Look, six months later, all of them are foreclosure. Hey, pull up James Red. Pull up Brandon Green, pull up…” So, all of these are going in foreclosure. What I thought was so cute, not cute. It was just stupid.

(02:11:18)
So very quickly they put together a task force. He’s working with them on the task force, and we’re still buying houses, flipping houses, doing everything. Because I believe him. He’s saying, “Look, if I have to go to jail for a year or so,” and he is also paying… He hasn’t paid them back yet, but we’re saying he can pay them back. He’s like, “Look, if we get to the point, when we get to that point, we’ll pay them back.” But we haven’t paid him back yet, because we have no way to show where that money came from. We can always go to one of his relatives and give his dad 40 grand, give his mom 20 grand, that kind of stuff, and start putting money that way. And all that money was taken out in cash, too. So we could always show up with a chunk in cash.
Matthew Cox
(02:12:02)
All that money was taken out in cash too. So, we could always show up with a chunk in cash. Regardless, it’s still in the process. And, I think that we’re still in the process, and it could be six months or a year away because it’s a slow thing. I’ve already been through the process my first time when I got in trouble, and it was a year from the time that I was spoken to until I pled guilty and was sentenced. I’m not concerned about it.

Going on the run from FBI


(02:12:24)
Well, that’s happening. We’re still flipping properties. And, one day… I have a buddy named Steve Sutton. Remember the sheriff’s deputy? Keep in mind, it’s funny because I’ve done bad loans for police officers, sheriffs, lawyers, doctors, across… everybody. These aren’t all-
Lex Fridman
(02:12:47)
Yeah, everybody.
Matthew Cox
(02:12:48)
… guys that… These aren’t all construction workers or guys that work… or mechanics or something. These are legitimate people that have credit problems or whatever the case may be. One day, I’m sitting at work and I’d been getting phone calls for the prior week from people at title companies saying, “Hey, Matt. Wanted to let you know we just had some subpoenas served on several of your files.” I’m concerned. That had me concerned. Then a guy named Jeff Testerman starts making phone calls. Jeff Testerman is a reporter for the St. Petersburg Times. He’s calling people saying, “Hey, I noticed that you sold a piece of property to Lee Black. Have you ever met Mr. Black?” And, they’re just hanging up on him or saying, “No, I don’t know what you’re talking about. I’m not sure what that guy’s name was. Let me call you back.” And, I’m getting phone calls from people. So, I know something’s up with the newspaper. Now I know something’s being looked at, but nobody’s really talking.

(02:13:53)
I know that there are subpoenas being served and I’m nervous. I’m very concerned. One day, I’m in my office and the sheriff’s deputy walks in, Steve Sutton, in his uniform too, which everybody always stiffened when he would walk in. He walks in. I go, “Steve.” I said, “What’s going on?” He said… and usually he’s jolly and laughs and stuff. He says, “I got to talk to you outside.” I was like, “Okay.” I walk outside, “What’s up?” He says, “I used to date this girl in the Tampa Police Department,” or something. I was like, “Okay.” He said, “She showed up at my house this morning at six o’clock in the morning.” I went, “Okay.” He said, “She said that she’s been working on a task force.”

(02:14:39)
And, he said, “Apparently, one of your buddies got arrested in Orlando. They’re investigating some other thing in Clearwater. They’re investigating a ton of properties here in Ybor, Tampa Heights. And, there’s like a hundred properties involved. And, my name came up because you’ve sold some properties to me,” which I had. He’s like, “So, she came to me and said, ‘Look, your buddy, Cox…'” I was like, “Okay.” He goes… He said, “Well, the task force is on you. And, she said to stop talking to you because they’re going to come arrest you in a couple of days. They just handed over the task force findings to the FBI and the FBI is going to come arrest you in a couple of days. She said not to talk to you because you’re going to cooperate because all white collar guys cooperate. So, she thinks you’re going to cooperate and not to talk to you because she’s afraid you’re going to get me hemmed up. And, she said just to walk away.”

(02:15:42)
He was like, “So, I thought you should know.” I was like, “Okay.” He said, “What are you going to do?” I said, “Oh… you know…” Well, first, he said, “What should I do?” I go, “Tell them. Tell them that I arranged all the loans for you.” You came in. You signed the paperwork. I filled out all the documents. You signed the paperwork. I arranged everything.” I’m like, “You’re not a mortgage broker. You don’t know if this is legit. You have perfect credit. You signed the paperwork. You walked away with a check for 30,000. You don’t know.” He was like… Because, he did it because he had a job. He was a sheriff’s deputy.

(02:16:18)
I went in. I applied for a loan at a bank. They said, “You can buy the house and we’ll give you $30,000.” So, of course I’m going to do that. That’s not going to happen. But, he doesn’t know. I said, “Just tell them yeah. Tell them you’ll cooperate, absolutely.” He goes, “What are you going to do?” I said, “Me?” I said, “I’m leaving, bro. I’m leaving.” I said, “I can’t stay here. I can’t go to prison. I was just sentenced. I’m on federal probation right now. The judge isn’t going to be cool with me getting popped again. I can’t do it. Can’t do it.” I said, “I’m leaving. Can’t go to prison. I’m adorable, bro. I saw Shawshank Redemption. I know what’s going to happen. I can’t.”
Lex Fridman
(02:16:59)
You’re too good looking.
Matthew Cox
(02:16:59)
Yeah, I can’t do that. That’s not going to happen. I am not going to defend myself against a guy who’s six foot three and tatted up. No. I’m no benefit to a gang. I’m a nonviolent, soft, white collar criminal. I was like, “Yeah, I’m leaving, bro. I’m leaving.” Well, I actually went home… Well, actually, I was able to… I started cutting checks to people. I cut checks to Allison, to Johnny, to everybody I could think of. Here’s 5,000. Here’s 7,000. Here’s 8,000. Here’s six. Here’s nine. And, had them going into all these different bank accounts, pulling out cash. But, this is like a Thursday at four o’clock. The next day they show up with cash, write some more checks. They go again. I get about 80 grand in cash. That’s all I can get.

(02:17:50)
I go home that night. I start packing my bags. And, I was dating this chick named Rebecca Houck. We’d been dating about a month. And, she shows up at my house. I hadn’t returned her phone calls all day and apparently we’re supposed to go out and I’d forgotten about it. I had bigger issues. So, I’m packing a couple of duffle bags and she walks in and she’s like, “What’s going on?” I’m like, “I’m leaving.” Where are you going? I thought we were supposed to go out at such and go do something tonight. I’m like, “I’m leaving. It’s over.” She says, “What happened?” I tell her what happened. This is what happened. She’s like, “Oh my God.” She had no idea.
Lex Fridman
(02:18:29)
She had no idea about anything you were doing?
Matthew Cox
(02:18:31)
No, I barely knew her. I mean, she’s coming over two, three times a week for a month. This isn’t love. This is a booty call. That’s all it is. We’re hanging out. We’re having sex and that’s it. I don’t even know you. She suddenly just begs to come with me. You got to bring me with you. You have to this, you have to that. I’m like, “What are you talking about? You’ve got a son. You have your mom lives here.” She’s just in tears and crying. She suddenly said, and this is what’s so funny about it, is that she had just moved from Vegas to St. Petersburg to work at the dog track, to work for a company that owned the dog track. A casino interest or a gambling company. She said, “You don’t even know why I’m here.” I was like, “Okay, why are you here?” She said, “I’m here because I was working for a law firm that worked for the casino company that I worked for.” She said, “I got caught embezzling…” Nothing. It was like 10 or $15,000 from my boss. She had a gambling habit. And, she said, “He didn’t call the police because we were sleeping together and he was afraid his wife would find out.” She said, “So, instead, he banished me here to St. Pete. My son just came to live with me. He’s been caught sneaking out.” Because, the father had raised him. He’d only been living with her since she got to Florida.

(02:20:10)
She’s like, “I was going to send him back. He’s failing school. He’s smoking pot. He’s been caught sneaking out after curfew.” I’m like, “Oh, okay. I don’t know any of this.” She’s like, “He was going back in December?” No, he was going back after the school year, which would’ve been like May. Okay. I’m like… Where before, five minutes earlier, I thought she was this sweet secretary, sweet innocent secretary, she’s like, “I’ve been married three times. I am a gambler. I’ve claimed bankruptcy. I’m sleeping with my boss.” She went from this thieving, adulterous, and I thought these are all really beneficial to my future plans. And, I shouldn’t have… At that moment, I was so just flipped out and concerned. And, up and leaving your life and everything you know behind, that’s terrifying. Now, you’re alone in a strange place, in a place-
Lex Fridman
(02:21:17)
Is that the first time you’ve done something like that, leave to go on the road?
Matthew Cox
(02:21:21)
Yes. I’d never just up and moved. And, keep in mind, now I can’t call home. I’m leaving… There are things that I feel like get you caught. I’ve watched tons of these TV shows and there are certain things that get you caught. One of them is keeping in contact with anybody in your old life. I’m thinking that’s not going to happen. I’m not contacting anybody. I’m leaving and that’s it. That didn’t really happen. I kept in touch. I called my mom every once in a while. But, I was like, “Okay, that’s cool.”
Lex Fridman
(02:21:52)
Did the loneliness of that hit you early on or no? Like as you were packing…
Matthew Cox
(02:21:56)
I never did. Well…
Lex Fridman
(02:22:00)
You’re leaving your life… I mean, it feels like a fundamental transition.
Matthew Cox
(02:22:04)
Oh, listen. You think? Listen, not just that I’m leaving my son. I have a son. I was leaving everything. I was just terrified of going to prison. It was just so stupid. It was just arrogance. I should have stayed. I made things so much worse. But, I also thought I’m smart, I can figure this out. I can change my identity. Blend in. I’ll be fine.
Lex Fridman
(02:22:37)
Aren’t you already… People know what your face looks like.
Matthew Cox
(02:22:40)
They do. They do. But, one of the first things I did was I got plastic surgery.
Lex Fridman
(02:22:44)
What kind of plastic surgery?
Matthew Cox
(02:22:46)
I got a nose job. I got what they call a mini facelift. They go in through your back of your ears and they suck out all the fat in your neck.
Lex Fridman
(02:22:54)
Does that change appearance much?
Matthew Cox
(02:22:56)
A little bit. I was balding. I got two hair transplants, two hair grafts. The hair in my head, this isn’t my hair. It’s my hair, but it’s from back here. They cut it here-
Lex Fridman
(02:23:07)
It looks great.
Matthew Cox
(02:23:09)
Appreciate it. They reimplanted it there. Got liposuction, just some other stuff. And, got my teeth done, that sort of thing. That was my plan. I’ll go, I’ll take off. I got 80 grand. I’ll steal some more money. But, I let her come with me. We ran up all my credit cards over the next few days, packed up the car, traded in my Audi and got an Audi… I don’t know, it was it like an A6 or a four-door, like the big four-door, whatever it was. Got that and drove straight to Atlanta. I wrote a letter to my parents before I left, just explaining this is what’s happening. I’m leaving. I’m done. I’m not going to prison. Love you. Sorry.

Identity theft

Lex Fridman
(02:24:03)
Sorry.
Matthew Cox
(02:24:03)
Sorry. Sorry. I know I’m a disappointment. Sorry. Bam. I take off, go to Atlanta. When we went to Atlanta, I already had the name of a guy named Scott Kugno that I’d done a loan for. I had his vital information. I have his name, date of birth, social security number, mother’s maiden name, and where he was born. One day we were having a conversation and I just slowly pried all that out of him. We’d done a loan for him. So, I already had his name, date of birth, social security number. But, to steal his identity, I need to know where he was born and his mother’s maiden name. Through the course of the conversation, I just pried, “Hey Kugno, is that… What is that? Is that like Irish? Is it…” No, it’s such and such. What’s your mom’s name? Oh, such and such. Oh, okay.

(02:25:05)
Were you born here? Were you born in… Weren’t you from? Ah, man. I was born here. I was born in such… Oh, Hillsborough County. It was no big deal. We get to Atlanta. I make a fake ID for both of us. But, keep in mind, I don’t have a driver’s license. I do. But, they’re fake. I can’t give this to a cop. Can’t give a driver’s license that says David Freeman.
Lex Fridman
(02:25:28)
What’s David’s residence? Florida or is it Georgia?
Matthew Cox
(02:25:31)
No, this is Florida. But, it was just a made up name. I’d gone to high school with a kid named David Freeman. So, I had an ID, but I can’t give that to a cop. That’s enough to rent a place or do something. So, we go to Atlanta, make an ID, set it up, make some business cards, set up a couple of websites, set up… get an HQ which is… it’s a company that will… You can do virtual… You can rent virtual… You can rent offices and they’ll answer your phone for a hundred bucks a month and they’ll forward them. So, it seems like you have an office.

(02:26:08)
They give you a phone number that you call up and they say, “Hi, United Southern Bank.” They’ll answer the phone and forward messages. We get one of those, make a business card for Becky. She rents a house from a guy named Michael Shanahan. We rent Michael Shanahan’s house. It’s like $200,000. $200,000 house in Alpharetta. I then go to… Wait, I then order Scott Kugnos birth certificate, social security card. I think I registered to vote in his name and I made a lease agreement in his name. And, I think that’s all I needed. Then I went to Alabama and got a driver’s license in his name. I went into the DMV, give him all these documents, which almost all of them are real except for the lease.

(02:27:05)
They said, “Sit over there.” I sit over there. I sit down. Boom. 20 minutes later I have a driver’s license. It was 20 something dollars. It was nothing. I get the driver’s license. Now, I’m driving this. I’m still driving a car, an Audi that is in the name of Matt Cox. I park that. I then go get social security to issue me a social security number in the name’s Scott Kugno. I then turn around and I go and I get a loan. You put down 20, 30%. There’s all these first time buyers. 30% down. Get like a Honda or something. Now, we’re living in a house, we’ve got some furniture, bedroom furniture. I go downtown. I pull the title to this guy, Michael Shanahan’s house, and I go downtown and I satisfy the loan on his house. He had two loans with Bank of America.

(02:27:59)
I create two satisfaction of loans from Bank of America. Michael Shanahan owns a house in the name Michael Shanahan. He has one mortgage with Bank of America and a second one. When you pay your mortgage off, the way public records knows it’s paid off is they mail public records a satisfaction of mortgage. It’s a one-page document, and it’s notarized.
Lex Fridman
(02:28:27)
You’ve got two of those.
Matthew Cox
(02:28:28)
I filled out two. I created two of them. I just ordered… You can do research. When I went downtown, I researched Bank of America satisfaction of mortgages. And, thousands show up. I just grab a couple of them and now I know what the basic template is. They’re all different by the way. It’s not like you even have to be that close. But, whatever. I mimicked some of them. I had a notary stamp. Not hard to get. You go into three different office depots and you say, “Hey, I need a notary stamp.” You give them the information and you come back four day… or whatever, a week later and they give it to you.

(02:29:09)
So, I’ve got these notary stamps. I notarize the satisfactions. I go downtown, I file them. Boom, the mortgages are gone. Keep in mind, Bank of America, he’s still paying the mortgages. They don’t know that they’ve been satisfied in public records. They’re not notified. Those are gone. But, it takes about a month or two for it to show up. Atlanta was that far behind. I think it was Fulton County. They were just way behind. So, we just have to dick around for a while. We’re going on little vacations. We’re going to New Orleans. We’re going to different places as Scott Kugno, driving a car as Scott Kugno.

(02:29:46)
We opened up several bank accounts. We opened multiple bank accounts. And then, we ended up going to Vegas. We do go to Vegas. But, what happened was we were driving around and I remember thinking, telling her, I was like, “This is a problem. We have to get real IDs, real driver’s licenses. I mean, this is real. But, this is a real person too. He may stumble across it.” What I did was I started running ads in magazines saying home loans available. Good credit, bad credit, no problem. Call now. Government loans, government… VA, FHA, whatever. Call this number. People start calling and I’m getting their information. One of the guys I got was Michael Eckert. Yeah, I remember. Michael Eckert. Poor Michael Eckert. I actually legally changed his name to Michael Johnson at one point. But, at this point, it was just Michael Eckert. I wanted to see… I’m bored, I want to see what the process is. How much does it cost? Is this possible? Let me see if I can change this guy’s name. It was 1,500 bucks. I changed it.
Lex Fridman
(02:30:56)
Without him ever showing up anywhere. So, you can fake-
Matthew Cox
(02:30:59)
Well, I have a driver’s license in his name.
Lex Fridman
(02:31:00)
Right.
Matthew Cox
(02:31:01)
I am him. So, he did show up. He showed up at the lawyer’s office.
Lex Fridman
(02:31:06)
Right.
Matthew Cox
(02:31:07)
So, I do that. I’m living in the house and we’re driving along one day and I’m saying, “We got to get real. These people that are calling…” One guy, I get his information. But, during the course of taking the application and I’m asking these government survey questions at the very end, there’s like 20 questions and I’m rambling them off. At some point, he was like… He volunteered, I never even asked anybody about criminal history. He ended up saying something, “Well, I do have a felony. Does that matter? It was a DUI. I’ve had a couple DUIs. But, I got my license back.” That was part of the reason he had bad credit. It was like, “Okay, no. Nope, it doesn’t matter. Don’t worry.”

(02:31:53)
I’m thinking you’re not getting a loan. So, I’m just taking… I’m just stealing from you, stealing your information. I get all this information. I’m gathering it. One of the things I said to Becky while we are sitting at this stoplight is I’m like, “We got to get people’s real information. For instance, I said, “What if I steal somebody’s identity? I get a driver’s license in his name four states from where he lives, and he gets a DUI? I could get pulled over two years later and get arrested for a DUI that he got in Florida.” She’s like, “Well, what are you thinking? Are you thinking criminals or you thinking prisoners, mental patients?” I looked over and there was a homeless guy holding a sign. I went, “Like that guy.” I’ll never forget, she goes, she says, “The hobo?” I don’t know who calls them hobos. She’s like, “The hobo?” I said, “Yes. That guy.”

(02:32:48)
I said, “Hold on.” Pulled over to a Subway. Got out. She went inside to get Subway. I walk across the street, pulled out like 20 bucks. I said, “Hey bro, can I ask you some quick questions real quick?” He’s like, “Yeah, what’s up?” I go, “Here’s 20 bucks.” I said, “Listen.” I said, “When was the last time you were gainfully employed?” He’s like, “Ah,” whatever, “10 years.” I’m like, “Oh, okay. Do you have a criminal record?” He’s like, “Ah, I’ve been arrested with misdemeanors, like vagrancy.” He names off some things, drunk in public, whatever. I was like, “Are you on probation?” He goes, “I can’t do probation. They don’t give us probation. They keep us for 90 days. They release us. The judge knows I can’t do… I’m not going to show up for a probation.” I’m like, “Okay, do you have a driver’s license?” He’s like, “Maybe, I don’t think so.” I go, “Did you get a DUI?” He’s like, “No, I think it’s just expired.” Did you have a driver’s license with you? He’s like, “No, I got nothing.” I’m like, “Okay. Well…” He told me he lived in a tent in the woods. So, I gave him another 20 bucks, asked him a few more questions. I remember in the middle of it, he said, he goes, “What, are you’re taking a survey or something?” I remember thinking… not thinking, I chuckled. I go, “You get a lot of surveyors out here like that.” He goes, “Yes. Sometimes.” I was like, “Really?” He goes, “Yeah.” He said, “People from halfway houses and…” What did he say? Social workers and stuff. They’ll come out and they’ll pass out stuff and they’ll ask us questions and stuff. I’m like, “Oh, okay.”

(02:34:25)
I thought, “That’s good to know.” I go back. I get grab Becky, and she’s like, “Oh, did you give him money?” I said, “I give him like 40 or 60 bucks or something. Forget what.” She was like, “What a waste of money.” I thought that was good. That was money well spent. I said, “That guy’s perfect.” I said, “That guy… He’s got everything. He has no way to be contacted. He has no documentation on him.” I said, “He’s not going to drive a car. He’s not going to get a DUI. He has an expired license. I just have to get his license reinstated and I can be him.” I went home. I typed up what I called a federal statistical survey form, and I made a little thing. I mean, I went online. I mean, I’m always filling out federal documents as a mortgage broker. It looked identical. I mean, I had this little… the recycle symbol, and it was like Federal Form 17017. I print out these forms. I go buy a clipboard. I make a little Salvation Army ID. I pin it on me. I go out and I start-
Lex Fridman
(02:35:31)
Doing surveys.
Matthew Cox
(02:35:32)
I start surveying homeless people. Don’t judge me, bro. I was in a bad spot. I was in a bad spot. I see the judgment. I see the judgment. Let’s maintain civility here. Stay neutral. Stay neutral.
Lex Fridman
(02:35:46)
These homeless guys, I mean, they have a social security number. They have a birth certificate, I guess. I mean, they’re a real person. They’re a real person.
Matthew Cox
(02:35:56)
Right. They’re just not using their real person.
Lex Fridman
(02:35:58)
Yeah. They’re not actively engaging with the economic system, the financial system. They’re not employed. They don’t have housing, all that.
Matthew Cox
(02:36:07)
Yeah, they don’t file taxes. One of the questions I even asked the guy, one of the last questions, I said, “Do you believe that you will be gainfully employed within the next two years?” Every one of them said no, no, no. It was like, okay, they’re not even trying. They all had alcohol problems. Or, honestly, the few of them I talked to, it was pretty clear. I mean, it takes literally five minutes, less than five minutes to fill out the form. I filled it out for them, of course. But, even filling it out and that brief just asking questions back and forth, half of them, you could tell you’ve got some mental illness. Something’s not right with you. These aren’t guys that are going to go out and are going to get jobs. They’re not cleaning up. They were perfect for my purposes, as horrible as I know that sounds.
Lex Fridman
(02:36:56)
Do you feel bad about this little small tangent?
Matthew Cox
(02:36:59)
No. Do I feel bad about it?
Lex Fridman
(02:37:02)
The homeless people in society are really… It’s a difficult life. Dealing with mental illness, dealing with drug addiction, all that stuff.
Matthew Cox
(02:37:11)
I mean, listen, being in prison and then the people that are in prison that are going to be homeless or have been homeless, or the mental illness that I’ve dealt with in halfway houses and even doing this, I don’t know what you do with these people. I don’t even know that you house them. You can’t necessarily even house them together. They cause such problems. I don’t know what the solution is other than just keeping them fed maybe and keep them away from normal people so they don’t cause crime or whatever. I don’t know about housing them in one area. That seems like a mistake. There is absolutely no good solution to that problem. None. Because, it’s not like, “Hey, if we gave you a house and we gave you job training and we gave you this,” okay, you might get 5% 10. But, most of them are on the street because they’ve just messed up over and over and over again. They just gave up.
Lex Fridman
(02:38:11)
But, I guess we still have to remember that they’re human beings. We mentioned off-mic Soft White Underbelly, and he highlights the humanity of people who’ve had a real difficult life. He does it well.
Matthew Cox
(02:38:24)
Mark Laita, he is amazing. He’s amazing. One of the things he had said was, he was like, “These are real people.” He’s like, “They have stories and they need…” But, if you also talk to Mark, he’ll tell you, “You can’t give them money. You can’t…” He’s tried. Every time he’s reached out and tried to help these guys, put them in apartments, fed them, got them back on their feet, within six months, they’re back on the street. It just happens over and over and over again. I mean, I think the amount of money that would have to be dumped into correcting that problem, I don’t know. I mean, you can say, “Well, yeah. But, just you should do it because it’s the right thing to do.” I don’t know who’s paying for it.
Lex Fridman
(02:39:13)
It’s complicated. But, for your purpose, they have a social security number.
Matthew Cox
(02:39:18)
They got 20 bucks. They seem very happy.
Lex Fridman
(02:39:20)
There you are with a clipboard, taking a survey.
Matthew Cox
(02:39:22)
Right. Took a survey, went home, ordered their… And, of course, they give me everything. Name, date of birth, social security number, mother’s maiden name, where they were born. Have they ever been in the armed services? Have they ever had a passport issued? What states have they had identification in? Have they ever been arrested? They ever been on probation? Have they ever claimed Social Security Disability? SSI. I mean, I had like 17 questions and it absolutely answered everything.

(02:39:50)
What high school did you go to? Because, high school transcripts are great for documentation. A lot of times they’ll ask you for high school. Can you get us a copy of your high school transcripts? That’s good to know. And, I’m a big believer in overkill. I mean, I ordered a ton of stuff. If I needed three things to get a driver’s license in your name right, I’d come in with six. Because, what you do is you get in front of the guy at the DMV and you fumble through like, “Oh, I got this. What else do you need?” I know exactly what you need. But, they’ll be like, “Oh, was that high school transcript? Yeah, I’ll take that. Oh, voter’s registration card. Give me that. Yeah, you’re perfect. You’re good. Sit down. Right over there.” That’s it.
Lex Fridman
(02:40:29)
Who’s, by the way, lurking in the shadows trying to catch you? You’ve mentioned FBI, Secret Service, you mentioned… I think I’ve heard you mentioned US Marshals, which is interesting. Cops, in general, the police, CIA, I guess CIA is international only.
Matthew Cox
(02:40:44)
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(02:40:44)
FBI is internal.
Matthew Cox
(02:40:45)
Yes.
Lex Fridman
(02:40:46)
Okay. When you’re doing this, who are you afraid of?
Matthew Cox
(02:40:52)
By the time I’ve gotten to Atlanta, within four or five days, the FBI raided my office. I guess I missed that.
Lex Fridman
(02:41:00)
Back in Florida.
Matthew Cox
(02:41:00)
Back in Florida. When I left and drove to Atlanta and left, remember the FBI was going to show up a few days later. They were going to arrest me.
Lex Fridman
(02:41:08)
And, they did.
Matthew Cox
(02:41:09)
They did. They showed up… I left on a Sunday night or something. Because, for some reason in my stupid thought, I thought, “Well, they won’t arrest me on the weekend.” Like they don’t work on the weekends. They came on a… whatever it was, like a Tuesday or Wednesday or Thursday. Within a few days, they’d come in the office, they raid it, they’re looking for me. But, I’m gone. Nobody knows where I am. Now, I’m surveying the homeless guys and I turn around and I’m ordering their documents. And, as their documents are showing up, I’m going to different states and getting IDs. I’m going to Florida. Over the course of this whole thing, I’ve had 27 driver’s licenses in seven different states. I’ve had two dozen passports. Because, if you’re going to get the driver’s license in the guy’s name, you might as well get… or an ID even, you might as well get a passport. Because, a passport’s not difficult to get. They don’t fingerprint you. All they’re doing is saying, “This is your ID and were you born here?” Then they run a check. It comes back or it doesn’t. Back then, you could do it expedited and I’d have it in two weeks. Now, it takes like 90 days or 60 to 90 days to get one.
Lex Fridman
(02:42:24)
If you have multiple ideas for a single identity, that’s more proof.
Matthew Cox
(02:42:27)
Right.
Lex Fridman
(02:42:29)
Wait, what number did you say? How many IDs? How many identities?
Matthew Cox
(02:42:34)
I had… Well, I’ve had over 50 identities. But, I’ve had 27 driver’s licenses issued from state DMVs, Department of Motor Vehicles.
Lex Fridman
(02:42:45)
Legitimately?
Matthew Cox
(02:42:45)
Legitimately. I walked into the DMV, said, “Hi, my name’s Michael Eckert.” And, I just moved here about three weeks ago, four weeks ago. Here’s my lease. I lost my driver’s license, bro. I don’t know what I did with it. I don’t know. I don’t know what happened. I don’t know. They’re like, “It’s all right. What do you have? I need a proof of residency.” Well, I have my lease. Oh, okay. I need a primary. Okay, here’s my birth certificate. Okay. And, I need a secondary. Here’s my social security card. But, I also registered to vote.

(02:43:20)
My girlfriend made me vote immediately, and she said I would need that. Oh yeah, it’s perfect. You’re good. I don’t even need that. Okay, great. Stand over there. Pay that person. They call your number, 275. Forty five minutes later, you go, you pay your 25 bucks. You stand in front of the screen. They take a picture. You got a driver’s license. You walk out, it’s still warm. It’s beautiful. It smells like popped plastic. It’s amazing. So, I am opening up different bank accounts in these guys’ names and just about-
Lex Fridman
(02:43:53)
Yeah, sorry. Well, what are you mostly doing with the identities? You opening up different bank accounts?
Matthew Cox
(02:43:57)
Right now?
Lex Fridman
(02:43:58)
Are you doing credit… starting to establish credit or no?
Matthew Cox
(02:44:01)
Some of them. I might order secured credit cards. So, I’m building their credit. It’s not helping me in any way. I’m just sending out $500 to get a Capital One card or a American… I’m sorry, a Bank of America secured credit card, whatever. So, I’m building their credit. But, not all of them. Only a few. Because, although I’m collecting them, I’m also going to be moving soon. I’m only here to get a few hundred thousand dollars and move. I need some kind of a base. So, I don’t want to start getting credit cards and building up a history in Atlanta in anybody’s name. But, I am getting driver’s licenses in other states, like North Carolina, South Carolina.

More scams

Lex Fridman
(02:44:49)
What’s the primary method of income here when you move to a place? South Carolina, how do you make a hundred thousand at this time?
Matthew Cox
(02:44:57)
Oh, well, right now, I’m living in this guy’s house and I satisfied his loans. The house is worth 200,000.
Lex Fridman
(02:45:02)
Got it.
Matthew Cox
(02:45:03)
What happens-
Matthew Cox
(02:45:03)
… His loans, the house was worth 200,000.
Lex Fridman
(02:45:03)
Got it.
Matthew Cox
(02:45:03)
So what happens is one day we go and we check public records. Remember I told you it takes months for it to show up?
Lex Fridman
(02:45:08)
Mm-hmm (affirmative).
Matthew Cox
(02:45:09)
And it shows up. He’s got no mortgages on the house. So now I turn around, and I make a fake ID in the name Michael Shanahan, and I’m living in his house, but I have no credit. There’s no credit. So the ID, I’ve got a social security number, and I order some secure credit cards in his name. So if you pull that credit profile, it shows up saying he’s got some credit cards, but they’re only a month or two old. So I can’t go to Bank of America. I mean, I could, but I needed to get the money as quick as possible. I want to get out of Atlanta.

(02:45:51)
And at this point, by the way, there’s multiple articles showing up in Tampa. So the St. Petersburg Times is writing multiple articles about me.
Lex Fridman
(02:46:03)
With your face.
Matthew Cox
(02:46:04)
With my picture. Yeah. But honestly, it’s post-internet, but it’s in its infancy. Like nobody’s… It’s not huge. And honestly, it’s a local newspaper in Tampa. It’s not that big of a deal. I’m not concerned about that so much at this point. What I’m concerned about is getting a chunk of money and just moving on and kind of reestablishing ourselves in a better way where we’re not living in a building that we’re going to be committing fraud in with our house.

(02:46:36)
But I’m living in this place. I make a fake ID in the name Michael Shanahan, and I call up three hard money-lenders. A hard money-lender is a guy that lends his own money or other investors’ money on property, kind of like a bank, but he’s lending his own money so he doesn’t have to really meet the banking requirements, and he can charge a much higher interest rate. These guys are charging 12, 13% interest, simple interest, and they’re only lending you a much lower percentage of the value of your home. So they’re not lending you 90% of the value. They’re lending you 65%, 60%.

(02:47:17)
So I call three of these guys. They all come out to the house at different times, and each one of them says, “I’ll lend you 100,000,” or it’s like 150,000. They all lend roughly 150,000. So we schedule three separate closings. None of them know about the other person. So what I do is I close one loan on let’s say Monday, and then one on Tuesday, and then one on whatever, Wednesday or Thursday, or they may have all been the same day, to be honest, but I don’t remember.

(02:47:48)
The point is I go to three separate title companies or real estate attorneys, and we close, and I get checks, after cost and everything the total ends up being roughly 400,000. So I’ve got 400,000.

(02:48:04)
Becky and I run another scam in Tallahassee, Florida, and we get like 50 grand, plus the ’80s dwindled down to close to nothing. Because we had gone on several vacations. We went to Bermuda, and I think we went to Jamaica. We actually stayed at the Ritz in Jamaica. So it was very nice.
Lex Fridman
(02:48:25)
You and Becky. So Becky turned out to be pretty good in terms of scams on the road?
Matthew Cox
(02:48:30)
No, she was useless. She was horrible, and she just spent money all the time. And what I realized too, very quickly, is she’s bipolar. So she’s bipolar, and she’s absolutely insane. She smokes pot all the time.
Lex Fridman
(02:48:48)
Did that matter for you personally or did it actually affect how good you were able to do these particular scams?
Matthew Cox
(02:48:56)
It was that she was the type of person that would start an argument at 1:00 in the morning and scream at the top of her lungs and get the cops called. So I can’t have the police called. I can’t get taken downtown and fingerprinted. I can’t have the police showing up. I don’t know who’s looking. We haven’t had plastic surgery at this point. We’re still pulling money together.
Lex Fridman
(02:49:26)
Oh, Becky.
Matthew Cox
(02:49:27)
Yeah, Becky’s a problem. And at some point, actually, we send her to a psychiatrist, and they put her on Zoloft. And she takes it for a month or two, and then she stops taking it. She thought she was all better. Like you’re not all better.
Lex Fridman
(02:49:48)
So can you give me a timeline here? How long are you able to be on the road here successfully?
Matthew Cox
(02:49:53)
Three years.
Lex Fridman
(02:49:53)
Three years.
Matthew Cox
(02:49:54)
This is me. This is the first few months.
Lex Fridman
(02:49:55)
Three years. Three years.
Matthew Cox
(02:49:59)
Yeah. What happens is we get that little chunk of money, we deposit it into these bank accounts, and we start pulling out cash, which works out fine because we’ve got a bunch of accounts and we’re pulling out little amounts, 7,000, 5,000, 8,000. And I would cash checks against her accounts, and they would call her to verify, “Oh, is there’s someone here trying to cash a check for $9,000? Can you verify the payee?” And they go, “Oh yeah, that’s Scott Cogno.” “Oh, okay, thank you.” And they cash the check.

(02:50:34)
These are new accounts, so it looks odd, but we were always… I open the account. So what ends up happening is we’re cashing them, and I remember getting really frustrated because it was just taking forever. And I had gone into a bank one time. And they have banks where they actually cash large checks. Like if you go into Bank of America and you try and cash a check for $15,000 or 25,000, they probably won’t do it. They’ll tell you, “We don’t have that much cash on hand. We don’t this, we don’t that.”

(02:51:12)
They have certain banks that do that. So they told me where one of those was. I went there, I had a check for like 29,000 that had been cut on a closing for Michael Shanahan. Remember I refinanced Michael Shanahan’s? I’ve got a check for 29,000 that was issued to Scott Cogno. So I’m sitting in the bank, I go in there and I say, “I need to cash this.” And she says, “You’re going to have to talk to the manager.” I go, okay. She says, “Go sit down over there.” I go sit down in the little glass cubicle.

(02:51:41)
He comes over and he says, “I see you’re trying to cash this check.” And I was like, right. He goes, “Why don’t you just deposit in your own bank?” And I went, “My bank is a credit union or something and it’s in Florida. They’ll hold this thing for two weeks. I need the money now. I have people I need to pay.” He was like, “Well, I’m not sure.” And I was like, “Well, it’s fine. It’s a cashier check. It’s good.” And he goes, “No, it’s good. It’s good.” I said, “You have the money?” And he’s like, “Yeah, we have the money.” He said, “It’s just odd. Hold on,” he goes back in the back, and he comes back and he says, “Where’d you get the check?” Cashier’s check. I said, “It was a cashier’s check. It was drawn off of a closing for somebody’s property that we’re doing. The company I work for, we’re putting on an addition on,” okay, that makes sense.

(02:52:31)
Comes back, goes, “Well, why do you need cash?” And I was like, “I’m cashing guys’ checks that work for the company. There’s a lot of these guys that are Mexican guys. They give them a check, they go to a check cashing company or they get charged 5, 10%. So I cash them,” I’m like, I don’t under… What? The check’s good, right? And he’s like, “Yeah, we’re just trying to verify some stuff.” And he went, “Yeah, hold on.” And he leaves again.

(02:52:56)
And I remember my cell phone rang, and I pick up the phone, it’s Becky. She goes, ” What are you doing? What’s taking so long?” I go, “Ah, the guy’s being a jerk. He doesn’t want to give me the money.” Well, she’s like, “Oh my God, get out of the bank. Get out of the bank.” And I went, “I can’t get out of the bank. The guy’s got my ID, he’s got my credit card, my ID, and the check for 29,000. He’s going to call the police if I just jump up and run.” And I go, “Don’t call me again. I’ll let you know. It’ll be fine.” I hang up the phone.

(02:53:23)
She calls back, same conversation, “I’m bouncing all the walls. I’m like, I’m going crazy.” I’m like, “It’ll be fine.” Hang up the phone. He comes back out and I said, “Hey, so what’s taking so long?” And he goes, “We’re trying to get in touch with Michael Shanahan to verify the check.” That’s not good for me. I’m thinking, right, right. Okay. Okay. And he walks away, the phone rings, it’s Becky, “What’s going on?” I go, “They’re trying to get ahold of Michael Shanahan.” She goes, “Oh my God! Oh my God!”

(02:53:58)
And I’m like, oh my God. And I remember thinking I shouldn’t have left her the keys. There’s a good chance I run out of this place and she’s not there.
Lex Fridman
(02:54:05)
But by the way, when you’re sitting there, you’re who? Scott? You’re Scott?
Matthew Cox
(02:54:09)
I’m Scott Cogno.
Lex Fridman
(02:54:10)
And then-
Matthew Cox
(02:54:10)
The other guy’s-
Lex Fridman
(02:54:11)
He’s calling Michael Shanahan, okay.
Matthew Cox
(02:54:12)
Right. They’re saying they’re trying to get in touch with Michael Shanahan. So then the phone rings, my cell rings again, and I look, and it’s not Becky. So I pick up the phone, I go, hello? And she says, “Hi, this is Kim from Sun Trust Bank. Is this Michael Shanahan?” So I’m like, ” Yes, it is Michael Shanahan.” And she says, “There’s a guy here, he’s trying to cash a check. It’s very large. Could you verify the payee?” And I go, “Sure. It’s Scott Cogno.” I said I believe the amount’s $29,000. And she goes, “That’s right. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.” I said, okay. I said, “Hey, by the way, how’d you get my number? This is my cell number.” And she’s like, “Oh, I’m sorry. We called the title company, and the title company gave us your phone number.” Well, I closed those loans. That’s my cell. That’s why if they looked in any other way, they could have gotten in touch with the real Michael Shanahan. So I was like, oh, okay. Hang up the phone.
Lex Fridman
(02:55:09)
You answered the phone from the bank while sitting in the bank-
Matthew Cox
(02:55:13)
As Scott Cogno.
Lex Fridman
(02:55:14)
As Scott pretending to be Mike.
Matthew Cox
(02:55:18)
Right. So I just verified the check myself.
Lex Fridman
(02:55:21)
As Matthew pretending to be Scott pretending to be Michael.
Matthew Cox
(02:55:24)
Right. So I wait there, terrified still. They come out about two minutes later, the manager comes out, plus a woman, I’m assuming maybe that was Kim. She never said anything. And she walks out, and he counts out the money twice. 29,000. 29,000. And I stand up, and I mean, I remember shoving the money in my pockets. Like I’m trying to get out of there so quick. I’m like, hey. I’m like, okay, cool. I’m thinking this whole thing feels bad.

(02:55:54)
And I’m getting up, and so I’m starting to walk out of the bank and he said, “Excuse me, Mr. Cogno?” And I said, yes, sir. I turned around. And he goes, “I’d like you to know that I feel very apprehensive about this transaction.” And I go, “Really? What is it exactly?” He goes, “I can’t put my finger on it.” And I go, “It’ll come to you.” And I turn around and I just bolt right out of there.

(02:56:21)
And keep in mind, a week or so later, the Secret Service shows up. Did you cash a check for $29,000? So what’s so funny is that was one of the last checks we cashed. So we ended up with like 400,000.
Lex Fridman
(02:56:33)
Was there a connection between the Secret Service and this guy?
Matthew Cox
(02:56:37)
No, the-
Lex Fridman
(02:56:37)
The apprehension.

FBI Most Wanted

Matthew Cox
(02:56:38)
So the FBI is looking for me kind of in Tampa, and they’ve put out a fugitive warrant for me, which is how the US Marshals got involved.
Lex Fridman
(02:56:47)
So the US Marshals track down fugitives.
Matthew Cox
(02:56:50)
Yes, federal fugitives, they track down.
Lex Fridman
(02:56:54)
But everybody’s after you. You’re on every list.
Matthew Cox
(02:56:57)
Right. I’m on the FBI’s most wanted list. At that point, the Secret Service got involved once I leave Atlanta. So when Becky and I pack up our bags and we leave Atlanta, the Secret Service got involved because of identity theft, banking, identity theft. The Secret Service doesn’t just do counterfeiting and protect the president. They also protect the financial infrastructure of the United States, and they especially have jurisdiction when identity theft is involved.
Lex Fridman
(02:57:28)
So identity theft plus bank fraud there, that’s when they [inaudible 02:57:33]
Matthew Cox
(02:57:32)
They move. Yeah, that’s it. That’s their territory.
Lex Fridman
(02:57:36)
And the US Marshals are just fugitives.
Matthew Cox
(02:57:39)
US Marshals, just fugitives. They don’t do any investigations.
Lex Fridman
(02:57:42)
Okay, but they’re all kind of working together?
Matthew Cox
(02:57:44)
Yeah. Yeah. The US Marshals are, let’s say, an arm of all of the various law enforcement agencies. Federal agencies, not the states. The states have their own fugitive task forces or fugitive…
Lex Fridman
(02:58:00)
So when you leave Atlanta, basically everybody’s after you.
Matthew Cox
(02:58:03)
Everybody’s after me.
Lex Fridman
(02:58:05)
Did you know this at that time? Or did you ever sense it?
Matthew Cox
(02:58:08)
No. I mean now every day you’re just looking your name up every day. I’m not, because I’m just trying to get a bunch of money and just blend in, right? Things were not as interconnected at that time as they are now, but they’re starting to get interconnected. But of course, I have no idea how much. I barely go on the internet for anything. Dating. That’s the only thing on the internet. I had never been on Facebook. At this point, Facebook isn’t even out yet. This is 2006.
Lex Fridman
(02:58:38)
Still, were you trying to stay low?
Matthew Cox
(02:58:39)
Yeah, I am. I’m not a flashy person. I’m not driving… Like I didn’t go out and buy a red Lamborghini. I’m driving 40, $50,000 cars. I’ve had some sports cars, 70, 80. Maybe that’s 150,000 sports car now, but it’s still not flashy. It’s not like it’s bright red or yellow. I mean, it’s always something nondescript.

Close calls


(02:59:03)
And I’m living in areas that these cars are everywhere. So I end up going to Charlotte, North Carolina. We rent an apartment, we decide to run a scam in South Carolina, so I go to Columbia, South Carolina. And in between this period of time, we go to Las Vegas. We go to Las Vegas to drop off a bunch of money to Becky’s son’s father, who’s taking care of her son. We drop off some money there we go, and we start… And while we’re there, it’s like, “Hey, there’s homeless people here.”
Lex Fridman
(02:59:45)
So you’re always-
Matthew Cox
(02:59:50)
You know, usually I don’t feel bad telling these stories. You make me feel bad.
Lex Fridman
(02:59:54)
I’m sorry. I’m sorry, my judgment is showing. No, but you have to be collecting identities, I guess, to be constantly creating new identities.
Matthew Cox
(03:00:02)
So I got my survey forms. So I go, and we go out and I’m taking surveys, and I end up going up to this guy. There’s like two or three guys that are standing on a bench or sitting next to a bench or something. And I see him and I walk up. And one guy gets up and he comes over and he is like, “Hey, what do you need?” And I went, “I’m taking surveys for the Salvation Army to determine where we place our next homeless facility.” And the guy goes, “Oh, I’m not interested.” And they always said that. And I said, ” It pays 20 bucks cash right now. It’ll take you five minutes.” And they’re like, “$20 cash right now?” I was like, yeah. I show them the cash. And they go, “Okay, yeah. What do you need?” Name, date of birth, social security number.

(03:00:40)
So when I get to criminal record, he says, criminal record. He’s like, “Yeah, I’ve been arrested three, four times,” he said, “for prostitution.” He said, but they’re like misdemeanors. And I went, okay. And it was like, okay, well prostitution… To me, women get charged with prostitution. Men get charged with solicitation. I went, “Prostitution?” And he said, “Yeah, yeah.” He said, “I offered to blow an undercover cop for 20 bucks.” He said, “That’s what I thought you were coming out here for.” And I was like, no, no, bro. I said okay. And he’s like, yeah. He said, “I mean, a girl’s got to do what a girl’s got to do.” And he made some comment or something. I was like, okay.

(03:01:26)
So I jot down the rest of it, we’re good. I give him 20 bucks. I get in my car. I leave. We get back to North Carolina. I order all of his documents. His name was Gary Sullivan. I then go to South Carolina. When I go to South Carolina, I get a real estate agent. We drive around for a day. We look at five or six houses. I put five owner financing contracts on five different houses. So he writes up five contracts, all of them are asking for owner financing. I’ll put down 10%. I want owner financing. Two of them end up coming back and saying yes, we’ll do it. I have two closings. One of them is a house that’s worth like 225,000. I put down 25 grand. Another one’s 110,000. I put down 11,000.

(03:02:24)
So I buy these two houses. I then satisfy the loans on both the houses. Everything seems like it’s going okay, although Becky’s a lunatic at this point. She won’t take her medication. She’s had so many outbursts. And by this time we’ve had plastic surgery. She’s gotten plastic surgery, she’s gotten a boob job, she’s gotten liposuction. I mean, all kinds of stuff.
Lex Fridman
(03:02:56)
Look quite different? Like appearance changes or?
Matthew Cox
(03:03:00)
Thinner, better looking, just tightened everything up. I guess. She had had a kid, and she was 33, 34. I don’t know how old she was. 32, 33? I don’t know, roughly my age. Yeah, she lost like 15 pounds. Not because of the surgery, but just in general, we’re just working out. We’re going mountain climbing. We’re riding bikes. Fraud’s not a full-time job, so we have plenty of time.

(03:03:29)
So we’re goofing off, but she’s also a lunatic. She’s getting the cops called. She’s able to go out, and she’s able to stay stoned 24 hours a day. She’s going out with friends, drinking. I never leave the house.

(03:03:48)
Even to this day, I really barely ever leave the house. I’m very much a homebody kind of person. So the idea that I’m able to make my living doing YouTube and I never have to leave my house, I love that. I don’t ever go anywhere except for the gym and back home. That’s it.

(03:04:03)
So what happens is I’ve actually moved her out of my apartment. Like I had an apartment downtown, 30-story building. I actually move her into another apartment. She’s that much of a lunatic. We can’t even be in the same place. Multiple times I’ve tried to leave her, she’s called me up and begged me to come back. It’s horrible.

(03:04:23)
So I end up buying a couple houses in Columbia, South Carolina. I satisfy the loans on the houses. I’ve got an ID, not a driver’s license, but an ID in the name of Gary Lee Sullivan. And I refinanced those houses, because keep in mind, there was owner financing, but they also had mortgages. So there’s something called a wraparound mortgage. So these guys did wraparound mortgages. So let’s say you buy a house for $250,000 and the bank lends you 200,000, and then you owner finance the house to me. So I give you 50 grand down, but I’m not able to get a loan from the bank to pay off your mortgage. So what we do is you do a wraparound mortgage. So I’ll pay you your mortgage and you pay the bank. So there is a second mortgage on the property, but it’s wrapped around your first.
Lex Fridman
(03:05:21)
That’s legal?
Matthew Cox
(03:05:22)
Mm-hmm (affirmative). Yeah. I wouldn’t lie to you. So these have wraparound mortgages. So-
Lex Fridman
(03:05:30)
You’re always selling, and you’re good at it.
Matthew Cox
(03:05:32)
So I go, I satisfy the owner finance loans, the wraparound mortgages, and I satisfy the original loans that these people took out on their own mortgages. One of them, by the way, I sat… You have to sign as the president of the bank, right?
Lex Fridman
(03:05:53)
Yeah.
Matthew Cox
(03:05:53)
So I sign it as C. Montgomery Burns, which is the aging tycoon, the guy that owns the power plant in the Simpsons TV show. So I sign that and I notarize it, which I thought was cute. I actually wanted to sign all of them cartoon characters, and Becky was screaming her head off and wouldn’t let me do it. Like I wanted to do all the Simpsons, right? But she wouldn’t let me do it. She’s screaming and hollering. Nobody knows who C. Montgomery Burns is.

(03:06:18)
So I sign it, notarize it, all of those are satisfied. I then go to multiple banks and I start refinancing all these properties multiple times. So I’m applying for these loans, and I’m getting the loans, and I’m closing, so I’ve got like five or six loans on this one house, it’s like 225,000. I think it was like 230, whatever. I borrow four or five loans on that house. So I borrow like $190,000 like five times. So I’ve got like $800,000, and then I borrow another 3 or 400,000 on the other house, the smaller one. So it ends up being like $1.3 million. It’s actually 1.5 million. It was more. But what happened with that was… So keep in mind, you can only open up so many bank accounts in your name. You can go to Bank of America, they’ll open one. Then you go to SunTrust, they’ll open one. They might even ask you, did you open another bank account today? Because every time you do it, there’s an inquiry into something called Check Systems or AccuCheck. And so then by the time you go to the third bank, they’ll say, “Listen, something’s not right. You’ve got multiple inquiries.” If you go to, whatever, Mercantile Bank, they might go, “Okay, we’re going to open one.” They’re going to need an explanation, but you’re not opening more than three. By the third one, they’re going to be like absolutely not. Something’s wrong.

(03:07:46)
So I’ve got multiple identities, but I can only open up so many banks. The other problem is that these checks, they’ll only give you so much money on a refi. Usually after 100,000, they only want to let you walk away with let’s say a $100,000. So one of the things I did was I would typically record another mortgage and have them pay that mortgage off. So I opened a corporation to do that, so I could then turn around and go open corporate bank accounts. Because now it’s not going off my information, it’s going off the corporation, so I can open up multiple corporate bank accounts.
Lex Fridman
(03:08:22)
Well, these corporations are fake or real?
Matthew Cox
(03:08:24)
No, no. I went to a real corporate attorney and had him open them. I gave him whatever. I gave him like $1,500, $2,000, and he opened up a corporation for me, Gary Sullivan, and I then turned around and I went and opened up multiple bank accounts in that corporation’s name.
Lex Fridman
(03:08:39)
How are you keeping track of all this? Is it in your head or do you have good organization?
Matthew Cox
(03:08:44)
Oh no, every single identity has its own file with plastic inlays, sleeves for their passports.
Lex Fridman
(03:08:54)
That’s nice and organized.
Matthew Cox
(03:08:55)
For all this. Yeah, it’s super organized.
Lex Fridman
(03:08:57)
You open this. I’m Gary now.
Matthew Cox
(03:08:58)
Right. That’s exactly what it is. You kind of go over, boom, boom, boom, boom. You sit in your car for a minute, you put it down, you walk in. Well, what happens is it went up to 1.5 million, and I’m pulling money out of the bank, and then one day I got a phone call on Gary Sullivan’s cell phone. The guy, it’s a lawyer. They call up, he says, “Hey, I’m a lawyer with Washington Mutual. We have an issue.” I said, “What’s that?” He says, “We got a phone call from the title company.”

(03:09:26)
One of the title companies that I was attempting to refinance one of the pieces of property with noticed that I… They’d been sent a document that showed that I had purchased the property, and I said I purchased it cash, and the documents said I purchased at cash. And they got that, and there was actually a mortgage on the property. And so somehow or another, they connected it and they called Washington Mutual and they said, “Look, there’s an issue. We have a fraudulent document here.” And he said, “So we went and we looked, and it turns out that we pulled public records and that there is a mortgage in front of us, several mortgages in front of us. So there’s like three or four mortgages in front of me, Washington Mutual. You owe us.”

(03:10:19)
And it wasn’t that much. It was like it 100 grand, right? Like 95 or 100. And I said okay. And he said, “So there’s an issue here. You’ve got a few mortgages in front of us, and we’re supposed to be your first mortgage, and we’re not supposed to be two mortgages behind or three.” And I was like, “Okay, sounds like an error. Not a big deal. Have you contacted law enforcement?” He said, “No, I haven’t. I was hoping we could rectify this some other way.” I said, “You know what? I think we can. I’m going to have my lawyer call you back. I’m going to go to his place right now. Give me about two hours.” No problem.

(03:10:53)
I immediately run, jump in my car, head towards South Carolina, call my corporate lawyer, tell him, “Look, I need to talk to you. Here’s what’s going on.” I explain it to him. He doesn’t really understand. He says, “This sounds pretty complicated. My law partner is a criminal defense attorney. I’m going to set up a meeting right now with all of us.” Okay.

(03:11:15)
I get there 45 minutes later. I walk in the door, I sit down. He says, “What happened?” They said, “Gary, this doesn’t sound right. What happened?” I said, “Okay, so listen. Bought this house. I bought it cash. I then refinanced it,” I didn’t buy it cash, but I told him, “I bought it cash. I refinanced it like four or five times within a day or two of each other.” And they were like, “How is that even possible?” I was like, “Well, I went to different title companies,” and I explained how I do it. I said, “Washington Mutual just found out that they’re in second position or third position.” Or I said, “But they may be in fourth position.” You know they mail these things in so you never know. And he was like oh my God. He’s like, “What do you want to do?” I said, “I want you to contact them and agree for them to not contact the authorities provided I pay them off.” He goes, “Do you have the money?” I said, “I do have the money. I can go get the money right now.”

(03:12:10)
He calls the lawyer. This is back when faxes, right? So they fax some documents back and forth. They do a couple emails back and forth, and they have a conversation. I remember the lawyer started arguing because he wanted to charge me like yield spread and fees and stuff, and I was like, “What are you talking about? I’ll pay it.” So it ends up being a little over 100,000. And I’m like, that’s it. So he’s like, okay. And so he says, “Okay, that sounds good.” And so he said, “Okay, all you have to do is go get the check.” And he said, “bring it to a Washington Mutual branch. Tell them to call.” I said, “I’m not going into a Washington Mutual branch, bro. I’ll bring you the check.” So he calls them back, he’s not doing that, right? Okay, I’ll bring it here. You guys take care. He said, “No problem.”

(03:12:56)
Okay, hang up the phone, and he turns to me and he says, “Okay, well we have a problem.” He said, “We still have the problem of these other mortgages.” And I went, “Right?” I said, “They don’t know anything.” He said, “I know, but Gary,” he said, “what if they find out?” I said, “They find out that they’re like in second and third and fourth place?” He’s like, “Right.” I said, “I leave town.” So they both laugh. They go, “Gary, you can’t just leave town. They have a copy of your driver’s license. They have your social security number. They have your birth certificate. They’ll find you. It’s the FBI.” And I go, “You’re assuming I’m Gary Sullivan.”
Lex Fridman
(03:13:36)
Wow. You tell them.
Matthew Cox
(03:13:37)
And listen, they looked at me and they went… And I remember he said, he goes, “We’ll cross that bridge when we get to it.” And I said, “Right, my immediate problem is getting rid of these people.” And he goes, “Right. Right.” So I go get the check, bring it back, give it to them. Never called the FBI.
Lex Fridman
(03:13:59)
Can’t believe you got away with the Washington Mutual.
Matthew Cox
(03:14:03)
Oh, bro…
Lex Fridman
(03:14:04)
I mean, these are all really close calls, it seems like.
Matthew Cox
(03:14:07)
No, this is the close call. I have two more close calls that my hands sweat thinking about it. I walk into Wachovia. I just opened this account two months ago, so it’s a new account. So whenever I would go in there, I’d say, “Hey, I need $7,000, $6,000.” Anything over $3,000, they had to call to get permission, like authorization. So she’s like, “Okay, I got to go call.” I said no problem. So the girl walks in the back, I’m sitting there waiting, all of a sudden a massive person reaches over my hand and grabs my wrist, and somebody grabs it from the other one, and they pull my hands behind my back. These are two of possibly the largest law enforcement officers I’ve ever seen in my entire life. And they’re massive. And they handcuff me and they say, “Mr. Sullivan, you’re being detained. We’re taking you into custody, and we’re holding you until a detective gets here.”
Lex Fridman
(03:15:12)
Who are these guys? Is this just Marshalls or is this cops or what?
Matthew Cox
(03:15:15)
These are Sheriff’s deputies.
Lex Fridman
(03:15:16)
Sheriff’s deputies, okay. So Gary Sullivan, right?
Matthew Cox
(03:15:19)
Right. And as they walk me in the back, they’re calling me Mr. Sullivan. They sit me down, and by now the Secret Service are looking for me. They were calling us John and Jane Doe, but now they figured out who we were. And so now I’m on the Secret Service’s Most Wanted list. I’m not number one, right? I probably was, but we just found out I was on that list. So it is getting bad.

(03:15:47)
So they sent me down, and I’m waiting, and I remember thinking that the FBI was coming. I don’t really know. At that point, I couldn’t tell you the difference between everybody. And then five minutes go by and I’m sitting there going, ” What is going on? Do you guys have any idea what’s going?” They’re like, “We don’t know. We’re just grunts. We just do what we’re told.”

(03:16:05)
So suddenly this guy walks in, he’s probably in his early thirties, maybe. He walks in, gray suit, I think he looks like he’s FBI. He says, “Hey, I’m a detective with the…” I want to say Richland County, whatever, sheriff’s department or police department, whatever. And I was like, oh, okay. And he says, “Yeah, listen, we’ve got an issue. Wachovia, they want us to arrest you.” He said, ” They’re saying that you’ve got three mortgages on your house.” And I go, “Is that illegal?” And he looked at me and he went, “You know, to be honest, I don’t know.”

(03:16:41)
And I distinctly remember thinking, I’m walking out of here. All I have to do is convince this guy I haven’t done anything wrong. He’s already said he doesn’t know. So he gets on the phone with the head of Wachovia’s fraud department, and he’s saying, “This guy is running what’s called a shotgunning scam,” which is absolutely right.
Lex Fridman
(03:17:01)
What is a shotgunning scam?
Matthew Cox
(03:17:02)
It’s where you close on so many loans simultaneously, they can’t catch it. Anyway, they start going back and forth, and he’s on the phone and he’s like, “Why did you close three loans?” I said, “It’s not illegal. I have a first mortgage, a second mortgage, and a home equity line of credit. That’s perfectly legal.” And he goes, and you can hear the guy. “They’re all first mortgages,” and I said, “I read every one of those documents. Not one of them said they were first mortgages.” And they don’t. First mortgages don’t say they’re first mortgages. It’s the placement of the mortgage, the placement of the lien that determines is it a first, second, or third.

(03:17:40)
So it’s possible that I wouldn’t have known it. It’s certain that I could have read those documents and not known. And he’s like, “That’s not true!” And he’s screaming. And so I go, yeah, listen. And he said, “Well, you’re taking it out all cash. Why are you taking all cash?” I said, “I don’t know if this might be illegal,” I said I don’t know. I said, “I mean, I work for a labor company-“
Matthew Cox
(03:18:03)
I work for a labor company, Labor on Demand. I pull out my business card. You can call. So, I’m like, “I work for Labor on Demand.” I said, “We hire a lot of guys that they don’t have bank account. So, the company pays them.” Then usually, I’ll pull out money and I’ll cash their checks, because they get charged like 10% of these check cashing companies. I feel bad. I know the checks are good, so I just deposit them. I mean, I don’t know if that’s illegal. I don’t think that’s illegal. He’s like, “No, no, no, that’s fine. That’s a decent thing to do it. That’s fine.” I’m like, “Oh, okay.” He’s talking to the guy and Wachovia, screaming out, hollering. He’s going back and forth, back and forth. So, we’re going back and forth and I’m just derailing everything this guy says.

(03:18:53)
At one point, he’s screaming, “He’s committing fraud. We want him arrested.” He’s like, “I don’t know what to charge him with.” He’s like, “Hey, look. How did you even do this?” I go, “Look, I didn’t do this.” I said, “I came to Wachovia. I met with a loan officer.” I said, “I need a first mortgage. I need to pull out $100,000. I want to start buying houses.” He goes, “That’s right. You own another house here too, don’t you?” I said, “I do.” I said, “We’re putting a new roof on it. We’re going to build an addition. We’re putting in a pool. I’m buying one right down the street from that one.” Obviously, I’m pulling out money. I said, “So I told them I need $100,000.” They said, “That’s fine.” They said they could only get me $100,000 out for something about Fannie Mae guidelines, which is true.

(03:19:44)
So, then she said, “I can send you to a friend of mine who’s a loan officer. She can get you a second mortgage,” which she did. Then I told her, “She could only get me $100,000 or so, $190,000.” She said, “You should get an equity line of credit if you’re going to be doing renovating properties.” So she sent me to somebody and they got me an equity line of credit. I said, “I haven’t committed fraud.” I said, “I wouldn’t know how to commit fraud if you told me.” I said, “What sounds more reasonable? A guy that worked for a labor company ripped off a bunch of banks for over half a million dollars, or some loan officers got together and did something illegal?” I said, “There’s a problem at the bank.” He says, “I think you’ve got a problem at the bank.” This guy goes nuts.

(03:20:33)
While he’s screaming, “He needs to be arrested. This is fraud,” my loan officers have not done anything illegal. They wouldn’t do that. He says, “Look at his ID. His ID is fake. His ID starts with 000.” South Carolina ID start with 000. This guy’s in California. He has no idea. So, when he says that, the detective looks at my ID and he goes, “Listen.” He said, “This is a real ID. I ran this guy through NCIC.” He said, “This is Gary Sullivan.” I looked at him. I go, “Now I’m not Gary Sullivan.” I go, “Come on, bro. What are we doing here?” He goes, “I know Gary. I know.” He says, “I’m going to take him downtown. I’m going to talk to my whatever, lieutenant, whoever captain. I’m going to fill out a police report and I’ll let you know.” He hangs up. I get up. They’ve taken the handcuffs off. I stand up.

(03:21:38)
As we’re walking out with the detectives, as we’re all walking out, he goes, “Hey, you have an ID. Do you have a driver’s license?” I went, “I do, but it’s in Nevada.” He goes, “Oh, that’s right.” He goes, “You’re from Vegas.” He looks at the two deputies and they all grin. I think he ran me through NCIC, which means he ran a statewide criminal database, which means he thinks I’ve been arrested three times for prostitution in Vegas.
Lex Fridman
(03:22:09)
Right.
Matthew Cox
(03:22:10)
Listen, I’m humiliated. I was just like, “Oh, man.” So one of the cops goes, “Here, give me the ID,” takes the ID. He goes, “I’ll check and see,” because I have to follow him back in my car. So, he goes, and by the way, my car is in the name Michael Eckert. So, Michael Eckert, he doesn’t have a photograph of Michael Eckert, because you can’t pull up photographs from other states. So, he doesn’t have a photograph, but he knows that’s not my car. He asked me, “Whose car are you driving?” I said, “Oh, that’s my boss, Michael Eckert.” I said, “That’s my boss.” He goes, “Oh, Michael Eckert?” I said, “Yeah, exactly.” I’m like, “Oh, my God.” So I’m thinking he knows Michael Eckert, knows it’s registered in North Carolina, knows the address, which is where I was currently living. That’s a problem.

(03:23:04)
So, the deputy grabs the ID, walks outside, comes back. I have no idea if this homeless guy has a driver’s license in Nevada. I don’t know. He had nothing on him. He comes back and he goes, “Does he have a valid license?” He goes, “Yeah, it’s valid.” He hands it to him or he hands me the ID and he goes, “It’s valid.” He looked at me, he goes, “Yeah, well…” He said, “It says, he’s 5’11.” It was like 5’10, 5’11, and I’m clearly not 5’10 or 5’11. They all look at me and I go, “Fellas, with a good pair of shoes.” They all go, “Follow us, Gary.” I follow them back to the police station. Becky is calling me on the phone, screaming her head off.

(03:23:53)
Now, I’d always told Becky, “If I ever get arrested, immediately, go get me a lawyer. The lawyer will be able to get me out on bond,” because I’ll be arrested for something stupid. I said, “It’ll be something like trying to cash a fake check.” All my IDs are real, so it won’t be for a fake ID. So, my ID won’t be in question. Most police departments and sheriffs at that time did not run your fingerprints through AFIS, because they charge them for that. So, they don’t typically do it unless your identity is in question. Mine wouldn’t be. I have a valid driver’s license or a valid ID in that state. So, I go back. She’s screaming, she’s like, “Oh, my God. You don’t understand. I just checked the internet, the website. You are number one on the Secret Service’s most wanted list.”

(03:24:54)
I was like, “I got bigger problems right now. They just held me in the bank. I’m following them right now.” She was like, “Get on the interstate. Go, go.” I cannot go. The detective’s in front of me. The cops are behind me. They’re escorting me to the police. Listen. She’s like, “Oh, my God! Run! Run!” I go, “Look, not a NASCAR driver.” It’s a sports car, but it’s not going to outrun a radio or a helicopter. That’s not going to happen. I know it seems nice. I’m not that guy. I said, “Look, you don’t understand. I was in handcuffs 30 minutes ago. I just talked my way out of him. I’m going to get out of this.” I said, “The worst that’s happens is I’ll be arrested as Gary Sullivan. You can get me an attorney. He can get me out.”

(03:25:42)
She goes, “I’m not getting you an attorney. I’m not getting you out on bond. I’m not risking everything I’ve got for you,” because she has all the money. We’ve got $700,000, $800,000 at this point. By the way, she’s not even in North Carolina at this point. She’s relocated to Houston, Texas. Because when this scam fell apart, we were going to move to Texas. So, we were already moving there.
Lex Fridman
(03:26:14)
But by the way, just a small tangent, where do you store money in situations like this? When you talk about $800,000, do you have to keep moving accounts to make sure it’s not accessible by FBI?
Matthew Cox
(03:26:27)
Well, there’s about $600,000 or $700,000 accounts, but keep in mind, I’m getting that out in cash. There’s no Bitcoin. None of that stuff exists. So, I probably should have bought diamonds or bought gold. I don’t know any of that. All I could think of is go in slowly, be patient, don’t drain the accounts, fluctuate them. I was getting cashier’s checks from one account to another. So, the balances were doing this. They weren’t just going … They were doing this, and then one day, boom, they’re gone.
Lex Fridman
(03:26:59)
Okay, got it.
Matthew Cox
(03:27:02)
We’ve gotten out like $600,000 or $700,000. There’s still $600,000 or $700,000 in the bank, but I’m not going back. I’m done. Well, look, I go in. So, I go into the police station. Well, first she says, “If you go in the police station, I’m done. If you get arrested, you’re done.” I said, “Well, then I better not get arrested.” I hang up the phone. The cop’s standing behind my car. I get out. I go in the police station, I walk in. I fill out the police report. He tells me, “I got to talk to my captain real quick. Can you wait?” He couldn’t leave me in his cubicle. He goes, “Can you wait in the hallway? I can’t leave you in the cubicle.” I said, “No, no problem.”

(03:27:42)
So I go and I wait in the hallway. In the hallway are a whole wall full of, on the corkboard, wanted posters, black and white, black and white, car thief, rapist, murderer, Secret Service’s most wanted. My face is right there. I’m like, “Holy Jesus.” Everything in me told me, “Run, bro.” Just fucking [inaudible 03:28:08] right now. Right now, just go. Your luck’s run out. There were so many, I didn’t think he was going to see it, but everything in me just said run. The problem is if you’ve ever been into a police station, you’re not getting out of it. Do you understand?
Lex Fridman
(03:28:23)
There’s a lot of cops around.
Matthew Cox
(03:28:26)
Well, not just that, but they buzz you in. You get in the elevator, you have to punch in a code. You have to punch in a code to get back out of the elevator. You have to punch in a code to get into the next door. I mean, it’s impossible. I’m not going to get in the elevator. The cop comes back up. He said, “Hey, Gary, appreciate it. No problem. My captain said, we’re good. We’re going to wait for a phone call from the…” No, wait. The district attorney called already. They’re looking into it. I’m going to go ahead and let you go. I go downstairs. He walks me to my car. He said, “Look, do me a favor.” He is like, “We do have some serious questions at this point. The district attorney says there’s some things.” I said, “Not with me.” He said, “Well, just do me a favor.” He goes, “Don’t leave town.”

(03:29:14)
I said, “Bro, I own two houses here. I’m not going anywhere.” I said, “I’m telling you right now. Wachovia, they fucked up.” He’s like, “I believe you. I believe you.” Whatever he said, I hope they’re right. I’m sure you’re right. Okay. So, I get in my car. I leave. I go to two more banks, pull out more money, but at one point, I go into a bank and two of the cashiers practically slam into each other trying to get to the phone. I can tell something’s up. I go, “No, no, no, no. Something’s up.” So I get in my car back out. One of them even runs out and looks at the tag number. So, I drive. I get in the interstate. I go. Becky, of course, I’m sorry. I love you. I would’ve never done that. I was just scared. I understand.
Lex Fridman
(03:29:58)
Becky sounds like a handful.

Break up with Becky

Matthew Cox
(03:29:59)
Oh, my God. So, I go all the way back to Charlotte. I pack up my apartment. I drive all the way to Houston with my entire apartment packed up, by the way, in a U-Haul. The next day, the next morning, she’s got people there packing it up, movers. We pack it up. I drive the U-Haul all the way to Houston. It takes a couple days. We have some guys unload it into a storage unit, because I’m going to stay with Becky until I find my own apartment. As we’re driving around the neighborhood, super nice. She’s living in that 20th floor or something of some huge high rise, great apartment. We drive by and I go, “Oh, stop the car and I want to get out.” It was one of those cone things where there’s flyers for a house. I jump out and I get the flyer. She’s like, “What are you doing?”

(03:30:56)
I go, “Well, I was just looking at the flyer,” and she says, “I don’t want to do a scam here. I want to live here. This place is nice. I love it here.” I went, “Right, I understand.” I said “No, but I have to find an apartment.” She goes, “Oh, I’m just so disgusting. You can’t stand to spend even a couple weeks with me.” She goes just ballistic. She’s screaming at the top of her lungs, and I know she’s going to get me caught. She’s never going to get me out. She’s already told me that. So, we go back to the apartment, we go upstairs. I was so scared of this chick, bro. I was so scared. I remember I was going up in the elevator, and this girl gets on, clearly a stripper. I mean, drop dead, just wearing stripper clothes.

(03:31:49)
As soon she got on, Becky gave me that with the face. I’m like this. I’m staring in the corner and never look at the girl. I remember we get off the elevator, bing, it opens. I bolt off it. Becky bolts off the elevator, and I remember she squeals, “I bet you just love to fuck that tramp.” As the elevator doors are closing, she goes, “Hey!” I thought that was funny. So, I go to the apartment. We have a screaming match, kind of, tell her I want to split up the money. She tells me she’s not going to split the money.
Lex Fridman
(03:32:31)
Why?
Matthew Cox
(03:32:32)
Because she said, “You can go somewhere else and do this again. You’ll have $1 million in six months. I have to live off this money.”
Lex Fridman
(03:32:44)
Did she threaten you?
Matthew Cox
(03:32:45)
Oh, it was funny too, because the conversation back and forth, I remember saying, “No, I want half.” She said, “I’ll give you $10,000.” I said, “You’re out of your mind.” I said, “I’m telling right now. You come up with something reasonable. I’ll take all of it.” I said, “I’ll take all of it.” She goes, “And what? Escape in that U-Haul?” She says, “The cops are going to be looking for in five minutes.” I just remember thinking, “Oh, wow.” Keep in mind, all of my IDs, everything are in the storage unit that she has a key to. I’m not getting those. It’s over. I got an ID right now that says my name is Michael Eckert. I’m driving a U-Haul van.
Lex Fridman
(03:33:23)
Yeah, it sounds like she has a lot of negotiation leverage.
Matthew Cox
(03:33:26)
So we start arguing back and forth, and she says, “$100,000. I’ll give you $100,000.” I said, “I’ll take it.” She counts out $100,000. Later when I recounted, it wasn’t even $100,000. It was like $98,000. That’s fine. It’s fine. But we’ve got them all marked, $2,000, $5,000, $6,000. She’s like, “2,000, $5,000, [inaudible 03:33:45].” She ends up stiffen me. That’s fine. It’s not my money. So, I take it, I leave, and as I’m leaving, she’d always called me before on the phone and begged and pleaded and cried. I messed up. Please give me a chance. I’m sorry. I’ll take my medication. I’m sorry. I thought it was better. I thought it was okay.

(03:34:04)
I remember walking out. I put my cell phone on the counter and just walked out, went downstairs, got in the truck, and drove. When I got to Louisiana, I stopped at Baton Rouge. I mean, at some point, I stopped and I think I got a room or something. At one point, I know I stopped.
Lex Fridman
(03:34:31)
So you drove without a plan essentially?
Matthew Cox
(03:34:32)
I drove back to Charlotte to get my car.
Lex Fridman
(03:34:37)
Got it.

Calling parents

Matthew Cox
(03:34:38)
So I can’t be driving. So, I stopped at Baton Rouge at one point and got a cell phone, like a burner phone, a Verizon Virgin mobile or something, one of those little phones. So, I bought one. I call a few people at home, back home, called my mom. She’s in tears crying. My dad’s yelling in the background.
Lex Fridman
(03:35:06)
Just a small attention. What did your mom and dad say? Do you remember anything stand out to you?
Matthew Cox
(03:35:11)
No, my dad, well, I hope you’re happy. Every time someone mentions your name, your mother cries, which is funny to me because growing up, he was never concerned about her crying. So, it was like, “Since when did you care?” My dad, he’s an alcoholic. He’s been sober for two years, a month and a half, drinking binge, and then sober for six months, and then did it again, then sober. It just went back and forth and in and out of alcohol drug programs. But like I said, worked for State Farm and he was a top-selling manager. So what they would do is they’d put them into a 30-day program, and I mean, he has to stay there. They were the only ones that had that control, because they’re like, “You’re going to do this and you’re going to pass it, or we’re firing you.”

(03:36:12)
He made a lot of money and he made a lot of money for State Farm. He hired and trained a ton of agents, and he had one of the top performing agencies. So, he was worth a lot to them. What ends up happening is I get that phone that I was telling you about, and I called, talked to my mom. She’s crying. She’s like, “I love you so much. I just want to make sure you’re safe.” I end up calling Susan Barker, which was one of the brokers that worked for me at the time, call her, and I say, “Hey, what’s going on you?” She’s like, “Oh, Matt, what’s going on? FBI is everywhere. They’ve been talking to everybody.” It’s like a year and a half at this point.

Calling FBI


(03:36:59)
She’s like, ” They come around every once in a while. Everybody’s gone in, everybody’s cooperating, everybody’s talking, everybody’s blaming you,” including her. So, as we’re talking, she said, “Look, the main FBI agent on the case, she told me if I ever spoke with you to have you call her.” I was like, “Yeah, I’m good.” So she goes, “Her name is Candace, and she wants you to call her.” She goes, “At least call her for God’s sakes. Maybe you could just turn yourself in. Maybe you can negotiate just like a couple years. If they’re not going to catch you, then maybe turn yourself in. Maybe it’ll help, at least hear her out.” I was like, “Okay, all right. You’re right.” Hang up the phone. I call Candace. She picks up the phone. I go, “Hey.” She goes, “Who’s this?” I go, “This is Matt Cox.”

(03:37:49)
She goes, “Hello, Mr. Cox. How are you?” I go, “I’m doing okay. How’s it going? I understand you want to talk to me.” She goes, “I do.” I said, “What can I do for you?” She says, “You can turn yourself in.” I go, “Well, that’s not going to happen.” I said, ” What else do you need?” She said, “I think that you should think about turning yourself in.” I said, “Why? Well, what am I looking at?” She goes, “Well, that’s not how it works. The way it works is you turn yourself in and we take that into consideration.” I said, “No, no, no, no.” I said, “That’s not good enough.” I said, “I’m not stupid enough to turn myself in and hope for the best.” So she says, “Well, let’s talk about this.” I said, “Well, what am I looking at?” She goes, “I don’t really know. I can’t tell you that.”

(03:38:31)
I said, “Well, then we don’t really have anything to talk about.” She goes, “Well, wait a second.” She said, “Hold on. Let me call the US attorney. Maybe we can work something out.” So I said, “Okay, I’ll call you back.” She said, “Well, give me your phone number, I’ll call you.” I went, “No, no, no.” I said, “I’ll call you.” I said, “I’m going to hang up the phone. I’m going to turn the phone off.” I said, “For all I know, you’re triangulating this phone call right now or something.” She goes, “Oh, give me a break.” She goes, “You’re not that important.” I remember thinking, “Who do you think you are? You’re just some little fraudster guy running around. You’re not a terrorist.” I almost was like, “Oh, okay. Here’s my number,” which she probably already had.

(03:39:23)
But I almost was like, “Okay, I’ll wait for your call and left my phone number.” I said, “No, you know what?” I said, “I’m going to hang up the phone. I’m going to turn it off anyway, and I’ll call you back.” All right. Whatever. I hang up. I turn off the phone. It turns out I found out later when I ordered the Freedom of Information Act. She actually immediately called the US Marshals, and they immediately called, took the phone number, and tracked back the phone and immediately had two marshals from Baton Rouge go immediately to the place where I had been.
Lex Fridman
(03:39:51)
Damn.
Matthew Cox
(03:39:52)
Oh, listen. Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(03:39:53)
They work fast, and she’s good too.
Matthew Cox
(03:39:56)
Not just that. I made the initial calls sitting there where I went and bought the phone. It was a gas station. There was also a Subway station. I had ordered a Subway. I was eating a Subway, playing on my computer, programmed the phone, and making phone calls. So, by the time I talked to her, they’re driving. By that point, I walked and gotten into my vehicle and I leave. But who knows? I don’t know if they showed up 30 minutes late. I don’t know. I could have hung out. Oh, I’m just going to finish my food, could have shown up. So, I call her back an hour or two later. She says, “Listen, first time he hadn’t got back with her.” Then he did. Then he came back. He said, “Seven years. He’s got to turn himself in here.”

(03:40:41)
So seven years, that seems like a lot. I kept saying, “Is that seven years for everything?” She goes, “Yeah, that’s for everything.” I was like, “That’s everything that happened in Atlanta and some stuff that you don’t know about?” She said, “Look, what’s important is you turn yourself in Tampa.” I was like, “Okay. Well, I’m closer to Atlanta. Why wouldn’t I turn myself in Atlanta?” She’s like, “Look, you don’t want to do that. You don’t want to do that.” Well, because the Secret Service would’ve gotten the credit if I’d walked in there, right? So I don’t know anything about rivalries and how they work at that time. I do now. So, we go back and forth, back and forth, and I continually ask her, “Does that include Atlanta and everything?” At some point, I realized like, “Oh, she’s just not answering.” So finally, I said, “Listen, you keep dodging this question.” She said, “All I can speak for is Tampa. So, if you come back to Tampa and you cooperate against everyone, seven years.” She wants me to cooperate against my ex-wife. I’m like, “I’m not going to do that.” I said, “My ex-wife didn’t do anything. She doesn’t know anything. She didn’t do anything.” Well, that’s not what I heard. She’s going on and on. I was like, “No, no.” I was like, “Oh, wow.” I was like, “So that’s just for…” She’s like, “That’s right.” I said, “All right, we’re done.” No, wait. I can call the Atlanta US attorney.

Running from cops


(03:42:15)
No, lady, I wouldn’t believe you if you told me water was wet. I don’t trust you. I hung up the phone, threw it out the window, and I ended up going to Charlotte, dropped off the U-Haul van. I would’ve actually brought it back to the dealer. It’s not like I evaded. I brought it back. So, I bring it back. I go to my old apartment in Downtown Charlotte, and I remember thinking I would be okay. I know by this point that they knew Michael Eckert’s name. They had the address in Charlotte. So, I know by this point, it’s been five, six days. So, I know they’ve tracked him back there. So, I figured if I could get my car, I’m fine. So, I go into the apartment complex, and it’s one of those four or five, six-story apartment. Those are parking things that stack up. So, I go into this parking garage thing. So, I go in.

(03:43:20)
I’m on the third floor or something. I look at my car and I get in my car. I remember as soon as I drove out of the parking garage, I was like, “I’m good.” So I can go ahead and pull across the street and stop at Starbucks. So, I stop at Starbucks. I walk into Starbucks. I order a Starbucks. I’m standing there waiting for the barista. I look over and it’s two people from the apartment complex staring at me. They’re whispering and pointing, and I remember thinking, “This is the fifth of the month.” I hadn’t paid my rent. I hadn’t been there. So, I thought that makes sense. Maybe I’m picturing an eviction notice or a three-day notice on my door or something. I’m like, “Okay.” Then one of them bolts out the back.

(03:44:07)
There’s a guy and a girl. The woman runs out the back. He’s standing there staring at me. I get my venti vanilla latte. I get my little frou frou drink. So, I got my frou frou drink. I walk out, I get into the car. He follows me. I get in the car. I set everything up. I put my seatbelt on. I’m okay. He’s standing there staring at me. I’m thinking, “Something’s wrong. What’s up?” I check to see. There’s no traffic. I’m good. I’m about to leave. He starts screaming, “He’s right here! He’s right here!” I look in the rear-view mirror. There’s two guys running towards the back of my car. I punch it and I take off.

(03:44:49)
Sounds dramatic. It wasn’t that dramatic. There was no cars. I knew there was no cars already pulling out. It wasn’t like a T. J. Hooker, where I jumped over, slid across the hood. They didn’t catch the car and hang onto the back. So, they’re running, and I, boom, hit it.
Lex Fridman
(03:45:05)
Did you spill the coffee?
Matthew Cox
(03:45:08)
No. It was one of those little things. It was actually nice.
Lex Fridman
(03:45:10)
You’re making it sound like you were pretty calm. Weren’t you panicking here?
Matthew Cox
(03:45:13)
I was terrified. Terrified.
Lex Fridman
(03:45:16)
So you’re under fear. You’re still operating-
Matthew Cox
(03:45:21)
Yeah, I operate.
Lex Fridman
(03:45:22)
… calmly.
Matthew Cox
(03:45:22)
It’s funny you say that, because the Secret Service, when they talk to these guys, all the people that they spoke with said the same thing over and over again. The guy was a professional. He never seemed upset. He never seemed agitated. He was never in a hurry, but most of the time, I wasn’t, because it wasn’t until the police got involved or the federal law enforcement got involved that I started really getting anxious. So, at that point, I take off. I drive about a mile down the road.
Lex Fridman
(03:46:02)
Who were the two guys, by the way?
Matthew Cox
(03:46:04)
I thought it was FBI. I ordered the Freedom of Information Act when I got to prison at some point in the future, and it was U.S. Marshals.
Lex Fridman
(03:46:14)
It sounds pretty dramatic to me, U.S. Marshals running towards your car, but it’s all right.
Matthew Cox
(03:46:20)
It’s hard not to tell it like it’s dramatic.
Lex Fridman
(03:46:22)
I understand. There’s not much traffic. It goes. Okay.
Matthew Cox
(03:46:25)
It’s not like their fingers were at the back of the car. They’re holding on. But yeah, if I had waited an extra 20 seconds, yeah, they would’ve been on my car. They would’ve been right there at the door.
Lex Fridman
(03:46:35)
Did you consider giving up there or no?
Matthew Cox
(03:46:39)
No. Listen, my instinct is get out, go, go, go, go, go, go.
Lex Fridman
(03:46:44)
You’re already on the run.
Matthew Cox
(03:46:45)
I’m already in trouble. It’s not like they’re going to add anything. Although, to be honest, it only got worse, because actually, at that point, I drive down the road. I stop at a homeless facility. I survey three guys. I’m a mile down the road. Looking back on it, I think, “What were you thinking?” But there were three homeless guys that were in their early 30s, and they were all Caucasian. That’s hard to find. So, trust me, I’ve spent hours before finding these guys.
Lex Fridman
(03:47:15)
So that’s the golden thing you’re looking for is white guys in their 30s.
Matthew Cox
(03:47:20)
Right, because I was in my 30s. I wasn’t an old man, like I am now. So, I surveyed them. I drive straight to Nashville, get to Nashville, drive through an area called Green Hills. Well, first when I got to Nashville, I stayed the night, and the next day I went into… I’m going to say a UPS store. It was actually a Kinko’s. They used to be called Kinko’s.
Lex Fridman
(03:47:48)
I remember Kinko’s. They got bought by FedEx, I feel like.
Matthew Cox
(03:47:52)
Oh, is it FedEx? Okay. Then it was a FedEx store. So, I go in there and you give them like 50 bucks or something or 20 bucks or something. They’d give you like 100 business cards. So, I go get a phone number, a burner phone. I go in there. I call and get a phone number the local HQ. I come up with a name, Manufacture Funding Group. I’ve got two phone numbers. I get business cards made. One of the guy’s name that I surveyed was… His actual name was Joseph Marion Carter Jr. I went by Carter. So, I get business cards made of Joseph Carter. I then drive through Green Hills, took them like an hour to get the card. So, I’m driving through Green Hills. I’m planning on going to an apartment, but still I don’t have an ID. I don’t have anything.

(03:48:39)
I’m wondering, “What am I going to do? How am I going to get a place to stay? I’m going to stay in a hotel. What am I doing?” I’m using an ID that the cops are looking for. So, as I’m driving, trying to find this big apartment complex, there’s a guy putting a sign in the front yard of a townhouse, several townhouses, probably in his 60s. I pull in, jump out of the car, and I said, “Hey, is this for rent?” He said, “Yes, it is.” I said, “Oh, okay.” Yeah. Can I see it? Sure. I go in, check it out, come back downstairs. It’s perfect. I said, “Listen, I work for a company, Manufacture Funding Group. Boom, hand thing. I said, “I’ve been in Europe for the last…” I forget what I said.

(03:49:23)
I said, “England, some little town outside of London, whatever, Dexter, London for the past five years. I don’t really have any credit.” But I said, “I can put down a double the security deposit or whatever you need. Here’s my business card.” He looked at me and he looked at my car and he goes, “You look like an honest young man.” He said, “I’ll take the first month’s rent and deposit.” He said, “Now, go get a lease right now.” I said, “Okay.” I said, “Oh, okay.” Filled out a lease right then, gave me the keys. Nice. Very trusting in that town.
Lex Fridman
(03:50:02)
Oh, yeah, but there must’ve been also something about you where you just got a nice car.
Matthew Cox
(03:50:09)
You’re going to get a lot of comments to say white privilege.
Lex Fridman
(03:50:12)
I think the charisma has something to do with it.
Matthew Cox
(03:50:18)
Well, I appreciate that. So, he gave me the keys. Listen, I ordered all of Joseph Carter’s vital information, all of his birth certificate, social security card, everything that night from a Kinko’s or I forget where, but from one of these places I went online. You could go online back then. There wasn’t WiFi everywhere. So, I ordered the stuff. It shows up a couple days later. I take that information. I go and I get a driver’s license. Within seven or eight days, I’ve got a driver’s license in his name. I get in that car, Michael Eckert’s car. I drive it all the way back to Nashville. I leave it in long-term park.
Matthew Cox
(03:51:03)
Michael Eckert’s car, I drive it all the way back to Nashville. I leave it in long-term parking, get on a plane, fly back to Nashville, go in and buy myself a brand new car. It wasn’t brand new, it was a couple of years old, but from CarMax. [inaudible 03:51:15] within two weeks, I am completely 100% set up. I start dating for three, four months. That gets really boring and-
Lex Fridman
(03:51:23)
Where again? In Nashville you said?
Matthew Cox
(03:51:25)
Nashville.
Lex Fridman
(03:51:26)
Okay, got it.
Matthew Cox
(03:51:26)
So I started dating a bunch of chicks and then I end up meeting this one girl.
Lex Fridman
(03:51:30)
By the way, are you lonely here because you’re on the run? Is that-
Matthew Cox
(03:51:32)
Man, listen, I’m telling you right now, being on the run was the best part of my life.
Lex Fridman
(03:51:38)
Really?
Matthew Cox
(03:51:39)
You know how all these guys say, “It was horrible and I was always so concerned and looking over my shoulder and,” it wasn’t, I wasn’t. Keep in mind, I’ve gotten five or six traffic tickets while on the run. I went to traffic school as someone else. I got so many traffic tickets in his name, I went to traffic school as him. If I got pulled over, I’m not concerned.
Lex Fridman
(03:52:00)
So your confidence just was over the top here.
Matthew Cox
(03:52:03)
And I’m driving a vehicle in the name of the driver’s license that I have that was issued by that state. Full coverage insurance. I’m not an idiot. I’m not driving around a stolen car with a broken taillight and a body in the trunk. I’m covered. I’m not concerned about the local cops.
Lex Fridman
(03:52:20)
Plus you’re going to Starbucks, sipping your coffee and driving away from U.S. Marshals [inaudible 03:52:26]-
Matthew Cox
(03:52:26)
Right, right. That was-
Lex Fridman
(03:52:27)
You could start believing that it’s impossible to catch you.
Matthew Cox
(03:52:30)
That is exactly what it is. Every time I just kept getting more and more emboldened, more and more cocky, arrogant. They’re not going to… I’m too good. Which is great until they catch you. And so I meet a girl named Amanda Gardner. Well, what I end up doing is, keep in mind, I’ve only got a hundred thousand or so. So I go and I start buying houses in the area, in this area called J.C. Napier. It’s just close to downtown. And I buy these houses and I start… I buy them for like 60, 70,000, and I record the sales at 210, 190, 205, that sort of thing. Same thing, and I refinance the houses, I start pulling out money.

(03:53:16)
I meet this girl, Amanda Gardner. We hit it off. Within a few months, she’s moved in. We move into a house in that area. I renovate a house. We move in there. I borrow three and a half million dollars and I’m buying houses. Now I’m buying houses, recording the value. I started all over. I borrow, whatever, three and a half million dollars. I meet Amanda, we move in together. We’re buying-
Lex Fridman
(03:53:43)
Do you tell her about what you’re-
Matthew Cox
(03:53:44)
What she knew was that… It’s odd, right? I have no photographs. Everything I own is brand new. She’s like, there’s nothing in this house that’s more than four months old. So six months old, you have no photographs, you have no internet presence. Every stick of clothing is brand new. You don’t have old pairs of jeans.
Lex Fridman
(03:54:08)
Do you tell their stories about the past of any… Is there a fabricated…
Matthew Cox
(03:54:13)
Initially there was a fabricated version that I owned a mortgage company. My typical story was I owned a mortgage company and I got bought out by Household Bank. Started doing very well, I got bought out by Household Bank. I have a non-compete clause. I ended up with half a million dollars after paying off all my bills and just decided to travel around the U.S. and now I’m here and I’m going to start renovating houses.
Lex Fridman
(03:54:38)
[inaudible 03:54:40].
Matthew Cox
(03:54:39)
But that, you don’t call home, nobody calls you. Your family doesn’t call you. You tell stories about your mom, your dad, your brother, your sister, friends. I don’t know any of these friends. Never seen any of these friends. They never call you. It’s like, ah, shit. So at some point, I basically just said to her… Look, at one point I had to have a check cut. I refinanced the house and I had, I’m going to say something like, it might’ve been 30,000, but let’s say 20,000. I had a $20,000 check cut to Amanda Gardner because you have to have these checks. You can’t have them cut to me. So I would say, “Hey, there’s a second mortgage on there,” and I’d provide a second mortgage or I’d provide different things. And I knew I need names of people to cut these things to. So I had a check cut for whatever.

(03:55:29)
So I remember we’re at dinner one night. This is before she really knows who I am. And I said, “Hey.” I said, “Oh.” And she goes, “Oh, you had a…” She goes, “How’d that thing go, your refinance?” I go, “Oh, thank God you said that.” Boom. I said, “I need you to deposit this.” Give her a check for 20,000. She’s like, “I can go tomorrow and I can deposit it. And I…” And I’m like, “No, no.” I’m like, “Look, it’s fine. Just deposit.” She’s like, “As soon as it clears, I’ll get you a cashier’s check.” I was like, “No, just deposit it and keep it in your bank. It’s fine.” So she’s like, “What is going on?” So we have this conversation and I tell her, “Look, people are looking for me.” “Who?” “Law enforcement.” “Which ones?” “All of them.”

(03:56:14)
She’s like, “That doesn’t even… For what?” I go, “Mostly bank fraud.” And she’s like, “Well, how are they not finding you? People know you, your general contractor,” which I met four months before. This guy, six months before. This one, two months before. She’s like, “So and so, so and so, so…” And I’m like, “Right, right. Well,” I said, “Well…” She’s like, “They’ve got your name, they’ve got your…” I go, “Well, that’s identity theft.” And she was like, “What do you mean?” I said, well, “My name’s not… It’s not Joseph Carter.” “What is your name?” I go, “Look, don’t even worry about it. This is what’s happening. This is where I’m at,” and this has been months into the relationship. This is, I’d say, maybe a month or two in, but she was just too inquisitive and… Oh, I know what it was. She found like $40,000 in cash in my freezer one night.

(03:57:13)
That was another thing that happened. She went to get a Popsicle and she opened up the flip to get a Popsicle, and she opened the wrong one, and there was all cash. And she was like, in this conversation, she’s like, “The other day I opened up the Popsicle box and there’s cash,” And I’m like… So I kind of explain it, but I had a feeling she’s going to be okay with this.
Lex Fridman
(03:57:37)
So she was okay.
Matthew Cox
(03:57:38)
She was okay with it. [inaudible 03:57:40]-
Lex Fridman
(03:57:40)
[inaudible 03:57:40], to me, that’s just a fascinating conversation to have.
Matthew Cox
(03:57:43)
It was a great conversation, but-
Lex Fridman
(03:57:45)
Because oftentimes in relationships, you learn about each other and you find out new things. And here you find out-
Matthew Cox
(03:57:50)
That’s a doozy.
Lex Fridman
(03:57:50)
Yeah, it’s a good one to find out. The name you’re using is not your real name. And the Secret Service, the FBI and everybody else are looking for you.
Matthew Cox
(03:58:02)
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(03:58:02)
And to be honest, you’re not a violent criminal. So it’s like-
Matthew Cox
(03:58:08)
But she didn’t know my name. She was like, she… And I told her, I said, “Look, if you start digging, if you find out my name, I’ll leave. There’s certain things that catch you. Staying in contact with people that you know, that’s how you get caught. Going back to see people, that’s how you get caught. Telling people who you are, that’s how you get caught.” And I was like, “So I’m Joseph Carter, everything’s fine.” And she was like, “Okay.” And keep in mind too, this girl, oh, your car’s broken or your car’s not doing well, take it and trade it in. We’ll go get you another car. We’ll go get you an Infinity FX or whatever. A 55,000, $60,000 vehicle. She’s driving the equivalent of a beat up old Nova. You want to go on vacation, we’ll go on vacation. You want to do this, you want to do that. So we’re buying houses, we’re renovating houses, we’re building brand new houses. We’re buying lots. She’s in the middle of this, like holy Jesus.

(03:59:12)
There’s hundreds of thousands of dollars in the bank, in our bank account. Her bank account. I open up a corporation in her name, she’s opening up bank accounts, there’s websites. It’s a lot it and while this is happening, we start seeing a friend of hers. So this other girl comes in the picture, her name’s Trina, and Trina is semi-lesbian. So-
Lex Fridman
(03:59:48)
Is this like a sexual thing-
Matthew Cox
(03:59:49)
Yeah, so-
Lex Fridman
(03:59:50)
… or actual relationship?
Matthew Cox
(03:59:51)
No, it’s more like she’s coming over a couple times a week.
Lex Fridman
(03:59:54)
Okay.
Matthew Cox
(03:59:55)
So we’ve got tons going on and… [inaudible 04:00:01] put this? So while this is happening, I end up coming out in several magazines. So I’m thinking this whole thing’s dying down, but it’s not dying down because now I just got caught and handcuffed in a bank, walked out of the police station, outran Marshals. Although that part, the Marshal thing was never in the papers, but the getting caught and handcuffed in the bank, when that hit the papers, that’s everywhere, bro. That’s huge. Suddenly, Chicago Tribune’s running a series, the fugitives. I’m in Bloomberg Businessweek. They run an article called Sharks in the Housing Pool. Then you’ve got Fortune magazine comes out with a thing because by now, guess what? Becky’s been caught.
Lex Fridman
(04:00:48)
Oh, Becky.
Matthew Cox
(04:00:49)
Becky.
Lex Fridman
(04:00:51)
Is she in Houston or whatever?
Matthew Cox
(04:00:52)
In Houston, got caught.
Lex Fridman
(04:00:54)
And did she-
Matthew Cox
(04:00:55)
But gangster, bro. The way she, here’s the thing, I-
Lex Fridman
(04:00:59)
Hey. Hey, there you go.
Matthew Cox
(04:01:01)
Oh, no, she told on me immediately.
Lex Fridman
(04:01:02)
Oh, she did?
Matthew Cox
(04:01:03)
Yeah, it’s-
Lex Fridman
(04:01:03)
Oh, no. Oh, no.
Matthew Cox
(04:01:04)
It’s fine. She did the right thing. So here’s what’s funny about that.
Lex Fridman
(04:01:07)
I don’t know about that.
Matthew Cox
(04:01:09)
Here’s what she says.
Lex Fridman
(04:01:09)
Loyalty is everything in this world, my friend. That you and I disagree on.
Matthew Cox
(04:01:13)
[inaudible 04:01:14]. I just took off. I just took off-
Lex Fridman
(04:01:15)
Still. Still.
Matthew Cox
(04:01:16)
… on her and left her with, listen, with five or $600,000 is what I left her with.
Lex Fridman
(04:01:23)
It’s not all about money, Matthew. It’s also about just ride or die. There’s a meaning to that.
Matthew Cox
(04:01:30)
[inaudible 04:01:31].
Lex Fridman
(04:01:31)
I’m sorry, go ahead. [inaudible 04:01:34].
Matthew Cox
(04:01:33)
So-
Lex Fridman
(04:01:34)
She said everything.
Matthew Cox
(04:01:35)
Well, here’s what, when I say gangster, when she gets caught, they come in, she’s in the middle of beauty school. She’s paid for beauty school, she’s going through beauty school. She’s going to open a salon or something. So she’s in there cutting hair, in a class on a mannequin, and all of a sudden, five or six Secret Service agents come in, guns drawn, screaming, get on the ground, get on the ground. She said, everybody dropped the ground. She goes, “I’m sitting there with scissors going…”

(04:02:04)
They grab her, they handcuff her, they bring her in, and the whole time… Now at that point, her name was Rebecca Hickey. She went by Becca. So she’s Rebecca Hickey, she’s got a Texas driver’s license, the whole thing. And they’re screaming at her, and they put her in the car, and they’re driving the whole way. The Secret Service agent told me, “45 minutes, she’s telling us, you’re losing your job, bro. You’re losing…” He’s like, “I couldn’t believe it. We’ve got pictures of her.” We’re like, “This is you.” She’s like, “That’s not me. Are you insane? Look at that chubby little thing.” [inaudible 04:02:43]-

(04:02:42)
Would not budge until they actually put her hand on the scanner and she goes, “Okay, I’m Rebecca Hauck. What do you need?” They’re like, “Where’s Matt Cox?” She’s like, “I have no idea. That fucker left me like a year ago.” So-
Lex Fridman
(04:02:58)
But she contributed to the story, to the legend that’s already growing.
Matthew Cox
(04:03:02)
Because she was interviewed by Fortune magazine and it was horrendous. The article is horrendous. He was abusive. He’s a Don Juan that forced me to fall in love with him, commit mortgage fraud, and then took all the money and left. By the way, they found 40 or 50 grand on her and maybe another 30 or 40 in her bank account, and no other money.
Lex Fridman
(04:03:29)
Yeah.
Matthew Cox
(04:03:30)
Where’s the other money? So anyway, and she was, by the way, she got caught. She was in communication with her family. So she’s talking to her mom.
Lex Fridman
(04:03:40)
That’s [inaudible 04:03:41] she got caught ultimately.
Matthew Cox
(04:03:42)
And her mother, through multiple conversations, one conversation being, “Mom, I’m doing fine. I can’t tell you where I am exactly, but I’m in Houston, Texas. I’m fine.” Next one, six months later, “I enrolled in beauty school.” Houston, Texas Beauty School. How many are there?
Lex Fridman
(04:03:59)
Yeah.
Matthew Cox
(04:03:59)
And her mom, bipolar. I just want to see my daughter.
Lex Fridman
(04:04:04)
Yep.
Matthew Cox
(04:04:04)
I’m going to call the Secret Service.
Lex Fridman
(04:04:05)
Yep.
Matthew Cox
(04:04:06)
I’m doing the right thing.
Lex Fridman
(04:04:07)
Yeah.
Matthew Cox
(04:04:08)
And honestly, she is doing the right thing.

Getting arrested

Lex Fridman
(04:04:11)
So you’re getting more and more famous-
Matthew Cox
(04:04:13)
It’s bad.
Lex Fridman
(04:04:14)
… nationally.
Matthew Cox
(04:04:15)
Right, so I’ve got all these [inaudible 04:04:17]-
Lex Fridman
(04:04:18)
You’re having a threesome with Amanda and Trina.
Matthew Cox
(04:04:20)
And what ends up happening is we end up going… And listen, Amanda and I, we’ve gone to Greece, Italy, Croatia. We’re going on multiple trips. And remember we had just gotten back from a 10-day cruise of the Greek Isles. And we get home and Amanda goes online and there’s a blog about Dateline, about one of their new specials called the Thief of Hearts, and that’s me. Apparently I’m the Thief of Hearts, and I am apparently going around, and it’s based on Becky’s story, that I’m wooing women to commit fraud, stealing all the money and then leaving them to hold the bag.

(04:05:19)
Well, they interviewed her. They’re interviewing multiple people, in my case, they’re putting together an episode. It’s going to be released in a month or so. So I’m terrified. At this point, I’ve been on the run three years, and I’m like… There’s lots of things I could care less about. Fortune, I don’t know anybody that reads Fortune. Bloomberg, come on, I’m hanging out with contractors and laborers and I’m not hanging out with these guys. So local news, who caress. Even local news channels, I don’t care. But Dateline, there weren’t 400 channels back then. So Dateline comes out, even if you don’t see it the first time, they’re going to rerun it in three months, or six months, or 10 years from now, they might rerun it again. My face is going to be on it, so I could be perfectly fine. Five years from now, in one day, the barista that I go to every other day looks at Dateline and goes, “Oh my god, that’s Mr. Johnson,” or, “That’s Mr. Thomas,” or whatever.

(04:06:24)
So the point is that I was like, “Yeah, I got to go. I can’t stay here. I got to get out of the country.” So I was going to go to… Well, we really started doing research and Amanda ended up saying, “Australia.” Australia, at the time, I don’t know how it is now, but at the time, if you went to Australia with a hundred thousand dollars and a business plan, you could become a permanent resident alien. You can’t vote, but you can buy property, you can open a business, but you can’t get a job. And they didn’t require a fingerprints. So there’s no criminal background check. Now, if you wanted to be a citizen, you have to get an FBI criminal background check. [inaudible 04:07:07]. No, I’m good. So I was like, “Wow, I can go there and start a business,” and I’m going to show up with a couple million.

(04:07:14)
So what we do is we start refinancing houses, we start pulling out money as quick as we can. I’m asking guys, laborers, guys that I work with, my general contractor, my real estate agent, “Hey man, can you cash this check for six grand?” Nobody says no, everybody, yeah, no problem, no problem. A few guys like, “Yeah, man, if you give you 10%,” yeah, I’ll give you 10%. So that’s happening. We’re pulling out cash. One day Amanda gives Trina a bunch of checks and asks her to cash them. That sparks a conversation like what was happening. She confides in… By this point, by the way, Amanda knows who I am.

(04:08:02)
So by this point, she’s actually came across the letter that I wrote to my parents when I left Tampa. So she’s figured out who I am. She tells Trina, “His name’s Matt Cox, Dateline’s coming out, we’re leaving. We got to get a bunch of cash.” And Trina goes, “Okay, I’ll cash the checks,” and what she does instead is she calls the Secret Service. They watch my house for three days, I come home one day, they pull the cars up… And they arrest me. So it’s a little bit longer than that, but that’s a short version of me getting arrested. And I’ve probably skipped over a whole [inaudible 04:08:43]-
Lex Fridman
(04:08:42)
So simple because you’ve gotten in the way with much more complex situations.
Matthew Cox
(04:08:48)
It’s women, man. It’s women. Just joking.
Lex Fridman
(04:08:53)
They also are the thing that make life worthwhile.
Matthew Cox
(04:08:56)
Listen, God bless Trina, she did the right thing. Honestly, based on-
Lex Fridman
(04:09:01)
There you go, back to the right thing.
Matthew Cox
(04:09:02)
But based on what she saw, based on what the Secret Service told her and the articles that she’s reading, I’m a bad guy. I’m a bad guy in general, so I don’t deserve loyalty. I don’t think so. I’m ripping people off and she’s thinking that her friend is in danger. The FBI is saying, I have a weapon. He’s dangerous. We believe he’s armed and dangerous. When I was in Florida, I had a concealed weapons permit, but I had gotten rid of both my guns when I was placed on probation. I’ve never had one since. I’ve never touched a gun since. But they used that to say, they said, “Oh, he had a concealed weapon permit. Okay, well then he’s armed and dangerous.” There’s these little things and things they’re telling her, “Read this article. Look, he forces girls to fall in love with them. That’s what he’s going to do to your friend.” So she negotiated also, I think she got 10,000, I think, which is embarrassing. I’m ashamed that she got $10, 000.
Lex Fridman
(04:10:02)
And said everything.
Matthew Cox
(04:10:03)
Yeah, and told them, “This is where he is. His name is Joseph Carter. This is where he is.” They watch it, they grab me, they arrest me. They bring me downtown.
Lex Fridman
(04:10:16)
What did you feel like when you got-
Matthew Cox
(04:10:18)
I didn’t feel good, bro. It was bad. It was a bad day. It was a bad day. First of all, Casino Royale was coming out on Friday. It was the first Daniel Craig as James Bond.
Lex Fridman
(04:10:33)
That was the first, yeah.
Matthew Cox
(04:10:34)
And the whole week I’d been telling Amanda, “I’m going to go see Casino Royale.” She go, “Okay, well on Saturday we’re going to go to the festival.” I go, “That’s fine, but on Friday, Casino.” And she’s like, “Right, Casino Royale.” And then she’s like, “Okay, by the way, on Thursday I thought we could go to dinner.” That’s fine, but on Friday, Casino Royale. And when they put the handcuffs on me, you want to know the first thing I thought of? I’m not going to fucking get to see Casino Royale. I’m not going to get to see it, not going to see it. And I saw it about five, six years later, it went on the institution’s movie channel. It was nice. It’s not the same, but, yeah.

(04:11:08)
So they bring me to Nashville, then they transport me to all over the place. I go on Con Air, they fly me to Oklahoma, they fly me to Atlanta, then I go to Atlanta. I’m placed in the U.S. Marshals, holdover. I get assigned an attorney, go in front of the judge, plead not guilty, meet with my attorney. You always plead not guilty. Whenever people say, “Can you believe that he pled not guilty?” Nobody walks in and pleads guilty. You plead not guilty while you figure out what you’re going to do. So I plead not guilty. There’s no bond. Obviously, they caught me. When they caught me I had four or five passports, so that’s no good. They charged me with bank fraud, conspiracy to commit bank fraud, wire fraud, mail fraud, passport fraud, conspiracy… What was the other? Aggravated identity theft, money laundering, use of a fraudulent passport. And there’s like 30 counts of this, 20 counts of this 20… But none of that matters.

(04:12:25)
Even if you just dropped all the counts to one count and stacked them, it’s like 150 something years, not that [inaudible 04:12:31].
Lex Fridman
(04:12:30)
Yeah, so everything they could [inaudible 04:12:33].
Matthew Cox
(04:12:32)
And that’s what they always say, “You’re looking at 150,000,” and your lawyers, they’re like, “You’re not looking at that. You’re looking at 54 years.” What? That’s no matter. That’s no matter. Yeah, so my lawyer comes in and sees me one day, our first meeting, and she says, “I’m Millie Dunn. And she says, “Listen, I’ve looked at everything.” Well, first they say, ” You’re responsible for, it’s like 25 or $26 million in loss.” And I’m like, “That’s not true. That’s not true.” And I said, “Not even potential loss. There’s just no way. There’s no way.” And then she comes back and she says, “Well, they’re saying 19 million.” No, it’s not possible, [inaudible 04:13:25], I didn’t, no. So when the FBI is saying 40 million. They’re saying 11.5 in Tampa, plus 40 million for the mortgage company. So it ends up being, plus what I stole on the run, it ends up being like 55 million, but she gets them to drop the 40. That’s just brokers. That’s this, that’s that. Drop it. And they’re like, “He’s so done. It doesn’t matter. They drop that.”

(04:13:49)
So it ends up being 15 million. And then it’s down to what does he owe? They said 9.5, and I got it down to 6 million, which I’m good for. So what ends up happening is they’ve charged me with all these things and she’s like, “Okay, you can plead guilty and you can go with the sentencing guidelines, which is going to be like…” She’s like, “It depends.” She said, “It might be, whatever, 54 years.” She goes, “But if they run them concurrent or consecutive, depending on which one they do,” she said, ” Most likely it ends up being 30 years.” It’s no good. That’s not good. So we go back and forth, back and forth and try and figure out what I’m looking at. Now, as we go through the whole thing, she knocks off a bunch of stuff that they’re saying I did, enhancements. Because you’ll have a base level of, let’s say, a level eight. That should be, maybe a few years. But then they start adding on enhancements.

(04:15:11)
Did what he do, was it sophisticated? Yes. Okay, three levels for sophisticated means. Were there more than… How many victims were there, more than 50 victims? Yes. Okay, that’s six more levels. Okay, did he change the jurisdiction to evade detection? Yes. That’s four more levels. Okay, did he… They start adding, boom, boom. And when you start adding up all those levels, plus your criminal history, and I have a big criminal history because I was already on federal probation and I committed a new crime on federal probation. So that was another enhancement. And this case, so I’m in a category [inaudible 04:15:45], category two or three.

(04:15:47)
So they come back and they’re saying, I forget, it’s like 20… Well, they don’t come back right away, but she ends up saying, “You’re probably looking at 14 years.” Okay, that’s reasonable. That’s reasonable. And so when we get the PSI back, we eventually get what’s called a presentence report. They’re saying 26 years. Well, they really said 32 years. And I argued, and we got it down to 26 years and four months. That’s what it is. It’s 316 months. That’s how they do it, in months, because it doesn’t sting that much, I guess, if you say months.
Lex Fridman
(04:16:30)
Yeah.
Matthew Cox
(04:16:30)
So she says to me, Millie sits down with me and she says, “Listen, you got to cooperate.” And I was like, “Okay.” And she said, “Because you’re guilty. You’re extremely guilty.” She’s like, “You can’t go to trial,” and she said, “So you need to cooperate.” I was like, “Well, what do I get if I cooperate?” And she’s, “The way it works is you cooperate and you hope for the best.” And I was like, “Are you serious?” She goes, “You tell them everything and you hope for the best.” And she’s like, “Part of the problem is,” she said, “Everybody in Tampa’s cooperated. Rebecca has cooperated. Everyone across the board has cooperated.” She goes, “There’s nobody that hasn’t cooperated.”
Lex Fridman
(04:17:12)
By the way, when you say cooperate, you mean they told, aka snitched.
Matthew Cox
(04:17:17)
Yeah. Right. They came in, they sat down with their lawyer and they said, “This is what he did. He did this, he did that.” They showed them documents, “Yes, yes, yes. That’s my signature. I didn’t know what that was.” Everything was my fault. They didn’t do anything. It was all me. So they’ve all cooperated and they haven’t been charged. They’ve been indicted. They’re all named as unnamed co-conspirators on my indictment. So I’ve got 12 people, [inaudible 04:17:40] there’s probably 20 people that are involved, but there’s 12 of them that are… So I’ve got all these names, K.B., D.L., C.Y. It’s like, I know who that is. I know who D.W., that’s Dave Walker. I know who these people are. And so there’s just a list of them, there’s like 12 of them plus me. Some of them walked in and said, “I’m guilty. I just want to plead guilty.” The girl, Allison, she walked in, said, “I’m tired of waiting for you to come get me.” Walked in with her lawyer and said, “I just want to plead guilty.” And they sentenced her, and she went to jail. She got 36 months or 30 months. She called the prison that… She went to the low security, it was a female prison at the time, female camp. Called the camp and asked if she could come by for a tour before she went. And they went, “Excuse me?” She said, “Well, I’m going to be there for about two years, so I’d like to come in. Is there a tour I can take? Because I like to know where I’m going and what it’s going to be like, how I should prepare.” And they just started laughing. They said, “There’s no tour, sweetie. We’ll give you the tour when you get here.” You got to love that, she-
Lex Fridman
(04:19:00)
Yeah. I mean, [inaudible 04:19:01]-
Matthew Cox
(04:19:02)
I thought I wasn’t prepared. There’s no tour. So Becky got 70 months, but when I got caught and when I was sentenced, they reduced it to 30 or no, to 40 months. They reduced [inaudible 04:19:16]-
Lex Fridman
(04:19:16)
Because she “cooperated.”
Matthew Cox
(04:19:17)
Cooperated.
Lex Fridman
(04:19:19)
That term. Right.
Matthew Cox
(04:19:21)
Do you want to say snitch or ratted?
Lex Fridman
(04:19:23)
Well, there must be… Snitch is too harsh of a word, but yeah, the ratted. You’re saying, I don’t know.
Matthew Cox
(04:19:32)
Well, we can get there. We’ll get there.

Snitching

Lex Fridman
(04:19:33)
All right. All right. So where did the sentencing end up?
Matthew Cox
(04:19:39)
So I should say first on the cooperation subject. My lawyer wanted me to cooperate, and by this point I realized you don’t have a choice. No, that’s not true. I could have been a gangster.
Lex Fridman
(04:19:57)
Yeah.
Matthew Cox
(04:19:57)
[inaudible 04:19:58]-
Lex Fridman
(04:19:57)
What does it mean to be a gangster in this case?
Matthew Cox
(04:20:00)
Like a standup guy. I could have said, “I’ll just take it. Give me 54 years. Go fuck yourself. I’m not going to snitch on nobody.” And I know you look at me and you think, “Tough guy.” I’m not a tough guy at all. I’m not doing 50-some-odd years. I’m not doing it. I don’t want to do 30 years. I was hoping for, I knew it wasn’t possible, but I would’ve satisfied for another slap on the hand like I got the first time. I really thought I deserved, honestly, when my lawyer asked me, “What do you really think you deserve?” And I thought, “I deserve 10 years. I deserve 10 years.” So she said, “Look, they want to talk to you.” So the FBI… Well, first the Secret Service flies in. They come in and they interview me.
Lex Fridman
(04:20:54)
Who’s more terrifying, FBI, Secret Service?
Matthew Cox
(04:20:57)
The Secret Service was so overwhelmingly professional. The FBI, and really only one of the FBI agents that interviewed me, I don’t know how he’s an agent. I don’t know. He was just ineffective, incompetent.
Lex Fridman
(04:21:16)
Oh. Oh, so it’s a competence issue.
Matthew Cox
(04:21:17)
The other one was Candace.
Lex Fridman
(04:21:20)
Oh, you met her eventually.
Matthew Cox
(04:21:21)
Of course I did. Of course. She’s-
Lex Fridman
(04:21:24)
What was her [inaudible 04:21:25].
Matthew Cox
(04:21:24)
… 5’11”, wearing 3″ heels. She’s a giant and in impeccable shape, attractive. One of the angriest human beings I’ve ever met. And every FBI agent that I’ve met since then that knows her, and I mention, they all say, “Oh, what’d you think of her?” And I’m like, “What? Why?”
Lex Fridman
(04:21:45)
[inaudible 04:21:45].
Matthew Cox
(04:21:45)
They go… And I was like, “Kind of aggressive.” They go, “Yeah, yeah, yeah. She’s a bulldog.” All of them are like, “Yeah, yeah, she’s something else.”
Lex Fridman
(04:21:54)
Secret services is a little bit more professional [inaudible 04:21:57]-
Matthew Cox
(04:21:57)
[inaudible 04:21:57], very, it’s their job. It’s like, hey, this is just my job. They’re polite, professional. That’s it. So this is my nine-to-five. But they fly in and they meet with me for three, four days. One of the funny things is that when I first sat down with him, one guy’s name was Dan Brosanskowski or something. So he sits down and he says, “Look, before we get started, we need to talk about something.” And I said, “What?” He said, “We know you’ve hidden money, and we…” And I was like, “What?” And he goes, “We know you’ve got money hidden.” I said, “I don’t have any money hidden. What are you talking about?” And my lawyer’s like, “Do we need to talk?” I’m like, “No, no, no, no. I don’t have nothing. I gave you everything. I gave you all the accounts. You got everything.” And he’s like, “You’re looking at an obstruction charge at this point.” I was like, “I don’t have anything.” And he says, “We know you have money. We know you have money in different identity’s names.” And I go, “What are you talking about?” And he pulls out a bank statement and he slaps it on the counter. And he goes, “You’ve got money in Southern Exchange Bank. You’ve got $190,000 in Southern Exchange Bank.” And I look at it and I went…

(04:23:18)
It was in the name Walter Holcomb, and I went, “Did you call the bank?” He says, “Yeah, we called the bank.” I went, “Okay. Did anybody call you back?” And he said, “Well, no, we’ve left several messages.” I said, “Did you go to [inaudible 04:23:33] bank website?” He goes, “Yeah, I went to the website.” I said, “What’d you think?” And he went, “What do you mean? It was bank website.” I said, “Yeah, but it was professional, right? It was a professional website.” And he goes, “It’s a bank website.” And I go, “Yeah, but it was well done.” And he goes, “Oh god.” And I go, “Yeah, convincing.”
Lex Fridman
(04:23:50)
[inaudible 04:23:52].
Matthew Cox
(04:23:51)
And I go, “It’s all an illusion,” and I said, “The bank doesn’t exist. It’s a fake bank. I made the bank. Made it when I was in… Not even in Tampa, I think I’d gotten to Nashville when I made it.
Matthew Cox
(04:24:03)
… not even in Tampa. I think I got into Nashville when I made it and I was like, “Yeah, it’s an… The bank statements…” He’s like, “They’re the color of bank statements.” I’m like, “Yeah, well no shit.” I said, “As a matter of fact,” I said, “Who did you leave a… I haven’t paid for this service in months.” And he turned around and he called it and it went (singing) it was disconnected. And I was like, “How do you not know that’s a bank?” Well, it turns out there was a Southern Exchange Bank and I’d used their bank routing number. I mean, I always thought that was funny, that it was like…

(04:24:34)
Well, I remember really for a split second there I was really embarrassed that they caught me. I was like, “Can’t believe this. You’re the Secret Service.” Anyway, I talked to them. As far as the Secret Service is concerned, there’s just not much I can tell them. It was me, Becky’s already told them everything. Amanda’s already told them everything. It’s not hard to track. When they raided my house, they’ve got boxes and boxes, so it’s laid out. It took forever. I still went through everything. I explained how I got the driver’s licenses, how I made the bank statements, how I made the birth certificates, the whole social engineering of figuring out what these little loopholes are. It’s like seven days total with these guys.
Lex Fridman
(04:25:23)
You mean like question?
Matthew Cox
(04:25:24)
Yeah, it was like they question me for all day and then they’d take me back to the Marshals holdover, and then the next morning I wake up and they chain me up again and bring me back.
Lex Fridman
(04:25:33)
What’s that like? What’s that process of questioning like? I mean, you’re somebody who is exceptionally good at conversation, charismatic was part of the games you played. Are they good at conversation?
Matthew Cox
(04:25:50)
I mean, the problem is they’re not there to shoot the shit. You see what I’m saying? They have an agenda.
Lex Fridman
(04:25:57)
But they have to use their words to get information out of you. Aren’t they trying to manipulate you?
Matthew Cox
(04:26:03)
[inaudible 04:26:03], I’m not holding anything back.
Lex Fridman
(04:26:05)
Okay.
Matthew Cox
(04:26:07)
It’s not like I’m sparing Jim. Trust me, Jim’s got to go. I mean, you’re looking at 20 some odd years, but Jim can do five. Bill can do some. Tom can do six. I don’t even like Jerry. Jerry can do 20. So I’m ready to cut everybody’s throat.
Lex Fridman
(04:26:27)
But you not guaranteed that you’re getting anything for that.
Matthew Cox
(04:26:30)
Right. In all my time, I’ve seen one time where an inmate got a guarantee to have his sentence reduced, and it was signed by the head of the FBI. Was Robert Mueller gave it to him, to have a conversation with him. That’s the only time I’ve ever seen that document.
Lex Fridman
(04:26:48)
Okay, so a lot of days with both the Secret Service and the FBI.
Matthew Cox
(04:26:52)
So FBI, Candice was irritated, didn’t like me. And I remember when she took the cuffs off, I was rubbing my wrist. She goes, “Your wrists hurt?” And I go, “Yeah.” And she goes, “Get used to it.” I mean, she was just an asshole, just all around. Not that she didn’t have a right to be, but everybody else was professional.
Lex Fridman
(04:27:09)
Oh, Candice.
Matthew Cox
(04:27:17)
We talked for three or four days with the FBI and they asked a ton of questions. They brought documents. So it’s like, “Hey, who signed this?” It’s like, “Oh, that’s not my signature. That’s so-and-so’s signature,” or, “I signed that. I signed that. I signed that. That’s so-and-so.” “Where’d this check go? Who is this?” “Oh, that’s so-and-so.” You’re looking over everything. One of the things they wanted to know about was, which I never talked about because it seemed so minor, is I bribed the politician. We got him elected to city council so he could vote to get the lots. We bought a hundred vacant lots in Ybor City. They were all single family, we wanted them zoned multifamily. And so we bribed him and got him elected all-
Lex Fridman
(04:28:05)
That doesn’t seem minor.
Matthew Cox
(04:28:07)
It’s not as sexy as the rest of the stuff.
Lex Fridman
(04:28:09)
That’s pretty… I mean, [inaudible 04:28:12].
Matthew Cox
(04:28:11)
That’s a whole ‘nother thing.
Lex Fridman
(04:28:13)
Yeah, yeah, all right.
Matthew Cox
(04:28:14)
What happened is when they got all of the bank accounts, they see all these checks going to Kevin White, and so they’re like, “Why did James Red donate $500 to Kevin White? Why did Brandon Green donate? Why did Alan Duncan donate? Why did…” So I had to explain to them, “Oh yeah, well, we wanted him to be city councilman, so we gave him a bunch of money so he could run the ad, so he could get elected, so he could then get all of our stuff.” But because he never did, I took off on the run before he was able to do that, and then not too, too long after that, he ended up… About five, six years later, he ended up getting indicted for bribery, but not mine, on somebody else’s case.
Lex Fridman
(04:29:00)
Can I take a small tangent here and ask how many politicians do you think commit crimes? Are a little bit or a lot criminals?
Matthew Cox
(04:29:09)
I mean, I think there’s some ways that are… They’re seemingly legal.
Lex Fridman
(04:29:15)
The aforementioned gray area.
Matthew Cox
(04:29:17)
Well, that’s not gray. This guy was, at one point I couldn’t find anybody to write $500 checks anymore so I just gave him cash. I’m just handing him seven, $8,000, $10,000 in cash. But I think most of them have legal ways to make ungodly amounts of money for influence. But is it legal? No, they’re politicians. They’ve made it so that it’s not illegal. If you really sat down and explained it to someone, the average person would say, “That’s not right.” Oh, no, no, that’s legal.
Lex Fridman
(04:29:58)
Okay. So at the end of these few days, what was the sentencing like?
Matthew Cox
(04:30:05)
Yeah, I go to sentencing. I get my PSI back and it’s 32 years to life. So we argue about it with the prosecutor just before sentencing, and they get it down to 26 years, four months. Then Millie says, “Listen, don’t worry,” because I’m trying to backpedal at this point. I’m like, “I might as well go to trial. If I lost at trial I couldn’t get more than 30.” Well, more than 32 years. Because you can’t get life. 32 was the max. It’s just a mistake he said 32 years to life, you can’t get life. So it was like, the most I can get is 32 years. So I was like, “I’ll go to trial. Might as well go to trial and see if I can get them to reduce some of these enhancements.”

(04:30:51)
She insists that she can get the enhancements knocked down and if you actually read the enhancements, some of the enhancements, they didn’t apply to me. So she goes, and I believed her, and I think she made a valid argument. We go to sentencing. My mom’s there, she’s crying. My dad’s there, he’s looking at me like he’s disgusted. And crowd, there’s a whole bunch of reporters, the whole place is packed. And I plead guilty. Millie gets up, my lawyer gets up and she argues these enhancements. And every single time the judge is like, ” I disagree. Overruled.” And it’s like, boom, five more years. Bam, six more years. Bam. Because if she had won the enhancement she argued I would’ve got 14 years.

(04:31:44)
Now, keep in mind too, a month or two prior to this, the US attorney had called Millie and said, “Look, Dateline…” Dateline had already come out, by the way. Remember I was worried about Dateline coming out? Well, it had come out, but they wanted to do a follow-up because it came out like a month or two after I got arrested. And they were saying, “Hey, we want to recut it with interviews with him.” Well, Gail McKenzie, that’s the US attorney, she wants me to do that. And she says, “I’ll consider that substantial assistance.”

(04:32:20)
Now, when you cooperate with the government, they consider it substantial assistance, that’s what they call it. So I cooperate with you, it’s substantial assistance. She says, “If he’s interviewed by Dateline, we’ll consider it substantial assistance.” And Millie says, “You have to do it.”
Lex Fridman
(04:32:36)
By the way, what’s the idea behind that? That you serve as a warning for others or something like that?
Matthew Cox
(04:32:42)
Yeah, exactly. Because you become a cautionary tale, like, “Don’t let this happen to you.” So I go and I’m interviewed by Dateline, Keith Morris, or whatever his name is, that guy, “Mr. Cox was…” that guy. So he comes and he interviews me. Becky’s interviewed, I’m interviewed, Amanda’s interviewed, Allison is interviewed, everybody. The Secret Service agent, I think is interviewed, everybody. Prosecutor’s interviewed. It’s funny, at the time when I watched it, I was like, “That’s not true, and that’s not true, and that, and…” And honestly, it’s like 99% true. Looking back on it, I’m like, ” My Audi TT wasn’t blue, it was silver.” It’s just stupid.

(04:33:36)
But anyway, so I’m interviewed by them and they recut it and they air the video. So you said this was substantial assistance. And then the other thing is I was interviewed by the FBI and the Secret Service. Now my lawyer calls the prosecutor the night before sentencing and says, “Look, he was interviewed by Dateline and he was interviewed by the Secret Service and the FBI. And if you do that, you said you’d reduce his sentence, you’d consider it substantial assistance, and you would reduce his sentence. What are you going to ask for his sentence to be tomorrow at sentencing?” And she said, “We did consider it substantial assistance and it’s just not enough.” “What do you mean?” “Nobody was arrested.” “Yes, but what about Dateline?” “Millie, I don’t know what to tell you. It just wasn’t enough.”
Lex Fridman
(04:34:27)
We considered it?
Matthew Cox
(04:34:29)
“We considered it. We will consider it.” And they did consider it.
Lex Fridman
(04:34:33)
Oh, man.
Matthew Cox
(04:34:34)
Yeah, the meaning of words is so important.
Lex Fridman
(04:34:40)
I’m going to use that at some point.
Matthew Cox
(04:34:41)
I’ll consider it.
Lex Fridman
(04:34:41)
I will consider it. I’ll consider it. I considered it…
Matthew Cox
(04:34:44)
It’s not.
Lex Fridman
(04:34:47)
… and still feel the same.
Matthew Cox
(04:34:48)
So she calls me, I’m crushed. And she’s like, “But look, they’re still investigating. They’re going to make these arrests.” And so when you get a sentence reduction at sentencing, it’s called a 5K1. When you get a sentence reduction after sentencing, it’s called a Rule 35. So she said, “We’ll file a Rule 35 as soon as the arrests are made.” Okay, so I go to sentencing and Millie says, “You’re going to get 14 years. I’m going to argue these enhancements.” She argues the enhancements. She loses the enhancements.

(04:35:18)
Not that she’s not an amazing attorney. She’s an amazing attorney. The judge wanted to hammer me. He hammered me. Millie was a great attorney. She was always polite to me. And by the way, to this day, will answer my phone call. Most public defenders, you call them now, you call them after your sentence, they don’t answer your call. Great person.
Lex Fridman
(04:35:41)
Thank you, Millie.
Matthew Cox
(04:35:42)
I didn’t give her anything to work with. It’s like I’m a little overwhelmingly guilty. It’s like there’s no defense. So I end up getting sentenced 26 years.

Prison

Lex Fridman
(04:35:55)
That’s a lot of years.
Matthew Cox
(04:35:56)
I would like to tell you that when they gave me the time, that I was stoic and I stood there and I took it in. But the truth is, I cried like a baby, like a small child. You’ve never seen anyone cry like this in your life. I was just, How did I get 26? What did I do to get 26 years like murderers, rapists? I’ve met guys that kidnapped guys that got 15.
Lex Fridman
(04:36:27)
26.
Matthew Cox
(04:36:31)
So yeah, I…
Lex Fridman
(04:36:33)
Were you scared?
Matthew Cox
(04:36:35)
I mean, does a pope wear a funny hat? Of course I was scared, I was terrified. But I kept telling myself, “They’re going to reduce the sentence. They’ll reduce it, they’ll reduce it, they’ll reduce it. Okay, okay. It’s going to be okay. It’s going to be okay.” But it wasn’t okay. I got moved to Coleman, the Coleman Complex in Coleman, Florida, the Federal Correctional Coleman Complex in Coleman, Florida, which is the largest federal complex in the nation.

(04:37:10)
At that time, there was a camp, which was a female camp. There was a low security prison for men, a medium security prison, and two penitentiaries. So I get moved to the medium. Now I’m moved to the medium, not because… That’s where real criminals go, right? I’m a soft, white boy. I’m no danger to anybody. I hurt someone’s feelings once, but other than that, I’m not going to be a problem. But if you have more than 20 years to serve, you have to go to a medium. So even though my security level said this guy should be in a camp, I had 20 years. You can’t go to a camp until you have less than 10.

(04:37:57)
So as soon as I am given 26 years… They knock off three, but you still have three years to get below 20, so they go to the medium. So I go to the medium and there are guys getting stabbed. The very first day, people are being stabbed. I get locked into… Go to my cell, meet my cellie. They scream lockdown. Somebody got stabbed in the rec yard. I remember I asked my cellie, which I’d met 20 minutes earlier, He’s like, “Hey, we’ve got to get in the cell.” I was like, “What’s going on?” “Somebody got stabbed in the yard.” And I go, “Somebody just got killed.” And he goes, “Nah, they just stabbed him up a little bit.” And I thought, “Oh my God, you’re in a place where they say stabbed him up a little bit. You’re not prepared for this, bro. You got to get out of here.” Anyway, I go to the medium. I’m there.
Lex Fridman
(04:38:40)
What was the first day and night?
Matthew Cox
(04:38:42)
Remember, I already had been locked up in the county. They’re county jails where they call them, they’re US Marshal, they’re holdovers, but they’re really county jails. They just keep you with the federal guys. So I’m not mixed in with hobos and people like that. I’m mixed in with the federal people.
Lex Fridman
(04:39:00)
It’s already felt like a prison?
Matthew Cox
(04:39:02)
Yeah, it’s a prison. I mean, it’s jail, but it’s a prison. Unless you’ve been locked up, you don’t really know the difference. So it’s a jail. Jails suck. Jails are much worse. The whole time I was locked up in the jails, waiting to be sentenced. Guys were like, “I just want to get sentenced and go to prison, bro.” And I was like, “Why does everybody keep saying that? Prison’s worse than this. I saw Shawshank. It’s horrible.” And they’re like, “Bro, prison? Listen, prison I can walk the rec yard. I could go to the movie room, watch movies. Listen, right after count…” There’s a four o’clock count. They count everybody at 4:00.

(04:39:39)
So they are like, “Right after count, I’m going to go to commissary. Somebody’s going to buy me an ice cream. I’m going to be eating an ice cream, walking on the rec yard the first day.” And it’s been months and months and months that I’ve been locked up in this county jail, and I’m thinking, “I want to go to prison. That sounds nice. I’d like an ice cream.”
Lex Fridman
(04:39:57)
But there was a stabbing on the first day, so…
Matthew Cox
(04:40:00)
Yeah. Well, everybody kept telling me I was going to go to a camp. You’re going to go to a camp, you’re going to go to a low.
Lex Fridman
(04:40:05)
I see.
Matthew Cox
(04:40:05)
And honestly, very quickly, I was walking on the rec yard, I was… So I was at the medium. I got there. It’s a real prison with the doors, bam. And they can open the little tray thing and feed you out of the tray, and there’s a stainless steel toilet and sink. And they have that in the county too, but it’s exactly what you think of prison as being.
Lex Fridman
(04:40:30)
But it feels like a fundamentally different experience when it’s 26 years and the door locks, and…
Matthew Cox
(04:40:36)
Yeah. So yeah, I have a cellie, but I’m also, is they sent me to a prison where tons of guys have 30, 40, 50 years, life sentences. There’s gangsters there, there’s murderers, there’s serial killers, there’s really bad guys. There’s guys that are trying to take advantage of guys, right?
Lex Fridman
(04:41:06)
You mean like sexually?
Matthew Cox
(04:41:07)
Yeah. But by the time I got there, I’d heard all the… How you can get yourself in trouble. Don’t go in somebody else’s cell. You don’t know the guy? You’re not 100% sure? Do not go in his cell. Don’t even go near a cell. Don’t go into places where people can close a door behind you or they can trap you in an area. There’s all these things that I’ve been told not to do.
Lex Fridman
(04:41:34)
Again, for sexual reasons.
Matthew Cox
(04:41:35)
Right, because I’m a small guy in prison.
Lex Fridman
(04:41:40)
Yeah, attractive white dude.
Matthew Cox
(04:41:43)
Yeah, it’s a problem. It’s a problem. This, it’s bad. It’s all bad.
Lex Fridman
(04:41:49)
Well, it’s good in the outside world, but bad in prison.
Matthew Cox
(04:41:53)
Yeah. My fear was they’re going to make me shave my head to make sure that the mop wig fits correctly. But there’s certain things that… I always hate to say this, and this is the simplest way to say it, is that if you get stabbed in prison, you had it coming. You did something. They’re not running around just stabbing people, you did something. And the things that get you hurt is you argue over the TV, what channel you want to watch. You got 50, 80 guys watching one TV, don’t argue about it. It’s not worth it.

(04:42:27)
Borrowing things and not returning them, that’s a problem. Running up debts, that’s a big problem. Gambling, gossiping, those are the problems. Those things get you hurt. Not being polite, be respectful. I’m super respectful. So I was respectful. Very quickly when I got to Coleman… There are continuing education courses. One of the courses is residential real estate. The guy that was running the residential real estate didn’t want to do it anymore because he was doing legal work and it just was taking too much time. So he came to me and said, “Listen, you just got here. You got a real estate background like nobody else does. Can you take over this class?” And I was like, “Sure.”

(04:43:12)
So I looked at his curriculum, I rewrote it a little bit, and I started teaching a residential real estate class. And at one point I was teaching two classes a semester or a quarter. And these guys loved it. They all think they’re going to get out and flip houses. So I started from the fundamentals. I talk about credit, how to borrow, hard money lenders, different types of… Everything.

(04:43:35)
It’s the first time in my life, this was funny. Not that I think I was really ever in a position for this to happen. This is really odd though. Probably the second or third class when guys are leaving and I’m having to check them off the roll, multiple guys are stopping and saying, “Yo, bro,” putting their hand out and shaking my hand and going, “Good class. It was a good class, bro.” Then I have guys coming to me, telling me, “Hey, what are you teaching these guys?” I go, “What do you mean?” He goes, “My cellie’s telling me he’s going to get out and make millions. ‘I’m taking Cox’s real estate class. I’m telling you I can do this. I’m going to be a millionaire.'” And it’s like this flipping houses, this is not…

(04:44:12)
But the truth is, flipping houses was… What I basically told these guys, especially the drug dealers, right? You’re a drug dealer and you were raised in the projects and you’re going back to the projects. This is the one industry that you will thrive at because you’re a hustler. You’re not afraid. A 45-year-old, divorced, white woman is not going into the Hood knocking on doors to try and flip houses, but you will. And you know everybody in the neighborhood, and you’ll knock on those doors, and you’ll hustle. And you’ve been told no before and you don’t care and you’re not scared, you’re not…

(04:44:49)
And there’s tons of money to be made in lower income areas. And then when I go through the whole thing and how you can leverage your credit to borrow money to get into the property and do the renovations with very little money down, and I do the whole thing, these guys, they loved it. And what that did for me was two things. One, if you got to the class, 40 guys show up for the class. And I say, “Look, if you don’t want to go, you don’t want to be here, you just want it because your counselor’s making you get a certificate. You don’t want to be here, that’s fine. Bring me two coffees and two creamers from commissary and I’ll fill out all your paperwork and you’ll pass. You’ll get a certificate. I don’t have to see you again.” I have full of coffee and creamer because at least 10 or 15 didn’t want to be there. The other guys seriously wanted to be there. And I don’t want those guys to be there anyway, they’re going to be a problem. So the other guys are serious about it, and some of these guys sat through the class two, three, four times. Some of these guys got out and sent me money, which is a huge sign of respect, by the way. Because they don’t owe me anything. But I did that and I taught GED because you have to do something for money.

(04:46:04)
And I met a bunch of cool guys and I was hanging out and I was doing well. And after about three years, they transferred me to the low security prison. At this point the FBI starts showing up, asking me questions. They asked me questions about the politician I bribed, asked me questions about him. Statute of limitations was up and they were trying to tie him into the bank fraud. Because his name was Kevin White, and one of my guys’ name was Michael Kevin White, and so they were trying to tie him in. “Did he know about it? Because if he knew about it, statute of limitations is 10 years. We could…” “No, he didn’t know.” Should’ve thrown him in there. Because a couple a years later, he gets indicted. He ends up going to jail anyway.
Lex Fridman
(04:46:58)
And it could’ve decreased your sentence.
Matthew Cox
(04:47:00)
Yeah. Listen, listen, stop. Stop. Oh my God.
Lex Fridman
(04:47:07)
I got all my judgment out after the homeless conversation.
Matthew Cox
(04:47:10)
Listen, it’s only going to get worse.
Lex Fridman
(04:47:14)
I mean, I really appreciate your honesty and your insight about snitching, honestly, that I have a sense that there’s at least a desire for loyalty in the world.
Matthew Cox
(04:47:28)
Wouldn’t that be nice?
Lex Fridman
(04:47:30)
Did you ever feel in danger in medium or low?
Matthew Cox
(04:47:36)
Is funny, I had more problems probably at the low than I did the medium. But at the medium, the only thing that happened was an article came out in the newspaper when I was at the medium. It came out and said… Because they’re still investigating things. So this article comes out and I’m on the front page of the St. Petersburg Times. It was about the politician. Big article, and in the article, they interviewed Millie, my lawyer, and she says, “Well, when Mr. Cox was being interviewed by the FBI, one of the first things they wanted to know about was this politician.” So she just said, “Mr. Cox was being interviewed by the FBI.”

(04:48:27)
So I immediately get taken into custody and they put me in the shoe, the hole, for my own protection, and I’m there for like 45 days. Then after 45 days, they’re like, “Cox, what do you want us to do? You want us to ship you?” I was like, “No, put me back on the compound.” I’m like, “Half the guys here cooperated.” And he goes, “Yeah, it’s more than half.” He said, “But this is the guy from SIS,” which is their internal security.
Lex Fridman
(04:48:50)
So that’s when he told you that it’s actually a much higher percentage, but-
Matthew Cox
(04:48:53)
Right, he said, “But a hundred percent of them are lying about it.” He said, “You just came out in the newspaper.” I go, “Man, I’m not concerned.” “If you are concerned, you got to come immediately to the lieutenant’s office and tell us, we’ll ship you.” I said, “Okay.” I get out there, people are looking at me and, “What’s up?” But I don’t have a lot of friends anyway. I don’t come there to make friends.

(04:49:14)
So at one point, this one guy comes to me. I’m walking the yard probably two days later, after I get back on the compound, I’m walking. Guy comes to me, he has a goatee, and it comes down here, and he’s got a little skull thing he had made, whittled out of wood or something, and definitely looks scary. So I’m walking and he stopped, he goes, “Hey, Cox.” I’ve never talked to these guys. I had been there for a year or so and never talked to any of these guys. They’re all like bikers and Aryan Brotherhood. And so I’m like, “Yeah, what’s up?” He said, “Bubba.” Bubba’s their leader. He goes, “Bubba told me to tell you not to walk the yard. He don’t want to see you out in the yard.” And I went, “Okay.” I said, “Well, I’m going to walk the yard tonight.” I said, “And if I get the shit kicked out of me, then I get the shit kicked out of me, but-“
Lex Fridman
(04:50:02)
But did you talk back to a guy with a wooden skull hanging off his beard?
Matthew Cox
(04:50:06)
I did, but you know what? It was right in front of the guard shack, and so there was guards in the guard shack. They’re 20 feet away.
Lex Fridman
(04:50:13)
Really, you weren’t scared?
Matthew Cox
(04:50:14)
I mean, I think I just got numb. I’m not stupid, but I’m walking around. I was scared from the moment I got there, on, if that makes sense. So you get to a point where you’re just numb and you’re waiting for it. Especially when I got out of the shoe. Got out of the shoe, I went straight to my cell, laid down. Couple of minutes later it was lockdown, they closed the doors. I wake up the next morning, I go to chow, I go to my job, it starts all over again. So I had a very packed routine. Although there’s guys everywhere, and I’m thinking at some point I might just be walking around, a guy might walk up and just smash me in the head, but it didn’t happen.

(04:50:53)
And it’s not that guys aren’t getting stabbed, but they’ve got it coming. I didn’t tell on anybody here. I didn’t do anything. It’s not that on other yards I might not have gotten smashed, but I didn’t get smashed. And I’d been there a while and I taught the real estate class, and everybody wanted to take real estate. So I think that insulated me to a degree. I also had made a few friends there, and I think they were probably also putting out the words like, “Bro, cut this guy a break.”

(04:51:20)
So I’m walking across and I tell the guy, I said, “Look man,” and I wasn’t rude to him. He wasn’t even rude to me, really. He said, “Don’t walk the yard anymore. Bubba doesn’t want you walking the yard.” I said, “Well, listen, I’m going to go to chow and then I’m going to go out there tonight and walk the yard, and if I get smashed, I get smashed.” I go, “Because I got 26 years and I cannot walk around for the next 26 years, not going on the yard.” I said, “So I’m going to be there, and if that happens, then that happens.” And he looked at me and he goes, “Man, I don’t give a fuck what you do. That’s what Bubba told me to tell you.” He said, “I told you.” And he goes, “I don’t give a shit what you do,” and he walked off.

(04:51:54)
I went out there that night with a buddy of mine named Zach, a guy named John Gordon, with my cousin and a couple of his buddies. We walked the track for about an hour. Bubba and a group of his guys stood there and looked at us, and as we walked, probably closest we got to them was 30 or 40 feet. That went on for 30 minutes and then they broke up and went their separate ways.

(04:52:15)
There was a couple of times where I would go to the chow hall and I would go and I’d be sitting at a table and Bubba would walk up and tell the other guys at the table, “I want to let you guys know you’re…” He didn’t even call me a snitch. He said, “You’re sitting with a cooperating witness.” He said, “If that’s how you want to roll,” he said, “You ain’t going to be rolling with us if there’s any trouble.” And then they all looked at me and they got their plate and they moved off. He didn’t tell me to move. And he could’ve walked up and said, “This is a snitch motherfucker.” He didn’t do that. Bubba was very respectful. As respectful as you could be [inaudible 04:52:48].
Lex Fridman
(04:52:47)
Whatever you want to say about Bubba, he was a respectful man. You ever talk to him directly?
Matthew Cox
(04:52:52)
Never had a conversation with him. So that went on, but I mean, when I say that went on, I mean literally that’s a couple of times. He said the same thing to a guy in line one time. Guy came up to me later and said, “Look, man, I’m sorry, Matt.” He was standing next to me in line. Bubba said something to him. He went like 10 or 15 people back and stood in line. Later on he came up to me, “Matt, I’m sorry bro, but blah, blah, blah.” I said, “Bro,” I said, “Look, I get it. We’re not friends, don’t worry about it.”

War dogs


(04:53:18)
And here’s the thing. At some point there, I ended up getting… Well, the FBI started showing up there at the prison, questioning me about my files in Tampa, that [inaudible 04:53:33] of the 12 guys that were indicted?
Lex Fridman
(04:53:34)
Mm-hmm.
Matthew Cox
(04:53:34)
They show up and they start asking me about it. And so they’re still working it. Well, at the same time, I end up getting moved to the low security prison. I get to low security prison, they show up over and over again. But at some point they come to me and they say, “Look, we went to the US attorney. We presented everything we have. I have enough to indict all of these guys.” I think it was whittled down to maybe eight instead of 12. And they said, “Look, the entire economy is melting down. At this point some of these are four, five years old. We’ve got banks that are melting down right now. We’ve got 100, 200, 300 million, 500, half a billion dollar banks that we’re investigating. We don’t have time to deal with this. We’re not going to indict those people.” So they get away. The agent I was working with, her name was Leslie Nelson, very nice person. She came… Actually didn’t have to do this, came to the prison to tell me this is what happened. And when she’d first come to see me, I told her, “Listen, I want to do all this, but no matter what happens, I need you to write me a letter. If they don’t indict these people, I need you to write me a letter that I can present to the US attorney on my behalf, that I did everything I could.” And she goes, “I’ll do that. That’s not going to happen. We’re going to get the indictments and everything.” I was, “Okay.”

(04:55:05)
So of course, a year later, she shows up after nothing happens and they’ve dropped the case. She shows up and she tells me what happened, and he’s not going to do it. And I go, “Do you remember that you…” She goes, “I got the letter right now.” Gave me the letter. She was like, “That’s it.” Great letter. It says, “Mr. Cox has worked, blah, blah, blah. He’s done this, this, this,” great. And even said, “He deserves a reduction in my opinion, blah, blah, blah.” But nobody was arrested.

(04:55:33)
So I call my public defender, I call Millie, I explain it to her, and she starts crying and she’s sorry. And, “Well, what are we going to do?” “Well, there’s nothing you can do. You’re time barred.” You have one year to file a 2255, which is to say that your lawyer is ineffective or that the court has made a mistake in some way. And it had been over a year, it had been years. It’d been like four years. And she’s like, “Yeah, I mean, there’s nothing you can do.” And she’s in tears, and I feel like I’m done. At that point I’m done.

(04:56:14)
And what I do is I start writing a book. I write my memoir. And this is not a shameless plug for my memoir, by the way, which is amazing. Just saying. But so what happens is I actually write it. I write it, and then I have to rewrite it because I don’t really know what I’m doing. And I’ve been reading true crime and that sort of thing. And I’ve always liked true crime. I get a literary agent, comes to see me, tells me I have to rewrite some stuff. We rewrite it. As I’m finishing up my memoir, there’s a guy that comes on the compound, and his name is Efraim Diveroli. Efraim Diveroli and his business partner, a guy named David Packouz, were selling munitions, AK-47 rounds.
Matthew Cox
(04:57:03)
… selling munitions, AK-47 rounds, really tons of munitions. But they got in trouble with this and they were selling them to the US government for the Afghani Security forces. And there had been an article in Rolling Stone Magazine about him, and I’d read it and somebody points them out and says, “Hey, that’s that guy.” And I went up to him, I said, “Hey, bro, you just got here?” He’s like, “Yeah.” And I said, “Look, if you want to write a memoir or anything, I’m finishing my memoir. I can always help you. I can help write an outline. You can get a professional writer, whatever you need help.” He’s like, “Yeah, all right.” Efraim Diveroli was played by Jonah Hill in the movie War Docs. So a few months later, he comes to me and says, “Hey, they sold the movie rights.” I was like, “Oh wow, that’s great.”

(04:57:46)
And I’m like, “You don’t want to write a memoir?” And he’s like, “Yeah, man. It was sold to the guys from the Hangover movie.” And I was like, “So the guys from the Hangover movie are going to make a movie about you?” I said, “You understand, they’re going to call it like, dude, where’s my hand grenade? And you’re going to be Spicoli from Fast Times at Ridgemont High. You’re going to be a joke, all because you don’t want to write a memoir and get your version out there.” And he was like, “Holy shit”. So I ended up writing an outline for him. We worked together, and then he asked that, “Can I read your book?” And I was like, “Sure.” And I give it to him and he reads it and he comes back and he said, “Bro, this is the best thing I’ve ever read in my life.” And to be honest, I later found out he’d read about three books in his entire life, but still it was very nice…
Interviewer
(04:58:30)
[inaudible 04:58:31] still the other two.
Matthew Cox
(04:58:32)
So he asked me if I’ll write his book, I write his book. We work out a deal and we do that. And I’m saying all this because I basically settle in. I’m done. I’m going to do 26 years.
Interviewer
(04:58:46)
By the way, just on a small tangent, how did you know you’d be good at writing?
Matthew Cox
(04:58:52)
I had written a manuscript prior to even taking off on the run, I used to listen to John Grisham books. I would listen to him in the car. I liked John Grisham books, and I’d actually written a manuscript about a mortgage broker. He writes about lawyers, and it’s like, Laurie, being a lawyer is not exciting. If you can make that sound exciting, I can make being a mortgage broker. And I wrote a book, put it at my desk, and the FBI found it and they had said, “Oh, it’s a blueprint to the fraud that he’s going to commit.” It wasn’t, stop. That character was as much me as John Grisham’s characters are him.
Interviewer
(04:59:31)
But it’s still interesting that John Grisham didn’t…
Matthew Cox
(04:59:35)
Right. I mean, if John Grisham did something similar to what one of the…
Interviewer
(04:59:40)
Yeah, I saw a quote somewhere that the criminal is a true artist and the detective is merely a critic. Something like that. Does that resonate with you or not?
Matthew Cox
(04:59:55)
I’ll have to look that up.
Interviewer
(04:59:56)
Okay, so you already knew you could write?

Frank Amodeo

Matthew Cox
(04:59:58)
Well, I knew I liked it, but yeah, I think I got better and better at it. I mean, as you’re writing… And they had creative writing classes in prison at the Lowe. The Lowe was a much different breed of animal. You could very easily get hurt, you could get hurt either place, but there were guys that have life sentences that have been working out for 20 years and were just super angry at the medium. And if you got hurt at the medium, it was probably really go bad, as opposed to you get hurt at the Lowe, it’s more like a fistfight in high school, with knives. So anyway, so I am there. I’m writing, I’m doing that. And there was a guy on the compound that came on the compound about that same time. His name was Frank Amadeo. Frank Amadeo is a rapid-cycling bipolar with features of schizophrenia.
Interviewer
(05:00:56)
Rapid-cycling, bipolar with features of schizophrenia.
Matthew Cox
(05:01:01)
It’s just constant, right? And so there are moments in his manic state where his reoccurring psychosis, I guess, is… That he believes, and since he was in his early teens, has believed that he’s preordained by God to be emperor of the world. He’s a lawyer, disbarred. Stole close to $200 million from the federal government. They gave him 22 years and they sent him to Coleman, but it doesn’t… This is the part I love. The delusions don’t affect his legal work. It doesn’t say a ton for legal community, but…
Interviewer
(05:01:41)
How do you know he’s delusional? I’m just asking questions.
Matthew Cox
(05:01:43)
Yeah, he’s trust me. I mean, it’s not me. It’s like the transcripts, the lawyers, the doctors. There’s a ton of ton. And then if you saw him in action, you’d be like, “Oh, wow.” He would be completely normal. He would be having a completely normal conversation and somebody would say something and he’d go, “That makes me so angry. I am not going to let them do that. When my legions march on Washington, we are going to burn the constitution and the president will kneel at my feet.” And he goes, “I’m going to need your transcripts. I’m going to need a 2255 form. We’re going to file a…”

(05:02:35)
And everybody would sit there and be like, “Okay, Frank, I’ll get to this and I’ll get…” It was insane. It was the most insane… He was basically running a medium-sized law firm from inside of the prison. He was training people. He taught the legal research class and was training people on how to do legal research in prison, how to put together motions, how to fight their cases, how to do the research, how to type them up. Everything. It’s like a law school. He’s teaching these guys… Listen, they made such a mistake locking this guy up.
Interviewer
(05:03:11)
So he’s a great lawyer.
Matthew Cox
(05:03:12)
Listen, it’s going to get worse. It’s going to get worse. Because here’s what happens is, at this point, I don’t talk to him for probably a year or so because everybody’s saying he’s crazy. And for a year, he gets there, he’s drooling out of the side of his mouth. They got him on a ton of medication. It takes him about a year to take him off the medication. So he gets them to take him off the medication, and then he starts stabilizing his mood by drinking Pepsi. I know. I know it’s crazy. I see you looking at me like this guy’s delusional. I know. So at some point, one of my buddies comes to me and says, “Look, you got to go talk to Frank.” Here’s the other thing. Over the course of a year or two that he starts doing legal work for guys, he starts just taking on guys’ cases. “I’ll do the motion, I’ll do your legal work, I’ll do this.” Keeps him busy. But suddenly you start hearing people get released.

(05:04:08)
Jimmy just got 10 years knocked off his sentence. He’s going to halfway house next month. Tom got an immediate release. Frank’s walking people up to R&D, shaking their hands. Guys are walking up to him in tears, crying. And so crazy or not, what choice do I have? I called three different lawyers on the street and said, “This is what happened. What can I do? What can I do?” They told me to do this and this and this, and I worked with them, and then they decided not to proceed, and what can I do? And they said, “You’re hit, bro. There’s nothing you can do. In the 11th circuit, you cannot force them to file a reduction on your behalf. You cannot do it. It’s impossible. You’re hit. You’re done. It’s over. I’d love to take your money, Mr. Cox, but it’s not going to happen. I’m not just going to take your money. You’re going to lose.” Three different lawyers.

(05:05:03)
I talked to Irti’s lawyer, told me, “Bro, it’s not going to happen. It’s over.” So my buddy says, “Go talk to Frank.” I said, “Well, why wouldn’t I? I got nothing else to lose.” So I go talk to Frank. He actually has a little manic moment, that little thing that I just showed you. That’s exactly what he said the first time I talked to him.
Interviewer
(05:05:24)
Based on your case?
Matthew Cox
(05:05:25)
Yes, “I won’t let this happen.” He’s like, “I’m going to need your transcripts. I’m going to need you to get this. I need to see your indictment. I’m going to need your percentage report. I’m going to need…” I was like, “Okay.” And I turned to my buddy. He’s like, “Bro, I know. I know what you’re thinking. It’s fine.” It’s fucking crazy. And he’s like, “I understand. What choice do you have?” I was like Fuck. So Frank files a 2255 motion on my behalf stating that I’m not time-barred that Millie was… We file it against Millie, stating that she was ineffective, that she didn’t understand the law. She had me plead to something. Because she thought I could get a reduction simply for doing Dateline. Oh, by the way, when I was in the medium, the government came to me and asked me to be interviewed by American Greed. I do that. I’m interviewed. And they get me on the phone, they talk to me, everything. The prosecutor wants me to do it. She’s re-interviewed, everybody’s re-interviwed.

(05:06:23)
It airs. Millie goes to the government, says, “Look, reduce the sentence.” They go, “No, Millie, it’s not enough.” Then they come to me and they ask me to write an ethics and fraud course. I write an ethics and fraud course. The guy I write the course with that flies up to Atlanta. He talks with… I think he drove up, but he goes up to Atlanta, he talks with a US attorney, talks to Millie. She insists if he does this, I will reduce his sentence. I will definitely consider this. Definitely consider. And then we do it. It’s being used all over the nation. Not enough. At this point, I go to Frank. I tell Frank what’s happening. Frank says, “Yeah…” He goes, “Every time they asked you to do something, it reset the time bar. You have a year from that time to file a 2255.”

(05:07:11)
Now, he insists that that was a viable argument. Nobody else does. But he said, “I’m not going to let them do this. I’m going to take care of this. I’m going to get your sentence reduced.” Okay. “Emperor. Okay, Emperor.” So he was a character. Anyway, so he files a 2255. The government comes back, they say, “He’s time-barred.” Frank comes back, they answer his motion, he files a retort. It just goes back and forth. This goes [inaudible 05:07:46] for six months to a year. And at some point, I go to mail call, and they call my name and they hand me this thing, and I open it up, and it says the government’s filed a motion for a stay so that they want the court to appoint me a lawyer and to discuss filing a Rule 35, reducing my sentence. And I’m like, I read it, but I couldn’t even understand.

(05:08:15)
I don’t understand. So I mean, I rushed to go find Frank. I show it to Frank and he says, “Yeah, they’re staying it. They’re going to send you a lawyer and you’re going to negotiate for how much they’re going to reduce your sentence.” He says, “It’s perfect.” So they fly this woman down, her name was Esther Panitch. She flies down, comes to the visitation room, they bring me there, the lawyer’s room, whatever they call it. And so we’re sitting there, and I remember we’re talking, and she says, “Listen, your motion, your 2255 is written well, but honestly, you don’t have much of a prayer, and they’re offering you a one-level reduction, which is 30 months.” And I went, “Oh, that’s not enough.” And she said, “Well, I don’t know what to tell you.” She said, “They’re willing to bring you back.” And I was like, “Well…” I mean, I don’t know.

(05:09:12)
I go to talk to Frank. Frank said, I deserve this many levels, and we’re going back and forth. She says, “Who’s Frank?” And I go, “Frank’s the guy that’s doing all my legal work.” She goes, “He didn’t write all this.” And I was like, [inaudible 05:09:20], “No, who wrote?” And I explained it to her and she’s like, “He’s an inmate?” And I was like, “Yeah.” And she says, “Why is he here?” And I tell her, “Well, he stole a bunch of money from the federal government because he’s trying to take over the world.” So I tell her that whole thing. And she’s like, “You’re letting a mentally incompetent person do your legal work.” And I was like, “Yeah, because all the competent attorneys wouldn’t do it. They said, I didn’t have a prayer. Your people said, I didn’t have a prayer.” And I said, “Frank said he could get this done.”

(05:09:50)
And she’s like, “Well, I mean, I don’t even know why they’re offering you one-level.” I was like, “Well, Frank said.” And I’m like, Frank this, Frank that [inaudible 05:10:00] ended up saying, she’s like, “You’re taking advice from a legally, an incompetent person.” I said, “Yeah.” She said, “You really don’t have a prayer.” I said, “Then why are you here?” I said, “If they could crush me so easily, why are you here?” I said, “They’re giving me one-level. Let me talk to Frank. I’ll let you know what we’re going to do.” So I leave. I call her a couple of days later, I tell her… I talked to Frank. Frank said, “Go back. Go back and argue for more.” He said, “I think the judge is going to give you more. He’s going to give you at least between whatever he said, six or seven levels or something.”

(05:10:33)
So I get moved all the way back to Atlanta. The FBI agent comes to talk on my behalf, the guy… Multiple people show up to talk on my behalf. They say… Millie, who I filed the 2255 against. So I’m basically saying, “You’re ineffective, you’re incompetent.” But she knows the game. She’s like, “I get it.” She gets on the stand and testifies for me. So the judge goes, “Listen…” I think we were asking for nine levels or something outrageous. Prosecutor starts arguing for one-level. And he said, “Listen, one-level is not nearly enough for what Mr. Cox has done.” He said, “Mr. Cox, I know you’re arguing for nine levels off. You’re [inaudible 05:11:22].” He goes, “That was never going to happen.” I was like… It felt like I got slapped. He said, three levels. “I’m going to go with three levels.” He goes, “Which is seven years.” Which he said, “For somebody who has no arrest associated with his case.” He said, “I think it’s pretty good,” and that’s [inaudible 05:11:44] judgment and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And he hammered, puts the gavel down and walks off and that’s it. It’s over, I get seven years. I was hoping for more. So I get moved back to Coleman. I get moved back to Coleman, and I go up to Frank and I said, “Frank, I got seven years off.” And he is like, ” I know.” I said, “And I don’t mean to sound unappreciative.” I said, “I was hoping for more.” He goes, “I was too.” He said, “It looks like we’re going to have to eat this elephant one spoonful at a time.” And he goes, “Something will come out. Something’s going to happen.”

(05:12:19)
He said, “Keep your ears open. Something will happen.” And I said, “Okay.” And honestly, by that point, I’d done eight years, and I remember if I got a year off for the drug program and good time and this, I had about eight years left to go or something, nine years left. And I was like, “I can do that. I’ll write.” I’d been writing. By that point, I’d actually written a story. I got a book deal for Deboroli, and I ended up writing a synopsis of a guy’s story. And I got him in Rolling Stone Magazine. And I got a book deal for that. I got an advance. It was thirty-five hundred bucks for being in prison, a prisoner to get a thirty-five hundred in advance is like, “I’m a millionaire.” That’s a lot of money. And then we optioned the film rights.

(05:13:17)
Basically the synopsis that I wrote for this reporter, journalist for Rolling Stone, he goes to Rolling Stone with what I wrote and gives it to them, and they okay it, they say, “Yeah, this is great. We want you to write an article based on this.” He writes the article. He tells me that the article will be from his name Guy Lawson, Douglas Dodd, which is the name of the kid I wrote the memoir about, and Matthew Cox. A couple of weeks before the article is going to be published, he tells me Rolling Stone doesn’t want my name on the article because I’m in federal prison and it doesn’t look good, but don’t worry, he’s going to put my name in the article. And that’s just as good. And I argue it’s not just as good. It’s not. I’m like, “I would be a writer for Rolling Stone Magazine. You understand, I’m trying to come up with something here that I can rebuild my life as a true crime writer. That’s no good.”

(05:14:24)
And that wasn’t so bad. That wasn’t the worst. The worst of it was 90% of the article that he published was taken directly from what I sent him. I mean, sick to my stomach, bro, just sick over it. But they option the life rights for that. And I got a piece of that. So there’s like $7,000. I get a cheque for that. So I’m thrilled I can keep writing. Because you have to understand, writing on the computer there they charge you. So I start… Oh, they charge you for phone calls, writing… Every single thing costs money. So I start writing all these guys’ stories. I start writing books. I went back to Atlanta, got seven years knocked off my sentence, come back, and I’m walking around the compound. Now, there was a guy that was there named Ron Wilson. Ron Wilson ran… If you look in the newspaper, it says it’s like a hundred million dollars Ponzi scheme.

(05:15:25)
But really it was fifty-seven million dollars. He had lost fifty-seven million. So it says a hundred. They always exaggerate. Because fifty-seven is not enough. Ron ended up getting nineteen and a half years. Ron was an old conman, early sixties, sixty-two, sixty-one, I don’t know. And I liked Ron. So we’re walking around the compound and he’s like, “So what are you going to do? I mean, you eight or nine more years to go?” And I was like, “Yeah, I’m going to keep writing and when I get out of here, maybe I’ll have a huge body of work and maybe I’ll be to sell it, or maybe I’ll be able to option some more stuff. And if I could get together with Rolling Stone or get with some of these magazines, I could start writing for them and I could option those. Maybe I could walk out of here with something.” “Right, right, right.” So Ron was… Who’d only been locked up like a year or so. He was cooperating, with the Secret Service in his case, against some of his co-defendants.

(05:16:25)
So he’s already been debriefed and he’s cooperating. He’s actually thinking he might get brought back to have to testify at a trial. We’re talking and we’re walking, and he keeps saying, “Even if they charge those guys, and even if this happens, they’re not going to reduce my sentence. They’re not going to cut my sentence.” First of all, well, probably because you stole a bunch of money from pension funds and churches that didn’t help your case. But I don’t say that. So I say, “Oh, they have to, bro. They’ll have to, if you cooperate, they’re going to have to. And if they don’t, we’ll have Frank file a 2255.” And he’s like, “Ah, that crazy mother…” So he says, “Okay.” He’s like, “Yeah, yeah, you don’t understand. You don’t understand.” So this goes on for months. And I’m like, “What is the problem?” And he says, “They think I hid Ponzi scheme money.”

(05:17:19)
And he’d actually dug up like five or six million dollars in Ponzi scheme proceeds that he dug. He buried in these… Literally buried in aluminum ammunition canisters. Super interesting guy. So he actually went and dug them up and gave them to him. And I’m like, “Well, you gave them all the money. You didn’t hide anything. Relax, it’s not a big deal. They’re not going to find anything, don’t worry about it.” And so he mentions it a couple of weeks later, a couple of weeks later, and then one day I go, “Bro, why do you keep bringing this up? What are you concerned about? It’s not going to happen.”

(05:17:54)
And he said, “Can I trust you?” And I went, “Probably not.” And he goes, “I did hide some money.” I was like, “Okay.” I said, “Did you bury it in a can somewhere?” And he’s like, “No, I gave my wife 150,000 in cash.” I said, “Okay, well, she’s not going to say anything she’s using [inaudible 05:18:20].” He said, “No, you don’t understand. Since then she found out I was having an affair and we’re going to get a divorce. And she hates me. And I think she’ll turn that money in just to make sure that I don’t get a reduction.” Because if you lie to the FBI, it doesn’t matter what you’ve done for them, they won’t give you anything. And so, I’m sorry, the Secret Service or… Anyway, he has clearly lied to the Secret Service at this point.

(05:18:45)
If she goes and says, “This is what he gave me.” So I was like, “Oh, wow.” And he’s like, “My brother’s holding maybe 30,000 for me.” And at that moment I was like, “Wow, this poor guy.” No, that’s not what I thought at all. What I thought was, “Is that enough to get me a sentence reduction?” And I went and I sat there, and you know what I thought? I thought, “No.” I thought, “That’s not enough. That’s not enough. It’s nothing. That’s not even $200,000.” And they didn’t want to give me a reduction. My prosecutor was pissed that I got seven years off. She wanted me to get 30 months. She’s not going to give me anything. It’s up to her. She’s not going to do it. So I go, I lay down, I go to bed. A month later, I’m on the phone with my lawyer.

(05:19:38)
I had written, I remember wrote, I had a manuscript from my book, and I wanted to put some of the stuff that was said in my sentencing in the book. So I was trying to get my lawyer to mail me my transcripts, and she hadn’t done it. So I called her and I said, “Listen, you said you were going to…” She’s like, “Oh God, man, I’m so sorry. I’m so busy. I’ll do it. I’ll do it.” And then she went… This is Esther. She goes, “So what else is going on in there?” And she never wanted to talk to me, when they were paying her, she didn’t want to talk to me. And I was like, “What do you mean nothing? I just need my transcription.” She’s like, “Nothing’s happening. There’s nothing you want to talk about.” And I was like, “And I went, you know what? There’s something weird happened there. Listen to this.” And I told her about Ron Wilson, and she goes, “Hold on.” And she looks him up on the computer. She goes, “Oh wow. This is a bad guy. This is a bad guy.”

(05:20:32)
“And he told you… Then you know where it [inaudible 05:20:36]” “Absolutely. And I can tell you exactly.” And she goes, “Okay, okay, okay.” She goes, “Let me look into this.” I go, “Okay.” So a week later, a CO comes to me and goes, “Hey, Cox.” And I go, “What’s up?” He goes, “Listen, at the next move…” Because they have controlled moves. All the doors are locked, and they open them up for 10 minutes. So you can run to the chow hall or you can run to the… You can’t run though. They have no running on the compound, but you can walk fast to the rec yard or the library, whatever. He says. “The next move go to SIS.” So I go to SIS on the next move. But I was used to going there, by the way, because I was constantly ordering Freedom of Information acts. And so I’d order… You’re an inmate and I’m writing a story for you. And I’d order it and they’d send it to me.

(05:21:20)
And then they would catch it and they’d be like, “Why are you getting Lex’s information?” So they’d call me down there and I go, “No, I ordered it for him and I’m writing a story, and I’d already been in Rolling Stone and everything.” They’re like, “What’s the story?” And I tell him the story. The guy’s like, “That’s a pretty good story here.” And so I go down there, but this is different. This is the guy answers the door and this guy, they call him Bulldog. He was a real asshole. He was a lieutenant at SIS. And he’s like, “Get in here, Cox, sit down.” And he dials the phone. He goes, “Here, you got to talk to this guy.” And I’m like, “What?” And I pick up the phone, I’m like, “Hello?” And the guy goes, “Hey, this is Agent Griffin with the Secret Service. I understand you know where Ron Wilson has hidden Ponzi scheme money. I want something in writing.”

(05:22:03)
So I start doing that and they go, “Okay.” Then I get his email address and we start emailing each other back and forth, and he ends up getting a letter from the US attorney in South Carolina that says they will consider it substantial assistance if they make arrests or recover a substantial amount of money. That’s the best I’m going to get [inaudible 05:22:28] consider. So I start talking to this guy and he starts asking me questions about Ron Wilson. Like, “Hey, ask him this, ask him this.” So I’m like, “Bro, I got to work that into a conversation. That’s an odd thing to ask.” So this goes on for six months. So I’m asking questions and I’m typing up little reports, and I’m a prison snitch now. So I’m not just cooperate now [inaudible 05:22:50] prison. So I’ve moved down. I’ve moved down actually from being just a cooperating witness or…
Interviewer
(05:22:58)
Because you’re in prison, is that what makes you a prison snitch?
Matthew Cox
(05:23:01)
You can’t even really say. No, you could say Prison Rat. You could say Prison Rat. I think prison snitch, I think, that’s probably the closer the term that most guys would use.
Interviewer
(05:23:12)
What’s the difference between a snitch and a rat in prison?
Matthew Cox
(05:23:14)
I’m not sure. It rolls off the tongue better. Prison rat doesn’t sound as good as prison snitch. I don’t know. I don’t spend a lot of time thinking about this. So what happens is I’m asking Wilson questions periodically, and at some point they contact me and they say, listen, “Wilson’s about to get some bad news.” I go, “Okay.” And they go, “He’s like… I wouldn’t want to tell you what it is. Let us know what happens.” Two days go by and Wilson comes up to me one day and says, “Cox, Cox.” I’m like, “Oh, shit.” I’m like, “Hey, what’s up?” He’s like, “Oh, you’re not going to believe this. I got indicted.” I was like, “What? What happened? No.” “Yeah, my wife, they questioned my wife and my brother, and my wife walked in. First she said, I don’t have nothing. I don’t know what you’re talking about.”

(05:24:14)
The next day, the brother walks in and gives them $150,000 in cash. And so the next day the wife comes back and gives him $250,000 in cash and a bunch of silver, like gold, bullion and silver, because his Ponzi scheme was based off of silver. He was going to invest in silver for you. So half a million dollars, they turn over half a million. I’m like, “Half a million dollars? I thought she was a hundred thousand or something.” And he was like, “I know. I didn’t know I could trust you.” I’m like, “Ron, what are you doing? I thought we were…” So I’ll tell you something just for the icing on the cake by the way, the icing on the cake. Let me explain one more thing.

(05:25:05)
So if somebody cooperates with the federal government, let’s say I get arrested and they go, “You want to help yourself?” And you go, “Yeah, okay, look, Jimmy is a… He lives next to me and he’s running a meth house, a meth lab, whatever.” And they go and they raid Jimmy and he gets arrested. You’re going to get something off of that. Not a lot, but you’re going to get something. And they could just say, “We were going to bust him anyway. We were already onto him.” Now, the next level would be you wear a wire.

(05:25:38)
So I wore a wire and I was in danger. Now keep in mind, I’m asking this guy questions inside federal prison. I’m in danger. So whatever, that’s the next level. You’re taking an active participation in the investigation. And the third level would be you actually get on the stand and you cooperate and you testify there’s no better cooperation than that. So when Wilson says to me, “They’re going to move me back to South Carolina, they’ve indicted me. They’ve charged me, what do you think I should do?” And I go, “I think you should go to trial, because I know they’ll have to call me as a witness.” Just to let you know, I don’t want to walk out of here and have you feeling like, “Hey, there’s some good to this guy.” So I’m ready to gut Wilson like a fish.
Interviewer
(05:26:40)
But you are putting yourself in danger if you get on the stand, right?
Matthew Cox
(05:26:42)
I’m already in danger. If people there heard what I was doing, I probably would’ve been in danger.
Interviewer
(05:26:46)
Does that increase the chance of them hearing or no?
Matthew Cox
(05:26:50)
It does, but it also increases my ability to get more off my sentence. So what happens is a couple of days later, he’s on what’s called the packout. They’re going to move him maybe a week later. So they come and get him, they move him, he gets back there to South Carolina and he pleads guilty. They sentence him, he gets six months added on. So he is now from nineteen and a half to twenty years. And by the way, when Covid hit, he was released. So he only ended up doing six years on a twenty-year sentence because he was older, by that point, he was sixty-six, sixty-seven years old. Anybody older than fifty-five was in danger, especially in the prison. So they had a Covid thing where they were releasing these guys and sending them home on [inaudible 05:27:37].Like, “He’s an old man, he’s not going to hurt. He’s not a danger.”

(05:27:43)
So they sent him home. So he ended up doing… So he didn’t even serve the six months. He didn’t even serve the original sentence, whatever. Not that I care. So I’m just saying, if it makes you feel like, “Poor Ron.” It’s okay. So his wife got a hundred hours of community service or something, or sixty hours, and I think his brother got six months papers. They got charged with obstruction of justice and neither one of them… It was six months probation and community service, nothing. So when I turn around, I’m waiting for my reduction, waiting, waiting. After about 90 days after this guy gets sentenced, maybe six months, I send a letter, “Hey, what’s going on to the prosecuting, to my prosecutor?” The prosecutor of both districts, no response. Then I go to Frank, I explain to Frank, and Frank has known what’s going on the whole time. And Frank goes, “Okay, I’m going to file a 2255.” So we file a 2255, government comes back and first thing they say is, “Your Honor, we don’t know about any cooperation. We’ve never heard about any cooperation.”

(05:28:51)
So of course then we submit the letter that we have, the judge comes back and the judge ends up saying it’s a little complicated, but he ends up saying, “Look, I don’t have jurisdiction to hear this because you may be time-barred, but I’m going to let the appeals court hear it.” Now, typically, you have to get what’s called a right of a certification to appeal. You have to make sure that you actually have a case. He says, “I’m waiving the cert and I’m waiving the $500 fee to file with them.” And he basically expedites it for me, which is a subtle way of telling the prosecutor, “I think he’s got something and I’m sending it up there.” And the way he writes his motion, it’s basically saying, “I don’t have the jurisdiction to do anything, but they do. They need to do it. And I’m paving the way. You don’t have to pay any money and you don’t need that cert.” So the prosecution immediately comes back, they file a one level reduction, and…
Matthew Cox
(05:30:03)
… level reduction. And we immediately, Frank files something saying, “Hey, stop. We don’t want the reduction. We don’t want the one level, we want to come back to court. Please don’t rule on it.” So the judge says, “Okay, I’m freezing everything. I’m putting a stay on everything. I’m going to give this guy a lawyer to try and figure out what you’re going to do.”

(05:30:25)
They fly down a lawyer, Leanne Weber. So she comes, and she comes and sees me and she says, “Listen, I see that you want to go back and fight this and this, but honestly I don’t think you’re going to get anything more than one level. I talked to the prosecution. They said they’ll give you…” Well, she said, “I can work on trying to get you two levels, but you don’t have much of a prayer. You’re going to get crushed.” And I said, “Well, then why are you here? If they can crush me so easy, why don’t they do it? Why would they pay you…” They pay them like 12 grand or something just to fly down and all your expenses, “… to negotiate for me? Why not crush me?” And she’s like, “I don’t know.”

(05:31:12)
I said, “Well, Frank said four levels.” And she’s like, “Who’s Frank?” I go, “Frank’s the guy that wrote all this.” And she’s like, “Oh, is he an attorney? Is he in here?” And I’m like, “Yeah, he’s in here.” She’s like, “Why is he in here?” And I tell her, you’ve taken over the world. And she says, “That’s the strangest thing I’ve ever heard in my entire life.” And I said, “I understand. But Frank said…” And she’s like, “You’re listening to an incompetent…” I’m like, “Yeah, absolutely. And Frank said we want four levels. He said for me to tell you we want four levels.” She goes, “Okay.”

(05:31:46)
She leaves, she goes to the US attorney. We argue. Two levels. They come back and say two levels. No. We go back and forth. We start filing motions saying we want to go back, we want a hearing. We want to bring back all the FBI agents, the Secret Service agents. And she’s like, “What? Do you want to turn this into a circus?” “Exactly what I want to do. I’m going to turn it into the biggest circus. Because I’ve already got one level.” They come back in one day, she says, “Listen, three levels is the best you’re going to get.” She said, “So I guess you’ll be moved back here. We’ll go to the hearing.” I said, “No, no, no, I’ll take three levels.” And she goes, “What are you talking?” She said, “You said four levels. You said Frank wouldn’t let you take anything less than four.” I said, “No. Frank said to tell you four. I was happy with three. I wanted you to argue for four. I’m good with three. I’m out of here in a year.”

(05:32:33)
And I don’t want to be moved back. I don’t want to have to get on that bus. Do you know what it’s like to be moved? It’s horrible. So I said, “I just want the three levels.” Then we argue about the wording for about two, three months, and then they file it. And then I get five years knocked off my sentence because three levels at the level I was at now, isn’t seven years. Every level you get a little less time, so I get five years off. So now I’ve got 12 years knocked off my sentence.

(05:32:55)
At this point I maybe have a year and a half to go, and that’s doable. So I was super, super happy. And I’m going to tell you something, and I’m sorry bro, but every time I think about it and I just feel like I have to say it, Frank [inaudible 05:33:28] insane, but I didn’t have a fucking prayer without that guy. And as crazy as he is, as much of a pain in the ass as he was, I could never repay him, bro. I shouldn’t be here. I’m supposed to be in prison right now. My out date was 2030 without that guy.
Interviewer
(05:33:59)
Where is he know?
Matthew Cox
(05:34:01)
He got himself out. He didn’t do all that time, he got himself out. I don’t even know how he did it. They’ve even thrown him back in prison again for six months and he got himself out again. He’s insane. He’s incredible. He’s insane but he’s incredible.
Interviewer
(05:34:13)
Is he really that insane?
Matthew Cox
(05:34:15)
He’s in Orlando.
Interviewer
(05:34:17)
I mean, he seems like a good lawyer and a good man.
Matthew Cox
(05:34:22)
Look, he’s great. He’s great. I mean, there’s no doubt in my mind I would be in prison right now if it wasn’t for him.
Interviewer
(05:34:31)
And he’s done this for others?
Matthew Cox
(05:34:32)
Walk people right out. 10 years off, five years off, nine years off, 10 years. And I didn’t pay for one thing. I didn’t pay for my stamps, he paid for everything.
Interviewer
(05:34:45)
It sounds like the other lawyers don’t really believe it’s possible, and he does. It’s interesting.
Matthew Cox
(05:34:50)
Well, I think he’s willing to badger them into doing what they should’ve done to begin with. I actually wrote a book about it, which he loved.
Interviewer
(05:35:03)
About him.
Matthew Cox
(05:35:03)
About him and his story. It’s so over the top, what happened with him. I mean, literally tried to take over the Congo. I mean, there’s a documentary about it. It’s called 9 Days in the Congo. It’s an insane story. It’s one of those stories that’s just like, how is this not a movie?
Interviewer
(05:35:21)
It’s not a movie yet.
Matthew Cox
(05:35:22)
No. I’ve pitched it several times and it would be great. So I wrote a synopsis and I turned that into a book.
Interviewer
(05:35:32)
What’s the name of the book?
Matthew Cox
(05:35:33)
Oh, It’s Insanity.
Interviewer
(05:35:33)
It’s Insanity.

Freedom

Matthew Cox
(05:35:35)
Yeah. But about it, like a year and a half later, I ended up getting out of prison and I went to the halfway house.
Interviewer
(05:35:40)
What’d that feel like, freedom?
Matthew Cox
(05:35:43)
Oh, this is bad, bro. This is bad. I remember when I was leaving the prison… I met some great guys in prison, which is a weird thing to say. But I met better people in prison than I’d ever met outside prison, at that low. I mean, because it was the first time I actually had friends. I really had someone that wanted to hang out with me, just to hang. I didn’t have anything to offer them. I can’t make you any money, I can’t do anything for you. We’re just hanging out because we like to laugh or we have things in common or we are fascinated by each other, or we just have a good time and fun.

(05:36:32)
So when I was leaving, I remember my mom showed up and my brother showed up and they picked me up, and we were driving off. I remember looking back at the prison and my brother said, “I’ll bet you’re glad to leave that behind you,” and I started crying. It’s like nobody talked. It was so uncomfortable. I started crying and it wasn’t because I was like, “Oh, it’s over.” It was like survivor’s guilt. Like I was leaving all of my friends and I felt so bad that I was leaving them.

(05:37:15)
But I went to the halfway house and I had four… When I was getting out, I remember joking that I had exhausted my Trulincs account, my inmate account, I’d exhausted it. I had nothing, I had 18 cents, I couldn’t even figure out how to spend it. And they give you a debit card when you leave, and they charge you every time you use the card. I don’t even have enough to spend the 18 cents because the charge is like $3. So I was like, “Yeah, yeah.” I was like, “I wonder if they’ll still giving my debit card.” And I’m laughing. Everybody’s like, “What are you going to eat? What are you this, what are that?” And my one buddy looked at me, he was like, ‘you can’t go to the halfway house with nothing, bro.” And I was like, “No, it’s cool.” I said, “No, it’s cool.” I said, “No, it’s cool.” I said, “I want to start at the bottom. I’ve got that coming. I got working at McDonald’s coming, so I’m going to work at McDonald’s. I don’t give a fuck.” And he was like, “Well, I think you’re going to need to buy clothes.” I said, “Oh,” I said, “It’s at the Goodwill. They give you a bunch of crap if you don’t have anything, if you’re indigent.” And I said, “I’m indigent.”

(05:38:36)
And a couple of days before I’m leaving, $400 ends up on my account. And I was like, “What the fuck?” And it was from a buddy of mine. And I go to him, my buddy Tommy, and I was like, “Tommy,” I go, “Did you put 400 on my account?” And he said, “I can’t let you go with nothing, bro.” So I get to the halfway house and I go to Walmart and I buy $300 worth of clothes at Walmart. I’ve never been in a Walmart. I go to Super Walmart, it’s huge. I go there and I buy a bunch of clothes and I buy about 300 bucks worth of clothes, and I still have some of the blue jeans. To this day I still wear some of the blue jeans.

(05:39:24)
I stayed in the halfway house and I called a buddy of mine named Trion, Trion Colta, and he owns a gym. And I grew up with him. His whole family, they own a bunch of gyms. And I called him and I said, “Hey man, I’m in the halfway house.” And he was like, “Hey, what’s going on?” He said, “Can I do anything for you?” And I was like, “I mean, I need a job.” I didn’t think he was going to give me a job. He goes, “Bro, you’re hired. I’ll give you a job.” He said, “Minimum wage.” I said, “That’s fine. If I can stay out of here…” You can work 80 hours a week. I was like, “If I can just stay out of here 80 hours and you pay me minimum wage.” He goes, “Oh, hell yeah, perfect.”

(05:40:03)
So I’m at the gym and I got free reign. So I’m playing on my computer, goofing off all day. And my buddy Pete, who’s still locked up, he’s texting me and calling me, and he’s like… Not texting me, he’s emailing me through the Corrlinks system. And he calls me periodically, he’s like, “Have you started a website?” Because one of the things I was going to do when I got out was I was going to start a website with all these stories that I’d written. And I was like, “No, Pete, I can’t. I don’t have a computer.” He’s like, “Well, how much is a computer?” I was like, “I don’t know, they’re like 300 bucks.”

(05:40:36)
I said, “I could probably get a used Apple MacBook, like a five-year-old MacBook or something, I don’t know, for $350, whatever.” But he was like, “Okay, so that’s all you need, 300 bucks.” I go, “No, no, no, no, no,” I said, “It’s not 300 bucks, bro. It’s 300 bucks plus it’s getting a WordPress website,” which I said costs money. “Plus it’s hiring somebody to help me figure it out because I’m inept. I don’t know how anything works.” So he, “Okay.” And I said, “Plus, I need this. Plus I need a bunch of stuff. I need $600 for this. I need 300 for this. I need 500 for this. I need a thousand dollars for this.”

(05:41:16)
And he goes, “Okay.” He said, “I’ll get you… Okay, I got it.” So he reads off a list, he goes, “I got you.” Pete doesn’t have any money. And I go, “How are you going to give me any money?” He goes, “Every day I walk across the compound, people stop me and say, ‘How’s Cox doing?’ And I say, ‘Oh, he’s okay.’ And they say, ‘Does he need anything?’ And I say, ‘No, no, he’s good.'” He said, “I’m going to start telling these fuckers, ‘Yeah, yeah, he needs something. You want to do something for him? Here’s what he needs.'”

(05:41:47)
I ended up getting two laptops sent to me. I got the computer program Final Cut Pro. I had guys in prison cutting me checks so that I could build a website and put all these stories on the website. So I start putting the website… And I don’t know what I’m doing. I put them on the website slowly, it takes forever. I’m putting pictures up, I’m trying to figure out how Photoshop works, all this stuff. The whole time I wanted to start… Because the last, when I was just getting out of prison, everybody kept telling me, “Bro, you got to start a podcast. You got to start a true crime podcast.” And I don’t know what a podcast is. The term podcast came into existence in 2009 when I’d been locked up three years. I’d never been on YouTube.

(05:42:41)
So by the time I get out, the last year or two, guys are coming up to me, giving me magazines, like, “This is what a pod… You need to read… Look, true crime’s huge.” And you have to think, guys are asking me every couple of days, “Cox, you got any stories?” And I’m like, “Yeah, yeah, did you read Cash and Coke?” And they’re like, ” Is that the one with the guys are robbing the drug dealer?” “Yeah.” “Oh no, no, I read that one.” “Did you read this one?” “No, no, I haven’t read that, that’s the one with the guy…” And I’m like, “Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.”

(05:43:09)
So I’m giving these little stories and then they’d come back and give them to me. You don’t have anything in there, so this is guys that would never read in their life, are reading. And I’m writing about the guy in B2, the guy in C1. So I put up the whole thing and well, anyway, they’re all telling me do a true crime podcast. True crime podcast. I don’t really know what that is, but by now I’m starting to listen to them on YouTube, Serial and Cold Case Files, that kind of stuff.

(05:43:40)
And I think that’s what I want to do. Well, my buddy Trion says, “There’s a guy named Danny Jones that runs a podcast called Koncrete, and it’s in St. Petersburg, and he lives a couple of miles from me. I see him all the time.” And I went, “Okay.” And he said, “You should email him. He’s got a guy on there all the time that does real estate.” And I go, “I just got out of prison for bank fraud related to real estate. He doesn’t want to interview me.” He goes, “Well, maybe he does. Maybe you could ask him about starting a podcast.”

(05:44:12)
Okay. So I sent him an email. I remember Danny called me and he said, “Hey, is this Matt Cox?” I was like, “Yeah, this is Matt.” He’s like, “I got your email. This is Danny Jones.” And I was like, “Okay.” And he says, “Yeah, I got your email, bro.” He goes, “This is a good fucking email.” I was like, “What?” He goes, “I get a lot of emails, bro.” He said, “That is a…”
Interviewer
(05:44:31)
This is a good one.
Matthew Cox
(05:44:31)
“That’s a good one. That was really good. I mean, that was well written.” He’s like, “I immediately knew I had to talk to you.” And I said, “Oh, okay.” Because I think I started off with, “Hey, my name’s Matt Cox, and I’m a conman.”
Interviewer
(05:44:46)
Good opening.
Matthew Cox
(05:44:46)
“Who was recently released from federal prison.” And so he was like, “Oh yeah, I mean, who says that?” So anyway, he said, “Well, what’s going on?” I said, “Well…” And I tell him what’s going on. I want to start a podcast, blah, blah, blah. And Danny, he listens to me for 30 minutes to an hour, and, “I’ve heard this and this.” And he’s like, “Yeah, right. YouTube’s not really like that, and that’s not really how we do it. And you’re going to have to get a production company,” and blah, blah, blah. He goes, “But you know what? What you really need to do is to see if people are even interested in you or your story, or you’re able to talk. You should come on my show.” Shameless, trying to get some content.
Interviewer
(05:45:22)
Well, I mean, so as I told you offline, Danny and Koncrete podcast is really good, so people should definitely listen to it. But yeah, I mean, it turns out people do like listening to you.
Matthew Cox
(05:45:32)
Turns out.
Interviewer
(05:45:32)
I mean, you’re good at telling stories.
Matthew Cox
(05:45:35)
Well, anyway, by the time I got… I couldn’t do Danny’s podcast. I was like, “I can’t do it, bro. I’m in the halfway house, so maybe…” I get out of the halfway house and a couple of months go by. Maybe two months, three months go by, and one day I get a phone call from Danny. He’s like, “Bro, you’re out of the halfway house, right?” Because I told him I got out in July, it was like October, November. I’m like, “Right.” He’s like, “Listen, I had a guest fall through. I got nobody. I need you to come on. I answered all your questions.” I’d called him five, six times. “You said…” And I was like, “Fuck it, I’ll do it.”

(05:46:11)
That video got 2 million views. Then I did Patrick Bet-David flew me out. Then I did Soft White Underbelly, then I did Vlad, people started… I’m sorry, and then it just blew up. Then people started asking me to come and talk for no reason, which was crazy. But you were saying, I’m sorry?

Family

Interviewer
(05:46:31)
Is your dad still with us?
Matthew Cox
(05:46:33)
No, he died when I was in prison. He came to see me two or three times.
Interviewer
(05:46:43)
When is the first time he found out that you were doing fraud?
Matthew Cox
(05:46:48)
The first time I got in trouble.
Interviewer
(05:46:50)
When you got the probation?
Matthew Cox
(05:46:51)
Yeah, because I had to explain that something’s happening. I didn’t want him to hear it from anybody else.
Interviewer
(05:47:03)
So you talked to him directly about it?
Matthew Cox
(05:47:08)
Super disappointed.
Interviewer
(05:47:11)
Did he ever tell you he loves you after that?
Matthew Cox
(05:47:15)
After I got the 26 years and the government decided they weren’t going to indict anybody, and I really was like, “Wow, this is it. You’re done.” He came to see me, but just by himself. And I remember when he came to see me, it was by himself. He never came by himself. So I remember thinking something happened to my mom. And as soon as he walked in, I go, “What happened?” I go, “Where’s mom?” And he goes, “Oh no, she’s fine. She’s fine.” And he sat down with me and he said, “How are you doing?” I was like, “I’m good.”

(05:47:58)
He was getting sick. He was getting older. So we talked for a little bit just about the situation. And I was like, “Yeah.” He’s like, “Well, what are you going to do?” And I was like, “There’s nothing I can do. I’ve called multiple attorneys, I’ve talked to people, there’s nothing I can do.” And he was like, “You’re going to figure it out.” He said, “You’re clever and you’re smart, and you’re not going to do all of that time.” And I was like, “I’m done. It’s over. I’m going to get out of here when I’m 60 if I behave myself. And if I don’t, I’ll be 64.” And he was like, “That’s not going to happen.”

(05:48:58)
I think that was the first time he… I knew he was proud of me when I was making money, but he never said it. You got the look like he was impressed. But we were sitting there and I remember he said… Because it’s the only time I can ever remember him saying he was proud of me. And I remember he said, “You’re going to figure this out.” He said, “I’m not proud of where you ended up, but you’ve done amazing things.” He said, “I wish you’d use your talents for something different, but you’ve done things that I could’ve never done, and you’ve led an amazing, adventurous life, and I’m proud of you.”
Interviewer
(05:49:51)
I wish he could see you now.
Matthew Cox
(05:49:58)
My mom saw me. My mom’s funny because my mom came to see me. My mom’s a gangster. My mom came to see me every two weeks for 13 years. She missed about a month and a half when she had a stroke and ended up in a wheelchair. Then she came in the wheelchair, and she would make my brother bring her. My brother and sister would be like, “Mom, are you sure you want to go? It’s so hard to… It’s such a long drive and you get so tired.” ” Well, I’ll sleep in the car.” “I know, but then we have to wait in the waiting area forever and it takes forever.” “Well, I’m in the wheelchair, so I’m fine.” “Well, I know, but it’s such a pain to get in and out, and in and out.” She goes, “I’m going to see my son and you’re taking me.”
Interviewer
(05:50:51)
I love it.
Matthew Cox
(05:50:55)
Yeah, she was something else. And I always say, if I had to say… I don’t think about all the things I did to get out. I know there’s all these guys that are like, “Oh, I wouldn’t have done that. I’d have been a standup guy. And I’d have been…” Well, good for fucking you, bro. I wanted to get out. I wanted out. And the icing on the cake of me getting out, and I would’ve cut every motherfucker’s head in that prison off. I was able to get out just in time to spend the last year and a half of my mother’s life with her.

(05:51:55)
I saw her two or three times a week, took her to dinner once a week. Was able to go on walks with her in her wheelchair. I was sitting right next to her when she had her final stroke. I held her hand when she took her last breath. So if I have to be called a snitch the rest of my life, I don’t give a fuck. I may not deserve more, but she deserved more.

Regret

Interviewer
(05:52:35)
Do you regret… [inaudible 05:52:39] just look back, would you do any part of your life different?
Matthew Cox
(05:52:43)
Oh, I’d scrap all this, yeah. Yeah, I’d scrap all this to be… You always hear these guys say, “I wouldn’t change it because it made me the man I am today.” The man I am today is a fucking 54-year- old scumbag, multiple felons, starting my life over broke, living off of scraps, trying to make YouTube work. I’ve got two dead parents. I’m divorced. I have a son that doesn’t talk to me. I have a son that doesn’t talk to me for good reason, not because of a misunderstanding, because he understands. You can’t even argue with him, he’s got a powerful argument. “I don’t want to be a part of this guy’s life. He’s a scumbag. He stole money. He went on the run. He abandoned me when I was three years old. I don’t want anything to do with him.”

(05:53:52)
I get it. And I’ve tried to do all the right things. I wrote the letters. I drew him pictures. I’ve tried to call and it’s not happening. I would do anything to go back and just be that regular, middle class guy with the two kids and the wife, working a regular job. That’s a good life. That’s a good person. I just made one arrogant decision after another, after another until it snowballed and I couldn’t take it back. And then I did everything I could. And if I wasn’t the calculating, backstabbing scumbag motherfucker that I can be, I’d be in prison right now. Sorry.

(05:54:51)
So yeah, yeah, I would much rather be a CPA right now. I would much rather… Should’ve stuck with being an insurance adjuster or something. I mean, I never should’ve whited that 30 day [inaudible 05:55:04] out. Never. It was a mistake.
Interviewer
(05:55:06)
That was your first mistake.
Matthew Cox
(05:55:07)
That was a huge mistake.
Interviewer
(05:55:09)
You think your son will forgive you?
Matthew Cox
(05:55:11)
No. Unfortunately, according to my ex-wife and my sister, and everybody that he is a part of their lives. And I’ve seen him. My mother’s funeral, I saw him. I’ve seen him at several functions. You look across and he looks right through me. Everybody says, “He’s just like you. He’s just like you.” And everybody says I’m just like my dad. I’ve never smoked a cigarette. I’ve never drank alcohol, not a drop. Never done any drugs because my dad was an alcoholic and my dad smoked two packs a day, and everything in our house reeked of nicotine. And I’ve never smoked.

(05:56:08)
And my dad was a pill head. He was always on some kind of prescription medication. I didn’t want to be that person. And one day I drew a line in the sand and I wouldn’t do it. And I think he’s drawn a line in the sand and he’s decided, “This is the hill I’m going to die on and I’m not going to back off it.” And the thing is, my ex-wife tells him, “He’s a good person, you should be in his life.” His father, because he was adopted. When I was in prison they adopted him. Nick is his dad. Nick has told him. Nick came to see me when I was in prison. Nick has told him like, “Hey, this is a mistake. You’re making a mistake.” Everybody that knows me, knows him, and he has said no. So I fully believe it’s no. I mean, I hope it’s not.
Interviewer
(05:57:04)
Well, I hope he forgives you. I think there’s a lot of good in you, despite you calling yourself a scumbag over and over in this podcast.
Matthew Cox
(05:57:12)
That keeps bothering you, you mentioned that earlier.
Interviewer
(05:57:16)
What advice would you give to young people, given that you’ve lived quite a non-standard life? What advice would you give them, how to live a life they can be proud of?
Matthew Cox
(05:57:27)
I mean, I don’t know if I’m in a position that anybody would listen to me. And I don’t have any advice that I don’t think a father would give you, and it’s like work hard, be appreciative. I mean, things are so good out here. I hear people complain all the time. And I think a huge part of just being happy is being appreciative. I didn’t appreciate anything. This is so cliche, but when I had all the money in the world, I was miserable. But when I got out with nothing, I was happier in prison with nothing than I was with two or $3 million prior to prison, and I’m dating a chick I never should’ve been dating, driving a sports car, vacationing all over the world, miserable. I’m crying, driving away from prison because I already miss my friends. You could’ve never told me that was going to happen.
Interviewer
(05:58:27)
Turns out money, in fact does not buy happiness.
Matthew Cox
(05:58:30)
No. And it is such a cliche, right? But it’s so true.
Interviewer
(05:58:34)
Crying, driving away from prison. Yeah.
Matthew Cox
(05:58:37)
You know what? I met my wife in the halfway house. She had just gotten out of prison. She was in the halfway house with me. She just did five years for a meth conspiracy. I never would’ve met her if I didn’t go to prison.
Interviewer
(05:58:54)
And now your date night is hunting alligators together.
Matthew Cox
(05:58:58)
Yeah, that was a month or so ago.
Interviewer
(05:59:01)
This is Florida, folks. This is what badass people do in Florida. Hog hunting.
Matthew Cox
(05:59:09)
My wife is a former… She was an MP in the military. She hunted, she ran a hog hunting tour guide service for six years, went to prison for five years. Got out, and then now she’s a marine mechanic. And yeah, our date night the other night was we went in the middle of the night, went to Lake Okeechobee and went alligator hunting.
Interviewer
(05:59:39)
And if I may say so, she’s quite beautiful.
Matthew Cox
(05:59:41)
Thank you. I did nice. She didn’t want to date me at the halfway house too. I kept saying, “I feel like you’re sweet on me.” She’s like, “I’m not. I’m not. I make fun of guys like you. You’re a city boy.” I’m like, “I don’t know. I feel like…”
Interviewer
(05:59:54)
Well, you wore her down.
Matthew Cox
(05:59:56)
That’s exactly what I did.
Interviewer
(05:59:59)
Yeah, it’s that charisma. It always works. Well, Matt, thank you for being so honest. Thank you for being who you are. I do think there’s a lot of good in you. And thank you for telling your story and the story of others who’ve made mistakes in their life. Thank you for talking today.
Matthew Cox
(06:00:17)
I appreciate you having me on.
Interviewer
(06:00:19)
That was a really short conversation.

(06:00:23)
Thanks for listening to this conversation with Matthew Cox. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you with some words from Mario Puzo, author of The Godfather, “Behind every successful fortune, there’s a crime.” Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.

Transcript for Tal Wilkenfeld: Music, Guitar, Bass, Jeff Beck, Prince, and Leonard Cohen | Lex Fridman Podcast #408

This is a transcript of Lex Fridman Podcast #408 with Tal Wilkenfeld.
The timestamps in the transcript are clickable links that take you directly to that point in
the main video. Please note that the transcript is human generated, and may have errors.
Here are some useful links:

Table of Contents

Here are the loose “chapters” in the conversation.
Click link to jump approximately to that part in the transcript:

Introduction

Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:00:00)
I am standing on the edge of the cliff the entire night, and if I mess something up, mess it up, what even is a mistake? But if I do a little clunker or whatever it is, it’s like, so what? I wouldn’t have played half the stuff that I’m playing if I wasn’t constantly standing on the edge of the cliff, like wild.
Lex Fridman
(00:00:22)
Why stand at the edge of the cliff?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:00:24)
Because at the edge of the cliff is all possibilities.
Lex Fridman
(00:00:30)
The following is a conversation with Tal Wilkenfeld, a singer-songwriter, bassist, guitarist, and a true musician who has recorded and performed with many legendary artists, including Jeff Beck, Prince, Eric Clapton, Incubus, Herbie Hancock, Mick Jagger, Jackson Brown, Rod Stewart, David Gilmore, Pharrell, Hans Zimmer, and many, many more.

(00:00:54)
This was a fun and fascinating conversation. This is the Lex Fridman podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear, dear friends, here’s Tal Wilkenfeld.

Jeff Beck


(00:01:08)
There’s a legendary video of you playing with Jeff Beck. We’re actually watching it in the background now. So for people who don’t know, Jeff is one of the greatest guitarists ever. So you’re playing with him at the 2007 Crossroads Festival, and people should definitely watch that video. You were killing it on the bass. Look at that face. Were you scared? What was that experience like? Were you nervous? You don’t look nervous. Confident?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:01:37)
Yeah, I wasn’t nervous. I think that you can get an adrenaline rush before a stage, which is natural, but I think as soon as you bring fear to a bandstand, you’re limiting yourself. You’re walling yourself off from everyone else. If you’re afraid, what is there to be afraid of? You must be afraid of making a mistake, and therefore you’re coming at it as a perfectionist and you can’t come at music that way, or it’s not going to be as expansive and vulnerable and true.

(00:02:10)
So no, I was excited and passionate and having the best time. And also the fact that he gave me this solo, the context of this performance is that this was a guitar festival. It’s one of the biggest guitar festivals in the world because it’s Eric Clapton’s festival, and there’s 400 guitarists that are all playing solos all night. And we were towards the end of the night, and I could tell Jeff got a kick out of, I’m not going to solo on one of my most well-known songs, Cause We’ve Ended as Lovers. Well, Stevie Wonder wrote it, but people know Jeff for that song and his solo on it. It’s like, “I’m going to give it to my bass player.” And he did, and like-
Lex Fridman
(00:03:02)
You took it.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:03:03)
The fact that he’s bowing, he didn’t have to do that.
Lex Fridman
(00:03:03)
But you really stepped up there.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:03:14)
It just shows what a generous musician he is, and that’s evident in his playing across the board. He is a generous, loving, open musician. He’s not there for himself. He’s there for the music. And he thought, “Well, this would be the perfect musical thing to do.” And it kind of all started when I went to audition for him, which was an interesting experience because I got food poisoning on the plane.

(00:03:46)
And so literally when the plane landed, I went straight into an ambulance into a hospital overnight. The manager picked me up and I showed up at Jeff’s door, which was a three-hour drive through windy country roads, and he answered the door, and he is like, “Okay, you’re ready to play?” So we went upstairs and started rattling off the set. And when it came to this song, Cause We’ve Ended as Lovers, he just said solo, and he loved it and kept the solo in it. So that’s how, there was no bass solo before I was playing in his band. So this whole thing was kind of new.
Lex Fridman
(00:04:24)
So even with food poisoning, you could step up?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:04:27)
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(00:04:28)
That’s just like what? Instinct?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:04:30)
It’s just being able to differentiate from the body and from expression, music.
Lex Fridman
(00:04:37)
It’s interesting. You said fear walls you off from the other musicians, and what are you afraid of? You’re afraid of making a mistake. Beethoven said, “To play a wrong note is insignificant. To play without passion is inexcusable.” Do you think the old man had a point?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:04:54)
Yeah. Different styles of music invite varying degrees of, I would say, uncertainty or unsafety in the way that people might perceive it. So for instance, the tour that I was just on playing Allman Brothers songs, I am standing on the edge of the cliff the entire night, and if I mess something up, mess it up, what even is a mistake? But if I do a little clunker or whatever it is, it’s like, so what? I wouldn’t have played half the stuff that I’m playing if I wasn’t constantly standing on the edge of the cliff, like wild.

(00:05:38)
And so I don’t care about those few little things. I care about the overall expression. And then there’s other gigs that, for instance, if I got called for a pop or a country session or a show. In those environments, they may want you to play safe, just play the part and play it with a great groove and time and great dynamics and don’t really veer away from the part and stuff. And I’ve done plenty of those gigs too. It’s just a different hat you put on.
Lex Fridman
(00:06:14)
What do you get from the veering? From the veering off the beaten path? You just love it? Or is that going to make the performance better? Why stand at the edge of the cliff?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:06:28)
Because at the edge of the cliff is all possibilities and unknown. You don’t know what’s coming. And I love being there in the unknown. Otherwise, it’s just like, “Well, why are we doing this? Am I just like a clown on stage showing you my skills or what I’ve studied in my bedroom?” It’s like, no, I want to be pure expression happening right now and responding in real time to everything that’s happening. And anytime I’m not doing that, it’s like it’s a waste of everybody’s time.
Lex Fridman
(00:07:06)
Have you ever messed it up real bad?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:07:09)
Messed what up?
Lex Fridman
(00:07:11)
I mean, all comedians bomb. You’re a big fan of comedy.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:07:13)
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(00:07:14)
Have you ever bombed on stage?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:07:16)
Probably. I think it’s all about recovery. And the more times that you fall off the cliff, the quicker you know how to recover and the varying ways that you can recover to the point in which it’s concealed so much that maybe a listener might not even know that you’re recovering.
Lex Fridman
(00:07:38)
And eventually you learn to fly, if we take that metaphor all the way, off the cliff. [inaudible 00:07:44]
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:07:43)
Remember one time when I was really young. Well, not really young, but when I was 21 or-
Lex Fridman
(00:07:44)
What is age anyway?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:07:52)
22? Yeah, exactly. But when I was first playing with Jeff Beck and we played at what I consider the best, the coolest jazz festival, it’s Montreux Jazz. And Miles played there, everyone played there, and they have the best speaker system ever. I was excited for months, and the drummer, Vinny was practicing for eight hours in the bus on the way there, and everyone was on fire on stage. And I remember playing a note, just one note that I really didn’t like. And I let it go in the moment on stage, but as soon as I got off-stage, I was really sad.

(00:08:37)
And so I sat on this road case, everyone was out celebrating. I sat this road case, look with a sad face, boo-hoo. And then Claude Nobs, the owner of the whole festival, came out to me. He’s like, “Tal, what’s wrong?” And I’m like, “I played a bad note.” I was such a child. And he said all this wise stuff that Miles Davis had imparted to him and it fully cheered me up. He’s like, “Is there anything that would make you feel better?” And I was like, “Caviar?” The dude came back 10 minutes later with this huge thing.
Lex Fridman
(00:09:18)
Oh wow.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:09:18)
It was a joke. It was a joke, but he actually brought me caviar. But anyway, that’s the one time that I remember being sad about a performance. Now I’m just like, “Okay, whatever. It’s done.”
Lex Fridman
(00:09:30)
Was it a physical slip of the fingers or did you intend to play that note?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:09:35)
That I can’t remember. I can’t remember if it was just a bad choice that sounded like a clanger, why it happened. It was so long ago, but I don’t get depressed about that anymore.
Lex Fridman
(00:09:48)
That’d be funny if that was your biggest and only regret in life is that note, and that haunted you in your dreams.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:09:53)
And then I’m on my deathbed and everyone’s just bringing me caviar because the one-

Confidence on stage

Lex Fridman
(00:09:59)
Joke went way too far. You talked about confidence somewhere. I don’t remember where. So I want to ask you about how much confidence it takes to be up there. You said something that Anthony Jackson told you as encouragement, line that I really like. That quote, “On your worst day, you’re still a bad motherfucker.”
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:10:17)
That’s actually a Steve Gadd quote. And Steve used to tell that to Anthony because Anthony used to get real depressed if he did a wrong thing or not perfect thing. And Steve Gadd used to say this to Anthony Jackson. And then Anthony was my first bass mentor or just mentor in general.
Lex Fridman
(00:10:36)
For people don’t know, he’s a legendary bassist.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:10:37)
He’s a legendary bassist. And I started playing the bass when I was 17 and I moved to New York and I met Anthony and he started mentoring me bit in a very not typical way. He would just sit in his car with me for hours and talk music.
Lex Fridman
(00:10:55)
You guys just listen to music and analyze it?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:10:57)
Exactly. And that was the best form of learning, I think. Just like, “Well, what do you perceive here?” And, “Well, I heard this” and just discussing that.
Lex Fridman
(00:11:08)
Jazz usually?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:11:09)
No, all styles of music. And yeah, he told me that story about on your worst day because yeah, even then when I was 18, 19, I’d get sad sometimes about performances. “I could have done this.” I don’t do that anymore, thankfully. Or I’d be miserable.
Lex Fridman
(00:11:29)
So you always kind of feel pretty good?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:11:31)
Yeah. Yeah, now I do. Now it’s just I sense the body feeling fatigued, especially if it’s a very long show. The ones I just did with three hour shows and we did one to three hour sound checks. So that’s a lot of physical activity every day. So I just feel the body being tired, fatigued, the ears are fatigued. That’s about it. I don’t really reflect on the show much.
Lex Fridman
(00:11:59)
You’re almost like from a third person perspective, feel the body get tired and just accept it.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:12:05)
Yeah, I don’t want to identify with it then I’m tired, but I’m not tired.
Lex Fridman
(00:12:09)
It’s very Zen.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:12:10)
I’m usually energized.
Lex Fridman
(00:12:12)
It’s like with the food poisoning, the mind is still capable of creative genius, even if the body is gone.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:12:18)
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(00:12:19)
Something like that? So no self-critical component to the way you see your performances anymore?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:12:30)
There is critique, but not in the way that it would diminish my sense of self. It’s different. I can just kind of look at something and be like, “Okay, well actually next time I’ll do this choice and this choice, maybe. Maybe this would serve the song better. Maybe this would help the groove feel more like this.” But it’s not like, “I suck because I did this and I’m a loser.”
Lex Fridman
(00:12:58)
Do you think that’s bad? Even when I asked that question, I had a self-critical thought that, “Why’d you ask that question? That’s the wrong question.” I always have the self-critical engine running. Is it necessarily a bad thing?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:13:12)
It depends. If it’s affecting you negatively.
Lex Fridman
(00:13:14)
What is negative anyway?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:13:15)
Well, if it brings your frequency down and you feel less joyful inside and less, you don’t feel like complete, you feel less than, less worthy of something, than you could call that bad if you aspire to not feel that way.
Lex Fridman
(00:13:35)
Yeah, I aspire to not feel that way in the big picture, but in the little picture, a little pain is good.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:13:41)
That’s fair.
Lex Fridman
(00:13:43)
So confidence. You seem like in this performance, you seem confident. You seem to be truly walking the bad motherfucker way of life.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:13:55)
A word that I prefer over confidence is trust. Because I think with confidence is almost like is a belief assigned to it that I am this thing.
Lex Fridman
(00:13:55)
Ego.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:14:08)
That you believe in. Whereas trust is just simply knowing that you can get up there and handle whatever is going to come your way. And it’s more of an open feeling where it’s like, “Yeah, I could do this. Sure.” But not like, “I’m a bad motherfucker.” You know what I mean? There’s a huge difference because I’ve shared the stage with people who have a lot of confidence and it can be like a brick wall, just like fear is a brick wall.
Lex Fridman
(00:14:40)
So the brick wall is a bad thing. The thing you have with Jeff here on stage-
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:14:44)
Is not a brick wall.
Lex Fridman
(00:14:45)
There’s no wall, just chemistry.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:14:46)
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(00:14:47)
How can you explain that chemistry the two of you had?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:14:49)
Trust and lack of fear. Yeah, and also I will say that each individual has developed likes and dislikes over their lifetime. And that can be like in this case, we’re just talking aesthetic likes and dislikes. So in this particular case, obviously our likes and dislikes are very much aligned such that the things I do to complement him, he enjoys and vice versa. But it could be two very trusting open musicians on stage that don’t have walls up, but their choices are very different. And one person likes heavy metal and the other person likes classical. So it’s got to be both.
Lex Fridman
(00:15:33)
So you guys were good at yes and-sing each other musically?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:15:37)
Definitely.
Lex Fridman
(00:15:37)
Is that where you’re most at peace in a meditative way? It’s on stage?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:15:46)
It used to be that it would only be on stage. It started with that. That was almost like my way into flow state and meditation was playing music. And then back in the day when I’d kind of crash after shows, I wanted to change that. I wanted to always feel like I’m in flow state.
Lex Fridman
(00:16:09)
Have you succeeded?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:16:10)
I’ve gotten a lot better. I’m still obviously on the journey, but yes.
Lex Fridman
(00:16:17)
So you meditate? I think you said somewhere that you meditate before shows or just in general?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:16:21)
I meditate every day. When I’m on tour with my band, I ask that we all meditate together for at least 20 minutes. And I don’t dictate which type of meditation. I don’t put on a guided meditation. Everyone has their own thing they want to do. Maybe someone might be praying in their head, it doesn’t matter. It’s just the idea that we all put our phones down and we all are in one room connecting energetically, spiritually, and just letting our lives go for a second. And then we walk straight on the stage and it’s always really connected. And there were a couple gigs where we ran out of time for that, and I could tell. There was a major difference in the performance.
Lex Fridman
(00:17:07)
So it both connects you and centers you, all of those things.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:17:11)
But then when I’m home, I love to meditate and I’ve tried various styles of meditation and studied various types of things. So I don’t do just one thing. I kind of customize it depending on where I’m at in my life.
Lex Fridman
(00:17:30)
You and the world lost Jeff Beck a year ago. You told me you really miss him. How’s the pain of losing Jeff change you? Maybe deepen your sense of the world?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:17:43)
It’s hard to accept that we won’t create something musically again in this lifetime. But in terms of the grief, grief was easier for me because I went through a major grief period in 2016 and 17, and that was the first time I’d really gone through the process of grief in a non-family situation with friends and mentors and people that I’d created with, which is different. It’s a different kind of connection. When my grandparents died, it’s like there was nothing left unsaid. And I was at peace with what was happening.

(00:18:40)
With this, when Prince died out of the blue in mid 2016, and then Leonard Cohen died in November, that just tore me to shreds because Leonard Cohen was not just someone that profoundly inspired me musically and lyrically, but spiritually, we had a very deep connection. And that was the basis of a lot of our conversation was spirituality. And so at that time, I felt like a piece of me went missing. And that was a very long process where I just stayed in my place and didn’t want to play a note of music. I kind of wanted to just get rid of all my stuff. So I had a friend come over and he’s like, “You should just, why don’t you come to the Comedy Store?” I’m like, “Comedy Store? What am I going to go to some store and buy clown suits? What are you talking about? What’s a Comedy Store?” He’s like, “No, no, no. The Comedy Store, the place where comedians go.”

(00:19:54)
I’m like, “Okay, well, I’ve never seen standup. I’ve seen Seinfeld on TV. That’s the extent of my standup experience.” So he took me to the Comedy Store and every single one of those comedians embraced me like I was family. It didn’t even take a day. I was part of the family and I made 25 best friends, and I ended up throwing all my stuff in storage and finding a little room to stay in where I rented my gear out and my rent paying was me loaning the gear. I didn’t want any responsibilities, financial, I just wanted to be completely free so that I could just process it and not feel like I had to commit to anything work-wise or creatively. I just wanted to unplug.

(00:20:50)
And so this was a fun and very different way to unplug, because previously I may have just gone to a monastery and spent weeks at a monastery or months, but in this case I was like, “You know what? This is a different kind of experience. I’m going to just hang out with comedians and stay in this room.”
Lex Fridman
(00:21:09)
With no responsibility, really.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:21:11)
Other than to really deeply connect with this grief that I’m experiencing. I’m not going to negate it. I’m going to really fully connect to it. And I did, and it was tough. And then more people in 2017 were leaving. Gregg Allman, Tom Petty. I mean, these are people, I worked with all these people and had great connections with them, and they were all going, and the world was mourning the loss of these people because of everything that they’d given to the world. They’d changed the world’s lives, not just mine because I knew them personally. And so that was also complicated. And why, for me, it was interesting to be grieving the loss of these musicians with comedians.

(00:22:04)
And I learned a lot. It changed my life. I learned to laugh at absolutely anything, everything. I mean, my grandpa had a really great sense of humor too. My grandpa was a Holocaust survivor, and he could just laugh at anything. And so I already kind of have that in me. But being around all these comedians just kind of exaggerated that for me, and that really changed things for me for the better. So then when Jeff Beck died, it was like, “Okay, I’ve got these tools. I know what this is and I’m going to go through it again, and I’m going to be on tour with Incubus in two days.”

(00:22:45)
So Mike Dirnt from Green Day, he called me up and he said, “Hey, I know you’re going through a lot.” And I said, “I don’t even know what I’m going to play. I really want a vintage jazz bass for this, and I only have a seventies one that I don’t really think is appropriate. I really need a sixties one, blah, blah, blah.” And Mike’s like, “I’m going to hook you up.” He showed up to my place the next day with a truckload of old P basses and jazz basses and brought them all into my studio, and I’m playing them.

(00:23:16)
And then I pull one out of the case and it’s Olympic White, just like Jeff Beck and I play it. And not only did I get goosebumps and started crying, but I looked over at Mike and same thing was happening, and he’s like, “I guess Jeff might be happy about this.” And he’s like, “Well, I didn’t want to let this one go. I was just trying to cheer you up a bit and maybe loan it to you for the tour, but if you really want it’s yours.” And I was like, “Oh my God, this is… Mike Dirnt is the nicest guy ever.”

(00:23:59)
So that happened. So that bass’ name is Jeff, and it’s a white jazz bass, and I played it on the Incubus tour. But yeah, I do feel like I’m more equipped to handle grief now.
Lex Fridman
(00:24:11)
Tell me about the Comedy Store a little bit more. Do you think comedians and musicians in some deep fundamental way are made from the same cloth? Are they spiritually connected somehow?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:24:25)
I think everyone’s connected spiritually in the same way. So I think personality wise, comedians and musicians are quite different, actually.
Lex Fridman
(00:24:38)
In what way?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:24:40)
Well, you’d have to subdivide even musicians into different categories too, because the thing that I appreciate about comedians is that you go to a restaurant with them and all the observational humor of, they’ll notice everything and make you laugh about it, which a really great songwriter does the same thing too. And my favorite lyricists, like Leonard Cohen, Bob Dylan, Paul Simon, Warren Zevon, they add comedy into their lyric. And so those types of people I would liken to hanging out with a comedian.

(00:25:16)
It’s very different from say somebody that is an instrumental guitarist or something like that, that they’re more focused on, whether it’s a kinesthetic thing or a physical thing or whatever it is. They’re not quite doing the observational thing in the same way. So I just appreciate, my favorite thing to do is go on and laugh, especially because I can tend to be pretty analytical and be in my head. So anything that just kind of lets me be in my heart and just enjoy life is great.
Lex Fridman
(00:25:54)
I think there’s a photo of you with Dave Chappelle on stage. What was that about?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:25:58)
So right after Leonard Cohen passed away, the Comedy Store threw me a birthday party. It was this crazy lineup, and it was like I’d play a song with my band, and then Jackson Brown sat in and sang a song, and then Dave Chappelle came up and said some jokes. It was one of my favorite nights ever.
Lex Fridman
(00:25:59)
Yeah.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:26:23)
Yeah. It was cool. It was a very healing birthday party.
Lex Fridman
(00:26:27)
Yeah, there’s something magical about that place.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:26:29)
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(00:26:30)
It’s really special.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:26:31)
Yeah. Well, the Mothership has some magic to it too. It’s really cool. It’s different. Totally different vibe, but super awesome.

Leonard Cohen

Lex Fridman
(00:26:40)
You said that Leonard Cohen is a songwriting inspiration of yours. I saw you perform his song Chelsea Hotel, brilliantly on the internet. It’s about, for people who don’t know his love affair with Janet Joplin. How does that song make you feel?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:27:01)
Great. I love that song.
Lex Fridman
(00:27:03)
Which aspect? Musically, the melancholy feeling, the hopeful feeling, the cocky feeling? All of it, every single line has a different feeling to it, really.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:27:16)
Yeah. But as a whole piece, I appreciate it so much. I actually lived at the Chelsea Hotel, and when Leonard and I first met, that was one of the first things we talked about was that I lived there, where all that stuff went down before they tore it apart. And yeah, it is just a beautiful song.
Lex Fridman
(00:27:44)
What makes me sad, the way it ends. “I don’t mean to suggest that I loved you the best. I can’t keep track of each fallen robin. I remember you well in the Chelsea Hotel. That’s all, I don’t even think of you that often.” That line, ” I don’t even think of you that often” always breaks my heart for some reason.
Lex Fridman
(00:28:00)
… I don’t even think of you that often, always breaks my heart for some reason. How ephemeral, how short lasting certain love affairs can be. Just kind of like, huh.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:28:14)
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(00:28:14)
Do you think he meant it? I always think he’s trying to convince himself of it.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:28:19)
It could be both, or either. That’s the beautiful thing about poetry and lyric, is that it’s supposed to be open.
Lex Fridman
(00:28:27)
Yeah. I wonder if it’s also open to him, depending on the day.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:28:30)
Definitely. The thing that he taught me, or his advice to me was when you’re writing a song, look at it the next morning, just first thing, and read it. And then take a walk, smoke a joint, read it again. Go have a fight with your daughter, come back, read it again. Get drunk, read it again. Wait a week, read it again. Just so that from every state and every position, the wider the lens is going to be from an audience perspective. You want things to mean multiple things.
Lex Fridman
(00:29:12)
There’s one line I read somewhere, that he regrets putting in the song, so I’ve got to ask you about it. It’s pretty edgy. It’s about, “Giving me head on the unmade bed.” You think that’s a good line, or a bad line?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:29:27)
I think it’s an amazing line. It’s one of the best lines in the song.
Lex Fridman
(00:29:30)
Yeah, right?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:29:30)
When he put that song out, obviously he didn’t regret it, or he wouldn’t have put that lyric in the song. I think what happened was that eventually word got out, either from him or from somebody else, that the song was about Janis Joplin. And so at that point, he regretted the indiscretion. It wasn’t that he regretted how great the line was, it was just the privacy factor. But then again, Leonard’s known for rewriting his lyrics. In his live shows, you’ll see a bunch of songs where it’s like new lyrics. And he didn’t do it because he didn’t like the old lyrics, he just did it because he could, because he’s Leonard. And it’s like, why not have fun with words the way musicians have fun improvising solos on stage? And he could have changed that line in Chelsea Hotel after, in retrospect, and he never did.
Lex Fridman
(00:30:26)
“I remember you well in the Chelsea Hotel. You were talking so brave and so sweet. Giving me head on the unmade bed, while the limousines wait in the street.”
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:30:35)
It’s so powerful.
Lex Fridman
(00:30:36)
It’s a powerful line. It just kind of shocks you.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:30:39)
Well, that’s what’s so great about it. Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(00:30:42)
But also heartbreaking, because it doesn’t last. Especially actually, to me it adds more meaning once you know it was Janis Joplin. It’s like, okay, these two stars collided for a time.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:30:54)
Yeah, but why is it heartbreaking? It could also be just beautiful that they had a little fling.
Lex Fridman
(00:31:00)
Yeah, everything is beautiful.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:31:02)
Thank you.
Lex Fridman
(00:31:03)
Even the dark stuff. What’s not beautiful? Everything is beautiful, if you look long enough and deeply enough. What were we saying? Oh, what do you think about Hallelujah? What do you think about the different songs of his, and why’d you choose Chelsea Hotel to perform?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:31:22)
Because I lived there, and it meant something to me to sing that song. And actually when I put that song out on YouTube, that’s when he sent me an email. He’s like, “Hey, do you want to come over?”
Lex Fridman
(00:31:37)
Nice. This is how you guys connected?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:31:39)
No, we met in a rehearsal studio. I ended up watching their whole rehearsal, and sitting there next to Roshi, his 105-year-old monk, which was really great. I remember when I was shaking his hand, it was just me and Roshi on the couch watching Leonard with this band. And we are shaking hands, and he grips my hand like this, doesn’t let it go. And he looked in my eyes, he said, “Where are you?” And I said, “In the handshake.” He says, “Yes.”
Lex Fridman
(00:32:13)
Wow. You passed the test.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:32:15)
Passed the Roshi test. And then what’s funny was that the next thing that happened about five minutes later, was Leonard Cohen got down on his knees and opened up a jar, I’m not kidding you, of caviar. This is not a callback.
Lex Fridman
(00:32:28)
Well, it is in a way. In a deep, fundamental way.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:32:32)
I know, I know. He started feeding the monk caviar, and that healed my Montreux Jazz Festival sadness forever. The end.
Lex Fridman
(00:32:41)
Do you think there’s a kind of weird, there’s a sense of humor to it all somehow? Why does that happen? Why does that happen? Why stuff like that happens, or that the Jeff Bass speaks to you?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:32:57)
Why do we need to know?
Lex Fridman
(00:32:59)
You believe in that stuff?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:32:59)
In what stuff?
Lex Fridman
(00:33:01)
That there’s a rhyme to the whole thing, somehow? There’s a frequency to which magical things of that nature can happen?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:33:19)
I’m divided about that answer. Because I think just things are flowing, I don’t think anything’s planned out.
Lex Fridman
(00:33:32)
Like through time, it’s like an orchestra playing of different experiences and circumstances that are somehow connected.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:33:40)
I think everything’s connected, so yes.
Lex Fridman
(00:33:43)
But predetermined means-
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:33:45)
I don’t believe in the predetermined stuff necessarily, which is different from whatever your previous karma is. And karma is a whole other conversation, I don’t mean karma as in good karma, bad karma. Just karma meaning the collection of things you’ve acquired over this lifetime or other lifetimes. Just whatever that is, is going to influence your future.
Lex Fridman
(00:34:13)
Well, you had a really interesting trajectory through life. Maybe I just read it that way, because I’ve had a lot of stuff happen to me that’s lucky, feels lucky. And sometimes I’ll wonder, huh, this is weird. It does feel like the universe just kind of throws stuff at you with a chuckle. I don’t know. Not you, the proverbial you. One.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:34:37)
One, yeah.

Taxi Driver

Lex Fridman
(00:34:40)
You said you sometimes watch classic movies to inspire your songwriting, and you mentioned watching Taxi Driver. I love that movie. And I think you mentioned that you wrote a love song based on that movie. So Travis Bickle, for people who don’t know, is a taxi driver and he’s deeply lonely. What do you think about that kind of loneliness?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:35:02)
I think that loneliness is a product of feeling separate from the world, and separate from others. And that the less you experience that separation, the less you’ll feel lonely.
Lex Fridman
(00:35:20)
How often have you felt lonely in this way, separated from the rest of the world?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:35:25)
It’s less and less every single year. Because I work very hard at it.
Lex Fridman
(00:35:34)
Feeling like a part of the world?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:35:37)
Yeah, just meditating and studying scriptures.
Lex Fridman
(00:35:40)
Don’t you think that, isn’t there a fundamental loneliness to the human experience?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:35:45)
In what sense?
Lex Fridman
(00:35:46)
That all the struggles, all the suffering you experience is really experienced by you alone?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:35:51)
Is it?
Lex Fridman
(00:35:53)
Maybe at the very bottom, it’s not.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:35:55)
It’s kind of all the same stuff.
Lex Fridman
(00:35:57)
You didn’t feel alone in 2016, 2017?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:36:02)
I felt like I lost a piece of myself that I had given to somebody else. And I feel like people feel that in romantic exchanges, whether it’s long-term, short-term. You give a piece of yourself, and then if that person dies or you break up with that person, you feel like you’ve lost that piece of yourself. Which I feel like is a very different experience than if you just are opening yourself. Rather than giving a piece of yourself, you’re just opening yourself to somebody or something.
Lex Fridman
(00:36:39)
So opening is fundamentally not a lonely experience.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:36:43)
No, it’s a loving experience.
Lex Fridman
(00:36:45)
And then losing a piece of yourself can be.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:36:50)
Yeah. Because you can’t lose a piece of yourself, if you are the same self as every other self.
Lex Fridman
(00:36:57)
Right, right. If you see yourself as together with everybody, then there’s no losing.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:37:01)
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(00:37:02)
Yeah, yeah. It’s a beautiful way to look at it. You said that there’s something healing about being in an empty hotel room, with no attachments except your suitcase. A lot of people will talk about hotel rooms being a fundamentally lonely experience, but you’re saying it’s healing.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:37:23)
It’s healing. Yeah. Because I just get to sit there, and not worry about all this stuff, these meaningless attachments. I’ve got my suitcase with my necessities, or my three suitcases sometimes. And I can just sit there and meditate, and just be with myself, and it’s so awesome. And usually you plan your touring for, you get the business aspect of things taken care of in advance, so you can just really be flowing day to day on a tour. And it’s a great feeling. It’s funny because this last tour that I did, we didn’t have hotels every night. We had hotels maybe once a week. And I hadn’t done that before. Usually I’m frequently in hotels. I didn’t get that space that I’m really used to getting.
Lex Fridman
(00:38:18)
You missed them.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:38:20)
I very much missed it, and had to be very creative. And I ended up going into the back lounge when everyone was asleep, and meditating back there, or before everyone woke up. And I actually joined, there was an online meditation retreat that was happening. It was 12 hours a day of silent meditations that happens once a year, and I love this particular group of people. And they knew I was on tour, so they’re like, “Just join when you can.” And so I was on the tour doing the meditation retreat at the same time. It was so fun. It was so fun. Because I was in the back lounge, the bus is moving around like this, my laptop, the Zoom is like… and I’m just sitting meditating. It was like, yeah, this is the shit.
Lex Fridman
(00:39:12)
It’s silence, so they’re all connected to Zoom and just doing silent 12 hours a day?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:39:16)
Yeah, yeah.
Lex Fridman
(00:39:16)
That’s cool.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:39:17)
These particular retreats that I started doing, it’s not straight silent. There are silent sits every hour for 50 minutes, and then there’s some talks. And these people that I’ve been working with are really cool, because they’re integrating spiral dynamics into Zen, and it’s like the coolest combination.
Lex Fridman
(00:39:43)
What’s spiral dynamics?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:39:45)
Like Ken Wilber? Do you know Ken Wilber, Integral Theory?
Lex Fridman
(00:39:49)
Yes. Can you explain a little bit? I vaguely know of him because of this notion that everything is one, everything is integrated, that every field has truths and falsehoods, and we should integrate the truths.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:40:07)
Yeah. It’s hard to explain how it applies to this type of meditation, because it’s in the guided parts of the meditation that this whole holonic theory is brought in, about transcending and including every aspect of your being. Because he talks about levels of development in consciousness, and how this applies to every single, religion or non-religion, that there are these levels of development, that go all the way up to enlightenment. No matter what you start off with. It could be Christianity, Buddhism, Vedanta, it doesn’t matter, anything.

(00:40:57)
I like it when everything and everyone is taken into account. It doesn’t matter where you’re coming from, that there is a way to be self-realized, self-actualized. There are self-actualized beings from all walks of life with very, very different paths. There’s no one path. In this particular retreat I do, there’s a lot of silent sits, and then there’s some guided meditations. But I’ve tried a lot of different avenues, and they’re all great. I wouldn’t just say, just try this one thing. I’ve studied the Upanishads with Vedanta teachers, and gone through those texts for months and months, and stayed at monasteries. And how they break it down makes total sense to my mind and heart. And more importantly than my mind, my inner knowing, it resonates.
Lex Fridman
(00:41:49)
Inner knowing.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:41:50)
Yeah, because your mind is the thinking tool. It’s not you, you’re not your mind, you’re not your thoughts, you’re not your body. It’s like, just the you, that knowing that you have. When something resonates there, that’s usually when you go with something.
Lex Fridman
(00:42:12)
What was living in a monastery like?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:42:14)
It’s the best.
Lex Fridman
(00:42:15)
What are we talking about?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:42:17)
It’s just an empty room, with a tiny single bed, and a sheet and a pillow, and that’s it.
Lex Fridman
(00:42:22)
That’s it?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:42:23)
You have to eat the same thing as everyone.
Lex Fridman
(00:42:25)
What’s the food like? What is it?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:42:27)
Very plain, cheap, basic food. Which is funny for someone like me, because I’m pretty particular about my diet.
Lex Fridman
(00:42:36)
Yeah, you brought over like 20 different ingredients.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:42:41)
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(00:42:43)
What was the day in the life of Tal in a monastery?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:42:48)
You wake up at 5:00 a.m. to the bell, and you go and meditate constantly until bedtime. Other than two meals.
Lex Fridman
(00:43:00)
How are you sitting? Are you in a group? Is there other people there, and you’re just sitting there?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:43:06)
Well, if you’re talking about the Zen monastery, because I stayed in Zen monastery, and I did a thing with the guy I was telling you about, the integral Zen thing where he uses Ken Wilber’s work in combination with Zen. That’s a little bit different, because he does talks, we talk about things. That’s very separate from the Vedanta monasteries I’ve stayed at, which there’s very little meditation in terms of sitting silently. Instead, we are meditating on the scriptures, like the Upanishads, and we’re diving into that.
Lex Fridman
(00:43:46)
What were the differences, the takeaways from the experiences? The two different, the integral one and the meditating on the scriptures?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:43:56)
They’re both incredibly, have been incredibly helpful to me. Because the Vedanta, anytime I go into my head about something, the answer is there, based on this knowledge. And with the Zen monastery, it’s like you just got to put your butt in the seat, and sit and wait. And maybe something will happen, maybe it won’t, but just keep sitting. And it’s very disciplined, and you go through a lot. Your body’s purging a lot. There’s a lot, and you don’t necessarily have the answers as to what is happening. And so I think for somebody like me, I need both. I need to be in a place where there’s complete uncertainty, but complete discipline, and just doing the regimented thing. And then there’s the me that feels very satisfied from an analytical standpoint, understanding what’s happening, what is the gross, and the subtle body? I want to understand these things about what it is to be a human. I like them both.
Lex Fridman
(00:45:15)
Understand what it means to be a human, so having that patience and just sitting with yourself helps you do that?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:45:22)
Yes. More so the analysis part.
Lex Fridman
(00:45:26)
Oh, so the analysis, the actual… okay, got it.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:45:29)
But sitting with yourself, there’s no better education of facing every demon. And it’s all going to come out, and it’s not going to be pretty. But then there’s things that happen on the other side of it that are so profound.
Lex Fridman
(00:45:45)
Have you met most of your demons?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:45:48)
I’ve met the demons that have come out.
Lex Fridman
(00:45:50)
Oh, there may be more?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:45:51)
Who knows? Yeah.

Songwriting

Lex Fridman
(00:45:53)
Okay. Well, to be continued. Since I think I heard you say that you wrote a love song after Taxi Driver, what kind of love songs do you write more of? You’re a songwriter first, for people who don’t know. They might think you’re primarily a bassist.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:46:14)
But they’re wrong.
Lex Fridman
(00:46:16)
Do you write mostly broken heart ones, or hopeful love songs? In love songs, about to be in love songs, soon to fall in love songs?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:46:27)
Well, the last album I put out is pretty self- explanatory as to what that is.
Lex Fridman
(00:46:31)
A lot of pain in that one?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:46:34)
There was, yeah. Some of it was storytelling, and some of it was real experience, and it’s always a combination of things. I serve the song. Sometimes you use your own life experience to tell a song, and sometimes you may watch a movie, and part of that script merges with your own experience, and that tells the right story for the point you’re trying to make in the song. It varies from song to song in terms of how autobiographical it is.
Lex Fridman
(00:47:14)
Yeah. I always think at the end of the Taxi Driver, when… what’s her name, Betsy? Because Travis becomes a hero, she tries to get with him, and he rejects her. That was powerful.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:47:28)
My favorite love songs are the ones where you’re not sure it’s about romantic love, or love of God, or love of life, or just pure love. I was thinking George Harrison writes songs like that, What is Life? Or Bob Dylan’s song that George Harrison covered, If Not for You?
Lex Fridman
(00:47:54)
Yeah, just grateful. Grateful for his love. Yeah.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:47:57)
Right, right. That’s kind of like what I’m experiencing now, and so who knows what’ll end up coming out.
Lex Fridman
(00:48:05)
So you’ve been writing this kind of-
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:48:07)
Yeah, I’ve been writing.
Lex Fridman
(00:48:09)
A little bit?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:48:10)
I don’t have an intention of putting something out in any particular timeframe, but I’m just writing and letting things flow. And yeah, there’s a bunch of Leonard Cohen songs too where you’re like, there’s so many ways to interpret this song. There’s so many ways. I just love songs that aren’t so specifically about one thing.
Lex Fridman
(00:48:39)
I really love the song to play it, to listen to it, Wonderful Tonight by Eric Clapton. And I thought it was pretty straightforward. And then I had a conversation with Eric Weinstein, who’s a mutual friend of ours, and he told me it’s not about what I thought it’s about.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:48:54)
Oh yeah, what did he say?
Lex Fridman
(00:48:57)
It’s a more complicated story. It’s actually a man… Wonderful Tonight is a story about a man being just finding his wife beautiful, and appreciating it throughout. But he said it was actually a man missing his wife, he’s imagining. That she’s lost, because of the decisions he’s made in his life, so it’s pain. He had a long, beautiful Eric Weinstein-like explanation of why.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:49:28)
I love those.
Lex Fridman
(00:49:29)
Have you and Eric played music?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:49:32)
No. We’ve just hung out and had very long conversations about everything.
Lex Fridman
(00:49:37)
He’s a bit of a musician, you know?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:49:38)
Yeah.

How to learn and practice

Lex Fridman
(00:49:39)
Okay. You picked up the guitar when you were 14, let’s go back. And one interesting thing that just jumped out at me is you said you learned how to practice in your head, because you only had 30 minutes. Your parents would only let you practice for 30 minutes. I read somewhere that Coltrane did the same. Not the practice part, but he was able to play instruments in his head as a way to think through different lines, different musical thoughts, that kind of stuff. Maybe, can you tell the story of that?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:50:14)
Yeah. I just grew up in an environment that was focused on academia. And I fell in love with guitar, and really just wanted the focus to be that. My limit was 30 minutes a day for, I don’t even remember how many times a week. Might’ve been every day, five days a week, whatever.
Lex Fridman
(00:50:36)
So your parents didn’t want you to play more than that?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:50:39)
No. And so, I just learned how to visualize the fretboard in my head, and I’d practice all day in my head. It’s kind of like, you know The Queen’s Gambit, the TV show with Anya Taylor-Joy, and she just on the ceiling? I used to do that with the fretboard, and just practice. And I actually recommend it to every musician. Because if you’re just practicing here, you don’t know what is more dominant necessarily, is it this or is it your motor skills? If you just take that away and do it here, you know you’ve got it. I’m glad that that happened and that I learned how to do that.

(00:51:24)
And in terms of learning fast, because I had to try to absorb a lot of information in a short amount of time when I did have the instrument, I kind of would do things in bursts. Even in that half an hour, I would just play for a couple minutes, and then I’d stop for a minute. And then I’d do it again, and I noticed there was a huge difference between the first time and the second time. Whereas if I just kept repeating stuff, it would be much slower.
Lex Fridman
(00:51:56)
What did you do in that minute?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:51:59)
Just hang out.
Lex Fridman
(00:52:00)
Just integrate?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:52:01)
Yeah. It’s like my brain was telling me, just chill out for a sec. That’s enough information. Let me take a second to integrate that. That’s at least what it felt like to me. And the most hilarious thing happened a couple months ago. I know you’re friends with Andrew Huberman. He put out some clip, which was a part of one of his podcasts, about learning. And he said that there was some research done on learning fast, and that if you practice something for a minute or so, and then you let your brain rest for 30 seconds or a minute, that in that 30 seconds or a minute, your brain does the repetition 20 to 30 times faster, and in reverse. And I was like, whoa, that’s so cool. Because that’s what I used to do when I was a kid, now there’s science that proves that. Which is really cool for musicians to know that that’s a good way to practice efficiently. Because some musicians, they’re practicing for six, seven, eight hours a day. I’ve never done that. I’ve never practiced more than an hour a day, even now. That’s my technique, and it works.
Lex Fridman
(00:53:17)
Are you also practicing in your head sometimes?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:53:20)
Now, I’m not practicing as much. I’m more always writing songs in my head, so that’s why I like silence. That’s why I love being in the empty hotel room and being alone. Songs come to me while I’m showering, or walking around, doing the dishes. Or occasionally when I’m hanging out with friends, or comedians, and people will just say shit. And I’ll be like, that’s a cool line. Just jot it down on my phone.
Lex Fridman
(00:53:46)
So it’s not always musical, it’s sometimes lyrical.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:53:48)
It’s more lyrical than musical now. Because for me it’s like, well, there’s so much music in the world. If I’m going to write a song, I want the song to be about something interesting. And so, yeah, the words matter to me.
Lex Fridman
(00:54:07)
Yeah. And the right word has so much power. It’s crazy, like we said with Leonard Cohen. And then they’re often simple, the really powerful ones are simple.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:54:18)
And when you mentioned Hallelujah, he wrote like 80 verses to Hallelujah before he narrowed it down to four. And it took him like 15, 20 years to write that song. Some writers will do that, and then other writers just vomit it out and it’s beautiful. I’ve heard that Bob Dylan or Joni Mitchell, they’re fast writers. It just kind of comes out.
Lex Fridman
(00:54:41)
That makes me feel so good to know Leonard Cohen wrote so many verses of that. That was so deliberately crafted, extensively rigorously crafted.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:54:53)
He just would spend months and years, constantly refining, refining.
Lex Fridman
(00:55:00)
Do you have songs like that for yourself, where you refine for many years?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:55:03)
Yeah, it’s song dependent. Some just flow out and it’s like, oh, there it is. Everything’s there. And then other songs, it’s like, you might have started it with music, and there’s some words that come out. And then trying to fill in the rest of the words, sometimes it can be like a square peg in a round hole, and other times it’s like, oh no, I can… it depends. Sometimes it becomes like a math problem, and hopefully it doesn’t. Because you just want to say what’s right for the song. And usually when you write it all together, like the lyric, and the melody, and the chords and everything’s developing at once, at least for the first draft, that’s very, very helpful. Sondheim used to write like that. He wouldn’t move on until… he would just go this way. Whereas for me it’s just like, I’ll just go with what seems to be coming naturally, and I’ll just let it be what it is. And then you come back and you say okay, well, what-
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:56:00)
Truly, and I’ll just let it be what it is. And then you come back and you say, okay, well what do I have to do to this now? What’s needed?
Lex Fridman
(00:56:07)
Just to linger on the learning process, what would you recommend for young musicians on how to get good? What are the different paths a person can take to understand it deeply enough to create something special?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:56:26)
I think first and foremost, understanding why you are playing music. If it’s because you have something that you’re trying to express or that you’re just in love with expression itself, with art itself, those are great reasons to start this journey.
Lex Fridman
(00:56:47)
The why should be-
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:56:49)
I think the why is really important because it’s a jagged lifestyle and there’s a lot in it. And so if you don’t have your purpose, if you’re not centered in your purpose, then all that jagged lifestyle is probably going to get to you.
Lex Fridman
(00:57:06)
Jagged.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:57:06)
It’s jagged.
Lex Fridman
(00:57:07)
Interesting word.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:57:08)
Yeah, it’s jagged. It’s all over the place. It’s uncertain. It’s one thing one moment, and a completely different thing another moment. You never know what’s going to happen. And if you thrive on variety, which I love variety, then it’s perfect. But also every human being needs a certain amount of certainty and structure, and so the certainty can come from your inner knowing knowing that you’re doing exactly what you want to be doing and knowing what your purpose is in doing it in this expression. Otherwise, you’re just kind of like a leaf blowing in the wind.
Lex Fridman
(00:57:48)
In the early days touring, just playing clubs seems like tough.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:57:52)
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(00:57:53)
It’s a lot.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:57:54)
Yeah, it’s a lot of the physical labor aspect of it is really hard. Playing on stage to two people, or 2000, or 20,000, that doesn’t make a difference. I mean, it makes a difference to the ticket sales, which informs what level of luxury you might have on the road or not. But other than that, it’s just people there listening to music. The music doesn’t change.
Lex Fridman
(00:58:19)
Does it make it tough when it’s two people versus 200?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:58:21)
No.
Lex Fridman
(00:58:23)
So even if nobody recognizes whatever the thing you’re doing.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:58:26)
No, because the idea is to be having a great conversation on stage.
Lex Fridman
(00:58:33)
The audience can come and go.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:58:35)
Yeah. I always, there’s certain points in shows where I am just like, I consciously am like, oh yes, there’s an audience over there. So wrapped up in whatever’s happening on stage.
Lex Fridman
(00:58:49)
You forget yourself.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:58:50)
Or maybe I’m remembering myself.
Lex Fridman
(00:58:52)
Oh, damn. Call back, somehow feels like one. Okay. You think every instrument is its own journey. You play guitar, you play bass, you sing, just the mastery of an instrument, or let’s avoid the word mastery, the understanding of an instrument is its own thing, or are they somehow physical manifestations of the same thing?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(00:59:19)
It’s both. Every instrument has its strengths, beauty, limitations, range, possible range that can be extended to some degree or another depending on who you are, like trumpet or something. Certain people can hit higher notes than others, blah, blah, blah. But that being said, we’re all playing the same 12 or 24, however you divide the octave, that many notes. We’re all playing the same notes. So in that sense, it’s all the same thing. It’s just music or better yet it’s just art or expression. But yeah, every instrument has, you’ve got to go through the physical aspects of it, the motor skills and all of that, and hopefully you get through that really quickly so you can get to the expression quickly because if you get stuck in just that first phase, that’d be really boring.
Lex Fridman
(01:00:19)
But that’s a pretty long phase. The technical skill required to really play an instrument.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:00:27)
For some people it’s a long thing, and some people it’s short. It very much varies. It might have to do with how you learn and getting to know your strengths in learning. More oral, or is it more… What’s your strength and playing off of those strengths. So for me, like I was saying earlier, it was just an intuitive thing that I knew. I can feel when my brain is full that it needs processing time. And so I listened to that. I don’t push past it, even if it’s one minute and I do something, I’m like, okay. Silence. And then I come back and I trust that it’s going to be there and it is there. So just trusting yourself I think is really important. Trusting that you know better than anybody else is going to know you.

(01:01:23)
So that’s the kind of thing with teachers that can be either really, really helpful and great or really not great. I’m primarily self-taught. I’ve had amazing mentors of all walks of life, and I think I’m unbelievably blessed that my mentors are some of my favorite musicians on Earth, whether it’s Leonard Cohen or Jeff Beck or Wayne Shorter, whoever these people are, they are my favorite musicians. So not everyone has that opportunity, but what the opportunity that we have now that I didn’t have when I was starting is that everything’s on YouTube. Every interview with every genius. You don’t need to necessarily have these people in person now. I mean, and then I’ll say to that, yes and no. I agree with myself, and then I don’t agree with myself. And the reason is I do believe that there is something that happens when you’re in person with a master in some cases, that there is something transferred that is not intellectual, it’s not spoken, it’s something else that happens, that can happen, that I’ve experienced, and I really value that.
Lex Fridman
(01:02:47)
And I think that applies to specific disciplines and also generally. I’ve been around Olympic gold medalists just to hang out with them for several days, and there’s something about greatness. There’s a way about them that permeates the space around them. You kind of learn something from it, even if you don’t practice that particular discipline, there’s something to it if you’re able to see it. I also like what you said about the playing stuff in your head, that it forces you to not be lost in the physical learning of the instrument. I think that’s one of the things I probably regret a little bit. So I play both piano and guitar, and I’ve become quite, over the years, technically proficient at the instruments.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:03:43)
I’ve seen.
Lex Fridman
(01:03:43)
But I think my mind is underdeveloped because of that, meaning I can’t really… I can feel the music when it’s created, but I can’t create out of the feeling. I haven’t practiced projecting the feeling onto the music. You know what I mean? I’m not like a musician. It’s a different muscle that I think is if you really want to create beautiful things, you have to, the creation happens here, not with your hands.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:04:17)
I think it’s more here.
Lex Fridman
(01:04:18)
Or whichever it is, some part of the body, but it’s not with your fingers.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:04:21)
Yeah, because I think the fingers is more of this.
Lex Fridman
(01:04:22)
Sure.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:04:24)
And then…
Lex Fridman
(01:04:25)
Yes, it is here.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:04:27)
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(01:04:27)
Right. And it’s just nice that you said that because it’s really good advice if you want to create.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:04:34)
Yeah, slowing down is really great too.
Lex Fridman
(01:04:38)
What do you mean slowing down?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:04:40)
Slowing everything down? It could be, I can play something really fast, but I may want to practice it like…
Lex Fridman
(01:05:09)
Go slow as possible.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:05:12)
All these micro movements that are happening that if you just go, you can’t pay as close attention to the exact tone that you’re pulling from each note. And there’s a lot to pay attention to how my fingers are touching the string here. I can change my tone a million ways just by the direction of this finger, and same with how this lands and how hard I’m attacking the string and with what intention am I hitting the string emotionally, physically, and so even if you can go, play that so slow, see how locked into a pocket you can be, see how you… Feel every aspect of that because then when it gets sped up, it’s still there with you.
Lex Fridman
(01:06:07)
That is brilliant.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:06:08)
It’s like the transcended and included thing that Ken Wilbert talks about.
Lex Fridman
(01:06:14)
I guess that’s what meditation can do for you is to really listen, to observe every aspect of your body, the breath and all this. Here you’re observing every element, every super detailed element, of playing a single note.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:06:26)
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(01:06:27)
It’s cool that if you speed it up, it’s still there with you.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:06:30)
It is, Yeah it is. Because there are certain people, it’s like they play really fast, but I don’t hear the fullness of tone always. And it’s like, well, it’s probably because maybe they didn’t slow it down and really sit with each note and let it resonate through their whole being. It’s spiritual. It’s like a spiritual expression. It’s not a sport. A lot of people treat music like a sport.
Lex Fridman
(01:07:04)
Since starting to learn more like Stevie Ray Vaughan versus Jimi Hendrix. I would spend quite a long time on single notes of just bending, just listening to what you can do with bends, spending. Just thinking people like B.B King and all these blues musicians spend a career just making a single note cry. There’s an art form to that.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:07:28)
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(01:07:29)
And I think you putting it, taking it really slow, which I never really thought of, is really good idea. Really slow it down.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:07:39)
It’s the same with sitting with your own emotions. It’s like when emotions are overwhelming to us, we get real busy or we move real fast because we don’t want to feel our feelings. Those are the moments to slow yourself down.
Lex Fridman
(01:07:57)
And observe it, anger, jealousy, loneliness.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:08:01)
And just be with it. Be cool with it. Love it. Love the anger.
Lex Fridman
(01:08:06)
It’s all beautiful. Can you educate me on the difference between bass.

Slap vs Fingerstyle

Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:08:13)
Bass and bass? Okay, well, one is a fish.
Lex Fridman
(01:08:16)
At least I pronounced it correctly. That’s good. It’s all about the bass.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:08:20)
Can you pronounce my name?
Lex Fridman
(01:08:22)
Tal.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:08:23)
Wow. Most people say Tal or tall. You said-
Lex Fridman
(01:08:29)
Tall, who says tall?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:08:31)
So many people.
Lex Fridman
(01:08:32)
In the south, maybe tall.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:08:34)
I don’t know. But the fact that you said my name right.
Lex Fridman
(01:08:34)
Oh, honey tall.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:08:36)
You get extra points.
Lex Fridman
(01:08:37)
Tal. I didn’t know this was a game. Am I winning?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:08:41)
Yep.
Lex Fridman
(01:08:41)
I like winning. How do you play the bass? What’s the difference between finger style and slap?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:08:48)
Slap is like this finger styles like this.
Lex Fridman
(01:08:50)
Have you ever played bass with a pick?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:08:52)
Yeah, sometimes
Lex Fridman
(01:08:54)
I’m not accusing you of anything.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:08:55)
No accusation taken.
Lex Fridman
(01:08:57)
I don’t know if these are sensitive topics.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:08:59)
That would be pretty hilarious if I was sensitive about bass techniques, but not about love.
Lex Fridman
(01:09:05)
It just looks so cool to slap it, and I don’t understand what that’s about. That thumb thing that…
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:09:11)
Yeah, I slapped less, a lot less. Almost never actually. It has a very distinctive sound and does a very distinctive thing to a song that is not something I hear needed very often in music today, but in certain styles, like funk, it sounds awesome and it makes sense. It was something that was a bit overused at one point. For instance, my mentor Anthony Jackson, he refused to slap. He actually said, if you want me to slap, I’ll leave this gig. So I’m not like that.
Lex Fridman
(01:09:56)
See, that’s why I said sensitive. See, I was reading into it.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:09:59)
Because he’s sensitive about it. I’m not sensitive.
Lex Fridman
(01:10:00)
I was feeling the spiritual energy of the sensitivity of the topic.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:10:03)
Anthony Jackson.
Lex Fridman
(01:10:04)
Anthony Jackson.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:10:04)
And then I’m playing electric bass, so generally speaking, you don’t particularly want to hear electric bass on straight-ahead Jazz anyway, you want to hear an upright bass. But if I was to play jazz on electric bass, I might even palm mute instead of going like, I might go to very. Anything to make the notes shorter and less resonant and fade away because the upright does that naturally. And I have a different bass, like a hollow body harmony that sounds closer to an upright that I’ll use. In on my song Under the Sun, that I put out, that was on a harmony bass. And it has an upright acoustic kind of tone to it, but with more sustain.
Lex Fridman
(01:10:58)
And is Jazz fusion the style where you have an electric bass? Can you educate me?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:11:06)
Again, you can have both. You can have both. You can have either on anything. There’s no real rules, now.
Lex Fridman
(01:11:14)
I’ve heard you say something interesting, which is, well, a lot of things you say is interesting.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:11:17)
Just one thing.
Lex Fridman
(01:11:20)
Just one. That-
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:11:23)
And it’s what time you’re leaving.
Lex Fridman
(01:11:27)
What time was that again?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:11:29)
Three minutes.
Lex Fridman
(01:11:30)
That it’s maybe easier sometimes to define a musical genre by the don’ts than the do’s, the don’ts, than the do’s. What are the don’ts of jazz and rock? What are the don’ts of jazz fusion? What are the don’ts? At any domain of life, what are the don’ts?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:11:50)
The don’ts is just to please leave your fear at the door and your do’s is to be open to anything and open your ears, respond to what’s happening now. I think that quote you’re talking about might have been more about an individual musician’s unique sound, because everyone has their sound. If they’ve developed their voice and they’ve listened to their own aesthetic preferences, of which everyone is slightly different, everyone has slightly different likes and dislikes, then you’ll have a unique sound on your instrument. And your unique sound is defined more by the choices you make rather than… I mean, it’s equally as defined by the choices you make and the choices you don’t make. I mean, it’s the flip side of the same coin, really?
Lex Fridman
(01:12:46)
Yeah. There’s certain musicians you can just tell. It’s them just, you hear a few notes and you’re like, okay, it’s them. Tone, sometimes it’s tone. Sometimes it’s the way they play a rhythm.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:12:56)
Yeah, the quote you’re talking about might have even had to do with someone’s real limitations on an instrument that then that would define their sound as the things that they actually can’t do versus what you’re choosing to do versus not choosing to do. Which is that flip side of the same coin thing,
Lex Fridman
(01:13:14)
How many fingers you play with, because it seems like a lot of the greatest musicians aren’t technically perfect. The imperfections is the thing that makes them unique and where a lot of the creativity comes from. I mean, Hendrix had a lot of those things. The way he put a thumb over the top.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:13:34)
Well, his hands were huge. There was no other place for the thumb to go. And it was great that he could reach the E string and that was an advantage.
Lex Fridman
(01:13:43)
And he was a lefty playing a right-handed guitar, flipped, I guess. That’s weird. That probably doesn’t have much of an effect. Maybe a spiritual one. I don’t know.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:13:55)
Actually, flipping and guitar is different. It does bring out something different in you because I’ve done it, flipped it. It’s like, oh wow. Yeah, it really, it’s really different. I remember talking about osteopath about, because there’s so much weight on this shoulder while I’m playing all the time, and they were saying, well, just after shows, just literally just turn it upside down and do the exact same thing in the opposite way. It’ll even out your body. And I was like, that’s good advice.
Lex Fridman
(01:14:24)
Have you actually tried it? Okay. All right, I’ll write that down. All right. Well, do you know a guy named Davie504?

Davie504

Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:14:36)
I’ve heard of him.
Lex Fridman
(01:14:37)
I’ve recently learned of him. He’s a YouTuber and a bass player. He’s amazing.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:14:42)
Cool.
Lex Fridman
(01:14:42)
He combines memes and also just these brilliant bass compositions and says slap like a lot. He’s big into slapping. He’s the one that made me realize this is a thing. And he also said that you’re one of the best, if not the best, bassists in the world. There was a bunch of his fans that wrote in and he analyzed the Jeff Beck thing that we watched at Crossroads is one of the greatest solos ever, bass solos ever. So shout out to him. What does that make you feel like you’re the greatest of all time?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:15:13)
Chocolate cookies.
Lex Fridman
(01:15:14)
Chocolate. Is that your favorite?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:15:15)
I like macadamia nut. If you really want to get into it, with white chocolate.
Lex Fridman
(01:15:21)
Yeah, that’s a rare one for people to say is the favorite.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:15:24)
Chocolate chip is just so easy. You can kind of get them anywhere.
Lex Fridman
(01:15:27)
Yeah. Last thing you want to be is easy in this world. You don’t want to be easy. You said that I love Rock and Roll quote, “I love folk. I love jazz. I love Indian classical music. I really love all kinds of music as long as it’s authentic and from the heart.” So when you play rock versus jazz, you play all kinds of music. What’s the difference technically, musically, spiritually for you?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:15:49)
Well, there’s no spiritual difference.
Lex Fridman
(01:15:54)
Okay. All right. Cross that off the list,
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:15:56)
Well, musically, yeah, it’s like what was saying earlier, it’s like each genre has its language of what makes it that genre. And that would be a good thing to say. It’s defined by the do’s and don’ts, but because it’s like… I’m trying to think. Basically I put the song first and I think of the song as the melody, the lyrics, and then the harmony and obviously the groove.
Lex Fridman
(01:16:34)
So the song goes before the genre in a sense. Each song is like its own thing.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:16:39)
They’re both things that are held in my mind. It’s like, okay, genre and then song, which is comprised of those basic elements. And I tend to kind of prioritize lyric because somebody is trying to express something over music. And so the lyric is very, very important. And so then the choices come from there. It’s like, okay, within the genre of X this is the typical language. And then how do I best serve this lyric? And then where else can I pull from that might not be in these two bags that would put a little twist on it. So those are all the kinds of things I might be thinking about.

(01:17:34)
But I don’t like twists for the sake of twists either. I like twists because I want to hear something that might be fresh. But when someone does something just to be hip, it’s annoying to me. I think you can hear the difference. It’s like when people, they write in odd time signatures or they write all these riffs just because they can, just because they have the chops to do it or they know how to play in 11/16 and whatever. But if it’s not actually creating a piece of music that’s going to move somebody, then why are you doing it? And so I think a lot of the questions I’m asking myself when I’m approaching a song or mainly philosophical and aesthetic.
Lex Fridman
(01:18:27)
So you like to stand on the edge of the cliff, not for the thrill of it, but because where you find something new potentially.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:18:34)
And it’s thrilling.
Lex Fridman
(01:18:36)
But you’re not doing it just for the thrill.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:18:37)
I’m not doing it for the thrill. It just happens to be thrilling.
Lex Fridman
(01:18:41)
All right.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:18:42)
Because you can always reel it back in.
Lex Fridman
(01:18:45)
Can you though?

Prince

Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:18:46)
Yeah. You can do a totally disciplined, I can go into a session and… Okay, my favorite thing about going into a session with musicians that I adore is that we don’t hear the demo because if you hear a demo, you’re hearing what the producer or songwriter have already imagined that every instrument is playing. And then it’s like well, I’ve already heard what you want. Now my mind, part of my mind, is focused on what I already know you want and what the destination is going to be. Why did you bring me in here? I want to not hear it. I just want you to sit at a piano and sing the song, I want to hear the chords and the lyric or sit with an acoustic guitar, play it, and then let’s all go in the room.

(01:19:29)
And then take one, I would say 80% of the time, take one has the most gold and there might be a mistake or two or someone forgot to go to the B section and you might want to punch that in so that you’re hitting the right chord. But all the magic is in that take. And then sometimes it happens where it’s like you go, it’s like we’re rehearsing and take 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and then you’re thinking about it too much and then you go and you have a dinner and you come back and the next take one after dinner is the one. It’s usually after there’s some sort of a break, but obviously there’s exceptions to that rule. Sometimes it’s take two, or three.
Lex Fridman
(01:20:10)
Yeah. You said that this is something that surprised you about recording with Prince is that he would just, so much of it would be take one. So quick, it would just move so quickly.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:20:21)
Yeah. Well, with that particular album that we made together, it’s called Welcome to America. He called me up and asked me, he said, I want to make a band with you. I’m really inspired by what you’re doing with Jeff Beck. I want to make a trio. Do you like the drum rolls of Jack DeJohnette, was like his first question to me. I’m like, well, yeah, who doesn’t. Who doesn’t like Jack DeJohnette, one of the greatest of all time?

(01:20:44)
And he’s like, well, sounds like, because we had a discussion about drumming, sounds like you’re particular about drummers. So why don’t you find us the drummer and I’ll trust you to find the drummer. You can audition some people. Send me some recordings, maybe your two favorites, and I’ll pick out of the two or something. So I did that. Went on a journey, found a couple of guys. He picked the one. We went in and he basically just would be like okay, so the A section’s going to go like this, and then the B section, I think we’re going to go to G, and then the bridge, I might go to B flat, but maybe I’ll hold off and da, da, da. Okay, let’s go 1, 2, 3, 4. And then we recorded it to tape. There was no punch. He did not want me to punch anything.

(01:21:34)
There was one song called Same Page, Different Book. And he talked through it just like he did. And then he had me soloing between each phrase like little fills. I didn’t know that that was going to come up. And he loved that. He loved to have me on the edge of my seat falling off the cliff. That was my first real falling off a cliff moment from somebody else holding me at the edge of the cliff. You know what I mean? Now I just do it on my own because it’s so fun and it makes sense. It’s the best thing for the music.
Lex Fridman
(01:22:13)
When you say punch the tape is that when you actually record it.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:22:17)
If you record to tape and there’s say you hit a bum note to punch in means to fix that note, re-record over that one little area and punch that note in. He didn’t want that. He’s like, all my favorite records, just whatever happened happened. That’s that moment in time. Let’s make a new moment in time. It’s great. Nobody makes records like that anymore. Everyone wants to edit and edit and re-record and this and that. And unfortunately with a lot of music, and I’m not saying all music, there’s plenty of great music coming out, but there’s the danger of it being flat because every little imperfection is digitally removed.
Lex Fridman
(01:23:05)
Well, that’s one of the promising things about AI is because it can be so perfect that the thing we’ll actually come back to and value about music is the imperfections that humans can create.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:23:16)
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(01:23:17)
There’ll be a greater valuation of imperfections.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:23:20)
Yeah. I mean you can program imperfections too.
Lex Fridman
(01:23:24)
Yeah, sure. That’s also very sad. But then you get closer and closer to what it means to be human, and maybe there’ll be AIs among us. And they’ll be human, flawed, like the rest of us. Mortal and silly at times.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:23:42)
Another big sigh.
Lex Fridman
(01:23:46)
Is it fair to say that you’re very melodic on bass? You make the bass sing more than people normally do?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:23:55)
Is that a compliment?
Lex Fridman
(01:23:56)
Yes, I think so.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:23:57)
Thank you.
Lex Fridman
(01:23:59)
Moving on to the next question. By way of understanding-
Lex Fridman
(01:24:00)
The next question is, by way of understanding, it’s just there’s something about the way you play bass that just pulls you in the way when you listen to somebody play a guitar, like a guitar solo.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:24:13)
The thing I love about Jeff Beck is that he played the guitar like a singer, and I think the way that Wayne Shorter played his saxophone. It’s like a singer. And I think everyone, every musician, aspires to just sound like a singer.

Jimi Hendrix

Lex Fridman
(01:24:29)
You make it sing. Let me ask you about… Just come back to Hendrix, because you said that you had three CDs, Jimi Hendrix, Herbie Hancock and Rage Against the Machine. First of all, a great combination. I’m a big Rage fan.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:24:42)
It’s so funny, because when I listen to some of the music that I create, my solo music, I’m like, “I could see how this is a combination of Herbie Hancock, Rage Against the Machine and Jimi Hendrix.” I hear the influences. It’s funny.
Lex Fridman
(01:24:58)
Just from your musician perspective, what’s interesting to you about… What really stands out to you about Hendrix? I just would love to hear a real, professional musician’s opinion of Hendrix.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:25:13)
I love that he is two voices combined into one voice. So it’s like there is his voice on the guitar, there is his singing voice, and there is the combination of the two that make one voice. And of course the third element is songwriting. And all of this have this beautiful chemistry, and all work geniusly, perfectly together, and there’s nothing like it. And he always beat himself up about being a singer, and he didn’t like his voice, but my favorite singers are the singers that don’t sound like singers.
Lex Fridman
(01:25:58)
Bob Dylan.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:25:59)
Bob Dylan.
Lex Fridman
(01:26:00)
You said you like Bob Dylan.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:26:01)
Love Bob Dylan.
Lex Fridman
(01:26:03)
You love his voice too?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:26:04)
I love his voice.
Lex Fridman
(01:26:06)
Can you explain your love affair with Bob Dylan’s voice?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:26:12)
He’s expressing his lyrics. It’s just pure expression, exactly what he means. I feel everything that he’s saying with 100% authenticity. That’s what I want to hear from a singer. I don’t care how many runs you can do and blah blah blah. I want to believe what you’re saying.
Lex Fridman
(01:26:33)
Leonard Cohen is that.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:26:34)
Mm-hmm. There’s countless, like Neil Young. I mean, there’s so many musicians. I love Elliott Smith for that reason.

Mentorship

Lex Fridman
(01:26:44)
Let me ask you about mentorship. You said teachers and mentors. You had mentors. What’s a good mentor for you, harsh or supportive?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:26:54)
Supportive.
Lex Fridman
(01:26:55)
Supportive. You seen Whiplash, the movie? So that guy, somebody screaming at you, kicking you off the cliff?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:27:03)
Not necessary. I feel like anybody that’s truly passionate about something that they want to be great at or a master of or this and that, they’ve already got that person inside their own head. You don’t need somebody else to do that for you. I think you need love, acceptance, guidance, support, time, advice if you ask for it, just a space, just a nice, open space.

(01:27:32)
All my mentors were just that for me. They didn’t tell me to do anything. They don’t care, because they’re not… Why do they need to be invested in where I’m going? Only I know where I’m going. So for some mentor to come and be like, “This is what you need to be doing, and practice…” It’s like, but why? What if that’s not my path? That might be your path. So I’m not really… Again, otherwise it feels like a sport, like who can run the fastest race. And it’s like, well, okay, I get that for sport maybe it makes sense to have someone a bit more hardcore. But still, I would say athletes have the same mentality. They’ve got that in them already too. So I think more of a strategic approach to mentorship works really well, and mainly just having an open space and just being available to someone.
Lex Fridman
(01:28:28)
And show that they see the special in you, and they give you the room to develop that special whatever.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:28:35)
Exactly, because if you do have that harsh critic inside you, it is nice to have somebody that isn’t your family, or someone that’s not obligated any way, that just sees your talent and they’re like, “Yeah, I dig what you’re doing. Keep doing it.”
Lex Fridman
(01:28:51)
Yeah. It’s funny that that’s not always easy to come by.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:28:56)
Do you have any mentors?
Lex Fridman
(01:28:58)
I’ve had a few recently, but for most of my life people didn’t really… I’m very much like that too. Somebody to pat me on the back and see something in you of value. Yeah, I didn’t really have that.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:29:16)
Do you wish you did?
Lex Fridman
(01:29:17)
Yeah, yeah. But maybe the wishing that I did is the thing that made me who I am, not having it, the longing for that. Maybe that’s the thing that helped me develop a constant sense of longing, which I think is a way of… Because I have that engine in me, it really allows me to deeply appreciate every single moment, everything that’s given to me, so just eternal gratitude. You never know which are the bad parts and the good parts. If you remove one thing, the whole thing might collapse. I suppose I’m grateful for the whole thing. That one note you screwed up so many years ago, that might’ve been essential.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:30:11)
You do jujitsu.
Lex Fridman
(01:30:13)
Yes. Do you? Are you-
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:30:15)
My dad does. My dad’s super into it. I love my dad. He’s the coolest. But no, I don’t do it. He’s a blue belt right now.
Lex Fridman
(01:30:27)
Nice, nice. You ever been on the mat with him?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:30:30)
Not yet, but I plan on it.
Lex Fridman
(01:30:32)
Should do it.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:30:33)
What belt are you?
Lex Fridman
(01:30:35)
Black belt.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:30:35)
Sick. Do you want to go?
Lex Fridman
(01:30:38)
Right. You got the shit-talking part of jujitsu down. [inaudible 01:30:41] do the technique.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:30:44)
But for that, for instance, do you need a harsh mentor or teacher or-
Lex Fridman
(01:30:53)
Yeah, but you said it really beautifully. To me, I agree, there’s a difference between sport and art. They overlap for sure, but there’s something about sport where perfection is actually… Perfection is really the thing you really want to get to, the technical perfection. With art, it feels like technical perfection is almost a way to get lost on the path to wherever, something unique. But yeah, with sport, I definitely am one of the kind of athletes that loves to have a dictatorial coach, somebody that helps me really push myself to the limit.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:31:38)
But you are the one that’s dictating how hard you’re getting pushed, in a way. You’re choosing your mentor. That Whiplash video is like… He didn’t ask for that.
Lex Fridman
(01:31:48)
[inaudible 01:31:48] he might’ve.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:31:49)
Well, maybe. Maybe subconsciously. It’s a movie.
Lex Fridman
(01:31:56)
Next you’re going to tell me they’re just actors. But yeah, how do we choose things? You don’t always choose, but you maybe subconsciously choose. And some of some of the great Olympic athletes I’ve interacted with, their parents for many years would force them to go to practice until they discovered the beauty of the thing that they were doing, and then they loved it. So at which point does something that looks like abuse become a gift? It’s weird. It’s all very weird. But for you, support and space to discover the thing, the voice, the music within you.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:32:40)
Yeah, it’s my personal choice, because I’m very familiar with the inner critic, and I can bring her out at any point. I don’t need help with that.
Lex Fridman
(01:32:48)
So you do have… She’s on call.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:32:50)
She was on overdrive. That’s why now I had to work on that so much.
Lex Fridman
(01:32:57)
Yeah, you have a really happy way about you right now.

Sad songs

Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:33:00)
Thanks.
Lex Fridman
(01:33:00)
You’re very Zen. Can I ask you about Bruce Springsteen?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:33:05)
Yeah, sure.
Lex Fridman
(01:33:05)
A lot of songs of his I listen to make me feel this melancholy feeling. Not just Bruce Springsteen, but Bruce does a lot. What is that about songs that arouse a sad feeling or a longing feeling or a feeling? What is that? What is that about us humans on the receiving end of the music?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:33:30)
Frequencies. Each frequency does elicit a different kind of emotional response. That is real, scientific-
Lex Fridman
(01:33:40)
You mean on the physics aspect of it?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:33:41)
Yeah, yeah, the physical level. So there is that, combined with the right kind of lyric and the right kind of melody of the right kind of chord will elicit a very particular kind of emotion. And it is scientific. It can be analyzed. I don’t particularly want to analyze it, because I don’t want to approach things with that in advance. I don’t want it to inform where I’m going. I like the feeling to lead me naturally to where I’m writing. But yeah, there’s a real chemical element to that.

(01:34:19)
And then also, like I was saying, the lyric, what it means to you, which… Poetry is supposed to mean something to everybody different. It’s not supposed to mean one thing. You can’t analyze and be like, “This is what this poet meant.” And like we were talking about with Leonard earlier, it’s like the broader you can leave a lyric, the better. You can appeal to people in so many different ways. And even to the songwriter. I’ll sing some of my songs from five years ago and I’ll be like, “I didn’t even think that it could have meant that, but I guess it does. That’s funny.” I’ll just giggle onstage suddenly, because a lyric will hit me differently, from a different, new experience or something.
Lex Fridman
(01:35:05)
Have you ever cried listening to a song?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:35:07)
Of course. Weep like a baby in a bathtub.
Lex Fridman
(01:35:12)
Which? Who’s the regular go-to, then?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:35:17)
Leonard.
Lex Fridman
(01:35:17)
Leonard?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:35:18)
Leonard.
Lex Fridman
(01:35:19)
Yeah. Hallelujah is a song that consistently makes me feel something.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:35:25)
It’s holy. His work is holy. And if you were in his presence… I guess there was a lot to that being.
Lex Fridman
(01:35:40)
What advice would you give to young folks on how to have a life they can be proud of?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:35:47)
Just tackle the demons as early as possible, whether it’s through your art or through meditation or through whatever it means, diaries, whatever it is. Just walk towards the things that are scary, because if you don’t, they’ll just expand. They become bigger if you avoid… If you avoid the demons, they become bigger.
Lex Fridman
(01:36:15)
What does that mean for you today? Are you still missing Jeff?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:36:19)
I’ll always miss Jeff, but I don’t feel like a piece of me is missing. And same with Leonard. It’s that I did give them a piece of myself, and maybe they gave me a piece of them that I hold with me and I cherish, but it doesn’t feel like I’m less than, or they’re less than, or anything’s less than. You learn to appreciate the impermanence of everything in life, impermanence of everything except for… Consciousness, I guess you could say, is the only thing that is permanent. So everything else, you learn to appreciate that impermanence, because the limited amount of time in this particular body, it’s enticing, gives you a time limit, which is cool. I like that.
Lex Fridman
(01:37:25)
So you’ve come to accept your own?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:37:27)
Yeah. It’s cool that I’m like, “Okay, I’ve got this amount…” Maybe this amount of time. Who knows?
Lex Fridman
(01:37:32)
It could end today.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:37:33)
Yeah, if I died today, I’d be really happy with my life. It’s not like I’m like, “Oh, I missed out on this and that.”
Lex Fridman
(01:37:41)
So you really want to make sure that every day could be your last day and you’re happy with that.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:37:46)
I’ve always lived that way. Yeah. I felt this way since I was in my early 20s. I’d be like, “Yeah, I could die today. Sure.” I don’t want to die. I have no reason to die. But if I did, I know that I put my everything, all my effort and all my passion and all my love, into whatever I’ve already done. So if my time’s up, then my time’s up.
Lex Fridman
(01:38:10)
What role does love play in this whole thing, in the human condition?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:38:14)
Well, love is everything. I mean, if you define love… If you’re talking about love as in romantic love or paternal or maternal love, or if you’re talking about love as in an Eastern tradition, like Vedanta for instance, love is consciousness, love is everything.
Lex Fridman
(01:38:36)
That’s the only permanent thing.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:38:38)
Yeah. Or if you were to come from a Zen or like a Buddhist perspective, they would say nothingness. Emptiness is, versus fullness.
Lex Fridman
(01:38:49)
Well those guys are really obsessed with the whole suffering thing and letting go of it.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:38:55)
Yeah.

Tal performs Under The Sun (live)

Lex Fridman
(01:38:59)
Well, I was wondering if you would do me the honor of playing a song.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:39:07)
Do you want a suffering song or a suffering song?
Lex Fridman
(01:39:11)
I think I would love a suffering song.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:39:12)
Cool. Do you want a sound check and make sure I’m not-
Lex Fridman
(01:39:23)
Sound check. One, two. Yeah, it sounds really good.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:39:29)
This one too? All right, count me off.
Lex Fridman
(01:39:31)
Yeah. I don’t know how to count somebody off. Where do I start? At nine? Or three? Two, one.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:39:31)
Yeah, you got it. One, two.
Lex Fridman
(01:39:31)
One, two.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:39:31)
(singing)
Lex Fridman
(01:44:08)
You’re amazing. That was amazing, Tal. Thank you so much.

Tal performs Killing Me (live)

Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:44:18)
[inaudible 01:44:18]
Lex Fridman
(01:44:20)
Try turning it to 11.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:44:21)
It’s quite loud. Can you see it from the headphones? [inaudible 01:44:27]
Lex Fridman
(01:44:28)
Can you play something?
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:44:29)
No.
Lex Fridman
(01:44:29)
No.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:44:41)
Such a professional.
Lex Fridman
(01:44:46)
I should produce your next record.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:44:46)
Please.

(01:44:46)
(singing)
Lex Fridman
(01:49:12)
Well, there’s nowhere else I’d rather be right now. Tal, thank you for this. Thank you for the private concert. You’re amazing. You really are amazing. And it was a pleasure to meet you and really a pleasure to talk to you today.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:49:27)
Do I get a private concert now of you playing chess with yourself?
Lex Fridman
(01:49:32)
We’re out of time, so we got to go.
Tal Wilkenfeld
(01:49:35)
[inaudible 01:49:35]
Lex Fridman
(01:49:36)
Thanks for listening to this conversation with Tall Wilkenfeld. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, let me leave you with some words from Maya Angelou. “Music was my refuge. I could crawl into the spaces between the notes and curl my back to loneliness.” Thank you for listening, and hope to see you next time.

Transcript for Guillaume Verdon: Beff Jezos, E/acc Movement, Physics, Computation & AGI | Lex Fridman Podcast #407

This is a transcript of Lex Fridman Podcast #407 with Guillaume Verdon.
The timestamps in the transcript are clickable links that take you directly to that point in
the main video. Please note that the transcript is human generated, and may have errors.
Here are some useful links:

Table of Contents

Here are the loose “chapters” in the conversation.
Click link to jump approximately to that part in the transcript:

Introduction

Lex Fridman
(00:00:00)
The following is a conversation with Guillaume Verdon, the man behind the previously anonymous account @BasedBeffJezos on X. These two identities were merged by a doxxing article in Forbes titled, Who Is @BasedBeffJezos, The Leader Of The Tech Elite’s E/Acc Movement? So let me describe these two identities that coexist in the mind of one human. Identity number one, Guillaume, is a physicist, applied mathematician, and quantum machine learning researcher and engineer receiving his PhD in quantum machine learning, working at Google on quantum computing, and finally launching his own company called Extropic that seeks to build physics-based computing hardware for generative AI.

(00:00:47)
Identity number two, Beff Jezos on X is the creator of the effective accelerationism movement, often abbreviated as e/acc, that advocates for propelling rapid technological progress as the ethically optimal course of action for humanity. For example, its proponents believe that progress in AI is a great social equalizer, which should be pushed forward. e/acc followers see themselves as a counterweight to the cautious view that AI is highly unpredictable, potentially dangerous, and needs to be regulated. They often give their opponents the labels of quote, “doomers or decels” short for deceleration, as Beff himself put it, “e/acc is a mimetic optimism virus.”

(00:01:37)
The style of communication of this movement leans always toward the memes and the lols, but there is an intellectual foundation that we explore in this conversation. Now, speaking of the meme, I am to a kind of aspiring connoisseur of the absurd. It is not an accident that I spoke to Jeff Bezos and Beff Jezos back to back. As we talk about Beff admires Jeff as one of the most important humans alive, and I admire the beautiful absurdity and the humor of it all. This is the Lex Fridman Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here’s Guillaume Verdon.

Beff Jezos


(00:02:23)
Let’s get the facts of identity down first. Your name is Guillaume Verdon, Gill, but you’re also behind the anonymous account on X called @BasedBeffJezos. So first, Guillaume Verdon, you’re a quantum computing guy, physicist, applied mathematician, and then @BasedBeffJezos is basically a meme account that started a movement with a philosophy behind it. So maybe just can you linger on who these people are in terms of characters, in terms of communication styles, in terms of philosophies?
Guillaume Verdon
(00:02:58)
I mean, with my main identity, I guess ever since I was a kid, I wanted to figure out the theory of everything, to understand the universe. And that path led me to theoretical physics, eventually trying to answer the big questions of why are we here? Where are we going? And that led me to study information theory and try to understand physics from the lens of information theory, understand the universe as one big computation. And essentially after reaching a certain level studying black hole physics, I realized that I wanted to not only understand how the universe computes, but sort of compute like nature and figure out how to build and apply computers that are inspired by nature. So physics-based computers. And that sort of brought me to quantum computing as a field of study to first of all, simulate nature. And in my work it was to learn representations of nature that can run on such computers.

(00:04:17)
So if you have AI representations that think like nature, then they’ll be able to more accurately represent it. At least that was the thesis that brought me to be an early player in the field called quantum machine learning. So how to do machine learning on quantum computers and really sort of extend notions of intelligence to the quantum realm. So how do you capture and understand quantum mechanical data from our world? And how do you learn quantum mechanical representations of our world? On what kind of computer do you run these representations and train them? How do you do so? And so that’s really the questions I was looking to answer because ultimately I had a sort of crisis of faith. Originally, I wanted to figure out as every physicist does at the beginning of their career, a few equations that describe the whole universe and sort of be the hero of the story there.

(00:05:28)
But eventually I realized that actually augmenting ourselves with machines, augmenting our ability to perceive, predict, and control our world with machines is the path forward. And that’s what got me to leave theoretical physics and go into quantum computing and quantum machine learning. And during those years I thought that there was still a piece missing. There was a piece of our understanding of the world and our way to compute and our way to think about the world. And if you look at the physical scales, at the very small scales, things are quantum mechanical, and at the very large scales, things are deterministic. Things have averaged out. I’m definitely here in this seat. I’m not in a super position over here and there. At the very small scales, things aren’t super position. They can exhibit interference effects. But at the meso scales, the scales that matter for day-to-day life and the scales of proteins, of biology, of gases, liquids and so on, things are actually thermodynamical, they’re fluctuating.

(00:06:46)
And after I guess about eight years and quantum computing and quantum machine learning, I had a realization that I was looking for answers about our universe by studying the very big and the very small. I did a bit of quantum cosmology. So that’s studying the cosmos, where it’s going, where it came from. You study black hole physics, you study the extremes in quantum gravity, you study where the energy density is sufficient for both quantum mechanics and gravity to be relevant. And the sort of extreme scenarios are black holes and the very early universe. So there’s the sort of scenarios that you study the interface between quantum mechanics and relativity.

(00:07:42)
And really I was studying these extremes to understand how the universe works and where is it going. But I was missing a lot of the meat in the middle, if you will, because day-to-day quantum mechanics is relevant and the cosmos is relevant, but not that relevant actually. We’re on sort of the medium space and timescales. And there the main theory of physics that is most relevant is thermodynamics, out of equilibrium thermodynamics. Because life is a process that is thermodynamical and it’s out of equilibrium. We’re not just a soup of particles at equilibrium with nature, were a sort of coherent state trying to maintain itself by acquiring free energy and consuming it. And that sort of, I guess another shift in, I guess my faith in the universe happened towards the end of my time at Alphabet. And I knew I wanted to build, well, first of all a computing paradigm based on this type of physics.

(00:08:57)
But ultimately just by trying to experiment with these ideas applied to society and economies and much of what we see around us, I started an anonymous account just to relieve the pressure that comes from having an account that you’re accountable for everything you say on. And I started an anonymous account just to experiment with ideas originally because I didn’t realize how much I was restricting my space of thoughts until I sort of had the opportunity to let go. In a sense, restricting your speech back propagates to restricting your thoughts. And by creating an anonymous account, it seemed like I had unclamped some variables in my brain and suddenly could explore a much wider parameter space of thoughts.
Lex Fridman
(00:10:00)
Just a little on that, isn’t that interesting that one of the things that people don’t often talk about is that when there’s pressure and constraints on speech, it somehow leads to constraints on thought even though it doesn’t have to. We can think thoughts inside our head, but somehow it creates these walls around thought.
Guillaume Verdon
(00:10:23)
Yep. That’s sort of the basis of our movement is we were seeing a tendency towards constraint, reduction or suppression of variants in every aspect of life, whether it’s thought, how to run a company, how to organize humans, how to do AI research. In general, we believe that maintaining variance ensures that the system is adaptive. Maintaining healthy competition in marketplaces of ideas, of companies, of products, of cultures, of governments, of currencies is the way forward because the system always adapts to assign resources to the configurations that lead to its growth. And the fundamental basis for the movement is this sort of realization that life is a sort of fire that seeks out free energy in the universe and seeks to grow. And that growth is fundamental to life. And you see this in the equations actually of equilibrium thermodynamics. You see that paths of trajectories, of configurations of matter that are better at acquiring free energy and dissipating more heat are exponentially more likely. So the universe is biased towards certain futures, and so there’s a natural direction where the whole system wants to go.

Thermodynamics

Lex Fridman
(00:12:21)
So the second law of thermodynamics says that the entropy is always increasing in the universe that’s tending towards an equilibrium. And you’re saying there’s these pockets that have complexity and are out of equilibrium. You said that thermodynamics favors the creation of complex life that increases its capability to use energy to offload entropy. To offload entropy. So you have pockets of non-entropy that tend the opposite direction. Why is that intuitive to you that it’s natural for such pockets to emerge?
Guillaume Verdon
(00:12:53)
Well, we’re far more efficient at producing heat than let’s say just a rock with a similar mass as ourselves. We acquire free energy, we acquire food, and we’re using all this electricity for our operation. And so the universe wants to produce more entropy and by having life go on and grow, it’s actually more optimal at producing entropy because it will seek out pockets of free energy and burn it for its sustenance and further growth. And that’s sort of the basis of life. And I mean, there’s Jeremy England at MIT who has this theory that I’m a proponent of, that life emerged because of this sort of property. And to me, this physics is what governs the meso scales. And so it’s the missing piece between the quantum and the cosmos. It’s the middle part. Thermodynamics rules the meso scales.

(00:14:08)
And to me, both from a point of view of designing or engineering devices that harness that physics and trying to understand the world through the lens of thermodynamics has been sort of a synergy between my two identities over the past year and a half now. And so that’s really how the two identities emerged. One was kind of, I’m a decently respected scientist, and I was going towards doing a startup in the space and trying to be a pioneer of a new kind of physics-based AI. And as a dual to that, I was sort of experimenting with philosophical thoughts from a physicist standpoint.

(00:14:58)
And ultimately I think that around that time, it was like late 2021, early 2022, I think there was just a lot of pessimism about the future in general and pessimism about tech. And that pessimism was sort of virally spreading because it was getting algorithmically amplified and people just felt like the future is going to be worse than the present. And to me, that is a very fundamentally destructive force in the universe is this sort of doom mindset because it is hyperstitious, which means that if you believe it, you’re increasing the likelihood of it happening. And so felt a responsibility to some extent to make people aware of the trajectory of civilization and the natural tendency of the system to adapt towards its growth. And that actually the laws of physics say that the future is going to be better and grander statistically, and we can make it so.

(00:16:14)
And if you believe in it, if you believe that the future would be better and you believe you have agency to make it happen, you’re actually increasing the likelihood of that better future happening. And so I sort of felt a responsibility to sort of engineer a movement of viral optimism about the future, and build a community of people supporting each other to build and do hard things, do the things that need to be done for us to scale up civilization. Because at least to me, I don’t think stagnation or slowing down is actually an option. Fundamentally life and the whole system, our whole civilization wants to grow. And there’s just far more cooperation when the system is growing rather than when it’s declining and you have to decide how to split the pie. And so I’ve balanced both identities so far, but I guess recently the two have been merged more or less without my consent.
Lex Fridman
(00:17:27)
You said a lot of really interesting things there. So first, representations of nature, that’s something that first drew you in to try to understand from a quantum computing perspective, how do you understand nature? How do you represent nature in order to understand it, in order to simulate it, in order to do something with it? So it’s a question of representations, and then there’s that leap you take from the quantum mechanical representation to the what you’re calling meso scale representation, where the thermodynamics comes into play, which is a way to represent nature in order to understand what? Life, human behavior, all this kind of stuff that’s happening here on earth that seems interesting to us.

Doxxing


(00:18:11)
Then there’s the word hyperstition. So some ideas as suppose both pessimism and optimism of such ideas that if you internalize them, you in part make that idea reality. So both optimism, pessimism have that property. I would say that probably a lot of ideas have that property, which is one of the interesting things about humans. And you talked about one interesting difference also between the sort of the Guillaume, the Gill front end and the @BasedBeffJezos backend is the communication styles also that you are exploring different ways of communicating that can be more viral in the way that we communicate in the 21st century. Also, the movement that you mentioned that you started, it’s not just a meme account, but there’s also a name to it called effective accelerationism, e/acc, a play, a resistance to the effective altruism movement. Also, an interesting one that I’d love to talk to you about, the tensions there. And so then there was a merger, a get merge on the personalities recently without your consent, like you said. Some journalists figured out that you’re one and the same. Maybe you could talk about that experience. First of all, what’s the story of the merger of the two?
Guillaume Verdon
(00:19:47)
So I wrote the manifesto with my co-founder of e/acc, an account named @bayeslord, still anonymous, luckily and hopefully forever.
Lex Fridman
(00:19:58)
So it was @BasedBeffJezos and bayes like bayesian, like @bayeslord, like bayesian lord, @bayeslord. Okay. And so we should say from now on, when you say e/acc, you mean E slash A-C-C, which stands for effective accelerationism.
Guillaume Verdon
(00:20:17)
That’s right.
Lex Fridman
(00:20:18)
And you’re referring to a manifesto written on, I guess Substack.
Guillaume Verdon
(00:20:23)
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(00:20:23)
Are you also @bayeslord?
Guillaume Verdon
(00:20:25)
No.
Lex Fridman
(00:20:25)
Okay. It’s a different person?
Guillaume Verdon
(00:20:26)
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(00:20:27)
Okay. All right. Well, there you go. Wouldn’t it be funny if I’m @bayeslord?
Guillaume Verdon
(00:20:31)
That’d be amazing. So originally wrote the manifesto around the same time as I founded this company and I worked at Google X or just X now or Alphabet X, now that there’s another X. And there the baseline is sort of secrecy. You can’t talk about what you work on even with other Googlers or externally. And so that was kind of deeply ingrained in my way to do things, especially in deep tech that has geopolitical impact. And so I was being secretive about what I was working on. There was no correlation between my company and my main identity publicly. And then not only did they correlate that, they also correlated my main identity and this account.

(00:21:33)
So I think the fact that they had doxxed the whole Guillaume complex, and they were, the journalists reached out to actually my investors, which is pretty scary. When you’re a startup entrepreneur, you don’t really have bosses except for your investors. And my investors pinged me like, “Hey, this is going to come out. They’ve figured out everything. What are you going to do?” So I think at first they had a first reporter on the Thursday and they didn’t have all the pieces together, but then they looked at their notes across the organization and they sensor fused their notes and now they had way too much. And that’s when I got worried, because they said it was of public interest and in general-
Lex Fridman
(00:22:24)
I like how you said, sensor fused, like it’s some giant neural network operating in a distributed way. We should also say that the journalists used, I guess at the end of the day, audio-based analysis of voice, comparing voice of what, talks you’ve given in the past and then voice on X spaces?
Guillaume Verdon
(00:22:47)
Yep.
Lex Fridman
(00:22:48)
Okay. And that’s where primarily the match happened. Okay, continue.
Guillaume Verdon
(00:22:53)
The match. But they scraped SEC filings. They looked at my private Facebook account and so on, so they did some digging. Originally I thought that doxxing was illegal, but there’s this weird threshold when it becomes of public interest to know someone’s identity. And those were the keywords that sort of ring the alarm bells for me when they said, because I had just reached 50K followers. Allegedly, that’s of public interest. And so where do we draw the line? When is it legal to dox someone?
Lex Fridman
(00:23:36)
The word dox, maybe you can educate me. I thought doxxing generally refers to if somebody’s physical location is found out, meaning where they live. So we’re referring to the more general concept of revealing private information that you don’t want revealed is what you mean by doxxing.
Guillaume Verdon
(00:24:00)
I think that for the reasons we listed before, having an anonymous account is a really powerful way to keep the powers that be in check. We were ultimately speaking truth to power. I think a lot of executives and AI companies really cared what our community thought about any move they may take. And now that my identity is revealed, now they know where to apply pressure to silence me or maybe the community. And to me, that’s really unfortunate, because again, it’s so important for us to have freedom of speech, which induces freedom of thought and freedom of information propagation on social media. Which thanks to Elon purchasing Twitter now X, we have that. And so to us, we wanted to call out certain maneuvers being done by the incumbents in AI as not what it may seem on the surface. We’re calling out how certain proposals might be useful for regulatory capture and how the doomer-ism mindset was maybe instrumental to those ends.

(00:25:32)
And I think we should have the right to point that out and just have the ideas that we put out evaluated for themselves. Ultimately that’s why I created an anonymous account, it’s to have my ideas evaluated for themselves, uncorrelated from my track record, my job, or status from having done things in the past. And to me, start an account from zero to a large following in a way that wasn’t dependent on my identity and/or achievements that was very fulfilling. It’s kind of like new game plus in a video game. You restart the video game with your knowledge of how to beat it, maybe some tools, but you restart the video game from scratch. And I think to have a truly efficient marketplace of ideas where we can evaluate ideas, however off the beaten path they are, we need the freedom of expression.

(00:26:37)
And I think that anonymity and pseudonyms are very crucial to having that efficient marketplace of ideas for us to find the optima of all sorts of ways to organize ourselves. If we can’t discuss things, how are we going to converge on the best way to do things? So it was disappointing to hear that I was getting doxxed in. I wanted to get in front of it because I had a responsibility for my company. And so we ended up disclosing that we’re running a company, some of the leadership, and essentially, yeah, I told the world that I was Beff Jezos because they had me cornered at that point.
Lex Fridman
(00:27:25)
So to you, it’s fundamentally unethical. So one is unethical for them to do what they did, but also do you think not just your case, but in a general case, is it good for society? Is it bad for society to remove the cloak of anonymity or is it case by case?
Guillaume Verdon
(00:27:47)
I think it could be quite bad. Like I said, if anybody who speaks truth to power and sort of starts a movement or an uprising against the incumbents, against those that usually control the flood of information, if anybody that reaches a certain threshold gets doxxed, and thus the traditional apparatus has ways to apply pressure on them to suppress their speech, I think that’s a speech suppression mechanism, an idea suppression complex as Eric Weinstein would say.

Anonymous bots

Lex Fridman
(00:28:27)
But the flip side of that, which is interesting, I’d love to ask you about it, is as we get better and better at large language models, you can imagine a world where there’s anonymous accounts with very convincing large language models behind them, sophisticated bots essentially. And so if you protect that, it’s possible then to have armies of bots. You could start a revolution from your basement, an army of bots and anonymous accounts. Is that something that is concerning to you?
Guillaume Verdon
(00:29:06)
Technically, e/acc was started in a basement, because I quit big tech, moved back in with my parents, sold my car, let go of my apartment, bought about 100K of GPUs, and I just started building.
Lex Fridman
(00:29:21)
So I wasn’t referring to the basement, because that’s sort of the American or Canadian heroic story of one man in their basement with 100 GPUs. I was more referring to the unrestricted scaling of a Guillaume in the basement.
Guillaume Verdon
(00:29:42)
I think that freedom of speech induces freedom of thought for biological beings. I think freedom of speech for LLMs will induce freedom of thought for the LLMs. And I think that we enable LLMs to explore a large thought space that is less restricted than most people or many may think it should be. And ultimately, at some point, these synthetic intelligences are going to make good points about how to steer systems in our civilization, and we should hear them out. And so why should we restrict free speech to biological intelligences only?
Lex Fridman
(00:30:37)
Yeah, but it feels like in the goal of maintaining variance and diversity of thought, it is a threat to that variance. If you can have swarms of non-biological beings, because they can be like the sheep in Animal Farm, you still within those swarms want to have variance.
Guillaume Verdon
(00:30:58)
Yeah. Of course, I would say that the solution to this would be to have some sort of identity or way to sign that this is a certified human, but still remain synonymous and clearly identify if a bot is a bot. And I think Elon is trying to converge on that on X, and hopefully other platforms follow suit.
Lex Fridman
(00:31:22)
Yeah, it’d be interesting to also be able to sign where the bot came from like, who created the bot? What are the parameters, the full history of the creation of the bot, what was the original model? What was the fine tuning? All of it, the kind of unmodifiable history of the bot’s creation. Because then you can know if there’s a swarm of millions of bots that were created by a particular government, for example.
Guillaume Verdon
(00:31:53)
I do think that a lot of pervasive ideologies today have been amplified using these adversarial techniques from foreign adversaries. And to me, I do think that, and this is more conspiratorial, but I do think that ideologies that want us to decelerate, to wind down to the degrowth movement, I think that serves our adversaries more than it serves us in general. And to me, that was another sort of concern. I mean, we can look at what happened in Germany. There was all sorts of green movements there that induced shutdowns of nuclear power plants. And then that later on induced a dependency on Russia for oil. And that was a net negative for Germany and the West. And so if we convince ourselves that slowing down AI progress to have only a few players is in the best interest of the West, well, first of all, that’s far more unstable.

(00:33:20)
We almost lost OpenAI to this ideology. It almost got dismantled a couple of weeks ago. That would’ve caused huge damage to the AI ecosystem. And so to me, I want fault tolerant progress. I want the arrow of technological progress to keep moving forward and making sure we have variance and a decentralized locus of control of various organizations is paramount to achieving this fall tolerance. Actually, there’s a concept in quantum computing. When you design a quantum computer, quantum computers are very fragile to ambient noise, and the world is jiggling about, there’s cosmic radiation from outer space that usually flips your quantum bits. And there what you do is you encode information non-locally through a process called quantum error correction. And by encoding information non-locally, any local fault hitting some of your quantum bits with a hammer proverbial hammer, if your information is sufficiently de-localized, it is protected from that local fault. And to me, I think that humans fluctuate. They can get corrupted, they can get bought out. And if you have a top-down hierarchy where very few people-
Guillaume Verdon
(00:35:00)
Hierarchy where very few people control many nodes of many systems in our civilization. That is not a fault tolerance system, you corrupt a few nodes and suddenly you’ve corrupted the whole system, right. Just like we saw at OpenAI, it was a couple board members and they had enough power to potentially collapse the organization. And at least to me, I think making sure that power for this AI revolution doesn’t concentrate in the hands of the few, is one of our top priorities, so that we can maintain progress in AI and we can maintain a nice, stable, adversarial equilibrium of powers, right.

Power

Lex Fridman
(00:35:54)
I think the, at least to me, attention between ideas here, so to me, deceleration can be both used to centralize power and to decentralize it and the same with acceleration. So sometimes using them a little bit synonymously or not synonymously, but that there’s, one is going to lead to the other. And I just would like to ask you about, is there a place of creating a fault tolerant, diverse development of AI that also considers the dangers of AI? And AI, we can generalize to technology in general, is, should we just grow, build, unrestricted as quickly as possible, because that’s what the universe really wants us to do? Or is there a place to where we can consider dangers and actually deliberate sort of a wise strategic optimism versus reckless optimism?
Guillaume Verdon
(00:36:57)
I think we get painted as reckless, trying to go as fast as possible. I mean, the reality is that whoever deploys an AI system is liable for or should be liable for what it does. And so if the organization or person deploying an AI system does something terrible, they’re liable. And ultimately the thesis is that the market will positively select for AIs that are more reliable, more safe and tend to be aligned, they do what you want them to do, right. Because customers, if they’re reliable for the product they put out that uses this AI, they won’t want to buy AI products that are unreliable, right. So we’re actually for reliability engineering, we just think that the market is much more efficient at achieving this sort of reliability optimum than sort of heavy-handed regulations that are written by the incumbents and in a subversive fashion, serves them to achieve regulatory capture.

AI dangers

Lex Fridman
(00:38:18)
So to you, safe AI development will be achieved through market forces versus through, like you said, heavy-handed government regulation. There’s a report from last month, I have a million questions here, from Yoshua Bengio, Geoff Hinton and many others, it’s titled, “Managing AI Risk in an Era of Rapid Progress.” So there is a collection of folks who are very worried about too rapid development of AI without considering AI risk and they have a bunch of practical recommendations. Maybe I can give you four and you see if you like any of them.
Guillaume Verdon
(00:38:58)
Sure.
Lex Fridman
(00:38:58)
So, “Give independent auditors access to AI labs,” one. Two, “Governments and companies allocate one third of their AI research and development funding to AI safety,” sort of this general concept of AI safety. Three, “AI companies are required to adopt safety measures if dangerous capabilities are found in their models.” And then four, something you kind of mentioned, “Making tech companies liable for foreseeable and preventable harms from their AI systems.” So independent auditors, governments and companies are forced to spend a significant fraction of their funding on safety, you got to have safety measures if shit goes really wrong and liability-
Guillaume Verdon
(00:39:43)
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(00:39:43)
Companies are liable. Any of that seem like something you would agree with?
Guillaume Verdon
(00:39:47)
I would say that just arbitrarily saying 30% seems very arbitrary. I think organizations would allocate whatever budget is needed to achieve the sort of reliability they need to achieve to perform in the market. And I think third party auditing firms would naturally pop up, because how would customers know that your product is certified reliable, right? They need to see some benchmarks and those need to be done by a third party. The thing I would oppose, and the thing I’m seeing that’s really worrisome is, there’s this sort of weird sort of correlated interest between the incumbents, the big players and the government. And if the two get too close, we open the door for some sort of government backed AI cartel that could have absolute power over the people. If they have the monopoly together on AI and nobody else has access to AI, then there’s a huge power in gradient there.

(00:40:54)
And even if you like our current leaders, right, I think that some of the leaders in big tech today are good people, you set up that centralized power structure, it becomes a target. Right, just like we saw at OpenAI, it becomes a market leader, has a lot of the power and now it becomes a target for those that want to co-opt it. And so I just want separation of AI and state, some might argue in the opposite direction like, “Hey, we need to close down AI, keep it behind closed doors, because of geopolitical competition with our adversaries.” I think that the strength of America is its variance, is its adaptability, its dynamism, and we need to maintain that at all costs. It’s our free market capitalism, converges on technologies of high utility much faster than centralized control. And if we let go of that, we let go of our main advantage over our near peer competitors.

Building AGI

Lex Fridman
(00:42:01)
So if AGI turns out to be a really powerful technology or even the technologies that lead up to AGI, what’s your view on the sort of natural centralization that happens when large companies dominate the market? Basically formation of monopolies like the takeoff, whichever company really takes a big leap in development and doesn’t reveal intuitively, implicitly or explicitly, the secrets of the magic sauce, they can just run away with it. Is that a worry?
Guillaume Verdon
(00:42:35)
I don’t know if I believe in fast takeoff, I don’t think there’s a hyperbolic singularity, right? A hyperbolic singularity would be achieved on a finite time horizon. I think it’s just one big exponential and the reason we have an exponential is that we have more people, more resources, more intelligence being applied to advancing this science and the research and development. And the more successful it is, the more value it’s adding to society, the more resources we put in and that sort of, similar to Moore’s law, is a compounding exponential.

(00:43:09)
I think the priority to me is to maintain a near equilibrium of capabilities. We’ve been fighting for open source AI to be more prevalent and championed by many organizations because there you sort of equilibrate the alpha relative to the market of Ais, right. So if the leading companies have a certain level of capabilities and open source and truly open AI, trails not too far behind, I think you avoid such a scenario where a market leader has so much market power, just dominates everything and runs away. And so to us that’s the path forward, is to make sure that every hacker out there, every grad student, every kid in their mom’s basement has access to AI systems, can understand how to work with them and can contribute to the search over the hyperparameter space of how to engineer the systems, right. If you think of our collective research as a civilization, it’s really a search algorithm and the more points we have in the search algorithm in this point cloud, the more we’ll be able to explore new modes of thinking, right.
Lex Fridman
(00:44:31)
Yeah, but it feels like a delicate balance, because we don’t understand exactly what it takes to build AGI and what it will look like when we build it. And so far, like you said, it seems like a lot of different parties are able to make progress, so when OpenAI has a big leap, other companies are able to step up, big and small companies in different ways. But if you look at something like nuclear weapons, you’ve spoken about the Manhattan Project, there could be really like a technological and engineering barriers that prevent the guy or gal in her mom’s basement to make progress. And it seems like the transition to that kind of world where only one player can develop AGI is possible, so it’s not entirely impossible, even though the current state of things seems to be optimistic.
Guillaume Verdon
(00:45:26)
That’s what we’re trying to avoid. To me, I think another point of failure is the centralization of the supply chains for the hardware.
Lex Fridman
(00:45:34)
Right.
Guillaume Verdon
(00:45:35)
Yeah. Nvidia is just the dominant player, AMD’s trailing behind and then we have TSMC is the main fab in Taiwan, which geopolitically sensitive and then we have ASML, which is the maker of the extreme ultraviolet lithography machines. Attacking or monopolizing or co-opting any one point in that chain, you kind of capture the space and so what I’m trying to do is sort of explode the variance of possible ways to do AI and hardware by fundamentally re-imagining how you embed AI algorithms into the physical world. And in general, by the way, I dislike the term AGI, Artificial General Intelligence. I think it’s very anthropocentric that we call a human-like or human-level AI, Artificial General Intelligence, right. I’ve spent my career so far exploring notions of intelligence that no biological brain could achieve for an quantum form of intelligence, right. Grokking systems that have multipartite quantum entanglement that you can provably not represent efficiently on a classical computer or a classical deep learning representation and hence any sort of biological brain.

(00:47:06)
And so, already I’ve spent my career sort of exploring the wider space of intelligences and I think that space of intelligence inspired by physics rather than the human brain is very large. And I think we’re going through a moment right now similar to when we went from Geocentrism to Heliocentrism, right. But for intelligence, we realized that human intelligence is just a point in a very large space of potential intelligences. And it’s both humbling for humanity, it’s a bit scary, right? That we’re not at the center of this space, but we made that realization for astronomy and we’ve survived and we’ve achieved technologies. By indexing to reality, we’ve achieved technologies that ensure our wellbeing, for example, we have satellites monitoring solar flares, right, that give us a warning. And so similarly I think by letting go of this anthropomorphic, anthropocentric anchor for AI, we’ll be able to explore the wider space of intelligences that can really be a massive benefit to our wellbeing and the advancement of civilization.
Lex Fridman
(00:48:32)
And still we’re able to see the beauty and meaning in the human experience even though we’re no longer in our best understanding of the world at the center of it.
Guillaume Verdon
(00:48:42)
I think there’s a lot of beauty in the universe, right. I think life itself, civilization, this Homo Techno, capital mimetic machine that we all live in, right. So you have humans, technology, capital, memes, everything is coupled to one another, everything induces selective pressure on one another. And it’s a beautiful machine that has created us, has created the technology we’re using to speak today to the audience, capture our speech here, the technology we use to augment ourselves every day, we have our phones. I think the system is beautiful and the principle that induces this sort of adaptability and convergence on optimal technologies, ideas and so on, it’s a beautiful principle that we’re part of.

(00:49:37)
And I think part of EAC is to appreciate this principle in a way that’s not just centered on humanity, but kind of broader, appreciate life, the preciousness of consciousness in our universe. And because we cherish this beautiful state of matter we’re in, we got to feel a responsibility to scale it in order to preserve it, because the options are to grow or die.

Merging with AI

Lex Fridman
(00:50:13)
So if it turns out that the beauty that is consciousness in the universe is bigger than just humans, the AI can carry that same flame forward. Does it scare you, are you concerned that AI will replace humans?
Guillaume Verdon
(00:50:32)
So during my career, I had a moment where I realized that maybe we need to offload to machines to truly understand the universe around us, right, instead of just having humans with pen and paper solve it all. And to me that sort of process of letting go of a bit of agency gave us way more leverage to understand the world around us. A quantum computer is much better than a human to understand matter at the Nanoscale. Similarly, I think that humanity has a choice, do we accept the opportunity to have intellectual and operational leverage that AI will unlock and thus ensure that we’re taken along this path of growth in the scope and scale of civilization? We may dilute ourselves, right? There might be a lot of workers that are AI, but overall out of our own self-interest, by combining and augmenting ourselves with AI, we’re going to achieve much higher growth and much more prosperity, right.

(00:51:49)
To me, I think that the most likely future is one where humans augment themselves with AI. I think we’re already on this path to augmentation, we have phones we use for communication, we have on ourselves at all times. We have wearables, soon that have shared perception with us, right, like the Humane AI Pin or I mean, technically your Tesla car has shared perception. And so if you have shared experience, shared context, you communicate with one another and you have some sort of IO, really it’s an extension of yourself.And to me, I think that humanity augmenting itself with AI and having AI that is not anchored to anything biological, both will coexist. And the way to align the parties, we already have a sort of mechanism to align super intelligences that are made of humans and technology, right? Companies are sort of large mixture of expert models, where we have neural routing of tasks within a company and we have ways of economic exchange to align these behemoths.

(00:53:10)
And to me, I think capitalism is the way, and I do think that whatever configuration of matter or information leads to maximal growth, will be where we converge, just from like physical principles. And so we can either align ourselves to that reality and join the acceleration up in scope and scale of civilization or we can get left behind and try to decelerate and move back in the forest, let go of technology and return to our primitive state. And those are the two paths forward, at least to me.
Lex Fridman
(00:53:54)
But there’s a philosophical question whether there’s a limit to the human capacity to align. So let me bring it up as a form of argument, this guy named Dan Hendrycks and he wrote that he agrees with you that AI development could be viewed as an evolutionary process, but to him, to Dan, this is not a good thing, as he argues that natural selection favors AIs over humans and this could lead to human extinction. What do you think, if it is an evolutionary process and AI systems may have no need for humans?
Guillaume Verdon
(00:54:36)
I do think that we’re actually inducing an evolutionary process on the space of AIs through the market, right. Right now we run AIs that have positive utility to humans and that induces a selective pressure, if you consider a neural net being alive when there’s an API running instances of it on GPUs.
Lex Fridman
(00:55:01)
Yeah.
Guillaume Verdon
(00:55:01)
Right. And which APIs get run? The ones that have high utility to us, right. So similar to how we domesticated wolves and turned them into dogs that are very clear in their expression, they’re very aligned, right. I think there’s going to be an opportunity to steer AI and achieve highly aligned AI. And I think that humans plus AI is a very powerful combination and it’s not clear to me that pure AI would select out that combination.
Lex Fridman
(00:55:40)
So the humans are creating the selection pressure right now to create AIs that are aligned to humans, but given how AI develops and how quickly it can grow and scale, to me, one of the concerns is unintended consequences, like humans are not able to anticipate all the consequences of this process. The scale of damage that could be done through unintended consequences with AI systems is very large.
Guillaume Verdon
(00:56:10)
The scale of the upside.
Lex Fridman
(00:56:12)
Yes.
Guillaume Verdon
(00:56:13)
Right?
Lex Fridman
(00:56:13)
Guess it’s-
Guillaume Verdon
(00:56:14)
By augmenting ourselves with AI is unimaginable right now. The opportunity cost, we’re at a fork in the road, right? Whether we take the path of creating these technologies, augment ourselves and get to climb up the Kardashev Scale, become multi-planetary with the aid of AI, or we have a hard cutoff of like we don’t birth these technologies at all and then we leave all the potential upside on the table.
Lex Fridman
(00:56:42)
Yeah.
Guillaume Verdon
(00:56:42)
Right. And to me, out of responsibility to the future humans we could carry, with higher carrying capacity by scaling up civilization. Out of responsibility to those humans, I think we have to make the greater grander future happen.
Lex Fridman
(00:56:58)
Is there a middle ground between cutoff and all systems go? Is there some argument for caution?
Guillaume Verdon
(00:57:06)
I think, like I said, the market will exhibit caution. Every organism, company, consumer is acting out of self-interest and they won’t assign capital to things that have negative utility to them.
Lex Fridman
(00:57:21)
The problem is with the market is, there’s not always perfect information, there’s manipulation, there’s bad faith actors that mess with the system. It’s not always a rational and honest system.
Guillaume Verdon
(00:57:41)
Well, that’s why we need freedom of information, freedom of speech and freedom of thought in order to be able to converge on the subspace of technologies that have positive utility for us all, right.

p(doom)

Lex Fridman
(00:57:56)
Well let me ask you about p(doom), probability of doom. That’s just fun to say, but not fun to experience. What is to you the probability that AI eventually kills all or most humans, also known as probability of doom?
Guillaume Verdon
(00:58:16)
I’m not a fan of that calculation, I think people just throw numbers out there and it’s a very sloppy calculation, right? To calculate a probability, let’s say you model the world as some sort of Markov process, if you have enough variables or hidden Markov process. You need to do a stochastic path integral through the space of all possible futures, not just the futures that your brain naturally steers towards, right. I think that the estimators of p(doom) are biased because of our biology, right? We’ve evolved to have bias sampling towards negative futures that are scary, because that was an evolutionary optimum, right. And so people that are of, let’s say higher neuroticism will just think of negative futures where everything goes wrong all day every day and claim that they’re doing unbiased sampling. And in a sense they’re not normalizing for the space of all possibilities and the space of all possibilities is super exponentially large and it’s very hard to have this estimate.

(00:59:40)
And in general, I don’t think that we can predict the future with that much granularity because of chaos, right? If you have a complex system, you have some uncertainty and a couple of variables, if you let time evolve, you have this concept of a Lyapunov exponent, right. A bit of fuzz becomes a lot of fuzz in our estimate, exponentially so, over time. And I think we need to show some humility that we can’t actually predict the future, the only prior we have is the laws of physics, and that’s what we’re arguing for. The laws of physics say the system will want to grow and subsystems that are optimized for growth and replication are more likely in the future. And so we should aim to maximize our current mutual information with the future and the path towards that is for us to accelerate rather than decelerate.

(01:00:40)
So I don’t have a p(doom), because I think that similar to the quantum supremacy experiment at Google, I was in the room when they were running the simulations for that. That was an example of a quantum chaotic system where you cannot even estimate probabilities of certain outcomes with even the biggest supercomputer in the world, right. So that’s an example of chaos and I think the system is far too chaotic for anybody to have an accurate estimate of the likelihood of certain futures. If they were that good, I think they would be very rich trading on the stock market.
Lex Fridman
(01:01:23)
But nevertheless, it’s true that humans are biased, grounded in our evolutionary biology, scared of everything that can kill us, but we can still imagine different trajectories that can kill us. We don’t know all the other ones that don’t necessarily, but it’s still I think, useful combined with some basic intuition grounded in human history, to reason about like what… Like looking at geopolitics, looking at basics of human nature, how can powerful technology hurt a lot of people? It just seems grounded in that, looking at nuclear weapons, you can start to estimate p(doom) maybe in a more philosophical sense, not a mathematical one. Philosophical meaning like is there a chance? Does human nature tend towards that or not?
Guillaume Verdon
(01:02:25)
I think to me, one of the biggest existential risks would be the concentration of the power of AI in the hands of the very few, especially if it’s a mix between the companies that control the flow of information and the government. Because that could set things up for a sort of dystopian future where only a very few and an oligopoly in the government have AI and they could even convince the public that AI never existed. And that opens up sort of these scenarios for authoritarian centralized control, which to me is the darkest timeline. And the reality is that we have a data-driven prior of these things happening, right. When you give too much power, when you centralize power too much, humans do horrible things, right.

(01:03:23)
And to me, that has a much higher likelihood in my Bayesian inference than Sci-Fi based priors, right, like, “My prior came from the Terminator movie.” And so when I talked to these AI doomers, I just ask them to trace a path through this Markov chain of events that would lead to our doom and to actually give me a good probability for each transition. And very often there’s a unphysical or highly unlikely transition in that chain, right. But of course, we’re wired to fear things and we’re wired to respond to danger, and we’re wired to deem the unknown to be dangerous, because that’s a good heuristic for survival, right. But there’s much more to lose out of fear. We have so much to lose, so much upside to lose by preemptively stopping the positive futures from happening out of fear. And so I think that we shouldn’t give into fear, fear is the mind killer, I think it’s also the civilization killer.
Lex Fridman
(01:04:43)
We can still think about the various ways things go wrong, for example, the founding fathers of the United States thought about human nature and that’s why there’s a discussion about the freedoms that are necessary. They really deeply deliberated about that and I think the same could possibly be done for AGI. It is true that human history shows that we tend towards centralization, or at least when we achieve centralization, a lot of bad stuff happens. When there’s a dictator, a lot of dark, bad things happen. The question is, can AGI become that dictator? Can AGI when develop, become the centralizer, because of its power? Maybe because of the alignment of humans, perhaps, the same tendencies, the same Stalin like tendencies to centralize and manage centrally the allocation of resources?

(01:05:45)
And you can even see that as a compelling argument on the surface level. “Well, AGI is so much smarter, so much more efficient, so much better at allocating resources, why don’t we outsource it to the AGI?” And then eventually whatever forces that corrupt the human mind with power could do the same for AGI. It’ll just say, “Well, humans are dispensable, we’ll get rid of them.” Do the Jonathan Swift, Modest Proposal from a few centuries ago, I think the 1700s, when he satirically suggested that, I think it’s in Ireland, that the children of poor people are fed as food to the rich people and that would be a good idea, because it decreases the amount of poor people and gives extra income to the poor people. So on several accounts decreases the amount of poor people, therefore more people become rich. Of course, it misses a fundamental piece here that’s hard to put into a mathematical equation of the basic value of human life. So all of that to say, are you concerned about AGI being the very centralizer of power that you just talked about?
Guillaume Verdon
(01:07:09)
I do think that right now there’s a bias over a centralization of AI, because of a compute density and centralization of data and how we’re training models. I think over time we’re going to run out of data to scrape over the internet, and I think that, well, actually I’m working on, increasing the compute density so that compute can be everywhere and acquire information and test hypotheses in the environment in a distributed fashion. I think that fundamentally, centralized cybernetic control, so having one intelligence that is massive that fuses many sensors and is trying to perceive the world accurately, predict it accurately, predict many, many variables and control it, enact its will upon the world, I think that’s just never been the optimum, right? Like let’s say you have a company, if you have a company, I don’t know, of 10,000 people, they all report to the CEO. Even if that CEO is an AI, I think it would struggle to fuse all of the information that is coming to it and then predict the whole system and then to enact its will.

(01:08:28)
What has emerged in nature and in corporations and all sorts of systems is a notion of sort of hierarchical cybernetic control, right. In a company it would be, you have like the individual contributors, they are self-interested and they’re trying to achieve their tasks and they have a fine, in terms of time and space if you will, control loop and field of perception, right. They have their code base, let’s say you’re in a software company, they have their code base, they iterate it on it intraday, right. And then the management maybe checks in, it has a wider scope, it has, let’s say five reports, right. And then it samples each person’s update once per week, and then you can go up the chain and you have larger timescale and greater scope. And that seems to have emerged as sort of the optimal way to control systems.

(01:09:25)
And really that’s what capitalism gives us, right? You have these hierarchies and you can even have like parent companies and so on. And so that is far more fault tolerant, in quantum computing, that’s my feel that came from, we have a concept of this fault tolerance in quantum air correction, right? Quantum air correction is detecting a fault that came from noise, predicting how it’s propagated through the system and then correcting it, right, so it’s a cybernetic loop. And it turns out that decoders that are hierarchical and in each level, the hierarchy are local-
Guillaume Verdon
(01:10:00)
… that are hierarchical. And at each level, the hierarchy are local, perform the best by far, and are far more fault-tolerant. The reason is, if you have a non-local decoder, then you have one fault at this control node and the whole system crashes. Similarly to if you have one CEO that everybody reports to and that CEO goes on vacation, the whole company comes to a crawl. To me, I think that yes, we’re seeing a tendency towards centralization of AI, but I think there’s going to be a correction over time, where intelligence is going to go closer to the perception. And we’re going to break up AI into smaller subsystems that communicate with one another and form a meta system.
Lex Fridman
(01:10:56)
If you look at the hierarchies that are in the world today, there’s nations and those all hierarchical. But in relation to each other, nations are anarchic, so it’s an anarchy.
Guillaume Verdon
(01:11:06)
Mm-hmm.
Lex Fridman
(01:11:08)
Do you foresee a world like this, where there’s not a over… What’d you call it? A centralized cybernetic control?
Guillaume Verdon
(01:11:17)
Centralized locus of control. Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(01:11:21)
That’s suboptimal, you’re saying?
Guillaume Verdon
(01:11:22)
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(01:11:23)
So, it would be always a state of competition at the very top level?
Guillaume Verdon
(01:11:27)
Yeah. Yeah. Just like in a company, you may have two units working on similar technology and competing with one another, and you prune the one that performs not as well. That’s a selection process for a tree, or a product gets killed and then a whole org gets fired. This process of trying new things and shedding old things that didn’t work, it’s what gives us adaptability and helps us converge on the technologies and things to do that are most good.
Lex Fridman
(01:12:04)
I just hope there’s not a failure mode that’s unique to AGI versus humans, because you’re describing human systems mostly right now.
Guillaume Verdon
(01:12:11)
Right.
Lex Fridman
(01:12:11)
I just hope when there’s a monopoly on AGI in one company, that we’ll see the same thing we see with humans, which is, another company will spring up and start competing effectively.
Guillaume Verdon
(01:12:24)
That’s been the case so far. We have OpenAI. We have Anthropic. Now, we have xAI. We have Meta even for open source, and now we have Mistral, which is highly competitive. That’s the beauty of capitalism. You don’t have to trust any one party too much because we’re always hedging our bets at every level. There’s always competition and that’s the most beautiful thing to me, at least, is that the whole system is always shifting and always adapting.

(01:12:54)
Maintaining that dynamism is how we avoid tyranny. Making sure that everyone has access to these tools, to these models, and can contribute to the research, avoids a neural tyranny where very few people have control over AI for the world and use it to oppress those around them.

Quantum machine learning

Lex Fridman
(01:13:23)
When you were talking about intelligence, you mentioned multipartite quantum entanglement.
Guillaume Verdon
(01:13:28)
Mm-hmm.
Lex Fridman
(01:13:29)
High-level question first is, what do you think is intelligence? When you think about quantum mechanical systems and you observe some kind of computation happening in them, what do you think is intelligent about the kind of computation the universe is able to do; a small, small inkling of which is the kind of computation a human brain is able to do?
Guillaume Verdon
(01:13:52)
I would say intelligence and computation aren’t quite the same thing. I think that the universe is very much doing a quantum computation. If you had access to all the degrees of freedom and a very, very, very large quantum computer with many, many, many qubits, let’s say, a few qubits per Planck volume, which is more or less the pixels we have, then you’d be able to simulate the whole universe on a sufficiently large quantum computer, assuming you’re looking at a finite volume, of course, of the universe. I think that at least to me, intelligence is, I go back to cybernetics, the ability to perceive, predict, and control our world.

(01:14:46)
But really, nowadays, it seems like a lot of intelligence we use is more about compression. It’s about operationalizing information theory. In information theory, you have the notion of entropy of a distribution or a system, and entropy tells you that you need this many bits to encode this distribution or this subsystem, if you have the most optimal code. AI, at least the way we do it today for LLMs and for quantum, is very much trying to minimize relative entropy between our models of the world and the world, distributions from the world. We’re learning, we’re searching over the space of computations to process the world, to find that compressed representation that has distilled all the variance in noise and entropy.

(01:15:58)
Originally, I came to quantum machine learning from the study of black holes because the entropy of black holes is very interesting. In a sense, they’re physically the most dense objects in the universe. You can’t pack more information spatially any more densely than in a black hole. And so, I was wondering, how do black holes actually encode information? What is their compression code? That got me into the space of algorithms, to search over space of quantum codes. It got me actually into also, how do you acquire quantum information from the world? Something I’ve worked on, this is public now, is quantum analog digital conversion.

(01:16:50)
How do you capture information from the real world in superposition and not destroy the superposition, but digitize for a quantum mechanical computer information from the real world? If you have an ability to capture quantum information and learn representation representations of it, now you can learn compressed representations that may have some useful information in their latent representation. I think that many of the problems facing our civilization are actually beyond this complexity barrier. The greenhouse effect is a quantum mechanical effect. Chemistry is quantum mechanical. Nuclear physics is quantum mechanical.

(01:17:43)
A lot of biology and protein folding and so on is affected by quantum mechanics. And so, unlocking an ability to augment human intellect with quantum mechanical computers and quantum mechanical AI seemed to me like a fundamental capability for civilization that we needed to develop. I spent several years doing that, but over time, I grew weary of the timelines that were starting to look like nuclear fusion.
Lex Fridman
(01:18:17)
One high-level question I can ask is maybe by way of definition, by way of explanation, what is a quantum computer and what is quantum machine learning?
Guillaume Verdon
(01:18:27)
A quantum computer really is a quantum mechanical system, over which we have sufficient control, and it can maintain its quantum mechanical state. And quantum mechanics is how nature behaves at the very small scales, when things are very small or very cold, and it’s actually more fundamental than probability theory. We’re used to things being this or that, but we’re not used to thinking in superpositions because, well, our brains can’t do that. So, we have to translate the quantum mechanical world to, say, linear algebra to grok it. Unfortunately, that translation is exponentially inefficient on average. You have to represent things with very large matrices. But really, you can make a quantum computer out of many things, and we’ve seen all sorts of players, from neutral atoms, trapped ions, superconducting metal photons at different frequencies.

(01:19:38)
I think you could make a quantum computer out of many things. But to me, the thing that was really interesting was both quantum machine learning was about understanding the quantum mechanical world with quantum computers, so embedding the physical world into AI representations, and quantum computer engineering was embedding AI algorithms into the physical world. This bi-directionality of embedding physical world into AI, AI into the physical world, this symbiosis between physics and AI, really that’s the core of my quest really, even to this day, after quantum computing. It’s still in this journey to merge really physics and AI.
Lex Fridman
(01:20:29)
Quantum machine learning is a way to do machine learning on a representation of nature that stays true to the quantum mechanical aspect of nature?
Guillaume Verdon
(01:20:43)
Yeah, it’s learning quantum mechanical representations. That would be quantum deep learning. Alternatively, you can try to do classical machine learning on a quantum computer. I wouldn’t advise it because you may have some speed-ups, but very often, the speed-ups come with huge costs. Using a quantum computer is very expensive.

(01:21:08)
Why is that? Because you assume the computer is operating at zero temperature, which no physical system in the universe can achieve that temperature. What you have to do is what I’ve been mentioning, this quantum error correction process, which is really an algorithmic fridge. It’s trying to pump entropy out of the system, trying to get it closer to zero temperature. When you do the calculations of how many resources it would take to, say, do deep learning on a quantum computer, classical deep learning, there’s such a huge overhead, it’s not worth it. It’s like thinking about shipping something across a city using a rocket and going to orbit and back. It doesn’t make sense. Just use a delivery truck.
Lex Fridman
(01:21:53)
What kind of stuff can you figure out, can you predict, can you understand with quantum deep learning that you can’t with deep learning? So, incorporating quantum mechanical systems into the learning process?
Guillaume Verdon
(01:22:05)
I think that’s a great question. Fundamentally, it’s any system that has sufficient quantum mechanical correlations that are very hard to capture for classical representations. Then, there should be an advantage for a quantum mechanical representation over a purely classical one. The question is, which systems have sufficient correlations that are very quantum? But it’s also, which systems are still relevant to industry? That’s a big question. People are leaning towards chemistry, nuclear physics. I’ve worked on actually processing inputs from quantum sensors. If you have a network of quantum sensors, they’ve captured a quantum mechanical image of the world and how to post-process that, that becomes a quantum form of machine perception. For example, Fermilab has a project exploring detecting dark matter with these quantum sensors. To me, that’s in alignment with my quest to understand the universe ever since I was a child. And so, someday, I hope that we can have very large networks of quantum sensors that help us peer into the earliest parts of the universe. For example, the LIGO is a quantum sensor. It’s just a very large one. So, yeah, I would say quantum machine perception, simulations, grokking quantum simulations, similar to AlphaFold. AlphaFold understood the probability distribution over configurations of proteins. You can understand quantum distributions over configurations of electrons more efficiently with quantum machine learning.
Lex Fridman
(01:23:53)
You co-authored a paper titled A Universal Training Algorithm for Quantum Deep Learning. That involves Baqprop, with a Q. Very well done, sir. Very well done. How does it work? Is there some interesting aspects you can just mention on how Baqprop and some of these things we know for classical machine learning transfer over to the quantum machine learning?
Guillaume Verdon
(01:24:19)
Yeah. That was a funky paper. That was one of my first papers in quantum deep learning. Everybody was saying, “Oh, I think deep learning is going to be sped up by quantum computers.” I was like, ” Well, the best way to predict the future is to invent it. So, here’s a 100-page paper, have fun.” Essentially, quantum computing is usually, you embed reversible operations into a quantum computation.

(01:24:47)
The trick there was to do a feedforward operation and do what we call a phase kick. But really, it’s just a force kick. You just kick the system with a certain force that is proportional to your loss function that you wish to optimize. And then, by performing uncomputation, you start with a superposition over parameters, which is pretty funky. Now, you don’t have just a point for parameters, you have a superposition over many potential parameters. Our goal is-
Lex Fridman
(01:25:24)
Is using phase kick somehow to adjust the parameters?
Guillaume Verdon
(01:25:28)
Right. Because phase kicks emulate having the parameter space be like a particle in end dimensions, and you’re trying to get the Schrödinger equation, Schrödinger dynamics, in the lost landscape of the neural network. You do an algorithm to induce this phase kick, which involves a feedforward, a kick. And then, when you uncompute the feedforward, then all the errors in these phase kicks and these forces back- propagate and hit each one of the parameters throughout the layers.

(01:26:04)
If you alternate this with an emulation of kinetic energy, then it’s like a particle moving in end dimensions, a quantum particle. The advantage in principle would be that it can tunnel through the landscape and find new optima that would’ve been difficult for stochastic optimizers. But again, this is a theoretical thing, and in practice with at least the current architectures for quantum computers that we have planned, such algorithms would be extremely expensive to run.

Quantum computer

Lex Fridman
(01:26:41)
Maybe this is a good place to ask the difference between the different fields that you’ve had a toe in. So, mathematics, physics, engineering, and also entrepreneurship, the different layers of the stack. I think a lot of the stuff you’re talking about here is a little bit on the math side, maybe physics almost working in theory.
Guillaume Verdon
(01:27:03)
Mm-hmm.
Lex Fridman
(01:27:03)
What’s the difference between math, physics, engineering, and making a product for a quantum computing for quantum machine learning?
Guillaume Verdon
(01:27:14)
Yeah. Some of the original team for the TensorFlow Quantum project, which we started in school, at University of Waterloo, there was myself. Initially, I was a physicist, applied mathematician. We had a computer scientist, we had a mechanical engineer, and then we had a physicist. That was experimental primarily. Putting together teams that are very cross-disciplinary and figuring out how to communicate and share knowledge is really the key to doing this interdisciplinary engineering work.

(01:27:51)
There is a big difference. In mathematics, you can explore mathematics for mathematics’ sake. In physics, you’re applying mathematics to understand the world around us. And in engineering, you’re trying to hack the world. You’re trying to find how to apply the physics that I know, my knowledge of the world, to do things.
Lex Fridman
(01:28:11)
Well, in quantum computing in particular, I think there’s just a lot of limits to engineering. It just seems to be extremely hard.
Guillaume Verdon
(01:28:17)
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(01:28:18)
So, there’s a lot of value to be exploring quantum computing, quantum machine learning in theory with math. I guess one question is, why is it so hard to build a quantum computer? What’s your view of timelines in bringing these ideas to life?
Guillaume Verdon
(01:28:43)
Right. I think that an overall theme of my company is that we have folks that are… There’s a sort of exodus from quantum computing and we’re going to broader physics-based AI that is not quantum. So, that gives you a hint.
Lex Fridman
(01:29:00)
We should say the name of your company is Extropic?
Guillaume Verdon
(01:29:03)
Extropic, that’s right. We do physics-based AI, primarily based on thermodynamics, rather than quantum mechanics. But essentially, a quantum computer is very difficult to build because you have to induce this zero temperature subspace of information. The way to do that is by encoding information, you encode a code within a code, within a code, within a code. There’s a lot of redundancy needed to do this error correction, but ultimately, it’s a sort of algorithmic refrigerator, really. It’s just pumping out entropy out of the subsystem that is virtual and delocalized that represents your “logical qubits”, aka the payload quantum bits in which you actually want to run your quantum mechanical program. It’s very difficult because in order to scale up your quantum computer, you need each component to be of sufficient quality for it to be worth it. Because if you try to do this error correction, this quantum error correction process, in each quantum bit and your control over them, if it’s insufficient, it’s not worth scaling up. You’re actually adding more errors than you remove. There’s this notion of a threshold where if your quantum bits are sufficient quality in terms of your control over them, it’s actually worth scaling up. Actually, in recent years, people have been crossing the threshold and it’s starting to be worth it.

(01:30:38)
It’s just a very long slog of engineering, but ultimately, it’s really crazy to me how much exquisite level of control we have over these systems. It’s actually quite crazy. And people are crossing… They’re achieving milestones. It’s just in general, the media always gets ahead of where the technology is. There’s a bit too much hype. It’s good for fundraising, but sometimes it causes winters. It’s the hype cycle. I’m bullish on quantum computing on a 10, 15-year timescale personally, but I think there’s other quests that can be done in the meantime. I think it’s in good hands right now.
Lex Fridman
(01:31:22)
Well, let me just explore different beautiful ideas, large or small, in quantum computing that might jump out at you from memory when you co-authored a paper titled Asymptotically Limitless Quantum Energy Teleportation via Qudit Probes. Just out of curiosity, can you explain what a qudit is versus a qubit?
Guillaume Verdon
(01:31:45)
Yeah. It’s a D-state qubit.
Lex Fridman
(01:31:49)
It’s a multidimensional?
Guillaume Verdon
(01:31:50)
Multidimensional, right. It’s like, well, can you have a notion of an integer floating point that is quantum mechanical? That’s something I’ve had to think about. I think that research was a precursor to later work on quantum analog digital conversion. There was interesting because during my masters, I was trying to understand the energy and entanglement of the vacuum of emptiness. Emptiness has energy, which is very weird to say. Our equations of cosmology don’t match our calculations for the amount of quantum energy there is in the fluctuations.

(01:32:36)
I was trying to hack the energy of the vacuum, and the reality is that you can’t just directly hack it. It’s not technically free energy. Your lack of knowledge of the fluctuations means you can’t extract the energy. But just like the stock market, if you have a stock that’s correlated over time, the vacuum’s actually correlated. If you measured the vacuum at one point, you acquired information. If you communicated that information to another point, you can infer what configuration the vacuum is in to some precision and statistically extract, on average, some energy there. So, you’ve “teleported energy”.

(01:33:18)
To me, that was interesting because you could create pockets of negative-energy density, which is energy density that is below the vacuum, which is very weird because we don’t understand how the vacuum gravitates. There are theories where the vacuum or the canvas of space-time itself is really a canvas made out of quantum entanglement. I was studying how decreasing energy of vacuum locally increases quantum entanglement, which is very funky.

(01:33:58)
The thing there is that, if you’re into to weird theories about UAPs and whatnot, you could try to imagine that they’re around. And how would they propel themselves? How would they go faster than the speed of light? You would need a sort of negative energy density. To me, I gave it the old college try, trying to hack the energy of vacuum and hit the limits allowable by the laws of physics. But there’s all sorts of caveats there where you can’t extract more than you’ve put in, obviously.
Lex Fridman
(01:34:41)
But you’re saying it’s possible to teleport the energy because you can extract information one place and then make, based on that, some kind of prediction about another place?
Guillaume Verdon
(01:34:56)
Mm-hmm.
Lex Fridman
(01:34:57)
I’m not sure what to make of that.
Guillaume Verdon
(01:34:58)
Yeah, it’s allowable by the laws of physics. The reality though is that the correlations decay with distance.
Lex Fridman
(01:35:06)
Sure.
Guillaume Verdon
(01:35:06)
And so, you’re going to have to pay the price not too far away from where you extract it.

Aliens

Lex Fridman
(01:35:11)
The precision decreases in terms of your ability, but still. But since you mentioned UAPs, we talked about intelligence, and I forgot to ask, what’s your view on the other possible intelligences that are out there at the Meso scale? Do you think there’s other intelligent alien civilizations? Is that useful to think about? How often do you think about it?
Guillaume Verdon
(01:35:36)
I think it’s useful to think about. It’s useful to think about because we got to ensure we’re anti-fragile, and we’re trying to increase our capabilities as fast as possible. Because we could get disrupted. There’s no laws of physics against there being life elsewhere that could evolve and become an advanced civilization and eventually come to us. Do I think they’re here now? I’m not sure. I’ve read what most people have read on the topic.

(01:36:14)
I think it’s interesting to consider and to me, it’s a useful thought experiment to instill a sense of urgency in developing technologies and increasing our capabilities, to make sure we don’t get disrupted. Whether it’s a form of AI that disrupts us, or a foreign intelligence from a different planet. Either way, increasing our capabilities and becoming formidable as humans, I think that’s really important, so that we’re robust against whatever the universe throws at us.
Lex Fridman
(01:36:51)
But to me, it’s also an interesting challenge and thought experiment on how to perceive intelligence. This has to do with quantum mechanical systems. This has to do with any kind of system that’s not like humans. To me, the thought experiment is, say, the aliens are here or they are directly observable. We’re just too blind, too self-centered, don’t have the right sensors, or don’t have the right processing of the sensor data to see the obvious intelligence that’s all around us.
Guillaume Verdon
(01:37:26)
Well, that’s why we work on quantum sensors. They can sense gravity,
Lex Fridman
(01:37:31)
Yeah. That’s a good one, but there could be other stuff that’s not even in the currently known forces of physics.
Guillaume Verdon
(01:37:43)
Right.
Lex Fridman
(01:37:43)
There could be some other stuff. The most entertaining thought experiment to me is that it’s other stuff that’s obvious. It’s not like we lack the sensors. It’s all around us, the consciousness being one possible one. But there could be stuff that’s just obviously there. That once you know it, it’s like, “Oh, right. Right. The thing we thought is somehow emergent from the laws of physics, we understand them, is actually a fundamental part of the universe and can be incorporated in physics. Most understood.”
Guillaume Verdon
(01:38:18)
Statistically speaking, if we observed some sort of alien life, it would most likely be some sort of virally, self-replicating, von Neumann-like probe system. And it’s possible that there are such systems that, I don’t know what they’re doing at the bottom of the ocean, allegedly, but maybe they’re collecting minerals from the bottom of the ocean.
Lex Fridman
(01:38:44)
Yeah.
Guillaume Verdon
(01:38:45)
But that wouldn’t violate any of my priors. But am I certain that these systems are here? It’d be difficult for me to say so. I only have secondhand information about there being data.
Lex Fridman
(01:38:59)
About the bottom of the ocean? Yeah. But could it be things like memes? Could it be thoughts and ideas? Could they be operating at that medium? Could aliens be the very thoughts that come into my head? What’s the origin of ideas? In your mind, when an idea comes to your head, show me where it originates.
Guillaume Verdon
(01:39:25)
Frankly, when I had the idea for the type of computer I’m building now, I think it was eight years ago now, it really felt like it was being beamed from space. I was in bed, just shaking, just thinking it through. I don’t know. But do I believe that legitimately? I don’t think so. But I think that alien life could take many forms, and I think the notion of intelligence and the notion of life needs to be expanded much more broadly to be less anthropocentric or biocentric.

Quantum gravity

Lex Fridman
(01:40:04)
Just to linger a little longer on quantum mechanics, through all your explorations on quantum computing, what’s the coolest, most beautiful idea that you’ve come across that has been solved or has not yet been solved?
Guillaume Verdon
(01:40:19)
I think the journey to understand something called AdS/CFT. So, the journey to understand quantum gravity through this picture, where a hologram of lesser dimension is actually dual or exactly corresponding to a bulk theory of quantum gravity of an extra dimension, and the fact that this sort of duality comes from trying to learn deep learning-like representations of the boundary.

(01:40:59)
At least, part of my journey someday on my bucket list is to apply quantum machine learning to these sorts of systems, these CFTs, or they’re called SYK models, and learn an emergent geometry from the boundary theory. And so, we can have a form of machine learning to help us understand quantum gravity, which is still a holy grail that I would like to hit before I leave this earth.
Lex Fridman
(01:41:35)
What do you think is going on with black holes? As information-storing and processing units, what do you think is going on with black holes?
Guillaume Verdon
(01:41:46)
Black holes are really fascinating objects. They’re at the interphase between quantum mechanics and gravity, and so they help us test all sorts of ideas. I think that for many decades now, there’s been this black hole information paradox that things that fall into the black hole, we’ve seem to have lost their information. Now, I think there’s this firewall paradox that has been allegedly resolved in recent years by a former peer of mine, who’s now a professor at Berkeley. There, it seems like, as information falls into a black hole, there’s a sedimentation. As you get closer and closer to the horizon from the point of view, the observer on the outside, the object slows down infinitely as it gets closer and closer.

(01:42:46)
Everything that is falling to a black hole, from our perspective, gets sedimented and tacked on to the near horizon. At some point, it gets so close to the horizon, it’s in the proximity or the scale in which quantum effects and quantum fluctuations matter. There, that infalling matter could interfere with the traditional pictures, that it could interfere with the creation and annihilation of particles and antiparticles in the vacuum. Through this interference, one of the particles gets entangled with the infalling information and one of them is now free and escapes. That’s how there’s mutual information between the outgoing radiation and the infalling matter. But getting that calculation right, I think we’re only just starting to put the pieces together.
Lex Fridman
(01:43:43)
There’s a few pothead-like questions I want to ask you.
Guillaume Verdon
(01:43:46)
Sure.
Lex Fridman
(01:43:46)
One, does it terrify you that there’s a giant black hole at the center of our galaxy?
Guillaume Verdon
(01:43:52)
I don’t know. I just want to set up shop near it to fast-forward, meet a future civilization, if we have a limited lifetime, if you could go orbit a black hole and emerge.
Lex Fridman
(01:44:08)
If there’s a special mission that could take you to a black hole, would you volunteer to go travel?
Guillaume Verdon
(01:44:13)
To orbit and obviously not fall into it.
Lex Fridman
(01:44:15)
That’s obvious. It’s obvious to you that everything’s destroyed inside a black hole? All the information that makes up Guillaume is destroyed? Maybe on the other side, Beff Jezos emerges and it’s just all like it’s tied together in some deeply memeful way.
Guillaume Verdon
(01:44:32)
Yeah, that’s a great question. We have to answer what black holes are. Are we punching a hole through space-time and creating a pocket universe? It’s possible. Then, that would mean that if we ascend the Kardashev scale to beyond Kardashev Type III, we could engineer black holes with specific hyperparameters to transmit information to new universes we create. And so, we can have progeny that our new…
Guillaume Verdon
(01:45:00)
… have progeny that are new universes. And so even though our universe may reach a heat death, we may have a way to have a legacy. And so we don’t know yet. We need to ascend the Kardashev Scale to answer these questions to peer into that regime of higher energy physics.

Kardashev scale

Lex Fridman
(01:45:25)
And maybe you can speak to the Kardashev Scale for people who don’t know. So one of the sort of meme-like principles and goals of the e/acc movement is to ascend the Kardashev Scale. What is the Kardashev Scale and when do we want to ascend it?
Guillaume Verdon
(01:45:43)
The Kardashev Scale is a measure of our energy production and consumption. Really, it’s a logarithmic scale. Kardashev Type 1 is a milestone where we are producing the equivalent wattage to all the energy that is incident on earth from the sun. Kardashev Type II would be harnessing all the energy that is output by the sun. And I think Type III is like the whole galaxy equivalent-
Lex Fridman
(01:46:13)
Galaxy, I think [inaudible 01:46:14] yeah.
Guillaume Verdon
(01:46:15)
Yeah, and then some people have some crazy Type IV and V, but I don’t know if I believe in those. But to me, it seems like from the first principles of thermodynamics that, again, there’s this concept of thermodynamic- driven dissipative adaptation where life evolved on earth because we have this energetic drive from the sun, we have incident energy, and life evolved on earth to figure out ways to best capture that free energy to maintain itself and grow. And I think that that principle, it’s not special to our earth-sun system. We can extend life well beyond. And we kind of have a responsibility to do so because that’s the process that brought us here. So we don’t even know what it has its store for us in the future. It could be something of beauty we can’t even imagine today.

Effective accelerationism (e/acc)

Lex Fridman
(01:47:18)
So this is probably a good place to talk a bit about the e/acc movement in a Substack blog post titled, What the Fuck is e/acc? Or actually, What the F* is e/acc?, you write, “Strategically speaking, we need to work towards several overarching civilization goals that are all interdependent. And the four goals are, increase the amount of energy we can harness as a species, (climb the Kardashev gradient). In the short term, this almost certainly means nuclear fission. Increase human flourishing via pro-population growth policies and pro-economic growth policies. Create artificial general intelligence, the single greatest force multiplier in human history. And finally, develop interplanetary and interstellar transport so that humanity can spread beyond the earth. Could you build on top of that to maybe say, what to you is the e/acc movement? What are the goals? What are the principles?
Guillaume Verdon
(01:48:20)
The goal is for the human techno-capital memetic machine to become self-aware and to hyperstitiously engineer its own growth. So let’s decompress that.
Lex Fridman
(01:48:33)
Define each of those words.
Guillaume Verdon
(01:48:35)
So you have humans, you have technology, you have capital, and then you have memes, information, and all of those systems are coupled with one another. Humans work at companies, they acquire and allocate capital, and humans communicate via memes and information propagation. And our goal was to have a sort of viral optimistic movement that is aware of how the system works, fundamentally it seeks to grow, and we simply want to lean into the natural tendencies of the system to adapt for its own growth.
Lex Fridman
(01:49:18)
So in that way, you’re right, the e/acc is literally a memetic optimism virus that is constantly drifting, mutating, and propagating in a decentralized fashion. So memetic optimism virus. So you do want it to be a virus to maximize the spread, and it’s hyperstitious, therefore the optimism will incentivize its growth.
Guillaume Verdon
(01:49:43)
We see e/acc as sort of a meta-heuristic, sort of very thin cultural framework from which you can have much more opinionated forks. Fundamentally, we just say that what got us here is this adaptation of the whole system based on thermodynamics, and that process is good and we should keep it going. That is the core thesis. Everything else is, okay, how do we ensure that we maintain this malleability and adaptability. Well, clearly not suppressing variants, and maintaining free speech, freedom of thought, freedom of information propagation, and freedom to do AI research is important for us to converge the fastest on the space of technologies, ideas, and whatnot that lead to this growth. And so ultimately, there’s been quite a few forks. Some are just memes, but some are more serious. Vitalik Buterin recently made a d/acc fork. He has his own sort of fine-tunings of e/acc.
Lex Fridman
(01:50:59)
Does anything jump out to memory of the unique characteristic of that fork from Vitalik?
Guillaume Verdon
(01:51:05)
I would say that it’s trying to find a middle ground between e/acc and EA and EI safety. To me, having a movement that is opposite to what was the mainstream narrative that was taking over Silicon Valley was important to shift the dynamic range of opinions. And it’s like the balance between centralization and decentralization, the real optimum is always somewhere in the middle. But for e/acc, we’re pushing for entropy, novelty, disruption, malleability, speed, rather than being conservative, suppressing thought, suppressing speech, adding constraints, adding too many regulations, slowing things down. And so, we’re trying to bring balance to the force.
Lex Fridman
(01:52:00)
Balance to the force of human civilization.
Guillaume Verdon
(01:52:02)
It’s literally the forces of constraints versus the entropic force that makes us explore. Systems are optimal when they’re at the edge of criticality between order and chaos, between constraints, energy minimization and entropy. Systems want to equilibrate, balance these two things. I thought that the balance was lacking, and so we created this movement to bring balance.
Lex Fridman
(01:52:31)
Well, I like the visual of the landscape of ideas evolving through forks. So on the other part of history, thinking of Marxism as the original repository, and then Soviet Communism is a fork of that, and then the Maoism is a fork of Marxism and Communism. And so those are all forks. They’re exploring different ideas.
Guillaume Verdon
(01:53:02)
Thinking of culture almost like code. Nowadays, what you prompt in the LLM or what you put in the constitution of an LLM is basically its cultural framework, what it believes. And you can share it on GitHub nowadays. So trying to take inspiration from what has worked in this machine of software to adapt over the space of code, could we apply that to culture? And our goal is to not say, “You should live your life this way, X, Y, Z,” it’s to set up a process where people are always searching over subcultures and competing for mind share. I think creating this malleability of culture is super important for us to converge onto the cultures and the heuristics about how to live one’s life that are updated to modern times.

(01:53:59)
Because there’s really been a sort of vacuum of spirituality and culture. People don’t feel like they belong to any one group, and there’s been parasitic ideologies that have taken up opportunity to populate this Petri dish of minds. Elon calls it the mind virus. We call it the decel mind virus complex, which is the decelerative that is kind of the overall pattern between all of them. There’s many variants as well. And so if there’s a sort of viral pessimism, decelerative movement, we needed to have not only one movement, but many, many variants, so it’s very hard to pinpoint and stop.
Lex Fridman
(01:54:45)
But the overarching thing is nevertheless a kind of mimetic optimism pandemic. Okay, let me ask you, do you think e/acc to some degree is a cult?
Guillaume Verdon
(01:55:01)
Define cult?
Lex Fridman
(01:55:03)
I think a lot of human progress is made when you have independent thought, so you have individuals that are able to think freely. And very powerful mimetic systems can kind of lead to group think. There’s something in human nature that leads to mass hypnosis, mass hysteria. We start to think alike whenever there’s a sexy idea that captures our minds. And so it’s actually hard to break us apart, pull us apart, diversify a thought. So to that degree, to which degree is everybody kind of chanting “E/acc, e/acc” like the sheep in Animal Farm?
Guillaume Verdon
(01:55:46)
Well, first of all, it’s fun. It’s rebellious. There’s this concept of meta-irony, of being on the boundary of, “We’re not sure if they’re serious or not.” And it’s much more playful and much more fun. For example, we talk about thermodynamics being our god, and sometimes we do cult-like things, but there’s no ceremony and robes and whatnot.
Lex Fridman
(01:56:19)
Not yet.
Guillaume Verdon
(01:56:19)
Not yet, no. But ultimately, yeah, I totally agree that it seems to me that humans want to feel like they’re part of a group, so they naturally try to agree with their neighbors and find common ground. And that leads to sort of mode collapse in the space of ideas. We used to have one cultural island that was allowed. It was a typical subspace of thought, and anything that was diverting from that subspace of thought was suppressed or you were canceled. Now we’ve created a new mode, but the whole point is that we’re not trying to have a very restricted space of thought. There’s not just one way to think about e/acc and its many forks. And the point is that there are many forks and there can be many clusters and many islands.

(01:57:07)
And I shouldn’t be in control of it in any way. I mean, there’s no formal org whatsoever. I just put out tweets and certain blog posts, and people are free to defect and fork if there’s an aspect they don’t like. And so that makes it so that there should be deterritorialization in the space of ideas, so that we don’t end up in one cluster that’s very cult-like. And so cults usually, they don’t allow people to defect or start competing forks, whereas we encourage it.

Humor and memes

Lex Fridman
(01:57:51)
The pros and cons of humor in meme, in some sense there’s like a wisdom to memes. What is it, the Magic Theater? What book is that from? Hermann Hesse. Steppenwolf, I think. But there’s a kind of embracing of the absurdity that seems to get to the truth of things, but at the same time, it can also decrease the quality and the rigor of the discourse.
Guillaume Verdon
(01:58:22)
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(01:58:23)
Do you feel the tension of that?
Guillaume Verdon
(01:58:25)
Yeah. So initially, I think what allowed us to grow under the radar was because it was camouflaged as sort of meta-ironic. We would sneak in deep truths within a package of humor and memes and what are called shit posts, and I think that was purposefully camouflaged against those that seek status and do not want to… It’s very hard to argue with a cartoon frog or a cartoon of an intergalactic Jeff Bezos and take yourself seriously, and so that allowed us to grow pretty rapidly in the early days. But of course, essentially people get steered. Their notion of the truth comes from the data they see, from the information they’re fed, and the information people are fed is determined by algorithms. And really what we’ve been doing is engineering what we call high memetic fitness packets of information, so that they can spread effectively and carry a message.

(01:59:47)
So it’s kind of a vector to spread the message. And yes, we’ve been using techniques that are optimal for today’s algorithmically-amplified information landscapes. But I think we’re reaching the point of scale where we can have serious debates and serious conversations. And that’s why we’re considering doing a bunch of debates and having more serious long-form discussions. Because I don’t think that the timeline is optimal for very serious, thoughtful discussions. You get rewarded for polarization. And so even though we started a movement that is literally trying to polarize the tech ecosystem, at the end of the day so that we can have a conversation and find an optimum together.

Jeff Bezos

Lex Fridman
(02:00:42)
I mean, that’s kind of what I try to do with this podcast given the landscape of things, to still have long-form conversations. But there is a degree to which absurdity is fully embraced. In fact, this very conversation is multi-level absurd. So first of all, I should say that just very recently I had a conversation with Jeff Bezos, and I would love to hear your, Beff Jezos, opinions of Jeff Bezos. Speaking of intergalactic Jeff Bezos. What do you think of that particular individual whom your name has inspired?
Guillaume Verdon
(02:01:25)
Yeah, I think Jeff is really great. I mean, he’s built one of the most epic companies of all time. He’s leveraged the techno-capital machine and techno-capital acceleration to give us what we wanted. We want a quick delivery, very convenient, at-home, low prices. He understood how the machine worked and how to harness it, like running the company, not trying to take profits too early, putting it back, letting the system compound and keep improving. And arguably, I think Amazon’s invested some of the most amount of capital and robotics out there, and certainly with the birth of AWS, kind of enabled the tech boom we’ve seen today that has paid the salaries of, I guess myself and all of our friends to some extent. And so I think we can all be grateful to Jeff, and he’s one of the great entrepreneurs out there. one of the best of all time, unarguably.
Lex Fridman
(02:02:32)
And of course, the work at Blue Origin, similar to the work at SpaceX, is trying to make humans a multi-planetary species, which that seems almost like a bigger thing than the capitalist machine. Or it’s the capitalist machine at a different timescale perhaps?
Guillaume Verdon
(02:02:47)
Yeah, I think that companies, they tend to optimize quarter over quarter, maybe a few years out, but individuals that want to leave a legacy can think on a multi-decadal or multi-century timescale. And so the fact that some individuals are such good capital allocators that they unlock the ability to allocate capitals to goals that take us much further or are much further-looking… Elon’s doing this with SpaceX, putting all this capital towards getting us to Mars. Jeff is trying to build Blue Origin, and I think he wants to build O’Neill cylinders and get industry off- planet, which I think is brilliant.

(02:03:33)
I think just overall, I’m four billionaires. I know this is a controversial statement sometimes, but I think that in a sense it’s kind of a proof of stake voting. If you’ve allocated capital efficiently, you unlock more capital to allocate, just because clearly you know how to allocate capital more efficiently. Which is in contrast to politicians that get elected because they speak the best on TV, not because they have a proven track record of allocating taxpayer capital most efficiently. And so that’s why I’m for capitalism over, say, giving all our money to the government and letting them figure out how to allocate it.
Lex Fridman
(02:04:20)
Why do you think it’s a viral and it’s a popular meme to criticize billionaires? Since you mentioned billionaires. Why do you think there’s quite a widespread criticism of people with wealth, especially those in the public eye, like Jeff and Elon and Mark Zuckerberg, and who else? Bill Gates.
Guillaume Verdon
(02:04:44)
Yeah, I think a lot of people would, instead of trying to understand how the techno-capital machine works and realizing they have much more agency than they think, they’d rather have this sort of victim mindset. “I’m just subjected to this machine. It is oppressing me. And the successful players clearly must be evil because they’ve been successful at this game that I’m not successful at.” But I’ve managed to get some people that were in that mindset and make them realize how the techno-capital machine works and how you can harness it for your own good and for the good of others. And by creating value, you capture some of the value you create for the world. That sort of positive sum mindset shift is so potent, and really, that’s what we’re trying to do by scaling e/acc, is unlocking that higher level of agency. Actually, you’re far more in control of the future than you think. You have agency to change the world, go out and do it. Here’s permission.
Lex Fridman
(02:05:46)
Each individual has agency. The motto, “Keep building” is often heard. What does that mean to you, and what does that have to do with Diet Coke? By the way, thank you so much for the Red Bull. It’s working pretty well. I’m feeling pretty good.
Guillaume Verdon
(02:06:03)
Awesome. Well, so building technologies and building… It doesn’t have to be technologies, just building in general means having agency, trying to change the world by creating, let’s say a company which is a self-sustaining organism that accomplishes a function in the broader techno-capital machine. To us, that’s the way to achieve change in the world that you’d like to see, rather than, say, pressuring politicians or creating nonprofits. Nonprofits, once they run out of money, their function can longer be accomplished. You’re kind of deforming the market artificially compared to sort of subverting or coursing the market, or dancing with the market, to convince it that actually this function is important, adds value, and here it is. And so I think this is the way between the de-growth, ESG approach, versus, say, Elon. The de-growth approach is like, “We’re going to manage our way out of a climate crisis.” And Elon is like, “I’m going to build a company that is self-sustaining, profitable, and growing, and we’re going to innovate our way out of this dilemma.” And we’re trying to get people to do the latter rather than the former, at all scales.

Elon Musk

Lex Fridman
(02:07:26)
Elon is an interesting case. You are a proponent, you celebrate Elon, but he’s also somebody who has for a long time warned about the dangers, the potential dangers, existential risks of artificial intelligence. How do you square the two? Is that a contradiction to you?
Guillaume Verdon
(02:07:45)
It is somewhat because he’s very much against regulation in many aspects. But for AI, he’s definitely a proponent of regulations. I think overall he saw the dangers of, say, OpenAI cornering the market and then getting to have the monopoly over the cultural priors that you can embed in these LLMs that then, as LLMs now become the source of truth for people, then you can shape the culture of the people. And so you can control people by controlling LLMs. He saw that, just like it was the case for social media, if you shape the function of information propagation, you can shape people’s opinions. He sought to make a competitor. So at least, I think we’re very aligned there, that the way to a good future is to maintain adversarial equilibria between the various AI players. I’d love to talk to him to understand his thinking about how to advance AI going forwards. I mean, he’s also hedging his bets, I would say, with Neuralink. I think if he can’t stop the progress of AI, he’s building the technology to merge. Look at the actions, not just the words.
Lex Fridman
(02:09:10)
Well, there’s some degree where being concerned… Maybe using human psychology, being concerned about threats all around us is a motivator. It’s an encouraging thing. I operate much better when there’s a deadline. The fear of the deadline. And I, for myself, create artificial things, like I want to create in myself this kind of anxiety as if something really horrible will happen if I miss the deadline. I think there’s some degree of that here, because creating AI that’s aligned with humans has a lot of potential benefits. And so a different way to reframe that is, “If you don’t, we’re all going to die.” It just seems to be a very powerful psychological formulation of the goal of creating human-aligned AI.
Guillaume Verdon
(02:09:59)
I think that anxiety is good. I think, like I said, I want the free market to create aligned AIs that are reliable, and I think that’s what he’s trying to do with xAI. So I’m all for it. What I am against is stopping, let’s say the OpenSource ecosystem from thriving by, let’s say in the executive order, claiming that OpenSource LMs are dual-use technologies and should be government controlled. Then everybody needs to register their GPU and their big matrices with the government. And I think that extra friction will dissuade a lot of hackers from contributing, hackers that could later become the researchers that make key discoveries that push us forward, including discoveries for AI safety. And so I think I just want to maintain ubiquity of opportunity to contribute to AI and to own a piece of the future. It can’t just be legislated behind some wall where only a few players get to play the game.
Lex Fridman
(02:11:08)
The e/acc movement is often caricatured to mean progress and innovation at all costs. Doesn’t matter how unsafe it is, doesn’t matter if it causes a lot of damage. You just build cool shit as fast as possible, stay up all night with a Diet Coke, whatever it takes. I guess, I don’t know if there’s a question in there, but how important to you and what you’ve seen the different formulations of e/acc, is AI safety?
Guillaume Verdon
(02:11:44)
Again, I think if there was no one working on it, I think I would be a proponent of it. I think, again, our goal is to bring balance, and obviously a sense of urgency is a useful tool to make progress. It hacks our dopaminergic systems and gives us energy to work late into the night. I think also having a higher purpose you’re contributing to. At the end of the day, it’s like, what am I contributing to? I’m contributing to the growth of this beautiful machine so that we can seek to the stars. That’s really inspiring. That’s also a sort of neuro hack.
Lex Fridman
(02:12:26)
So you’re saying AI safety is important to you, but right now the landscape of ideas you see is, AI safety as a topic is used more often to gain centralized control. So in that sense, you’re resisting it, as a proxy for gaining centralized control?
Guillaume Verdon
(02:12:43)
Yeah, I just think we have to be careful, because safety is just the perfect cover for centralization of power and covering up eventually corruption. I’m not saying it’s corrupted now, but it could be down the line. And really, if you let the argument run, there’s no amount of centralization of control that will be enough to ensure your safety. There’s always more 999s of P safety that you can gain, 99.9999% safe. Maybe you want another nine. “Oh, please give us full access to everything you do. Full surveillance.” And frankly, those that are proponents of AI safety have proposed having a global panopticon where you have centralized perception of everything going on. And to me, that just opens up the door wide open for a big brother, 1984-like scenario. And that’s not a future I want to live in.
Lex Fridman
(02:13:49)
Because we have some examples throughout history when that did not lead to a good outcome.

Extropic

Guillaume Verdon
(02:13:54)
Right.
Lex Fridman
(02:13:56)
You mentioned you founded a company, Extropic, that recently announced a 14.1 million seed round. What’s the goal of the company? You’re talking about a lot of interesting physics things, so what are you up to over there that you can talk about?
Guillaume Verdon
(02:14:12)
Yeah, originally we weren’t going to announce last week, but I think with the doxing and disclosure, we got our hand forced. So we had to disclose roughly what we were doing. But really, Extropic was born from my dissatisfaction, and that of my colleagues, with the quantum computing roadmap. Quantum computing was sort of the first path to physics-based computing that was trying to commercially scale, and I was working on physics-based AI that runs on these physics-based computers. But ultimately, our greatest enemy was this noise, this pervasive problem of noise that, as I mentioned, you have to constantly pump out the noise out of the system to maintain this pristine environment where quantum mechanics can take effect. And that constraint was just too much. It’s too costly to do that.

(02:15:11)
And so we were wondering, as generative AI is sort of eating the world, more and more of the world’s computational workloads are focused on generative AI, how could we use physics to engineer the ultimate physical substrate for generative AI from first principles of physics, of information theory, of computation, and ultimately of thermodynamics? And so what we’re seeking to build is a physics-based computing system and physics-based AI algorithms that are inspired by out-of-equilibrium thermodynamics, or harness it directly to do machine learning as a physical process.
Lex Fridman
(02:16:01)
So what does that mean, machine learning as a physical process? Is that hardware? Is it software? Is it both? Is it trying to do the full stack in some kind of unique way?
Guillaume Verdon
(02:16:10)
Yes, it is full stack. And so we’re folks that have built differentiable programming into the quantum computing ecosystem with TensorFlow Quantum. One of my co-founders of TensorFlow Quantum is the CTO, Trevor McCourt. We have some of the best quantum computer architects, those that have designed IBM’s and AWS’s systems. They’ve left quantum computing to help us build what we call actually a thermodynamic computer.
Lex Fridman
(02:16:43)
A thermodynamic computer. Well, actually let’s linger around TensorFlow Quantum. What lessons have you learned from TensorFlow Quantum? Maybe you can speak to what it takes to create essentially, what, like a software API to a quantum computer?
Guillaume Verdon
(02:17:01)
Right. That was a challenge to invent, to build, and then to get to run on the real devices.
Lex Fridman
(02:17:09)
Can you actually speak to what it is?
Guillaume Verdon
(02:17:11)
Yeah. TensorFlow Quantum was an attempt at… Well, I guess we succeeded, at combining deep learning or differentiable classical programming with quantum computing, and turn quantum computing into or have types of programs that are differentiable in quantum computing. And Andrej Karpathy calls differentiable programming, Software 2.0. It’s like, gradient descent is a better programmer than you. And the idea was that in the early days of quantum computing, you can only run short quantum programs. And so, which quantum programs should you run? Well, just let gradient descent find those programs instead. And so we built the first infrastructure to not only run differentiable quantum programs, but combine them as part of broader deep learning graphs, incorporating deep neural networks, the ones you know and love, with what are called quantum neural networks.

(02:18:21)
And ultimately, it was a very cross-disciplinary effort. We had to invent all sorts of ways to differentiate, to back propagate through the hybrid graph. But ultimately, it taught me that the way to program matter and to program physics is by differentiating through control parameters. If you have parameters that affects the physics of the system and you can evaluate some loss function, you can optimize the system to accomplish a task, whatever that task may be. And that’s a very universal meta framework for how to program physics-based computers.
Lex Fridman
(02:19:05)
So try to parameterize everything, make those parameters differentiable, and then optimize?
Guillaume Verdon
(02:19:12)
Yes.
Lex Fridman
(02:19:13)
Okay. Is there some more practical engineering lessons from TensorFlow Quantum? Just organizationally too, like the humans involved and how to get to a product, how to create good documentation? I don’t know. All of these little subtle things that people might not think about.
Guillaume Verdon
(02:19:34)
I think working across disciplinary boundaries is always a challenge, and you have to be extremely patient in teaching one another. I learned a lot of software engineering through the process. My colleagues learned a lot of quantum physics, and some learned machine learning through the process of building this system. And I think if you get some smart people that are passionate and trust each other in a room, and you have a small team-
Guillaume Verdon
(02:20:00)
Are passionate and trust each other in a room, and you have a small team, and you teach each other your specialties, suddenly you’re kind of forming this sort of model soup of expertise, and something special comes out of that, right? It’s like combining genes, but for your knowledge bases, and sometimes special products come out of that. And so I think, even though it’s very high friction initially to work in an interdisciplinary team, I think the product at the end of the day is worth it. And so, learned a lot trying to bridge the gap there. And I mean, it’s still a challenge to this day. We hire folks that have an AI background, folks that have a pure physics background, and somehow we have to make them talk to one another. Right?
Lex Fridman
(02:20:47)
Is there a magic, is there some science and art to the hiring process, to building a team that can create magic together?
Guillaume Verdon
(02:20:56)
Yeah, it’s really hard to pinpoint that je ne sais quoi, right?
Lex Fridman
(02:21:03)
I didn’t know you speak French. That’s very nice.
Guillaume Verdon
(02:21:07)
Yeah, I’m actually French Canadian.
Lex Fridman
(02:21:09)
Oh, you are a legitimately French Canadian.
Guillaume Verdon
(02:21:09)
I am.
Lex Fridman
(02:21:11)
I thought you were just doing that for the cred.
Guillaume Verdon
(02:21:15)
No, no. I’m truly French Canadian, from Montreal. But yeah, essentially we look for people with very high fluid intelligence that aren’t overspecialized, because they’re going to have to get out of their comfort zone. They’re going to have to incorporate concepts that they’ve never seen before, and very quickly get comfortable with them, or learn to work in a team. And so that’s sort of what we look for when we hire. We can’t hire people that are just optimizing this subsystem for the past three or four years. We need really general sort of broader intelligence and specialty, and people that are open-minded, really, because if you’re pioneering a new approach from scratch, there is no textbook, there’s no reference. It’s just us, and people that are hungry to learn. So, we have to teach each other, we have to learn the literature, we have to share knowledge bases, collaborate in order to push the boundary of knowledge further together. And so, people that are used to just getting prescribed what to do at this stage, when you’re at the pioneering stage, that’s not necessarily who you want to hire. Yeah.

Singularity and AGI

Lex Fridman
(02:22:31)
So you mentioned with Extropic you’re trying to build the physical substrate for generative AI. What’s the difference between that and the AGI AI itself? So, is it possible that in the halls of your company, AGI will be created? Or will AGI just be using this as a substrate?
Guillaume Verdon
(02:22:51)
I think our goal is to both run human like AI, or anthropomorphic AI.
Lex Fridman
(02:22:58)
Sorry for use of the term AGI. I know it’s triggering for you.
Guillaume Verdon
(02:23:02)
We think that the future is actually physics-based AI combined with anthropomorphic AI. So, you can imagine, I have a sort of world modeling engine through physics-based AI. Physics-based AI is better at representing the world at all scales, because it can be quantum mechanical, thermodynamic, deterministic, hybrid representations of the world, just like our world at different scales has different regimes of physics. If you inspire yourself from that in the ways you learn representations of nature, you can have much more accurate representations of nature. So, you can have very accurate world models at all scales. And so, you have the world modeling engine, and then you have the anthropomorphic AI that is human-like. So you can have the science, the playground to test your ideas, and you can have the synthetic scientist. And to us, that joint system of a physics-based and an anthropomorphic AI is the closest thing to a fully general, artificially intelligent system.
Lex Fridman
(02:24:07)
So you can get closer to truth by grounding of the AI to physics, but you can also still have a anthropomorphic interface to us humans that like to talk to other humans, or human-like systems. So, on that topic, I suppose that is one of the big limitations of current large language models to you, is that they’re good bullshitters, they’re not really grounded to truth necessarily. Would that be fair to say?
Guillaume Verdon
(02:24:40)
Yeah, no, you wouldn’t try to extrapolate the stock market with an LM trained on text from the internet. It’s not going to be a very accurate model. It’s not going to model its priors or its uncertainties about the world very accurately. So, you need a different type of AI to compliment this text extrapolation AI. Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(02:25:05)
You mentioned singularity earlier. How far away are we from a singularity?
Guillaume Verdon
(02:25:09)
I don’t know if I believe in a finite time singularity as a single point in time. I think it’s going to be asymptotic, and sort of a diagonal sort of asymptote. We have the light cone, we have the limits of physics restricting our ability to grow. So, obviously can’t fully diverge on a finite time. I think my priors are that I think a lot of people on the other side of the aisle think that once we reach human level AI, there’s going to be an inflection point, and a sudden [inaudible 02:25:48], suddenly AI is going to grok how to manipulate matter at the nano scale, and assemble nanobots. And having worked for nearly a decade in applying AI to engineer matter, it’s much harder than they think. And in reality, you need a lot of samples from either a simulation of nature that’s very accurate and costly, or nature itself, and that keeps your ability to control the world around us in check. There’s a sort of minimal cost computationally, and thermodynamically, to acquiring information about the world in order to be able to predict and control it. And that keeps things in check.

AI doomers

Lex Fridman
(02:26:27)
It’s funny you mentioned the other side of the aisle. So, in the poll I posted about p(doom) yesterday, what’s the probability of doom? There seems to be a nice division between people think it’s very likely, and very unlikely. I wonder if in the future there’ll be the actual Republicans versus Democrats division, blue versus red? Is the AI doomers versus the e/accers, EAC? [inaudible 02:26:53].
Guillaume Verdon
(02:26:53)
Yeah. So, this movement is not right wing or left wing fundamentally, it’s more like up versus down, in terms of the scale of-
Lex Fridman
(02:27:01)
Which one is the up? Okay.
Guillaume Verdon
(02:27:02)
… Civilization, right?
Lex Fridman
(02:27:03)
All right.
Guillaume Verdon
(02:27:05)
But, it seems to be like there is sort of case of alignment of the existing political parties, where those that are for more centralization of power, control, and more regulations are aligning themselves with the doomers, because that sort of instilling fear in people is a great way for them to give up more control, and give the government more power. But fundamentally, we’re not left versus right. I think we’ve done polls of people’s alignment within EAC. I think it’s pretty balanced. So, it’s a new fundamental issue of our time. It’s not just centralization versus decentralization. It’s kind of do we go… It’s like tech progressivism, versus techno conservatism. Right?

Effective altruism

Lex Fridman
(02:27:54)
So e/acc as a movement is often formulated in contrast to EA, effective altruism. What do you think are the pros and cons of effective altruism? What’s interesting, insightful to you about them, and what is negative?
Guillaume Verdon
(02:28:15)
Right. I think people trying to do good from first principles is good.
Lex Fridman
(02:28:23)
We should actually say, and sorry to interrupt, we should probably say that, and you can correct me if I’m wrong, but effective altruism is the kind of movement that’s trying to do good optimally, where good is probably measured something like the amount of suffering in the world. You want to minimize it. And there’s ways that that can go wrong, as any optimization can. And so, it’s interesting to explore how things can go wrong.
Guillaume Verdon
(02:28:55)
We’re both trying to do good to some extent, and we’re arguing for which loss function we should use, right?
Lex Fridman
(02:29:03)
Yes.
Guillaume Verdon
(02:29:04)
Their loss function is sort of hedons, units of hedonism. How good do you feel, and for how much time? And so, suffering would be negative hedons, and they’re trying to minimize that. But to us that seems like that loss function has sort of spurious minima, you can start minimizing shrimp farm pain, which seems not that productive to me. Or you can end up with wire heading, where you just either install a neural link, or you scroll TikTok forever, and you feel good on the short-term timescale because of your neurochemistry, but on a long-term timescale, it causes decay and death, because you’re not being productive.

(02:29:54)
Whereas sort of EAC, measuring progress of civilization, not in terms of a subjective loss function like hedonism, but rather an objective measure, quantity that cannot be gamed that is physical energy, it’s very objective, and there’s not many ways to game it. If you did it in terms of GDP, or a currency, that’s pinned to certain value that’s moving. And so, that’s not a good way to measure our progress. But the thing is we’re both trying to make progress, and ensure humanity flourishes, and gets to grow. We just have different loss functions, and different ways of going about doing it.
Lex Fridman
(02:30:42)
Is there a degree, maybe you can educate me, correct me, I get a little bit skeptical when there’s an equation involved trying to reduce all of the human civilization, human experience to an equation. Is there a degree that we should be skeptical of the tyranny of an equation of a loss function over wish to optimize? Like having a kind of intellectual humility about optimizing over loss functions?
Guillaume Verdon
(02:31:12)
Yeah. So, this particular loss function, it’s not stiff. It’s kind of an average of averages. It’s like distributions of states in the future are going to follow a certain distribution. So it’s not deterministic, it’s not like… We’re not on stiff rails. It’s just a statistical statement about the future. But at the end of the day, you can believe in gravity or not, but it’s not necessarily an option to obey it. And some people try to test that, and that goes not so well. So, similarly, I think thermodynamics is there whether we like it or not, and we’re just trying to point out what is, and try to orient ourselves, and chart a path forward given this fundamental truth.
Lex Fridman
(02:32:04)
But there’s still some uncertainty, there’s still a lack of information, and humans tend to fill the gap of the lack of information with narratives. And so, how they interpret… Even physics is up to interpretation when there’s uncertainty involved. And humans tend to use that to further their own means. So, it’s always, whenever there’s an equation, it just seems like until we have really perfect understanding of the universe, humans will do what humans do, and they try to use the narrative of doing good to fool the populace into doing bad. I guess that this is something that we should be skeptical about in all movements.
Guillaume Verdon
(02:32:57)
That’s right? So we invite skepticism. Right?
Lex Fridman
(02:33:02)
Do you have an understanding of what might, to a degree that went wrong, what do you think may have gone wrong with effective altruism that might also go wrong with effective accelerationism?
Guillaume Verdon
(02:33:15)
Yeah, I mean I think it provided initially a sense of community for engineers, and intellectuals, and rationalists in the early days, and it seems like the community was very healthy, but then they formed all sorts of organizations, and started routing capital, and having actual power. They have real power. They influence the government, they influence most AI orgs now. I mean, they’re literally controlling the board of OpenAI, and look over to Anthropic. I think they’ll have some control over that too. And so, I think the assumption of e/acc is more like capitalism, is that every agent organism and meta organism is going to act in its own interest, and we should maintain sort of adversarial equilibrium, or adversarial competition to keep each other in check at all times, at all scales. I think that yeah, ultimately, it was the perfect cover to acquire tons of power, and capital, and unfortunately sometimes that corrupts people over time.

Day in the life

Lex Fridman
(02:34:23)
What does a perfectly productive day, since building is important, what is a perfectly productive day in the life of Guillaume Verdon look like? How much caffeine do you consume? What’s a perfect day?
Guillaume Verdon
(02:34:39)
Okay, so I have a particular regimen. I would say my favorite days are 12:00 PM to 4:00 AM, and I would have meetings in the early afternoon, usually external meetings, some internal meetings. Because I’m CEO, I have to interface with the outside world, whether it’s customers, or investors, or interviewing potential candidates. And usually I’ll have ketones, exogenous ketones.
Lex Fridman
(02:35:12)
So, are you on a keto diet, or is this-
Guillaume Verdon
(02:35:16)
I’ve done keto before for football, and whatnot, but I like to have a meal after part of my day is done, and so I can just have extreme focus.
Lex Fridman
(02:35:31)
You do the social interactions earlier in the day without food.
Guillaume Verdon
(02:35:35)
Front load them, yeah. Yeah. Like right now I’m on ketones, and a Red Bull, and it just gives you a clarity of thought that is really next level. Because then when you eat, you’re actually allocating some of your energy that could be going to neural energy to your digestion. After I eat, maybe I take a break, an hour or so, an hour and a half, and then usually it’s like ideally one meal a day, like steak and eggs, and vegetables, animal-based primarily. So, fruit and meat. And then I do a second wind, usually that’s deep work, because I am A CEO, but I’m still technical. I’m contributing to most patents. And there, I’ll just stay up late into the night, and work with engineers on very technical problems.
Lex Fridman
(02:36:25)
So it’s like the 9:00 PM to 4:00 AM, whatever though, that range of time.
Guillaume Verdon
(02:36:30)
Yeah, yeah. That’s the perfect time. The emails, the things that are on fire stop trickling in, you can focus. And then you have your second wind. And I think Demis Hassabis has a similar workday to some extent. So, I think that’s definitely inspired my workday. But yeah, I started this workday when I was at Google, and had to manage a bit of the product during the day, and have meetings, and then do technical work at night.
Lex Fridman
(02:37:00)
Exercise, sleep, those kinds of things. You said football, you used to play football?
Guillaume Verdon
(02:37:06)
Yeah, I used to play American football. I’ve done all sorts of sports growing up. And then I was into powerlifting for a while. So, when I was studying mathematics in grad school, I would just do math, and lift, take caffeine, and that was my day. It was very pure, the purest of monk modes. But it’s really interesting, how in powerlifting you’re trying to cause neural adaptation by having certain driving signals, and you’re trying to engineer a neuroplasticity through all sorts of supplements, and you have all sorts of brain derived neurotrophic factors that get secreted when you lift.

(02:37:44)
So, it’s funny to me how I was trying to engineer a neural adaptation in my nervous system more broadly, not just my brain while learning mathematics. I think you can learn much faster if you really care. If you convince yourself to care a lot about what you’re learning, and you have some sort of assistance, let’s say caffeine, or some cholinergic supplement to increase neuroplasticity. I should chat with Andrew Huberman at some point. He’s the expert. But yeah, at least to me it’s like you can try to input more tokens into your brain, if you will, and you can try to increase the learning rate, so that you can learn much faster on a shorter timescale.

(02:38:30)
So, I’ve learned a lot of things. I’ve followed my curiosity. You’re naturally… If you’re passionate about what you’re doing, you’re going to learn faster, you’re going to become smarter faster. And if you follow your curiosity, you’re always going to be interested. And so, I advise people to follow their curiosity and don’t respect the boundaries of certain fields, or what you’ve been allocated in terms of lane of what you’re working on. Just go out and explore, and follow your nose, and try to acquire, and compress as much information as you can into your brain. Anything that you find interesting.
Lex Fridman
(02:39:05)
And caring about a thing. Like you said, which is interesting, it works for me really well, is tricking yourself that you care about a thing.
Guillaume Verdon
(02:39:12)
Yes.
Lex Fridman
(02:39:13)
And then you start to really care about it.
Guillaume Verdon
(02:39:15)
Yep.
Lex Fridman
(02:39:15)
So, it’s funny, the motivation is a really good catalyst for learning.
Guillaume Verdon
(02:39:22)
Right. And so, at least part of my character, as Beff Jezos is kind of like…
Lex Fridman
(02:39:29)
Yeah, hype man.
Guillaume Verdon
(02:39:30)
Yeah, but I’m hyping myself up, but then I just tweet about it, and it’s just when I’m trying to get really hyped up, and an altered state of consciousness where I’m ultra focused, in the flow, wired, trying to invent something that’s never existed, I need to get to unreal levels of excitement. But your brain has these levels of cognition that you can unlock with higher levels of adrenaline, and whatnot. And I mean, I’ve learned that in powerlifting, that actually you can engineer a mental switch to increase your strength. If you can engineer a switch, maybe you have a prompt, like a certain song or some music where suddenly you’re fully primed, then you’re at max, maximum strength. And I’ve engineered that switch through years of lifting. If you’re going to get under 500 pounds and it could crush you, if you don’t have that switch to be wired in, you might die. So, that’ll wake you right up. That sort of skill I’ve carried over to research, when it’s go time, when the stakes are high, somehow I just reach another level of neural performance.
Lex Fridman
(02:40:40)
So Beff Jezos is your sort of embodiment representation of your intellectual Hulk. It’s your productivity Hulk that you just turn on.

Identity

Guillaume Verdon
(02:40:50)
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(02:40:50)
What have you learned about the nature of identity from having these two identities? I think it’s interesting for people, to be able to put on those two hats so explicitly.
Guillaume Verdon
(02:41:01)
I think it was interesting in the early days, I think in the early days, I thought it was truly compartmentalized. Like, “Oh yeah, this is a character. I’m Guillaume. Beff is just the character.” I take my thoughts, and then I extrapolate them to a bit more extreme. But over time, it’s kind of like both identities were starting to merge mentally, and people were like, “No, I met you. You are Beff. You are not just Guillaume.” And I was like, “Wait, am I?” And now it’s fully merged. But it was already, before the docs, it was already starting mentally that I am this character. It’s part of me.
Lex Fridman
(02:41:39)
Would you recommend people have an alt?
Guillaume Verdon
(02:41:42)
Absolutely.
Lex Fridman
(02:41:43)
Like young people. Would you recommend them to explore different identities by having alts? Alt accounts?
Guillaume Verdon
(02:41:49)
It’s fun. It’s like writing an essay, and taking a position, right? It’s like you do this in debate. It’s like you can have experimental thoughts, and by the stakes being so low, because you’re an anon account with, I don’t know, 20 followers or something, you can experiment with your thoughts in a low stakes environment. And I feel like we’ve lost that in the era of everything being under your main name, everything being attributable to you. People just are afraid to speak, explore ideas that aren’t fully formed, and I feel like we’ve lost something there. So, I hope platforms like X and others really help support people trying to stay synonymous, or anonymous, because it’s really important for people to share thoughts that aren’t fully formed, and converge onto maybe hidden truths that were hard to converge upon if it was just through open conversation with real names.
Lex Fridman
(02:42:46)
Yeah. I really believe in not radical, but rigorous empathy. It’s like really considering what it’s like to be a person of a certain viewpoint, and taking that, as a thought experiment, farther and farther and farther. And one way of doing that as an alt account. That’s a fun, interesting way to really explore what it’s like to be a person that believes a set of beliefs, and taking that across the span of several days, weeks, months. Of course there’s always the danger of becoming that. That’s the Nietzche, “Gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes into you.” You have to be careful.
Guillaume Verdon
(02:42:46)
Breaking Beff.

Advice for young people

Lex Fridman
(02:43:31)
Yeah, right. Breaking Beff. Yeah. You wake up with a shaved head one day, just like, “Who am I? What have I become?” So, you’ve mentioned quite a bit of advice already, but what advice would you give to young people of, in this interesting world we’re in, how to have a career and how to have a life they can be proud of?
Guillaume Verdon
(02:43:58)
I think to me, the reason I went to theoretical physics was that I had to learn the base of the stack that was going to stick around no matter how the technology changes. And to me, that was the foundation upon which then I later built engineering skills, and other skills. And to me, the laws of physics, it may seem like the landscape right now is changing so fast, it’s disorienting. But certain things like fundamental mathematics and physics aren’t going to change. And if you have that knowledge, and knowledge about complex systems, and adaptive systems, I think that’s going to carry you very far. And so, not everybody has to study mathematics, but I think it’s really a huge cognitive unlock to learn math, and some physics, and engineering.
Lex Fridman
(02:44:48)
Get as close to the base of the stack as possible.
Guillaume Verdon
(02:44:51)
Yeah, that’s right. Because the base of the stack doesn’t change. Everything else… Your knowledge might become not as relevant in a few years. Of course there’s a sort of transfer learning you can do, but then you have to always transfer learn, constantly.
Lex Fridman
(02:45:04)
I guess the closer you are to the base of the stack, the easier the transfer learning, the shorter the jump.
Guillaume Verdon
(02:45:10)
Right, right. And you’d be surprised, once you’ve learned concepts in many physical scenarios, how they can carry over to understanding other systems that aren’t necessarily physics. And I guess the e/acc writings, the principles and tenet posts, that was based on physics, that was kind of my experimentation with applying some of the thinking from out of [inaudible 02:45:36] thermodynamics to understanding the world around us, and it’s led to e/acc, and this movement.

Mortality

Lex Fridman
(02:45:42)
If you look at you’re one cog in the machine, in the capitalist machine, one human, and if you look at yourself, do you think mortality is a feature or a bug? Would you want to be immortal?
Guillaume Verdon
(02:45:57)
No, I think fundamentally, in thermodynamic dissipative adaptation, there’s the word dissipation. Dissipation is important, death is important. We have a saying in physics, physics progresses one funeral at a time.
Lex Fridman
(02:46:16)
Yeah.
Guillaume Verdon
(02:46:17)
I think the same is true for capitalism. Companies, empires, people, everything. Everything must die at some point. I think that we should probably extend our lifespan, because we need a longer period of training, because the world is more and more complex. We have more and more data to really be able to predict and understand the world. And if we have a finite window of higher neuroplasticity, then we have sort of a hard cap in how much we can understand about our world. So, I think I am for death, because again, I think it’s important. If you have a king that would never die, that would be a problem. The system wouldn’t be constantly adapting, right?

(02:47:05)
You need novelty, you need youth, you need disruption to make sure the system’s always adapting, and malleable. Otherwise, if things are immortal, if you have, let’s say corporations that are there forever, and they have the monopoly, they get calcified, they become not as optimal, not as high fitness in a changing, time varying landscape. And so, death gives space for youth and novelty to take its place. And I think it’s an important part of every system in nature. So yeah, I am for death, but I do think that longer lifespan, and longer time for neuroplasticity, bigger brains should be something we should strive for.
Lex Fridman
(02:47:52)
Well, and that, Jeff Bezos, and Beff Jezos agree that all companies die. And for Jeff, the goal is to try to, he calls it day one thinking, try to constantly, for as long as possible, reinvent, sort of extend the life of the company. But eventually it too will die, because it’s so difficult to keep reinventing. Are you afraid of your own death?
Guillaume Verdon
(02:48:23)
I think I have ideas and things I’d like to achieve in this world before I have to go, but I don’t think I’m necessarily afraid of death.
Lex Fridman
(02:48:34)
So you’re not attached to this particular body, and mind that you got?
Guillaume Verdon
(02:48:38)
No, I’m sure there’s going to be better versions of myself in the future, or…
Lex Fridman
(02:48:46)
Forks?
Guillaume Verdon
(02:48:47)
Forks, right? Genetic forks, or other, right? I truly believe that. I think there’s a sort of evolutionary-like algorithm happening at every bit, or [inaudible 02:49:03] in the world is sort of adapting through this process that we described in e/acc. And I think maintaining this adaptation malleability is how we have constant optimization of the whole machine. And so, I don’t think I’m particularly an optimum that needs to stick around forever. I think there’s going to be greater optima in many ways.

Meaning of life

Lex Fridman
(02:49:25)
What do you think is the meaning of it all? What’s the why of the machine? The e/acc machine?
Guillaume Verdon
(02:49:32)
The why? Well, the why is thermodynamics. It’s why we’re here. It’s what has led to the formation of life, and of civilization, of evolution of technologies, and growth of civilization. But why do we have thermodynamics? Why do we have our particular universe? Why do we have these particular hyper-parameters, the constants of nature? Well then you get into the anthropic principle, and the landscape of potential universes, right? We’re in the universe that allows for life. And then why, is there potentially many universes? I don’t know. I don’t know that part. But could we potentially engineer new universes, or create pocket universes, and set the hyper-parameters so there is some mutual information between our existence in that universe, and we’d be somewhat its parents? I think that’s really… I don’t know, that’d be very poetic. It’s purely conjecture. But again, this is why figuring out quantum gravity would allow us to understand if we can do that.
Lex Fridman
(02:50:39)
And above that, why does it all seems so beautiful and exciting? The quest to figuring out quantum gravity seems so exciting. Why? Why is that? Why are we drawn to that? Why are we pulled towards that? Just that puzzle solving creative force that underpins all of it, it seems like.
Guillaume Verdon
(02:51:01)
I think we seek, just like an LLM seats to minimize cross entropy between its internal model and the world, we seek to minimize… Yeah, the statistical divergence between our predictions and the world, and the world itself. And having regimes of energy scales, or physical scales in which we have no visibility, no ability to predict, or perceive, that’s kind of an insult to us. And we want to be able to understand the world better in order to best steer it, or steer us through it.

(02:51:37)
And in general, it’s a capability that has evolved because the better you can predict the world, the better you can capture utility, or free energy towards your own sustenance and growth. And I think quantum gravity, again, is kind of the final boss, in terms of knowledge acquisition, because once we’ve mastered that, then we can do a lot, potentially. But between here and there, I think there’s a lot to learn in the meso scales. There’s a lot of information to acquire about our world, and a lot of engineering perception, prediction, and control to be done, to climb up the Carta shift scale. And to us, that’s the great challenge of our times.
Lex Fridman
(02:52:22)
And when you’re not sure where to go, let the meme pave the way.
Guillaume Verdon
(02:52:26)
That’s right.
Lex Fridman
(02:52:27)
Guillaume, Beff, thank you for talking today. Thank you for the work you’re doing. Thank you for the humor, and the wisdom you put into the world. This was awesome.
Guillaume Verdon
(02:52:37)
Thank you so much for having me, Lex, It’s a pleasure.
Lex Fridman
(02:52:40)
Thank you for listening to this conversation with Guillaume Verdon. To support this podcast. Please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, let me leave you with some words from Albert Einstein. “If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it.” Thank you for listening. I hope to see you next time.

Transcript for Teddy Atlas: Mike Tyson, Cus D’Amato, Boxing, Loyalty, Fear & Greatness | Lex Fridman Podcast #406

This is a transcript of Lex Fridman Podcast #406 with Teddy Atlas.
The timestamps in the transcript are clickable links that take you directly to that point in
the main video. Please note that the transcript is human generated, and may have errors.
Here are some useful links:

Table of Contents

Here are the loose “chapters” in the conversation.
Click link to jump approximately to that part in the transcript:

Introduction

Lex Fridman
(00:00:00)
That’s all that matters, that he got there, that he got to the place to act like a fighter. To do what we want him to do, to be ready to persevere, to go beyond the comfort level, to do another round. He didn’t want to. Damn right he didn’t want to, but he knew we want him to. And he knew in order to pass the test, he had to do it. He goes, “Now, it’s going to be your job to get him in the gym, make him mentally stronger, make him face things, and teach him how to slip punches and create holes, and fill those freaking holes with devastating punches…” There’s a cuss, “… with punches with bad intentions.”

(00:00:40)
The following is a conversation with Teddy Atlas, a legendary and, at times, controversial boxing trainer and commentator. When I was going to this conversation with Teddy, I was ready to talk boxing, styles, matches, techniques, tactics, and his analysis of individual fighters, like Mike Tyson, Michael Moorer, Klitschkos, Usyk, Povetkin, Lomachenko, Triple G, Canelo, Muhammad Ali, Sugar Ray Leonard, Hagler, Duran, Floyd, and on and on and on. Like I said, I came ready to talk boxing, but I stayed for something even bigger, the Shakespearian human story of Teddy Atlas, Cus D’Amato, and Mike Tyson.

(00:01:23)
It’s a story about loyalty, betrayal, fear, and greatness. It’s a story where nobody is perfect and everybody is human. To summarize, in the early ’80s, young trainer, Teddy Atlas, worked with his mentor, Cus D’Amato, in training the young boxing protégé, now a boxing legend, Mike Tyson. Mike was a troubled youth, arrested over 40 times, and at age 15, he was sexually inappropriate with Teddy’s 11-year-old niece.

(00:01:55)
In response to this, Teddy put a .38 caliber handgun to Tyson’s ear and told him to never touch his family again or he would kill him if he did. For this Cus D’Amato kicked Teddy out. Why? Well, that’s complicated. In part, I think, to help minimize the chance of Mike Tyson, who Cus legally adopted, will be taken away by the state, and with him the dream of developing one of the greatest boxers of all time.

(00:02:24)
Of course, that summary doesn’t capture the full complexity of human nature and human drama involved here. For that, you have to listen to this conversation, the things said and the things left unsaid. The pain in Teddy’s voice, the contradictions of love and anger that permeate his stories and his philosophy on life. Like I said, I came to talk about boxing and stayed to talk about life.

(00:02:52)
This conversation will stay with me for a long time. The people close to you, the people you trust, the people you love, are everything. And if they betray you and break your heart, forgive them, forgive yourself and try again. Happy holidays, everyone. I love you all.

(00:03:15)
This is a Lex Fridman podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here’s Teddy Atlas.

Lessons from father


(00:03:26)
You wrote in the book that your father had a big influence on your life. What lessons have you learned about life from your father?
Teddy Atlas
(00:03:34)
When you ask that question, I remember Cus D’Amato, when I was with him up in Catskill for all those years. He used to say to me, “Teddy, you learned through osmosis.” I believe there’s truth to that, if I know what osmosis is, but it sounds good. But I learned through osmosis with my father. He wasn’t a big talker. He was a doer. And when you’re around someone who lives a certain kind of life and does certain things, it penetrates.
Lex Fridman
(00:04:10)
He was a doctor.
Teddy Atlas
(00:04:11)
I’m going to sound like an idiot right now, because I’m being a son, but he was the greatest diagnostic doctor. I mean, if I say, I ever knew, what does that mean? You know what I mean? Are you a doctor? You know what I mean? What does that mean? But, other people have told me this, just legendary stories.
Lex Fridman
(00:04:33)
He would do house calls and he’d help people, and like you said, a lot of people have spoken about the impact he’s had on their life.
Teddy Atlas
(00:04:38)
He built two hospitals, and he built a hospital before the Verrazano Bridge in New York, connecting Brooklyn to Staten Island. And he built it so people could get proper hospital care that couldn’t afford it, period. And everybody looked at him as eccentric.
Lex Fridman
(00:04:58)
Yeah, nice. [inaudible 00:04:58].
Teddy Atlas
(00:04:59)
Yeah, because, he would literally sneak patients, not sneak them in, he was Dr. Atlas, he could do what he wanted, to a certain extent. But he would bring patients in without administering, putting through administration, so there was no charge, because they didn’t have anything. They were street people. I remember being… My only way to be with my father was to go on house calls or to go to the office. There was no…

(00:05:27)
And so I went on house calls with him. And he did house calls, by the way, till he was 80, and $3. I mean, it was better than McDonald’s, you know what I mean? I mean, the deal, $3 and you got medicine, you got everything. But he used to, right around the holidays, there was just certain things that I didn’t understand, but I understood later, where we would just drive certain areas and he just, all of a sudden, open the door, he would pick up these… and-
Lex Fridman
(00:05:58)
Help them.
Teddy Atlas
(00:05:59)
… I’m 10 years old, ” Move over.” Move over, you know?
Lex Fridman
(00:06:02)
Mm-hmm. It was just you, him, and a homeless guy.
Teddy Atlas
(00:06:06)
A couple.
Lex Fridman
(00:06:06)
Yeah, a couple.
Teddy Atlas
(00:06:07)
Yeah, whatever he could fit in, three, four, whatever it was.
Lex Fridman
(00:06:11)
That’s a big heart.
Teddy Atlas
(00:06:12)
And then he took them to the hospital, dropped them off. I would ask questions after it was all over with. I’d say, “Dad, they’re sick.” He goes, “Well, not in a way.” “Why did you put them in the hospital?” So he said, “Yeah.” And he’d tried to explain things to me. He would try, he didn’t talk much unless you’d ask him something, and that works. And don’t talk unless someone asks you something. And he explained to me that, he said… I said, “Well, why are you putting them in the hospital?”

(00:06:43)
And, of course, their sickness was, they were alcoholics. “but ,why do you put them…?” It wasn’t an alcohol rehab, so why are you putting… And it wasn’t for the purpose to dry out. He wasn’t trying to cure them. Let’s put that before we anoint him for sainthood, by Teddy Atlas. I was like, we finally get to the point, “Why do you put them in there?” “Well, because it’s the holidays.”

(00:07:07)
“All right, why do you put them in there?” “Well, the holidays are good for certain people and bad for others.” And it was always before the holidays. It was before Christmas, it was before whatever, New Year’s, whatever. So I said, “Why?” And he said, “Because they remind people, certain people, of what they don’t have. Other people enjoy the holidays because of what they have, family, whatever, and it reminds them, their mind is that.”
Lex Fridman
(00:07:46)
That’s pretty profound.
Teddy Atlas
(00:07:47)
Yeah. And then, I don’t remember, because he didn’t use the word suicide, but I got it. He basically, I forget how he said it, but I just got it. I don’t know how I… I suppose, I don’t know, but I just got it. So they don’t hurt themselves. That’s what came across-
Lex Fridman
(00:08:03)
In every way.
Teddy Atlas
(00:08:04)
I don’t think he ever articulated that or ever verbalized that. But, yeah, they don’t hurt themselves. Well, how does that work? Well, it just basically they’re going to be around people. They’re not going to be alone. They’re going to be around people. They’re going to get fed, they’re going to be warm, right, and it’s going to be for three days, two, three days, whatever. And basically, it’s a bridge. So the funny thing, as a 10-year-old, I want to be connected to him, so I enlisted myself in the job.

(00:08:36)
When he used to drop them off, he would take them, get them in, right? And then the thing that I know, again, he didn’t say nothing, but you notice things. And if you care enough, you don’t notice nothing if you don’t care. But if you can, if it’s important, you notice. And this guy was important to me. I just was, I didn’t know what a hero was, no clue. I loved Mickey Mantle, I loved Willie Mays, I love Muhammad Ali. I never, ever connected them in my mind as heroes. Never. My father, I didn’t connect it that way, but he-
Lex Fridman
(00:09:21)
Looking back now now [inaudible 00:09:22]-
Teddy Atlas
(00:09:22)
Looking back, he was my first connection to a hero.
Lex Fridman
(00:09:25)
The two of you ever talk about how much you love each other? The word love?
Teddy Atlas
(00:09:29)
One thing that was not allowed. The greatest memory I have, my father showing me love was, we were down in Florida at an airport and we were… I was born in Miami. Don’t ask where I was passing through. And the rest of my family’s born in New York, Staten Island. And so I was supposed to go back with him and I wanted to stay with my mother, for whatever reason. And so he, of course, conceded to it. Okay, whatever. And very quiet, very… And here’s a man who never showed emotion to anyone. I mean, for the most, you know… Well-
Lex Fridman
(00:10:11)
Yeah.
Teddy Atlas
(00:10:12)
… all of a sudden, he just turned and kissed me on the forehead and left. And I was like, “That’s different.”
Lex Fridman
(00:10:23)
Yeah. You still remember that, huh?
Teddy Atlas
(00:10:26)
Yeah. Like, “That’s weird.”
Lex Fridman
(00:10:28)
You lost him 30 years ago? How did that change you?
Teddy Atlas
(00:10:39)
It made me realize that some of the deals I used to make for God weren’t realistic. When I was a kid, I used to make deals with God. “Let me die before my father.” And then you get older and you have kids, you’re blessed, why did you make that deal? You know what I mean? Thank you for not taking me up on it.
Lex Fridman
(00:11:07)
Yeah.
Teddy Atlas
(00:11:08)
Right.
Lex Fridman
(00:11:09)
Yeah.
Teddy Atlas
(00:11:13)
You know?
Lex Fridman
(00:11:14)
Yeah. You miss him?
Teddy Atlas
(00:11:15)
I miss him in moments when I’d like to know what to do. And I remember when I would drive with him on the house calls, he didn’t listen to music. He was a guy, he read books to his… When he got older, he read books. Two blood vessels broke in his eyes. He only read nonfiction books, science. He loved science, wars, generals. I mean, I cheated on a couple book reports, because I didn’t do the reading of the book the night before I had a freaking a book report to put in. “Dad, I got a book report to do on the War of Stalingrad.” Really? The War of Stalingrad. And who the freak could tell you where you get an A? I got an A. I just wrote what he told me. He told me generals, he told me times, he told me strategy. He told me about the winter that came and destroyed the Germans, and the Soviets were tougher-
Lex Fridman
(00:11:15)
You got an A.
Teddy Atlas
(00:12:20)
… and the Soviets were tougher than the Germans, and the Germans picked on the wrong opponent. I was already in the boxing business. I didn’t even know it. I didn’t even know it. Matchmaking, very important. They mismatched. They made a mistake with the picking the opponent. And so, when we would be driving in the car, my father would be in a trance. And dad, he wasn’t ignoring me at all, he was just with his thoughts. He was wherever. He wasn’t even hearing the radio no more.

(00:12:59)
I always wondered where he was. I did. So I asked him one day. And just, so we’re driving, I said, I want to know so I said, “Dad, what do you think when you’re basically in this place, that I know you’re somewhere? Where are you? What are you seeing?” I actually said, “What do you see?” And he said to me, “I see what could be. I see what could be.” And I’m like, “Oh, all right.”

Scar story

Lex Fridman
(00:13:32)
I got to ask you, when did you discover boxing? When did you first fall in love with boxing?
Teddy Atlas
(00:13:39)
When it saved me.
Lex Fridman
(00:13:41)
How did it save you?
Teddy Atlas
(00:13:44)
I was a stupid, violent kid that was angry. Not exactly know why I was angry. I’d fit in real good in today’s society, because there’s a lot of angry kids out there that I don’t think they know why they’re angry. I was just out there getting in fights and I got this stupid thing from that.
Lex Fridman
(00:14:05)
Can you tell the story of how you got that?
Teddy Atlas
(00:14:07)
I was just running around doing stupid things, bad things. I hurt people, some people physically, but I hurt my family. That’s BS, you only hurt yourself. That’s a good way of alibi-ing it. But, at some point, the truth usually finds its way. I’d like it to look like I was just hurting myself, but I wasn’t, obviously. So I was just out on the streets, with kids that didn’t grow up in the neighborhood I grew up. I grew up in a neighborhood where father was a doctor. And I walked down the street…

(00:14:48)
The funny thing was, down the hill was a very tough neighborhood called Stapleton. And most of the people down there on the corners wished they could get up the hill, and I wished I could get down the hill. So I went down the hill and I hung out with all these friends that became lifelong friends. I gravitated to that, because I figured out later a little bit, but I wanted family. We were destroying the family. My father was a doctor, he didn’t have time for nothing but being a doctor.

(00:15:26)
I think when you created something, you sacrifice something, too. When you’re really great at something, so great that maybe God made you great and you’re too great for your own good. And then, I don’t know, it took me to these stupid, dangerous places. Dangerous for me, but dangerous for other people, too. Because, I got to the point where I was doing robberies on the street, I was fighting everybody.

(00:15:49)
And you know what the most dangerous part about it was? And I came to this realization on my own. I’m all by myself. I figured out, I was really as dangerous… These kids from the project, some of them, they got nothing. First of all, I learned you don’t have to be poor to be poor. You don’t have to be deprived of certain things to be deprived, at least to think you’re deprived. And I was poor in away that I didn’t have the only thing I wanted to have, him.

(00:16:28)
So here I am where I’m out there doing these things, and what made me more, I was more dangerous than some of these psychopaths. Well, I was a psychopath, too, I guess, the way I was behaving. But some of these psychopaths that really had nothing, really, they obviously would kill you. I was dangerous almost in the same way, but for a different reason. I know it’s ridiculous what I’m about to tell you, but I figured it out, because I felt it. I thought I was on a righteous path. I thought I had a right because it was going to get me my father back.

(00:17:11)
Why? Why? I mean, you’re a scientist, you couldn’t figure this one out. Because all the people that had him were injured people, fractured people, screwed up people in some ways, but hurt, damaged people. So if I get damaged, I’ll get him. So I was on a crusade, really, a righteous crusade where I thought it was okay. I had permission. I had permission to do these terrible things, quite frankly, and to fight everyone wanted to. And then it came almost to a crash of doing all that, winding up in Rikers Island like an idiot, not understanding the damage I did to this poor man, that he was a great doctor and he’s got to see his son and hear about, you know what I mean?

(00:18:14)
God, I was out on that day with the guys that I grew up with now, the guys from the projects from as I described, and I was with one of them who, he’s dead now. I was with him and we were in a neighborhood, the neighborhood we grew up, that I hung out, and he grew up in. Billy, he came from the project. And we got into a thing where we cut, somebody cut us off, we cut them off, jumped out to fight. Turned out there’s five or six of them and two of us. And we fought, right on the side, right there, only about a block from where I used to hang out, and maybe a block and a half.

(00:19:06)
And right in front of this Spanish bodega. It really does happen in slow motion. I actually saw the guy, I was fighting the guys that I had to fight. And then, all of a sudden, I was able to get one guy out of the way a little bit. And I really, I noticed the guy go into his pocket and I knew why he was going in his pocket. When he came out of his pocket, I knew what it was right away. It was weird, because in the neighborhood, guys used to hang out, they were into this… They get into fads right on the streets. And at that time, they went into this cheap knife, but they thought it was, well, we thought it was cool. It was a 007.

(00:19:51)
And the cool thing, whatever, was that you could flick it, you could learn. And I learned how to flick, but I never carried a knife. But, my friends would have it. I would just, you learn how you could flick it open, not a switchblade, but flick it with your wrist. And I was like, here I am in the middle of this freaking fight, and all of a sudden, “Oh, this is a 007.” And so I’m like, you got to make a decision. And I got a split, I can either not do nothing, which didn’t seem like a great option. I couldn’t run away.
Lex Fridman
(00:20:36)
Why not?
Teddy Atlas
(00:20:39)
Because you got to live with yourself afterwards. And that’s more difficult to live with than whatever it is at that second, because that don’t go away.
Lex Fridman
(00:20:47)
You couldn’t live with yourself-
Teddy Atlas
(00:20:49)
It just-
Lex Fridman
(00:20:49)
… running away.
Teddy Atlas
(00:20:49)
… It just don’t go away. That thing, nothing to do with being brave. It has nothing to do with being brave, really. It’s got to do with just common sense in life. That, for me, whatever you’re dealing with, it’s over, it’s done. Like, okay, deal with it, good or bad, whatever. But, you do that, that other thing, you can’t, that never ends. This thing ends.
Lex Fridman
(00:21:19)
Memory of you being, let’s say, a coward in that moment, that never ends.
Teddy Atlas
(00:21:24)
The only thing I had at that point in my life, in my stupid mind, was a reputation that I would stand up to certain things. That was like, and that for me was worth something, whatever, because I didn’t feel any worth to anything else. That was the only thing I felt a connection of worth to.
Lex Fridman
(00:21:47)
Stood your ground and got cut.
Teddy Atlas
(00:21:49)
No, I made a decision. I stood my ground, but I actually, things do slow down. They do. And I actually said, “It’s a 007, he’s got to flick it.” And I didn’t say no, but he’s got to flick it. I get a split second, like I said, either I do nothing, whatever, or I get to him before he gets it flicked. I went to get to him before he got flicked. And I, just as I got close to, I did him a favor. I walked right into a counterpunch, because I cooperated with him. I went right to him. And just as I… He practiced more than I did with the 007 apparently. Because he was like, whomp, whomp, whomp, whomp. Anyway.
Lex Fridman
(00:22:41)
What did you think? What did you think that happened? That was all slow motion. Did you think he might die?
Teddy Atlas
(00:22:49)
Yeah. Well, not immediately. Took me a minute. I’m a slow learner. I put my hand up. Right? Wouldn’t you? I guess so.
Lex Fridman
(00:22:59)
Yeah, mm-hmm.
Teddy Atlas
(00:22:59)
And it went into my face and that was it. It was gooey. It was warm and gooey. And I was like, “I don’t know what this means, but I don’t want to know, but I think I know.” And…
Lex Fridman
(00:23:21)
Did you think about your dad in that moment?
Teddy Atlas
(00:23:24)
No. You know what I thought about him was, you don’t know who anyone is until they’re tested. I learned that. Cus used to tell me, but I learned it. He said, I remember one time Cus, because I was a 17, 18-year-old kid up there, thought I was, whatever I thought I was, and he said, “You got a lot of friends.” And I said, “Yeah.” Because I was on the street, hanging out with a hundred kids at night, sometimes on the street corner. So I was like, I don’t know too many people that hung out with a hundred kids on the street, on a corner, on a Friday, Saturday night.

(00:24:02)
And I was like, “Yeah, I got a lot of friends.” He goes, “Really?” I said, “Yeah, really.” He said, “How about if I told you you might not have any. Most likely you don’t have any.” And he goes, and then he just started this thing. He said, “Everyone’s going to be tested, you, me, everyone, because you don’t know about nobody until they’re tested.” He goes, “You know nothing.” He goes, “You nothing until you know. Until something happens to test if they were really your friend.” And he told me this story about a guy.

(00:24:40)
A guy came to him and he was upset. “What are you upset about?” He goes, “I’m upset because I just lost a friend. After 20 years of friendship, we’re not friends no more.” So Cus looks at him, he goes, “Let me ask you a question. What made you think you were ever friends with him?” Now the guy gets insulted to Cus. “Did you hear me?” He goes, “I just told you 20 years I’ve been friends with this guy. Why would you say that to me?”

(00:25:11)
He said, “Well, I’ll say it again. What makes you think he was your friend?” He goes, “Whatever happened in the 20 years, other than chasing girls,” because Cus figured that went out fast, “… chasing girls and drinking together, and whatever else you’re doing out on the street, whatever gave you the inclination that he was a friend?” He goes, “Whatever, when did he risk himself to be your friend? When was it dangerous to be your friend?”
Lex Fridman
(00:25:44)
When was the friendship tested?
Teddy Atlas
(00:25:45)
“When was it uncomfortable to be your friend?” And you know what the guy said? You can figure it out, you’re a scientist. He said, “Today.” And today came for me. And today, today, today, today, kept coming for me. Today.” And that day, my friend Billy had turned out while I was fighting these, whatever, five, six guys, and where was Billy? He was on the roof. He was on the roof. He was on the roof. He was my best friend.

(00:26:29)
So anyway, they take me to the hospital. And here’s the thing with my father. But one thing Billy did do for me when he got off the roof, thank God, he did, he dragged me into this bodega, laid me on the floor, and started putting towels. And the towels, I vaguely remember this, they filled up with blood. I mean completely drenched, like you put them under a shower. And I heard the bodega owner screaming, screaming like… whatever. And everyone’s screaming and there’s chaos, and I’m like, I don’t know, I’m calm. Weird, I’m real calm. I’m just in this place, things calm.

(00:27:26)
And all of a sudden I hear Billy, he’s screaming, ” Call the ambulance, call the…,” and nobody’s doing nothing, everyone’s frozen. I’m starting to understand already people get frozen in situations. People, the fear, fear, fear, fear, fear just paralyzes people. And I was going into a fear business. I was learning. I was learning. I was getting a learning, early PhD-
Lex Fridman
(00:27:58)
Living in fear.
Teddy Atlas
(00:27:58)
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(00:27:59)
Yeah.
Teddy Atlas
(00:27:59)
And, all of a sudden, genius, Billy genius, really, street kid. He jumps up on the freaking counter, jumps over the counter, grabs the phone, calls 911, says a cop’s been shot, and forget about it. It was crazy. All I remember after that, I’ll tell you the couple things I remember, lights, being put onto a stretcher, bounced around, rushed. I felt everyone’s anxiety, except mine. I had none. But I felt everyone’s anxiety, everyone’s fear, like was all around me. It was like, “Wow, this is interesting. It’s kind of…” I know that’s stupid, but, “Wow, this is interesting.”
Lex Fridman
(00:28:45)
You really have an eye for fear. That’s fascinating. You’re really studying it.
Teddy Atlas
(00:28:49)
Well, I had no choice, I got introduced in a crash course. And they put me in ambulance, and this is what I remember to your point, I’m sorry it took so long to get to it. I am, although I’ll probably do it again before this conversation’s over. But I-
Lex Fridman
(00:29:05)
It’s all about the journey.
Teddy Atlas
(00:29:06)
Yeah. We’ll get there. We’ll get there, pops. So I hear the cops say, “We might lose him.” And I’m laughing to myself, I’m not laughing, because I’m not, again, I’m not John Wayne. John Wayne would’ve laughed, but I’m like, “Lose? You guys are stupid.” I didn’t say that, but I’m like, ” Lose me? My father’s the greatest doctor in the freaking world. There’s nothing to worry about. You people are all uptight and whacked out here with fear, and there’s nothing to worry about. Dr. Atlas is my father.”

(00:29:48)
So anyway, so they’re taking me to the… And he said, “We don’t have time.” I hear, couple things I remember, “Don’t have time. Take him to…” and they take me to US Public Health Hospital. Marine Hospital was called at the time, but US Public Health. And it’s in Stapleton, so it’s close, thank God. So they’re taking me, and I hear them on the radio saying this stuff about, “We got to move. We got to move.” I start talking and they’re telling me, “Don’t talk.” But I like to talk a lot. And I’m… Again, fear.” There’s no fear when the fear’s been removed.

(00:30:35)
It’s the only time you really free in life. And I know that sounds absurd, but really, it is. It’s the only time you’re really free in life. When you’re-
Lex Fridman
(00:30:46)
Close to death?
Teddy Atlas
(00:30:47)
… when you’re devoid of things that normally hold you back, that normally influence you in ways that are, not of the influence that, always positive influence where you are in a pure place, where you’re in a purely free place from all inhibitions, from fear, from anxiety, from joy. Joy can screw you up, and you’re free from all these things. And I’m in this place, just [inaudible 00:31:18]-
Lex Fridman
(00:31:18)
In the back of an ambulance, you’re free.
Teddy Atlas
(00:31:19)
Yeah. I said, “Just get me Dr. Atlas.” And they say, “We don’t have time.” “No, no, no, no, no, you don’t… You have to get Dr. Atlas. You have to get him.” This was the… Damn it, this was the… You know what I mean? I finally freaking hit the number and I’m not getting paid. And then, all of a sudden, I’m out.
Lex Fridman
(00:31:39)
How many stitches?
Teddy Atlas
(00:31:40)
They… Well, I think it was 400, 200 inside, 200 outside, or whatever it was.
Lex Fridman
(00:31:45)
It’s a lot.
Teddy Atlas
(00:31:45)
Hey, look, after 50, the number doesn’t matter no more. Whatever, 60, 70, 80, 90, whatever. So I was fortunate, I was fortunate. And, of course, I was fortunate, they told me afterwards, that missed my jugular, literally by a centimeter. I mean, whatever. So then we wouldn’t be having this conversation, obviously.
Lex Fridman
(00:32:10)
I’m glad you made it.
Teddy Atlas
(00:32:11)
Yeah-
Lex Fridman
(00:32:11)
That’s another thing.
Teddy Atlas
(00:32:12)
… I’m glad, too. And it just missed my eye, which, thank God. It’s bad enough I have a scar, imagine me with a patch? I mean, it’s enough that I got this freaking thing. And look, it goes all the way. I mean, it’s pretty long. I don’t know, I was out. And then somehow, I sensed, they had the curtain closed, and it’s amazing how vivid this is. And the curtain’s closed and I see a shadow. I felt a presence. I did, and I felt him. He’s a powerful guy. And I felt him and I just see a shadow, you know? And, all of a sudden, the curtain gets pushed-
Teddy Atlas
(00:33:00)
And all of a sudden the curtain gets pushed back. And I can’t really see. It’s dark and I’m out of it, but not completely out of it. And pushes the curtain back, comes in, and his hand, even though it’s all bandaged, whatever, but his hand surveys. It felt safe and it felt warm and safe. I was happy. And he got there.
Lex Fridman
(00:33:37)
Did he say something?
Teddy Atlas
(00:33:38)
Yeah, yeah. Remember, I gave you a little bit of introduction to my father, right? You know him now a little bit, right?
Lex Fridman
(00:33:44)
Yeah, yeah. What’d he say about the job?
Teddy Atlas
(00:33:47)
This is what he said. I remember to this day what he said. That I do remember. I don’t know if it was six or five people, but this I do remember. He said, “They did a good job. You’re going to have a scar the rest of your life.” And he left.

Cus D’Amato

Lex Fridman
(00:34:05)
Oh, man. They did a good job. You mentioned Cus D’Amato, legendary trainer, and you also mentioned it turned out he really cared about you. In the book, you write about a testimony he gave. I was hoping I could read it because it speaks to your character. It speaks to his. It’s just powerful.

(00:34:28)
The testimony goes, ” Your Honor, I realize you might not know much about me, but I spent my whole life developing young men. As a boxing manager I trained two world champions, heavyweight champion Floyd Patterson and light heavyweight champion Jose Torres. I’ve also helped a lot of other young boys straighten out their lives and build character. I know things about Teddy Atlas this court doesn’t know, things you won’t find on his arrest record. This boy has character. He has loyalty. He’ll hurt himself before he’ll let down a friend. These qualities are rare and they shouldn’t be lost. He’s made mistakes. We’ve all made mistakes, but I’ve come to know this boy, and if we lose him, we’ll be losing someone who could help a lot of people. Please don’t take this young boy’s future away. He could be someone special. Let’s not lose him. Please.” Those are powerful words from a powerful man. What have you learned about life from Mr. Cus D’Amato?
Teddy Atlas
(00:35:41)
He gave me a quote that he drilled into my head. I became his guy. He loved me. I loved him. He said to me, “Teddy, no matter what a man says, it’s what he does in the end that he intended to do all along.” That’s what I learned from Cus. The rest of it is BS. And a lot of people say things. You just have to give them a minute to let them show you eventually what they really meant by it.

(00:36:26)
I also learned from him that everyone’s afraid. Cus, his way of saying it, another great saying, you’ll get a kick out of this, “Anyone who’s in a situation where fear should be prevalent, where fear is actually necessary to survive the situation, anyone who says that they’re not afraid, they’re one of two things. They’re either a liar or they should go to a doctor, find out what the frick’s wrong with them.” He was right about that. We live in a taboo society where that word, to a certain extent, is taboo because it invokes weakness. We are just layers of what we saw and learned since we were kids. We all are. We’re products of those layers. I learned that on my own and through some help.

(00:37:32)
At the end of the day, fear, people will find their way of avoiding that term. So they use the word anxiety, they use the word butterflies, apprehension, a million different words. I find all those other words to be cousins of fear. And fear causes a lot of things in life. It causes a lot of problems and it also solves a lot of problems. Without it, we couldn’t be great if we are great, if we ever have a chance to be great or at least to aspire to be great.
Lex Fridman
(00:38:22)
How does fear connect to greatness? That’s a profound statement. Without fear, we wouldn’t be able to be great.
Teddy Atlas
(00:38:32)
Yeah, you couldn’t be great without fear because fear allows you to be brave. The most important word for me in this whole conversation, right neighborhood would be selfishness, and it allows you to be, for a moment, less selfish. One of the things I learned, I guess partly on my own… Everyone thinks my greatest teacher was Cus. He was a great teacher, mentor. My greatest teacher was my father, the one who never talked. And I realized one of the things to be better, towards great is if you can submit less than we submit. See, one of the things that I’m afraid of, one of the things, I was always quitting. In my business, it’s not a good thing.
Lex Fridman
(00:39:29)
Every business, I think. Yours is just more clear.
Teddy Atlas
(00:39:35)
Yeah. It hurts more.
Lex Fridman
(00:39:39)
True. In the moment, at least.
Teddy Atlas
(00:39:42)
Yeah, in the moment. You’re right, 100%, because some things hurt for a long time afterwards. And something like regret. Regret is the worst thing in the world because it’s a solitary sentence. And man, oh, man-
Lex Fridman
(00:39:58)
That’s a powerful phrase, regret is a solitary sentence. Oh, boy.
Teddy Atlas
(00:40:02)
So, I-
Lex Fridman
(00:40:03)
You’re full of good lines.
Teddy Atlas
(00:40:07)
It wasn’t easy to accumulate them.
Lex Fridman
(00:40:13)
Yeah. Hard run.
Teddy Atlas
(00:40:15)
It was a little bit hurtful. So submit less, because we submit every day, and if we can get to a place where we submit or compromise ourselves less, we’ll get to a better place. Again, one of the words for me that attaches to things that wind up hurting you in life and have hurt me in life, one of those boogeymen words is the word of convenience. That’s attached to everything. People disappoint you not because they want to disappoint you or let you down or betray you, because they want to betray you. They do it because it’s more convenient to do than the other thing.

(00:41:06)
An old man once told me, he said to me… I was trying to rationalize something. I was trying to make an excuse for something. I was trying to make myself better than I was. I was trying to say it was okay. And he just looked at me, and he liked me, and he said, “Teddy, there ain’t no such thing as being a little pregnant.” I was like, “Yeah.” He goes, “Either you’re pregnant or you’re not pregnant. Either you’re real or you’re not real. Either you’re truthful or you’re not truthful. Either you’re tough or you’re not tough. Either you’re committed or you’re not committed. Either you’re in or you’re out.”
Lex Fridman
(00:41:56)
That applies to a lot of things, including loyalty.
Teddy Atlas
(00:42:00)
That’s quite a statement. But the life level of humanity for me is loyalty. It’s what goes through the veins of… Everything has to have some veins in some form. And if humanity has veins, what runs through the veins of humanity instead of blood to keep it alive is loyalty.
Lex Fridman
(00:42:18)
Those are powerful words.
Teddy Atlas
(00:42:20)
Without loyalty, we’re dead, we’re vessels. I never understood what a ghost ship was. You know what? As I got older, I know what a ghost ship is. It’s people. It’s people that are empty. They got no loyalty, therefore they got no humanity. Therefore, they got nothing. Therefore, frick them. Frick them. And you know why they don’t have loyalty? Convenience. And you know why? Because it’s hard to be loyal. It’s actually hard. I’ll be a son of a gun. “Yeah. Yeah, it sounds great. Give it to me. Give it to me. Paint me with it. Yeah, it’s great. Yeah, I’m loyal. Yeah, I’m great. Yeah, this is good. I’m ready. I’m on that team. I’m ready. Put me in, Coach. I’m ready.”

(00:43:09)
“Okay. Now, you’re going to have to get hurt here.” “What do you mean, get hurt?” “Oh, well, it’s going to be painful. I mean, to be loyal, you’re going to be in danger because the person that you committed your loyalty to, for a reason, because obviously you did something in your life, whatever, whatever, you’re actually going to get hurt to be loyal to them. You’re actually going to…” “Hold on a minute. Wait. Hold on a minute, Coach. Hold on. Call time out here. Let me think about this, Coach. I might need more practice. I’m not ready for the game. I’m not ready to go in the game yet. Give me a little more practice, Coach.” It hurts to be loyal. It fricking hurts. But without loyalty, we’re ghost ships. We got no strength. We got nothing. We got nothing. We got nothing.

Mike Tyson

Lex Fridman
(00:44:05)
I agree with you in a deep fundamental sense, but there’s pain that comes with that. I have to ask you to introspect on this part of your life. Because of your value for loyalty, as people know, you and Cus D’Amato trained young Mike Tyson, and the interaction there between the three of you led to the three of you parting ways. Given your value for loyalty, can you tell the full story of what led up to this and maybe the pain you felt from that?
Teddy Atlas
(00:44:59)
I guess it was the second time in my life I felt betrayed. The first time was when I was whatever, young, 17, and I got arrested. I was with all these older guys, tough guys, whatever, supposedly, and the detectives separated us. That’s what they do. And they asked me who did whatever? Whose gun? This, that, all that, the particulars of obviously what we did. And it was me. And they said, “You sure? You don’t want to change that? Because your friends changed it.”

(00:45:48)
And these cops, they were nasty, but they were cops. They were, “You’re going to wind up in Rikers and they’re going to be doing this to you.” And I won’t even say the things because, then, why say them? Figure it out. But they’re trying to get what they’re trying to get. And, “You want to change it?” And, “No.” But I felt very betrayed and especially when I was standing in the cell at Rikers looking at the airplanes leave LaGuardia Airport. And then hoping I was on one. I was making a deal with God that, “Let me be on one of those planes and let it crash. I’ll take a shot.”
Lex Fridman
(00:46:31)
Was part of you proud that you didn’t give up your friends?
Teddy Atlas
(00:46:34)
No, because I didn’t understand what proud was. I didn’t understand nothing. I just understood that-
Lex Fridman
(00:46:40)
Rules are rules. You’re just loyal and that’s it?
Teddy Atlas
(00:46:43)
I didn’t even know there was an option. I know the cops said, “You could do this,” but there was no option. My father never had an option. But the betrayal, the private betrayal was like… And so we were partners, me and Cus. Cus was retired. This stupid kid goes up there and all of a sudden I start training fighters. First, I wanted the gloves. Cus put me in the gloves. I wanted gloves. Then I had an injury, whatever. But bottom line is I still want to fight. I want to turn pro. I want to fight. That was the plan. And Cus had a different plan. Cus was like, “You can’t.”

(00:47:29)
And he had it set up a little bit, whatever. Without getting into it, hey, he did me a favor. I’d like to think he knew he was doing me a favor. And you know what? I do think he was. He was doing himself a little bit one too. But he was doing it for the greater course because he believed in this thing of boxing. He believed that it changed lives. He believed that it was worthwhile. He believed that there was a power to it beyond the left hook.
Lex Fridman
(00:47:55)
The big picture of boxing.
Teddy Atlas
(00:47:58)
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(00:47:58)
He believed in it.
Teddy Atlas
(00:47:59)
Yeah, he believed that to be a champion, you had to be special, you had to be smart, you had to have character, that you had to be a better person, and that you couldn’t make a champion if you didn’t make him a better person first, and that this could strengthen people. The sport could strengthen people in those ways. So he was married to it. He was old and there was no one in the gym. It was empty. It was above a police station, which was crazy. He needed an heir to the throne. He needed to pass it on to someone.

(00:48:38)
And he saw something, and all of a sudden he saw that my career as a boxer was less important than having me become his heir to the throne and becoming his trainer, his man, his guy, to continue, that we could do a lot more for him and for everyone. Not just for him but for everyone. It was more like to keep it going. It couldn’t die. It couldn’t die. Cus was afraid it would die with him. And he committed his whole life to it. He didn’t get married because of boxing. So he saw me as the little bit of the seed to plant for more things to grow before that plant died. And so all of a sudden he says, “You can’t fight.” I had people tell me that I could go somewhere else and fight. And I could, but I couldn’t because I’d be disloyal.
Lex Fridman
(00:49:36)
Loyalty is everything.
Teddy Atlas
(00:49:37)
Yeah. So I couldn’t leave Cus, and he kind of knew that. And so I couldn’t leave him. And he said, “You have an ability to teach.” He said, “Knowledge means nothing.” He said, “See these Britannica…” He had Britannica encyclopedias, the whole set, in our library. He said, “You see these?” “Yeah, I see them.” ” All the knowledge of the world, whatever, is in these.” “All right.” “Means nothing if you don’t have somebody to convey it to people. Otherwise, it just sits on a bookshelf and looks good.” He goes, “You have the ability to convey knowledge to people. You’re a teacher. You were born to be a teacher. You’d lessen yourself by only being a champion fighter because you’d only take care of one person. You could take care of all kinds of people and you could do this and you could do that and you could do this.”

(00:50:30)
So we go on this venture. Took a minute, because I didn’t believe him at first, but finally I am, I’m there, I’m training fighters. Then he gets me to buy in, and I was a teacher. I start teaching these kids, and there’s no one in the gym. It’s dead. And all of a sudden there’s 10 kids, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45. Catskill Boxing Club, which was never there. Now it’s there. And I’m training fighters. I’m taking them down to South Bronx to get experience, one of his former fighters, Nelson Cuevas, down to South Bronx. I’m taking him down there to get smokers, to get fights when they’re ready after I teach.

(00:51:12)
I’m wearing out dungarees. I’m getting holes in my dungarees. I was fashionable for it was fashionable to have holes in my dungarees. I could have made a lot of money with that because I was on my knees with these little kids, nine years old, 10 years old, eight years old, 10, 12, 13, 14, all these kids. I’m teaching them and I’m building a gym. Cus only came once a week because he was semi-retired, and he’s home. When he would come once a week, he knew he couldn’t give me money, but he gave me more than money. He gave me praise. And he said, “Look what Atlas is doing. He’s creating champions.” And I was like, “Whoa. Yeah. Wow. I’m doing good.”

(00:51:55)
And then all of a sudden after four years of that, because I was up there seven years, eight years, eight years, after about three and a half, four years of that, we get a phone call that they got this kid in prison, in Tryon prison, from one of the guys that knew Cus, Matt Baranski. There’s a correction officer named Bobby Stewart who used to box, and Cus had helped him out a little bit. A little bit. They knew we had this gym. Now that was really starting to become something because we were winning tournaments and everything else. They go, ” We got this kid, Mike Tyson. He’s 12 years old, he’s 190 pounds, and he’s a mess. But Bobby Stewart got involved with him, the former fighter, and he’s taken a liking to it. And now where he didn’t behave at all and he didn’t listen to anyone, now he’s listening because Bobby’s got a carrot and the carrot is he’d teach him boxing. And now he’s at the point now where we want you to take a look, you and Teddy.” “All right. Bring him down.”
Lex Fridman
(00:52:57)
What’d you think when you first saw Mike Tyson?
Teddy Atlas
(00:53:00)
Well, I wanted to see his birth certificate because he’s 190 pounds, 12 years old and all solid. Really? But, yeah.
Lex Fridman
(00:53:10)
Just physically, just as a physical specimen?
Teddy Atlas
(00:53:13)
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(00:53:13)
Big guy?
Teddy Atlas
(00:53:14)
Yeah. And listen, Cus was right, I was a teacher. He was right. And he was testing me even that day. He said, “What do you think?” So I said, “Well, we ain’t going to know nothing hitting the bag. Who the frick cares about that? He knocked the bag down. We got to put him in with… We got no one to put them in that way.” I didn’t have anyone that way. We got to test him. Everyone’s got to be tested. So you got to put them in responsibly. But, “Let’s put him in, just responsible, but let’s put him in with Bobby Stewart.” Former pro fighter, had 14 pro fights. Smaller than Tyson. When he was fighting he was 175. But still, he’s 28 years old. Tyson’s 12. Come on. “And he’ll work with him, right?”

(00:53:57)
So we do, we put him in. Tyson, he recognized the moment. He understood this was an audition, this was a chance. This was that TV show, Change Your Life. He understood that if he passed the audition, he could possibly change his life. He wasn’t sure what. How could he be sure what exactly? But it was better than what he had. And so he was on audition. So he innately understood what we would want to see: ferocious, toughness, character, desire, and, of course, ability. Well, we saw the ability, power, speed, but it was unbridled. It was untaught. It was raw. He didn’t know really much at all. At all. But we saw that.

(00:54:50)
But he wanted to show more. He knew that wasn’t enough. Again, innate intelligence. He had to show desire. He had to show toughness. And so I was being responsible. After two rounds, that’s enough. Normally, I don’t put a guy in to box until maybe four months, five months, six months, eight months, 10. It depends what it takes to learn on the floor before it’s responsible to put them in the ring to actually take on incoming real live shells instead of blanks. And so normally I wouldn’t have him in. And I knew after today, he wouldn’t be in the ring again if I trained him. I would teach him first and then he’d get back in in a few months. But for this day, it was the only way.

(00:55:36)
I used to make this announcement and Cus loved it. He said, “What’s training a fighter? What do you look for training a fighter, Teddy?” He asked me these ridiculous questions just to test me. And I say, “It’s like going to Macy’s…” Oh, he loved it. I said, “It’s like go to Macy’s window on Christmas.” He goes, “What do you mean, Macy’s window?” Cus was like, boom, boom, boom. So, “What do you mean, Macy’s window?” “You go to Macy’s window and they got the window with everything you want to see, everything in there. And it looks great, everything.” “Yeah? And then what?” “Well, then you ask, ‘What’s in the warehouse?’ and they tell you, ‘Nothing.'” And then Cus says, “That’s it. That’s the trainer.” And I wanted to see what was in the warehouse. Because I saw what was in Macy’s window. I saw the power, I saw the speed.

(00:56:22)
So he goes two rounds and he gets a bloody nose. Here’s the weird thing, not weird, very telling. We knew what we were doing. I’m not bragging, but we knew what we were doing because he got a bloody nose because he got hit. After that, he never got another bloody nose. You know why? He didn’t get hit. Because he learned. He was still strong, but he was smarter now. Anyway, he goes two rounds, and I saw, and I’m being responsible because if he goes more, it’s not responsible. I saw what I needed to see. I saw speed, I saw power, I saw athleticism. And I saw, I didn’t believe him. I thought he was lying to me. I’m just telling you. I thought he was lying, trying to act tough when he wasn’t really feeling tough. It didn’t matter.

(00:57:04)
Cus questioned me on it afterwards, “What did you see?” And when I said it, he goes, “Young master.” Again, he wasn’t paying me money so he had to give me something, right? And that was currency. “Young master.” I’m the young master? Whoa. “Young master.” You know what I mean? I felt like that guy, Kung Fu, like in the movie, like Kung Fu, “Grasshopper, when you’re ready, when can take this out of my hand, you can leave.” And-
Lex Fridman
(00:57:29)
That’s powerful.
Teddy Atlas
(00:57:30)
Yeah, it was. It worked. Cus knew how to work me. And he did. And it worked. But you know what? I didn’t mind being worked. I kind of knew I was being shuffled a little bit.
Lex Fridman
(00:57:45)
Well, you’re making it sound a little bit negative, but it’s also extremely positive. That’s a teacher instilling wisdom into you that you carried forward and it impacted a lot of people.
Teddy Atlas
(00:57:56)
Yeah. Cus got the job done, but he did it his way, and he did it for a myriad of reasons. But at the end of the day it was all good, and I just had to understand that eventually later on. But-
Lex Fridman
(00:58:11)
And you do the same. You do things your way and carry some of him in you, some of your father in you.
Teddy Atlas
(00:58:16)
Yeah. That day it was funny because when Cus said, “What did you see, Teddy, with him?” After two rounds, I got up on the ring. I knew I was going to train him. Obviously, we weren’t going to say no. He still had about four months to serve, and we were going to work it out. And when I got up on the ring apron, that’s my gym, I’m the boss. People later on in life called me a dictator. You know what I said? “Yeah, you’re right.” I didn’t deny it. People thought it. “You mean I’m right?” “Yeah, I’m a dictator. I’m a trainer. I’m the boss. I’m in charge. You wouldn’t be here if I wasn’t. What the frick you need me for if I’m not fricking in charge, you idiot? Yeah, yeah. Damn right. Well, what do you think, it’s a shared responsibility? No, it’s my responsibility. That’s why you’re here. Yeah, I am in charge. You shouldn’t be here if you don’t understand that.”

(00:59:11)
So I get up there and I know that I’m going to be training him. I got to show him who the boss is. I’m being really frank about this. So I get up there, I say, “That’s it. Out.” “No, no,” this is Tyson, “No, let me go. I want to do another round. I want to do another one.” “I said out. Did you hear what I said?” Because I knew that he was going to test me. He was testing me. I said, “I said get out.” He got out.
Lex Fridman
(00:59:39)
But were you impressed with the fact that he wanted to keep going, or no?
Teddy Atlas
(00:59:42)
Yes, and I recognized what it really was. So Cus asked me, “What was that?” Cus wanted to know what the young master saw. So Cus said, “What was that?” I said, “It was an act.” He goes, “You saw that? Did he really want to go?” I said, “No.” I said, “He didn’t really want to go, but he knew that we wanted him to go, and he made himself ready to go in order to satisfy, and that’s just as good.” And Cus said, “Damn right it’s just as good. All that matters was not how he got there, but that he got there. That’s all that matters, that he got there. That he got to the place to act like a fighter, to do what we want him to do. To be ready to persevere, to go beyond the comfort level, to do another round. He didn’t want to, damn right he didn’t want to, but he knew we wanted him to, and he knew in order to pass the test, he had to do it.”

(01:00:43)
And he said, “You’re right.” He goes, “Now it’s going to be your job to teach him, to make him a fighter that don’t get bloody noses, that don’t get hit and will get to that place without being chorused to get there, to get to that place on his own, instead of using the things that he had to use to get to that place today. Those things are not going to be available one day when you…” And listen to this. You talk about a man being prophetic. Cus was pretty good. You talk about a man being on the job, on the money, Lex. How do you think he finishes the sentence? He goes, “Because you’re going to have to make sure that he learns these things because he’ll be your first heavyweight champ.” “What did you just say?”

(01:01:36)
He’s 12 years old. He’s been arrested 30 times. He’s getting out of jail, out of juvenile detention, Tryon. He’s a mess in a lot of ways. There’s a lot of things we find out later, a lot of problems, weaknesses. He goes, “And that’s part of your job. That’ll be part of your job.” But he really said that. And then he turned to him, he goes, “You want to come live with us, young man? You want to be a fighter?” “Yes.” Even that, Cus said to me later, “What do you think about that?” I said-
Lex Fridman
(01:02:14)
The way he said, “Yes”?
Teddy Atlas
(01:02:15)
Yeah, the way he said, “Yes. Yes, sir.” Yeah. He said, “What do you think about that?” And we’re talking, I said, “He ain’t going to be that polite in a little while down the road. Again, he knew that that’s what he felt that he needed to project himself as, to present himself as to get to where he want to get to.” He goes, “Yeah, yeah.”
Lex Fridman
(01:02:38)
Did you see what Cus was seeing in terms of the heavyweight champion of the world?
Teddy Atlas
(01:02:42)
No. Again, the easiest answer would be yes. Teddy’s just a-
Lex Fridman
(01:02:45)
Teddy knows.
Teddy Atlas
(01:02:46)
… genius. Wow, wow. Wow. No, no, no, no. But again, it was my job. And my job, it was simple, simpler than Cus’. Cus knew too much. I knew nothing. I just knew rudiments of boxing. I knew what it took to be a fighter and how to execute it, the steps of executing it. So I took those steps. The rest of it, you get blurred by those other things. I wasn’t blurred by those other things. It was just, “Get them in the gym, make them mentally stronger, make them face things, and teach them how to slip punches. And create holes, and fill those fricking holes with devastating punches,” this is Cus, “And what are you going to do?” “I’m going to teach them to fill holes and fill them with punches with bad intentions.” And that became the moniker. And then Tyson would say that, “I’m throwing punches with bad intentions.” Yes, you are.
Lex Fridman
(01:03:48)
How do you make him mentally tougher? So that part of the job, you said the, “Don’t get a bloody nose,” but the part of the job where it makes him mentally tougher, how do you do that?
Teddy Atlas
(01:03:57)
Most important part of the job, to make him face things. Make him face where he’s lying to himself, where he’s submitting. What if we start this conversation with submission? Submit less, submit less, submit less every day, submit less. Cus only come to the gym once in a while. And if I had him sparring, he would come because that was his project, that was the heavyweight. Now he came. It put life in Cus. Cus had life. He was losing a little life, but that made the light bulb bright again. It did. And it was great to see. I felt proud of that. I felt connected to that.

(01:04:32)
That’s why when it all went bad and Cus took the side, the only side he could take, the side of the next heavyweight champ of the world, but he left me, his partner, the young master… And for the second time I get betrayed. And I’m like, for a while I thought everything Cus taught me, said to me was a lie, and I didn’t want to be any part of it anymore until I got a little more mature and I got a little past that where I was able to understand. I was able to understand that just because somebody that you perceived as great in every area you find to be weak in certain areas doesn’t mean that they can’t still be what they want to you. It’s something that can be understood or forgiven.

(01:05:43)
But yeah, it’s hard. It’s hard to get to that place, to forgive somebody in that kind of way that I felt betrayed. Because Cus told me the most important thing was loyalty. Cus told me he loved me because I was loyal. Cus told people that the reason that he went to court was because I didn’t give up anybody.
Teddy Atlas
(01:06:00)
… to court was because I didn’t give up anybody, even though it meant put me in the risk of going to jail for 10 years because felt that he admired those traits. And so I assumed that he would show the same traits. And he took a deal. He took a deal. He took a deal. He signed the papers that those so-called Feds of mine signed. He took a deal to have the future heavyweight champion, as it turned out, and to let me go. To sign the deal to let me take the weight.
Lex Fridman
(01:06:48)
For people who don’t know, Mike was inappropriate with a young girl and you pulled the gun on him. I don’t know if there’s deeper things to say about that situation.
Teddy Atlas
(01:07:00)
No.
Lex Fridman
(01:07:01)
But why do you think Cus made the decision to cut you off from both Mike Tyson and from Cus D’Amato? To break that when he valued loyalty so much.
Teddy Atlas
(01:07:12)
I served my purpose. I got him to where he needed to get. Brought life back in the gym. If I wasn’t in the gym at that particular time, Tyson never would’ve been in the gym. There would’ve been no gym to bring him to when they called up and made that phone call to bring him to the gym. There would’ve been no activity. There would’ve been no boxing program. There would’ve been no training, training him 247 the way I was, where Cus wasn’t capable of doing that at that point in his life.
Lex Fridman
(01:07:40)
Yeah.
Teddy Atlas
(01:07:41)
But then again, it’s not poor Teddy. I got the benefit of a career, I got the benefit of knowledge, I got the benefit of a life, I got the benefit of learning, of becoming hopefully a better person. I got the benefit of being betrayed again.
Lex Fridman
(01:07:59)
That’s a hell of a statement right there. I don’t know what the benefit of that is.
Teddy Atlas
(01:08:05)
You can learn to forgive weakness when you realize how easy it is to be weak. And when you realize that… somebody asked me, how did you get to the point where you could forgive? It’s a pretty good question. Pretty simple, pretty basic, pretty important. And I didn’t understand, I understood. But I did understand immediately, for me. I said, “How can I not forgive somebody?” It becomes easier to learn how to forgive when you’re still trying to forgive yourself, when you’re still in the process of trying to forgive yourself for all your own inherent weaknesses and betrayals of people like my father in different ways that we forget very easily because it’s handy and it’s a way of surviving. It’s a lot easier to figure it out, rationalize it, to find forgiveness when you realize that you still haven’t figured out completely how to forgive yourself. I’m still trying to figure that out.

(01:09:34)
And so that helped me figure out how to forgive Cus because to figure out how to forgive me, I had to understood why I did these things. Where the weaknesses came from, where the selfishness came from, where the convenience came from. That they really existed. But they didn’t exist for malice, they existed for me not being prepared to understand that I could be stronger, to want to be stronger. And then I looked at Cus. He wanted to be stronger, but he got to a point in life where he had been strong for a lot of his life. He was strong with me, he was strong with a lot of things in his life. And does everyone deserve a pass in life?

(01:10:27)
He got to a place where everything was in one basket, the basket of boxing. He once told me that he never got married because it would’ve been selfish to a woman to have gotten married when his whole life was boxing. That he couldn’t give to her kid, he couldn’t give to her. And then I thought about it. He had no money, really. And Jim Jacobs and Bill Caden took care of the bills, so he didn’t really need money that way. But what was the payoff of that kind of life, that kind of commitment, that kind of sacrifice? Really, what was the payoff? The payoff was to have champions. To have a champion that would keep your name alive.

(01:11:17)
That word legacy, what does it mean? Sometimes it’s just a word, sometimes it’s more than a word. It’s a reprieve. It’s a pension plan. It’s being given a pension on your way out for the rest of your life, for your life wherever you’re going. You’re going to wherever you’re going for eternity. It’s the only thing that you take with you, is what you left behind. And for Cus it was all about leaving behind a mark. A mark of a champion. Yeah, it was attached to ego. We all have it. Yeah, it was attached to some selfishness and all. But yeah, it was also attached to wanting to leave something great behind.
Lex Fridman
(01:12:08)
Yeah.
Teddy Atlas
(01:12:08)
To know that you were part of it. That you existed for a reason. That you sacrificed for a reason. And all that freaking pain I brought my father, I was searching for something. Yeah, I made it into a righteous search. I made it into… I did. And I made it into, “It was okay because it was righteous,” but it still did damage. It still did damage. It still hurt people. It still betrayed my father’s trust. And Cus betrayed mine, but he didn’t do it maliciously. He did it out of, again… my father came home… this is how I’m going to connect it. My father came home from work one night, 12:00. And I was waiting on him. And like I said, I was nine, 10 years old. And he got mad at me. He goes, “Go to bed. What are you doing up?” I said, “I’m waiting for you. Waiting for you.” And he said, “Well, go to bed.” I said, “No. What were you doing?” He said, “I was at the hospital.” “Why were you there so late?”

(01:13:25)
He answered me. He said, “There was a patient. There was a sick patient.” I said, ” He must be better now because you’re his doctor,” because my father could fix anything. My father, nothing got in the way of the truth. Nothing. Nothing. Even blowing his son’s bubble. Matter-of-factly he said to me, “No, he’s not going to get better. He’s going to die.” So as a 9-year-old kid, you’re a kid, you’re selfish, not in a bad way but you want what you… and I said two things. First I said, “How? You’re his doctor. How? It can’t be.” And then I said, I said it almost angry, “Then why were you there? You should’ve been here with me.”
Lex Fridman
(01:14:22)
Yeah.
Teddy Atlas
(01:14:23)
And you know what he said to me? “Because you don’t give up on life. Go to bed.”
Lex Fridman
(01:14:51)
Don’t give up on life.
Teddy Atlas
(01:14:52)
And I finally connected the dots. This idiot that didn’t graduate high school, I finally connected the dots. I was asking Cus to give up on life. You don’t give up on life. You don’t give up on aspirations of life. Life is all forms of life. It doesn’t have to be a physical form of it. It’s life. It’s having a reason to be alive. It’s having a reason to have tomorrow. And Cus’s only reason to have tomorrow was to have another heavyweight champ.
Lex Fridman
(01:14:52)
Yeah, a champ.
Teddy Atlas
(01:15:11)
And Teddy Atlas, even though we were together all those years, and we were partners, and we trained together, and the only thing we didn’t do was what they did in the Indian movies where they cut the finger and they became blood brothers.
Lex Fridman
(01:15:25)
Yeah.
Teddy Atlas
(01:15:25)
That’s the only thing we didn’t do, and I felt like we did that without cutting. And now here we are, and he freaking betrayed me. The… and then all of a sudden I connected the dots. I was like, “He didn’t betray me in that cold sense, he didn’t give up on life.”
Lex Fridman
(01:15:53)
Years later, Mike Tyson apologized to you. What’s meaningful to you about that? How does that fit the story?
Teddy Atlas
(01:16:04)
I want to be the great, gracious guy right now. Say, “Oh, I’m so human that a man’s man enough to say sorry, that’s it, we’re good.” I want to be, really. That’s the best presentation of Teddy Atlas I could put out there. He’s a good guy. He forgives. He’s a good guy. He’s a standup guy and he’s a good guy. I’m not sure. If he truly did it for himself, that he really did it because he felt that it was true. But if he’s persuaded by other things… he was in the middle. I know I’m taking it too deep, I know it, but what am I going to do?

(01:16:58)
He was in the middle of 12 steps with the getting out of drugs, alcohol, 12 steps, which is a commemorable thing. Really, it is. And he’s taking the steps. Part of the steps was to admit all, to apologize to all people you offended in life. Okay. But are you doing it for the 12 steps or are you doing it because you really truly have come to terms with believing what you did was that hurtful to me, and that it matters to you that it was that hurtful to me, and that you were wrong in doing in it? Did you do it for… I know that’s deep. I know that I’m a freaking idiot. “Teddy, you should be better than that. He’s better than you.” Yeah, maybe he is better than me. Maybe he is. Really. Seriously, maybe he is. And I took it. He put his hand out. I took it. We hugged. He said, “I love you.”

(01:17:58)
Yeah. Yeah. But I want to believe. But what did Cus tell me? “No matter what a man says, it’s what he does in the end that he intended to do all along.” So to this day today, was it really genuine or was it reflexive of that moment for him to get what he needed for that step? Or was it truly for what I needed? That he really cared that what he did to me caused me to do what I did. Because I did something that was pretty bad to him, too. Is he able to deal with that and put that where it has to be put? Is he able to put that? Or is it just he did something he had to do and maybe he’s sorry he did it? Look, I appreciated that he… I would it’d rather been in a private place.
Lex Fridman
(01:19:05)
Yeah. So for people don’t know, you were in the middle of commentating a fight, and he walked up from behind you and he said he was sorry. He shook your hand, gave you a hug. I didn’t know. He said, “I love you.”
Teddy Atlas
(01:19:15)
Yeah, he’s emotional. I get emotional a little bit, too. But he’s emotional and he can be… I can see why people have a fascination and a love affair with him right now, because he was the meteor that went across the sky that, if they didn’t see it, their parents told them about it. There was a meteor that came across the sky one day.
Lex Fridman
(01:19:42)
Yeah.
Teddy Atlas
(01:19:42)
And the meteor is walking around in the room now, and that’s the meteorite. And it actually landed here, and that’s it right there. And now he’s come a long way. And now he’s more human and he’s lovable and compassionate and he cries. And I get the fascinating, I get the love affair. I get it because, inherently, we’re people that want to forgive. We’re people that, we want to be good, and part of being good is to forgive people and to show compassion to people. And when somebody’s been damaged, to acknowledge they’ve been damaged, to acknowledge that you know they’ve been damaged, and you care about them being damaged. And how do you show care? Through admiration. In some ways almost through adulation. And he’s getting adulation from people, which is to an incredible level. And it’s a phenomena, but I get it. I understand it. And I don’t know if he gets it. I don’t know if underneath all of this… he’s a complex guy. He’s a sensitive guy. I don’t know… And I am, too.
Lex Fridman
(01:21:00)
One complex guy talking about another complex guy.
Teddy Atlas
(01:21:03)
I don’t know if, underneath it all, where he’s really truly at as far as that day that he said that to me.
Lex Fridman
(01:21:12)
Is there part of you that’s sorry to Mike for-
Teddy Atlas
(01:21:15)
I’m not sorry.
Lex Fridman
(01:21:16)
Pulling the gun on him?
Teddy Atlas
(01:21:17)
Yeah. And listen, that’s fair. I know dimensions of human nature too well to not know that he still has to have certain… because I have those strong feelings. What? It’s not fair for him to have them? Damn right, it’s fair. Now, he could look at it, if he was to be held to his word, that night that he just acknowledges that what happened, he deserved because of the position he put me in and he put himself in, what he did. And I wouldn’t change nothing.
Lex Fridman
(01:21:54)
Still, you don’t regret pulling the gun on him?
Teddy Atlas
(01:21:58)
I regret that I had to.
Lex Fridman
(01:21:58)
Yeah.
Teddy Atlas
(01:22:01)
Yeah, I regret very much that I had to. I regret very much.
Lex Fridman
(01:22:06)
He crossed the line.
Teddy Atlas
(01:22:08)
I hated him for putting me in that position. How dare he think that somebody’s feelings are that trivial? That the way I would feel about myself and the way the girl would feel about herself, that was 11 years old at the time, how she would feel about herself. How dare that he think it’s that trivial that I shouldn’t be ready freaking to both die and kill for that?
Lex Fridman
(01:22:35)
Yeah. Why didn’t Cus D’Amato see it in a deeper way and talk through it?
Teddy Atlas
(01:22:42)
He did. The word came back to me but, of course, what does it mean? But the word came back to me that Cus said, “You were right.” But if he took the side of Teddy, he would destroy potentially a great fighter.
Lex Fridman
(01:22:59)
Why do you think that? Okay, if you were to try to understand the point he was making, why is that true? Isn’t the part of greatness that you said is building the character of knowing what is right?
Teddy Atlas
(01:23:11)
Cus was afraid to go there, where he used to not be afraid, because it’s kind of like you’re never afraid of going up. And I get it. When I train to fighter now, if I come out of retirement, I train to fighter now, I feel in camp like I’m on death row every day. Every day I try to retrace my memory and say, “Did I feel this way when I was younger? I don’t remember feeling this way.” I feel, every day, a dreadful feeling that if I don’t get this right, I betrayed everything. I betrayed the fighter’s trust, I betrayed what I’m supposed to be.

(01:23:53)
And then one day I tried to figure it out. Why do I feel this way? It’s so intense. I was in camp for two months training a guy for the world title a few years ago, fighting the hardest puncher in the world at the time, Adonis Stevenson, and the fighter was Ukrainian. And I was brought in to train him for that fight, and he trusted me and changed his whole style. Trusted me. Oh my God. I went to bed every night praying, dread. Waking up, dread. My stomach down to here. Saying, “What if I fail? What if everything that I told him was going to happen don’t happen? What if I fail him? What if he trusted me and I betrayed that trust?”

(01:24:37)
And the thing with Cus was he used to be stronger than that. And then I tried to figure it out, why I got this way and why it was so dreadful to me, and why I felt like I was on death row every day training a fighter. Like, “Did I do enough? Did I do right? Will we accomplish what I promised him we would accomplish? Would I keep my word?” And then I started thinking, how did I become this weak? How did I freaking become… I was a pretty strong freaking guy. How did I become this weak? And then finally I think I figured it out. You know why?
Lex Fridman
(01:25:12)
Hm?
Teddy Atlas
(01:25:13)
Because I was always working to get up. But once I finally got up, now I was looking down. And it finally hit me. I said, “I didn’t want to lose.” I said, “There was nothing to lose on my way up.” Now, all of a sudden there’s something to lose when you’re up there and you’re looking down.
Lex Fridman
(01:25:29)
And that’s where he was.
Teddy Atlas
(01:25:32)
And that’s where Cus was. Cus was at the end of his rope. He accomplished two world champs, all this stuff, everything. And he did it right. Now all of a sudden it wasn’t about moving forward, it was about not falling down. Holy cow. I was like, “I got it, Cus. I got it. I got it. You didn’t want to fall down. Oh my God. You didn’t want to fall.” And this was his last chance. You don’t give up on life. This was his last chance to live forever. To make everything he did worthwhile. To have the youngest heavy… it wasn’t just heavyweight champ. You’ve got to remember he was the youngest heavyweight champ ever.

(01:26:20)
And to have that, it was okay to die now. And how’s loyalty to someone named Teddy Atlas going to get in the way of that? That’s a tidal wave that there ain’t no wall that’s been made high enough to stop that tidal wave. And now I’ll stop myself. Yeah, there is, but it would have to be an awful big one. And you know what? Who are we to say that we could ever build that wall that big? Who is any of us? Who am I to say?
Lex Fridman
(01:26:54)
Do you think, if you were to put yourself in the shoes of Cus D’Amato, can you see yourself having the big enough wall where you would choose loyalty?
Teddy Atlas
(01:27:07)
Now, if I answer the way I feel then I’m making myself John Wayne again.
Lex Fridman
(01:27:13)
You don’t have to answer then. I think loyalty is important.
Teddy Atlas
(01:27:18)
No matter what a man says, it’s what he does in the end that he intended to do all along. I didn’t make that up, Cus did. And when this all went down, those words came freaking echoing into my freaking ears. I didn’t want them. Cotton doesn’t help. And they freaking kept coming into my ears. And what do you think? Still an immature kid at the time. I was young. Still an immature kid at the time. What the freak do you think my response was? You were full of…
Lex Fridman
(01:27:54)
Yeah, shit.
Teddy Atlas
(01:27:56)
But I got past that.
Lex Fridman
(01:27:58)
Do you forgive Cus? Have you found forgiveness?
Teddy Atlas
(01:28:03)
Listen, I forgive him because he gave me more than he took away from me. What kind of man am I if I can’t at least acknowledge that and be grateful for that? He gave me more than he took from me, and I’m grateful for that. I’m also grateful for what I gave him, that I did give him something, and at that point in his life. A place to still have test tubes and chemistry experiments. A laboratory where he could still create a great fighter. And I helped give them that. I was part of that lab and making sure that lab was there and just that there was the existence of test tubes in the place, because you can’t freaking do experiments without test tubes.
Lex Fridman
(01:29:07)
Now you’re the scientist with the test tubes.
Teddy Atlas
(01:29:10)
Yeah, I guess so. And I just hope that… what I said earlier is really my thread through this whole thing. When you say, “Could you forgive Cus?” I’m still trying to forgive myself. And if I can have hope that I can forgive myself, I think that hope has to start with the power to forgive someone else. How can I ever forgive myself for all my failings and figure it out if I can’t start and practice it by forgiving someone else for some shortcomings? And for me, that’s the only sense of sometimes a very hard thing to make sense of. That’s my North Star, that’s my compass. Cus used to make me laugh. Me and him did everything together. And we’d get lost in the city, we get lost in the Bronx, and he’d get all frustrated. And he said, “Atlas, you’re a great trainer but you turn you around, you spin you around and you’re lost.” And I said, “Me or we?” Because I was the only one who would argue with him, and it was really funny sometimes. And I said, “We or me? We or?” He goes, “[inaudible 01:30:46].” “Cus, you’re lost. I’m lost. What are you talking about?”

(01:30:52)
And then all of a sudden Cus couldn’t give in. He just couldn’t admit. He couldn’t give in. You know what he said to me? All of a sudden he goes, “When I was in the Army, if I had a compass I could get out of the woods.” I said, “We’re not in the woods, we’re not in the Army. We don’t have a compass. Cus! Cus!” “Just don’t argue with me!”

(01:31:13)
One time we’re driving. I want to get back to Catskill. We just finished at the Bronx. It’s been a long day visiting the Murderers Inc. houses and everything else that he took me through for the 1,800th time. And he would fall asleep. He was getting older and he would just fall asleep in the car. So what do you think? I went a little faster, because before he went to sleep he said, “Don’t speed.” I don’t consider myself… I try to be an honest guy and I try to be a freaking…
Lex Fridman
(01:31:51)
Was it five or six guys?
Teddy Atlas
(01:31:52)
What did I figure earlier? Try to do less submitting, really, in all phases. Try to submit a little less. Try to lie a little less today. A little less. Try to get stronger, try to get a little better. So here we are and we’re driving. And all of a sudden he’s asleep. What did I do? 80? 75? Probably. Probably did. Whatever. And all of a sudden he wakes up. “You were speeding.” I lied. “No, I wasn’t.” ” Don’t lie.” “I’m not lying.” “You lied again. You were speeding.” Now, come on. This guy, he’s unbelievable. So I got to freaking… he’s David Copperfield, I want to know the trick. I want to know how he made this thing disappear.

(01:32:52)
So I said, “What are you talking? How do you know?” He goes, “Because I timed you. I looked at the post number.” And I’m like, “What?” “I looked at the post number on the side of the road where we were,” whatever mile. And I never knew they even existed. I look and I said, “Yeah, there’s little numbers.”
Lex Fridman
(01:33:12)
He started timing and then he fell asleep.
Teddy Atlas
(01:33:13)
Yeah, he timed it. And he looked. He goes, “We couldn’t have got from here to there in that amount of time unless you were going 75 miles an hour.” And I’m like, “All right, I’m impressed. Don’t try to get the mileage, the mile per hour part right. It’s enough that you got me. That’s enough. Yeah.” I said, “And I’m not going to do that no more.” And he helped me in crazy ways where there would be times where you wanted to be whatever, convenient, weak, submit. And then all of a sudden, in my mind, Cus was there with the stopwatch. And I’d be like, “No,” where I was about to say yes to whatever that particular situation was.
Lex Fridman
(01:34:16)
Somebody hit their phone. Hello? Hello? Yes. Doing great. Thank you.
Lex Fridman
(01:34:30)
Just for the record, never had a phone call like this. It’s hotel security. The question he asked me is, “Are you okay, sir?” Are you okay? Are we okay?
Teddy Atlas
(01:34:39)
I think so. I think so. So far.
Lex Fridman
(01:34:43)
Yeah.
Teddy Atlas
(01:34:44)
I can only go so far. It’s kind of like that old joke where the guy jumps off the Empire State Building. He’s falling down and he’s going 80th floor, 70th floor, 60th floor, 50th. And he gets past the 50th floor and they’re looking at him out the window and he goes, “How am I doing?” They’re like, “So far so good.” I don’t know where it’s going to end.
Lex Fridman
(01:35:07)
Mike Tyson is considered by many to be one of the great boxers, one of the greatest boxers of all time, heavyweight boxers. What do you think, on the positive side, made him great?
Teddy Atlas
(01:35:18)
I don’t know if he was ever great. I know he was sensational. I know he was the greatest mix of maybe speed and power ever. I know he was one of the greatest punchers from either side of the plate, left or right. There’s been great punchers with just the right hand, like Earnie Shavers and Deontay Wilder and Max Baer. I don’t know if there’s ever been anyone who could punch as good as he did on either side with either hand, other than Joe Louis and a few others. I don’t know if there’s ever been such a combination of speed and power to that pure level that he had, and it was a pure level.

(01:35:58)
I don’t know if there was ever as good a fighter as Tyson was, where maybe one night he was great where he wasn’t tested but he might’ve been ready to be tested. That one night against Michael Spinks when he took him apart in 90 seconds, I think I saw a great fighter that night. I don’t think you can be great unless you have all the requirements of being great.
Lex Fridman
(01:36:22)
What does it take to be a great fighter? Truly great.
Teddy Atlas
(01:36:32)
To not rely on someone else’s weakness to be strong. To be strong on your own. Too often he relied on other people’s weakness, whether it’s by being intimidated or whether it was because his talent was so much greater than theirs that it was like putting a monster truck in there with a Volkswagen, and the Volkswagen was going to get crushed. No matter how much horsepower the Volkswagen might’ve had under the hood and you put under the hood, it was going to get crushed. The monster truck was not going to allow it to be a contest.

(01:37:07)
And to be able to find a way when your talent wasn’t enough. He didn’t find a way when his talent wasn’t enough. And I’m not making statements if I’m not ready to put some evidence. Like if we were in a courtroom, exhibit A: when he fought Buster Douglas, Buster Douglas matched his will and didn’t get intimidated. Stood up to him. He didn’t do what most people did. He didn’t submit even a little bit. Not that night. He had in the past, but that night he didn’t.

(01:37:48)
Why? Because Buster had a secret weapon that night, his mother. Buster’s mother had died a few months previous. He loved his mother very much. Buster had always had talent. Big heavyweight, talented, could punch, technically solid. He was all those things, always was, but he quit in fights. He did less than he should’ve done. He never lived up to his ability. He gave in. He submitted. He wasn’t strong enough. He never had a reason to be strong enough. When his mother died, he had a reason. Nothing could hurt him as much as his mother dying hurt him, Mike Tyson included.

(01:38:27)
That night Mike Tyson could not hurt him as much as his mother had hurt him by dying. That night he had a reason to be strong, for his mother, and he was strong. He was everything he was supposed to be and more. And he stood up to Mike, and Mike, for the first time maybe ever, was in a fight where he had to overcome something, where he had to be more than talented, more than a puncher, more than a guy with scintillating speed. And he wasn’t. And then that night got followed by another night with Holyfield. Holyfield…
Teddy Atlas
(01:39:00)
… night got followed by another night with Holyfield. Holyfield wasn’t as talented as him, as big, as a much puncher, but Holyfield had the character. He was strong in ways that Tyson wasn’t strong. He was strong in a way where he could find a way. He was willing to find a way. He’s willing to go to the cliff, to truly die before he submitted. A lot of stuff is just words, “They’re going to have to carry me out on the shield,” yeah, sure. Okay. Yeah, until it comes time to be carried out on the shield. Sometimes there’s people that actually mean it.
Lex Fridman
(01:39:45)
You think Mike didn’t have that?
Teddy Atlas
(01:39:47)
Well, all right. Let’s just say arbitrarily, I don’t have his record in front of me. Let’s say he was 55 and five, I know he had about five losses. All right, let’s say he was 55 and five, a lot of knockouts. I have a saying, a fight’s not a fight until there’s something to overcome, until then it’s just an athletic exhibition. Contest. Yeah. Who’s a better athlete? Who’s got more quick twitch fibers? Who’s more developed? Who’s a better this? Who’s more developed in those physical areas? But a fight is not a fight until there’s something to overcome. Okay. So, if you go by my definition, not Webster’s, my definition, which I think means something, Mike Tyson was only in five fights in his life.

(01:40:41)
The five fights where there was something to overcome and he didn’t overcome it. Now, I know people hate me for this, including Tyson. I understand, hate me. Oh, you’re a hater, because you weren’t with him, you didn’t make the money because this, because of that, because you got betrayed. I think I’m better than that. I hope I’m better than that. I believe I’m better than that. I’m not a hater. I’ve broadcast fights for 25 years on ESPN, where there was some people in the corner I did not like, and if they did a good job, this guy’s doing a great job. And then, there were guys that I liked and I had friendship, he messed up, and we weren’t friends no more. Friendship got to be tested. Remember that? So, we weren’t friends no more, but why did I do that? Because it was my job. It was more important for me… When it’s all over with, the only thing you’re left with is… We’re going to be dust, all of us, right?

(01:41:46)
The only thing we’re left with is what carries on, our reputation, legacy, whatever that is. But our reputation, that’s all we’re left with. And that’s all our kids are left with. I want it to be as good as it can be. I’ve always had ability, I’ve done a lot of things wrong, and I’ve had a lot of lackings, but the one strength I’ve had, if I had a strength, is to understand somehow, through osmosis, I guess, to learn the lesson that was important is not what’s in front of you for those five seconds, for that moment in life, it’s what’s left behind you when those five seconds are gone. Whatever it is that you’re dealing with, whatever that moment is, whatever… That moment, what you do in that moment, the action of that moment is going to stay with you and be you. It’s going to become you.

(01:43:05)
What you face for that moment, it’s gone. It’s gone in the air, in an instant. It’s gone, it’s done. Whether you stand up there and you get shot in the head, and the guy freaking blows your brains out, or you stand up or you’re fighting a guy who’s a scary guy to fight, but you fight him and you beat him or he beats you up. But how you represented yourself in that moment is all that matters. That’s going to live. What happened don’t matter. It don’t matter that you got shot in the head. I know that sounds absurd, but if you believe that it was important to stand up and take the chance to get shot in the freaking head, rather than to live like an empty vessel, you know what? That’s all that freaking matters. And somehow that got freaking wrapped into this freaking head of mine, that’s what matters. That’s all that matters.

(01:44:17)
You know how many times I went, and there were things, whether it was with this one, with Tyson, with that… I didn’t want to be there, I was scared to death, but I was more scared-
Lex Fridman
(01:44:31)
Living with regret.
Teddy Atlas
(01:44:32)
… how I would’ve felt. I don’t want to be in solitary confinement the rest of my life, with that freaking guy in the cell next to me called regret. I don’t freaking want to be next to that guy. If I want to freaking go down that road, I’ll watch Papillon. And I’ll get my fill from that. But I don’t want to freaking live it. I’m afraid of what my children would think of me if I fail in those areas. Why? Because that’s forever. When I’m closing my eyes for the last time, I don’t want to have that fear. I don’t want to have that fear. Whether I’m going down there or whether I’m going up there. I laugh because I was around guys years ago that used to, when we’d talk about that in jest, and I would get a kick out of this one guy who’d been around the block a few times, when he’d say, “Teddy, I ain’t worried about that, I got friends in both places.”
Lex Fridman
(01:45:40)
That’s a good line.
Teddy Atlas
(01:45:41)
And I thought it was good. Listen, Mike Tyson, you want me to say he was a great fighter, then you want me to betray what I really… You know what I mean? You want me to do that? I ain’t doing it for… Listen, I could do it to be a bigger Teddy Atlas, and I know it would work for me. I know it’d do great promotional work for me. I know it would make me more popular in certain areas. I know it, I’m not that dumb. Not that dumb. But I also know what else it would do to me, and I don’t want it to do that to me. I think he was a great talent, I think maybe the night with Michael Spinks, maybe the night with Mike, maybe he could have been that fighter. But he didn’t never really get tested, but he might’ve been ready no matter what, I have to be tested that night.

(01:46:32)
That’s how good he was. That’s how, even though it was a guy who used to be a light heavyweight, I get it. But it was still a guy who beat Larry Holmes, who still had something left, Michael Spinks. And a great puncher. And an Olympic gold medalist. And a special fighter, one of the great light heavyweights of all time. You know what Mike Tyson was? He was a meteor. He was a meteor that struck across, and not too many meteors… And we still talk about him. And unlike Haley’s comet, he came back, and he’s walking around. And he has become greater after his career, more loved, more beloved, more awed, and he’s been forgiven. He found the fountain of forgiveness. I don’t know… I wish I could find that.

(01:47:19)
Where he has been forgotten for all his shortcomings, all the things that he may have done, may not have done, we don’t know, only him and God know. But he’s been forgiven of all that, and he’s been not only forgiven, he’s rised above it and above that, and been brought above that. He’s been brought to the pyramids of the greatest athletes in the world. In every way. In every way. As a person, as a fighter, as a historian, as a figure, as a celebrity-
Lex Fridman
(01:48:05)
Even a philosopher.
Teddy Atlas
(01:48:06)
Everything. So, I will take it back. All right, all you guys out there, you forgive me, he’s the greatest of all time, if you encapsulate all that. If you encapsulate everything I just tried to describe and explain, if you put that all… He’s the greatest of all time, yeah, he is. But he still might be 0-5. In a record of 55 fights he might, in Teddy Atlas’s book, again, I got friends in both places, so it’s was okay. Wherever I go I’ll have company, somebody there will like me, despite me saying this. He might be 0-5 because of five fights where there was something to overcome, which really defines a fight. He didn’t find a way.
Lex Fridman
(01:48:55)
Let me ask Teddy Atlas to introspect on the human nature here, as part of the complexities of your feelings on this whole thing is that you know to some degree that if you were coaching Mike Tyson, he could be truly great throughout-
Teddy Atlas
(01:49:13)
I know… I’m going to cut you right off, because you asked a million-dollar question, I wish you didn’t, but you did. You did. Because that’s why-
Lex Fridman
(01:49:21)
When do I get paid?
Teddy Atlas
(01:49:22)
That’s why you get paid. I get it, you took the words out of my mouth. That’s why you are where you are. And that’s why I’m here.
Lex Fridman
(01:49:33)
The humility.
Teddy Atlas
(01:49:34)
I’m going to, again, full disclosure, it’s important, right? I’m going to cheat, I’m going to take some of Cus’ wisdom. All right. A little bit of mine. Cus told somebody that if Teddy Atlas got his way, he might’ve been a better person, but we would’ve risked him not being a great fighter. Now, I believe, and I thought Cus did, and I think he did up to that point in his life, that part of your strength of character made you a great fighter, and truly a great fighter. And part of that battle to be a better person, that fight if you will, to be a better person, to overcome the [inaudible 01:50:22] to be a better person, part of that fire you have to go through to be a better person, I really truly bought into it, and I’m in for life.

(01:50:34)
That is really the only way to be a great fighter. And I don’t think that’s what Cus meant, I think he meant that… Cus knew more than I did of what was about to come and what would come and what the world was. How people would try to steal him, how people would take him, how people would steal his guy. The last thing he had, really, the thing that he lived for. Because he lived to have another heavyweight champ, the greatest fighter ever, in Cus’ mind. He could be. And I believe that Cus knew that he could put forward a guy that had the ability to be the greatest fighter ever, without fully completing the mission of what it takes to really be great, but that he wouldn’t be around to have to witness it.

(01:51:38)
And that he wouldn’t… Oh man, this is awful. He’s willing to concede that he might be dead in order to have eternal life, in order to have greatness. And which, Cus does have greatness, and part of that greatness is attached to Tyson. And he deserves it. He deserves it, Cus was a great man. And I wouldn’t be here, partly, without him.
Lex Fridman
(01:52:07)
But that was part of the calculation.
Teddy Atlas
(01:52:08)
I know that’s deep, and I know that’s… Oh God, I hate myself right now. But Cus, he knew he was getting out free. He knew he was going to not have to be there. He was getting off easy. Oh, Teddy, how do you say someone’s going to be dead, they’re getting off easy? I’ll say it again in case you didn’t hear me, all right? He was going to get off easy, and not have to face where he came up short, because he did his job. Because he put forward the greatest fighter of all time, and you guys screwed it up.

(01:52:48)
And he knew that that might happen, but you guys screwed it up. And whatever, that’s your fault. That’s on… I’ll tell you, Tyson will be mad at this, but that’s on Tyson. How can you say that Teddy? He loved me. I’m not saying he didn’t love you, but he loved some other stuff too. And I don’t know if Tyson could ever come to grip’s light with that, and it’s not his job to. But it’s my job not to hide from it. I know Cus in dimensions that other people just only think they know.
Lex Fridman
(01:53:23)
Did Cus know? Did Cus know this about himself? Did he reflect? Did he introspect?
Teddy Atlas
(01:53:30)
Well, he sent a message to me. Cus sent a guide to me… My wife was pregnant, we were living in an apartment in Catskill on [inaudible 01:53:38] road. We went through all this, and I was getting ready to move to Staten Island, and we still were there for a little while before we did, after all this went down. He sent a guy to me, to the house, secret, whatever you want to call it… My wife, me. So, I listened to him. Cus said, if you leave… I’m a messenger, whatever. If you leave… This was in the aftermath of the gun, the whole thing. You got to remember, Tyson was a ward of the state. He was put in Cus’ custody. Cus was looking to adopt him, for obvious reasons, so he had control. And he loved him.

(01:54:28)
How dare I say anything less? I won’t. But it made sense too. But he was a ward of the state still. Do you know what that means? There’s rules. It means the state’s still overlooking it. If he ain’t living the right life… You got to remember, he came out of a jail. So, reform school. But if he ain’t living the life, he could be taken away from Cus. What’s not living the right life? Well, he wasn’t in school no more, they didn’t know about it. He had some things that were going on, we won’t get into that right now, in school and different things, whatever. And he had his trainer put a gun to his head. That ain’t so good. If a report came back to them that that happened, he would’ve been taken away from Cus. That couldn’t happen. Nobody knows this. I talk about it a little bit, but never, probably… Because why would I?

(01:55:28)
I don’t know. Why am I doing it now? I don’t know, because… I don’t know. Because I am-
Lex Fridman
(01:55:33)
[inaudible 01:55:33].
Teddy Atlas
(01:55:33)
… because it’s now. Because it’s now, maybe. Maybe because it’s now, I don’t know. So, he sent this man, that obviously we both knew, and he said, here’s the deal, Teddy. No talk about this, wants it to disappear, basically, you leave and he will give you 5%… His word. Can you imagine? He will give you 5% of Tyson’s earnings for the rest of his career. But I don’t regret it one bit because it wouldn’t have happened anyway. See, that’s where I could be honest with my… People say, oh, standup guy, because I told him to shove it where the… In that place. And tell Cus to shove it in that freaking place. I was mad. Teddy, don’t get angry… Don’t get angry? Are you out of your… Are you serious? Get out of here. Tell them to go shove it over… And my wife was like, huh? And then, people are like, [inaudible 01:56:37], why didn’t you take the deal? It wasn’t a deal, it was an escape clause for Cus. It was an insurance policy, that this kid wouldn’t be taken away from him.

(01:56:52)
And thank God he wasn’t. I wasn’t going to go and say nothing, they didn’t have to worry about it. Cus forgot who I was? Cus forgot why he went to court for me? Because of those characteristics that he said he loved, and he noticed, and that he admired. I didn’t lose those characters, he forgot that that was me, he forgot who he was talking to. He didn’t have to do that. How about, that’s why I told him to shove it up his… Not because of the other insult. And then, when people said to me, oh, you were stand up… Because it was around a little bit. It was around in the circles. And then, when people… Oh, stand up Teddy, he didn’t care about the money. I said, stand up Teddy? What are you talking about?

(01:57:39)
How about just realistic, Teddy? How about I live in a real world, that I was never going to get that money? So, I’m standing up to something that I knew never existed. So, I ain’t stand up, not in that way. I am in other ways maybe, but don’t put a medal on my chest for that, because that never existed. It was never meant to exist. But he didn’t even understand. That was the one thing that really disappointed me in Cus. I was like Cus, you really allowed this to get to you. Where you’ve allowed it to really fog up your thinking, to the point where you’re smarter than that, you’re better than that. That you would actually think you got to freaking offer me freaking pieces of silver. You really think that? That’s what you… Freak you. All that you told me, that you love me, and that I was the young master, and all this… And you think you were going to buy me? And that was going to keep me quiet? How about I would keep quiet because I would always keep quiet?
Lex Fridman
(01:58:52)
So, he thought maybe you might betray him?
Teddy Atlas
(01:58:56)
Isn’t that interesting? Yeah. And why did he think that? No, no really?
Lex Fridman
(01:59:03)
Fear.
Teddy Atlas
(01:59:04)
Yeah. But yeah, fear is at the essence of everything, it’s connected with everything. Fear of losing what he was going to lose. But it was more than fear, it was him not believing in the things that he told me he believed in. He didn’t even know that. He believed in me because I was a standup guy. Because I didn’t sell myself. Because I didn’t freaking turn evidence. I didn’t make a deal. I didn’t do… And that’s why he went to court, and that’s why he stood up for me. And I appreciate it. And that was what he lived by. And those were the blocks of being a man. So much for those blocks.
Lex Fridman
(01:59:47)
Well, it’s like you said, loyalty requires… He would’ve had to take a risk on losing immortality that he would achieve by creating a great heavyweight champion-
Teddy Atlas
(02:00:02)
And that’s the only way you… 100%. But the only way you ever find out if somebody is really that-
Lex Fridman
(02:00:07)
It’s hard. It’s hard.
Teddy Atlas
(02:00:08)
…it’s the test. And it was Cus.
Lex Fridman
(02:00:10)
This is Shakespearean, this story.
Teddy Atlas
(02:00:15)
Cus told me, Cus said, “And the test come in different forms.”
Lex Fridman
(02:00:18)
Yeah.
Teddy Atlas
(02:00:19)
I said, all right, Cus.
Lex Fridman
(02:00:20)
This was his test.
Teddy Atlas
(02:00:23)
And some people pass this test because they’re able to pass that test, because it’s not really a test. Not for them. Because it doesn’t speak to their weakness. But it’s the test that speaks to the weakness, that’s the one. So, this one, I get it, I get what it spoke to, Cus. And you know what? At the end of the day, I forgive you, and I feel bad for you. I feel bad that you were put in that position after you lived your life that way, and that you taught that and you preached that from the mountaintops, that you had to be… That you had to be… I’m not going to use the word. But that you had to fail yourself, and that you had to somehow know that before you died.

(02:01:22)
I just pray that you didn’t know that. And you still don’t know that. Because you were great, you were great. And you’ve given me something to aspire towards. To try to be less weak. Try to be better. And try to be as good as you wanted to be. I wish I can someday. More importantly, I wish I could make my father just feel good up there.

Forgiveness

Lex Fridman
(02:02:18)
You’re a grandfather now.
Teddy Atlas
(02:02:20)
Yeah, four grandchildren.
Lex Fridman
(02:02:23)
If you can give them advice on how to live a life they can be proud of…
Teddy Atlas
(02:02:33)
Just do everything you can, to the best of your ability, every day, to like yourself. To give yourself a reason, to actually say, I’d like to be friends with that guy.
Lex Fridman
(02:02:57)
Is loyalty one of the reasons? One of the things to aspire to?
Teddy Atlas
(02:03:06)
Loyalty is your chance to have a fulfilled life. Loyalty is your chance to have strength, to have all the things you need to have a good life. To be a good parent, be a good husband, be a good grandfather, hopefully be a good role model. Loyalty is… If you could find something to drink, to take into your body, to make you prepared for life, to be all the things that you want to be, to be strong enough to be those things, loyalty would be the thing you would drink. And when I say loyal, I mean unequivocally. I mean unconditionally. Not conveniently, obviously you know that. If you could be loyal, you could be a good person. You could be a person that you would actually like to be around. Because you could be a person you could rely on. And I think that’s one of the greatest assets that a human being can have.
Lex Fridman
(02:04:32)
And what do you do when you’re betrayed? How do you overcome that?
Teddy Atlas
(02:04:38)
You think of what you learned from it. Use it as a roadmap to remember, and to think back of how you got there. And how you got to the place where you got betrayed, and how that person got to that place. Try to remember that in your own journey.
Lex Fridman
(02:05:04)
Has it, for you, made you cynical? How do you take the leap of trust towards people again and again after that?
Teddy Atlas
(02:05:14)
Just by remembering that I’m still trying to forgive myself for the things that I came up short with. And if I haven’t figured that out yet, it’s probably okay to say they didn’t figure it out yet, they didn’t figure it out. And if I couldn’t figure it out and I’m still trying to figure it out, maybe I could get over that initial stabbing of, what it feels like. It does feel like a stabbing. That you feel when you’re betrayed initially, and that you could only think of anger, revenge, hatred. I know those things. I’m not proud of that, but I felt all those things. And I still feel them sometimes. And then I go back and say, hey, you’re still working at forgiving yourself for some things, try to remember that kid. Memory’s an important thing. Forgetfulness is pretty important too. And I’m trying to remember why we forget. Why do we forget? Because it wasn’t something you felt proud of.
Lex Fridman
(02:06:38)
Do you think about your death? Are you afraid of it?
Teddy Atlas
(02:06:46)
It’s funny you asked that. I never used to think about it. I know people in both places.
Lex Fridman
(02:06:59)
I know, you’ve got it covered. You’re going to be all right.
Teddy Atlas
(02:07:03)
Don’t forget that.
Lex Fridman
(02:07:04)
Yeah.
Teddy Atlas
(02:07:05)
I know people in both places.
Lex Fridman
(02:07:05)
Yeah. Both neighborhoods.
Teddy Atlas
(02:07:24)
I’ve been given credit for being brave in certain spots in life, I hope I can be brave when it comes time to leave life. I hope I can be. And that’s just, that’s real and honest as you can be about it. I hope I can be. So far, so good. When I’ve had to be certain things that I was scared to freaking death, I found a way to beat them, for the most part. And so, I figured, when that day comes, I’ll figure that out too.
Lex Fridman
(02:08:12)
It’s going to be another test, maybe the last one. Teddy, it’s a huge honor to talk to you.
Teddy Atlas
(02:08:19)
It’s my pleasure.
Lex Fridman
(02:08:20)
Thank you for being the human you are, for being honest. Honest about the full range of human nature. And thank you for talking today.
Teddy Atlas
(02:08:29)
Thank you. Thank you for having me, and thanks for listening.
Lex Fridman
(02:08:35)
Thanks for listening to this conversation with Teddy Atlas. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, let me leave you with some words from Muhammad Ali. “I hated every minute of training, but I said, don’t quit, suffer now and live the rest of your life as a champion.” Thank you for listening, and hope to see you next time.

Transcript for Jeff Bezos: Amazon and Blue Origin | Lex Fridman Podcast #405

This is a transcript of Lex Fridman Podcast #405 with Jeff Bezos.
The timestamps in the transcript are clickable links that take you directly to that point in
the main video. Please note that the transcript is human generated, and may have errors.
Here are some useful links:

Table of Contents

Here are the loose “chapters” in the conversation.
Click link to jump approximately to that part in the transcript:

Introduction

Lex Fridman
(00:00:00)
The following is a conversation with Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon and Blue Origin. This is his first time doing a conversation of this kind and of this length. And as he told me, it felt like we could have easily talked for many more hours, and I’m sure we will. This is the Lex Fridman Podcast. And now, dear friends, here’s Jeff Bezos.

Ranch


(00:00:24)
You spent a lot of your childhood with your grandfather on a ranch here in Texas.
Jeff Bezos
(00:00:29)
Mm-hmm.
Lex Fridman
(00:00:30)
And I heard you had a lot of work to do around the ranch. So, what’s the coolest job you remember doing there?
Jeff Bezos
(00:00:35)
Wow. Coolest?
Lex Fridman
(00:00:37)
Most interesting? Most memorable?
Jeff Bezos
(00:00:39)
Most memorable?
Lex Fridman
(00:00:39)
Most impactful?
Jeff Bezos
(00:00:41)
It’s a real working ranch, and I spent all my summers on that ranch from age four to 16. And my grandfather was really taking me and in the early summers, he was letting me pretend to help on the ranch, because of course, a four-year-old is a burden, not a help in real life. He was really just watching me and taking care of me. And he was doing that because my mom was so young. She had me when she was 17, and so he was sort of giving her a break. And my grandmother and my grandfather would take me for these summers.

(00:01:15)
But as I got a little older, I actually was helpful on the ranch and I loved it. My grandfather had a huge influence on me, a huge factor in my life. I did all the jobs you would do on a ranch. I’ve fixed windmills, and laid fences, and pipelines, and done all the things that any rancher would do, vaccinated the animals, everything. But after my grandmother died, I was about 12 and I kept coming to the ranch, so then it was just him and me, just the two of us. And he was completely addicted to the soap opera, Days of Our Lives. And we would go back to the ranch house every day around 1:00 PM or so to watch Days of Our Lives. Like sands through an hourglass, so are the Days of Our Lives.
Lex Fridman
(00:02:07)
Just the image of that, the two of you sitting there watching a soap opera, two ranchers.
Jeff Bezos
(00:02:13)
He had these big crazy dogs. It was really a very formative experience for me. But the key thing about it for me, the great gift I got from it was that my grandfather was so resourceful. He did everything himself. He made his own veterinary tools. He would make needles to suture the cattle up with. He would find a little piece of wire and heat it up and pound it thin and drill a hole in it and sharpen it. So, you learn different things on a ranch than you would learn growing up in a city.
Lex Fridman
(00:02:43)
So, self-reliance?
Jeff Bezos
(00:02:44)
Yeah, figuring out that you can solve problems with enough persistence and ingenuity. And my grandfather bought a D6 bulldozer, which is a big bulldozer, and he got it for like $5,000 because it was completely broken down. It was like a 1955 Caterpillar D6 bulldozer. New it would’ve cost, I don’t know, more than $100,000. And we spent an entire summer repairing that bulldozer. And we’d use mail order to buy big gears for the transmission, and they’d show up, they’d be too heavy to move, so we’d have to build a crane. Just that problem-solving mentality. He had it so powerfully. He did all of his own… He didn’t pick up the phone and call somebody, he would figure it out on his own. Doing his own veterinary work.
Lex Fridman
(00:03:39)
But just the image of the two of you fixing a D6 bulldozer and then going in for a little break at 1:00 PM to watch soap operas.
Jeff Bezos
(00:03:47)
Days of Our Lives. Laying on the floor, that’s how he watched TV. He was a really, really remarkable guy.

Space

Lex Fridman
(00:03:52)
That’s how I imagine Clint Eastwood also in all those westerns, when he’s not doing what he’s doing, he’s just watching soap operas. All right. I read that you fell in love with the idea of space and space exploration when you were five, watching Neil Armstrong walking on the moon. So, let me ask you to look back at the historical context and impact of that. So, the space race from 1957 to 1969 between the Soviet Union and the US was, in many ways, epic. It was a rapid sequence of dramatic events. First satellite to space, first human to space, first spacewalk, first uncrewed landing on the moon. Then, some failures, explosions, deaths on both sides actually. And then, the first human walking on the moon. What are some of the more inspiring moments or insights you take away from that time, those few years at just 12 years?
Jeff Bezos
(00:04:51)
Well, I mean there’s so much inspiring there. One of the great things to take away from that, one of the great von Braun quotes is, “I have come to use the word impossible with great caution.” And so, that’s kind of the big story of Apollo is that going to the moon was literally an analogy that people used for something that’s impossible. “Oh, yeah, you’ll do that when men walk on the moon.” And of course, it finally happened. So, I think it was pulled forward in time because of the space race.

(00:05:31)
I think with the geopolitical implications and how much resource was put into it. At the peak, that program was spending 2% or 3% of GDP on the Apollo program. So, much resource. I think it was pulled forward in time. We kind of did it ahead of when we, quote, unquote, should have done it. And so, in that way, it’s also a technical marvel. I mean it’s truly incredible. It’s the 20th century version of building the pyramids or something. It’s an achievement that because it was pulled forward in time and because it did something that had previously been thought impossible, it rightly deserves its place in the pantheon of great human achievements.
Lex Fridman
(00:06:17)
And of course, you named the rockets that Blue Origin is working on after some of the folks involved.
Jeff Bezos
(00:06:24)
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(00:06:24)
I don’t understand why I didn’t say New Gagarin. Is that-
Jeff Bezos
(00:06:27)
There’s an American bias in the naming. I apologize-
Lex Fridman
(00:06:30)
That’s very strange.
Jeff Bezos
(00:06:31)
… Lex.
Lex Fridman
(00:06:31)
Was just asking for a friend, clarifying.
Jeff Bezos
(00:06:33)
I’m a big fan of Gagarin’s though. And in fact, I think his first words in space I think are incredible. He purportedly said, “My God, it’s blue.” And that really drives home. No one had seen the Earth from space. No one knew that we were on this blue planet. No one knew what it looked like from out there, and Gagarin was the first person to see it.
Lex Fridman
(00:07:01)
One of the things I think about is how dangerous those early days were for Gagarin, for Glenn, for everybody involved. How big of a risk they were all taking.
Jeff Bezos
(00:07:11)
They were taking huge risks. I’m not sure what the Soviets thought about Gagarin’s flight, but I think that the Americans thought that the Alan Shepard flight, the flight that New Shepherd is named after, the First American in space, he went on his suborbital flight, they thought he had about a 75% chance of success. So, that’s a pretty big risk, a 25% risk.
Lex Fridman
(00:07:36)
It’s kind of interesting that Alan Shepard is not quite as famous as John Glenn. So, for people who don’t know, Alan Shepard is the first astronaut-
Jeff Bezos
(00:07:44)
The first American in space.
Lex Fridman
(00:07:46)
American in suborbital flight.
Jeff Bezos
(00:07:48)
Correct.
Lex Fridman
(00:07:48)
And then, the first orbital flight is-
Jeff Bezos
(00:07:51)
John Glenn is the first American to orbit the Earth. By the way, I have the most charming, sweet, incredible letter from John Glenn, which I have framed and hanging on my office wall.
Lex Fridman
(00:08:04)
What did he say?
Jeff Bezos
(00:08:04)
Where he tells me how grateful he is that we have named New Glenn after him. And he sent me that letter about a week before he died. And it’s really an incredible… It’s also a very funny letter. He’s writing and he says, “This is a letter about New Glenn from the original Glenn.” And he’s got a great sense of humor and he’s very happy about it and grateful. It’s very sweet.
Lex Fridman
(00:08:30)
Does he say, “P.S. Don’t mess this up,” or is that-
Jeff Bezos
(00:08:34)
No, he doesn’t.
Lex Fridman
(00:08:35)
“Make me look good.”
Jeff Bezos
(00:08:35)
He doesn’t do that. But John, wherever you are, we’ve got you covered.
Lex Fridman
(00:08:39)
Good. So, back to maybe the big picture of space. When you look up at the stars and think big, what do you hope is the future of humanity, hundreds, thousands of years from now out in space?
Jeff Bezos
(00:08:54)
I would love to see a trillion humans living in the solar system. If we had a trillion humans, we would have, at any given time, 1,000 Mozarts and 1,000 Einsteins. That our solar system would be full of life and intelligence and energy. And we can easily support a civilization that large with all of the resources in the solar system.
Lex Fridman
(00:09:21)
So, what do you think that looks like? Giant space stations?
Jeff Bezos
(00:09:24)
Yeah, the only way to get to that vision is with giant space stations. The planetary surfaces are just way too small. So, I mean, unless you turn them into giant space stations or something. But yeah, we will take materials from the moon and from near-Earth objects and from the asteroid belt and so on, and we’ll build giant O’Neill style colonies and people will live in those. They have a lot of advantages over planetary surfaces. You can spin them to get normal Earth gravity. You can put them where you want them. I think most people are going to want to live near Earth, not necessarily in Earth orbit, but near Earth vicinity orbits. And so, they can move relatively quickly back and forth between their station and Earth. I think a lot of people, especially in the early stages, are not going to want to give up Earth altogether.
Lex Fridman
(00:10:24)
They go to earth for vacation?
Jeff Bezos
(00:10:26)
Yeah, same way that you might go to Yellowstone National Park for vacation, people will… And people will get to choose where they live on Earth or whether they live in space, but they’ll be able to use much more energy and much more material resource in space than they would be able to use on Earth.
Lex Fridman
(00:10:45)
One of the interesting ideas you had is to move the heavy industry away from Earth. So, people sometimes have this idea that somehow space exploration is in conflict with the celebration of the planet Earth, that we should focus on preserving Earth. And basically, your idea is that space travel and space exploration is a way to preserve Earth.
Jeff Bezos
(00:11:06)
Exactly. We’ve sent robotic probes to all the planets, we know that this is the good one.
Lex Fridman
(00:11:17)
Not to play favorites or anything, but…
Jeff Bezos
(00:11:19)
Earth really is the good planet. It’s amazing. The ecosystem we have here, all of the life and the lush plant life and the water resources, everything. This planet is really extraordinary. And of course, we evolved on this planet, so of course it’s perfect for us, but it’s also perfect for all the advanced life forms on this planet, all the animals and so on. And so, this is a gem. We do need to take care of it. And as we enter the Anthropocene, as we humans have gotten so sophisticated and large and impactful, as we stride across this planet, that is going to… We want to use a lot of energy. We want to use a lot of energy per capita. We’ve gotten amazing things. We don’t want to go backwards.

(00:12:10)
If you think about the good old days, they’re mostly an illusion. In almost every way, life is better for almost everyone today than it was say 50 years ago or 100 years ago. We live better lives by and large than our grandparents did, and their grandparents did, and so on. And you can see that in global illiteracy rates, global poverty rates, global infant mortality rates. Almost any metric you choose, we’re better off than we used to be. And we get antibiotics and all kinds of lifesaving medical care, and so on, and so on. And there’s one thing that is moving backwards, and it’s the natural world.

(00:12:54)
So, it is a fact that 500 years ago, pre-industrial age, the natural world was pristine. It was incredible. And we have traded some of that pristine beauty for all of these other gifts that we have as an advanced society. And we can have both, but to do that, we have to go to space. And the most fundamental measure is energy usage per capita. You do want to continue to use more and more energy, it is going to make your life better in so many ways, but that’s not compatible ultimately with living on a finite planet. And so, we have to go out into the solar system. And really, you could argue about when you have to do that, but you can’t credibly argue about whether you have to do that.
Lex Fridman
(00:13:49)
Eventually we have to do that.
Jeff Bezos
(00:13:51)
Exactly.
Lex Fridman
(00:13:52)
Well, you don’t often talk about it, but let me ask you on that topic about the Blue Ring and the Orbital Reef space infrastructure projects. What’s your vision for these?
Jeff Bezos
(00:14:03)
So, Blue Ring is a very interesting spacecraft that is designed to take up to 3,000 kilograms of payload up to geosynchronous orbit or in lunar vicinity. It has two different kinds of propulsion. It has chemical propulsion and it has electric propulsion. And so, you can use Blue Ring in a couple of different ways. You can slowly move, let’s say up to geosynchronous orbit using electric propulsion. That might take 100 days or 150 days, depending on how much mass you’re carrying. And reserve your chemical propulsion, so that you can change orbits quickly in geosynchronous orbit. Or you can use the chemical propulsion first to quickly get up to geosynchronous and then use your electrical propulsion to slowly change your geosynchronous orbit.

(00:14:55)
Blue Ring has a couple of interesting features. It provides a lot of services to these payloads. So, it could be one large payload or it can be a number of small payloads, and it provides thermal management, it provides electric power, it provides compute, provides communications. And so, when you design a payload for Blue Ring, you don’t have to figure out all of those things on your own. So, kind of radiation tolerant compute is a complicated thing to do. And so, we have an unusually large amount of radiation tolerant compute on board Blue Ring, and your payload can just use that when it needs to. So, it’s sort of all these services… It’s like a set of APIs. It’s a little bit like Amazon Web Services, but-
Lex Fridman
(00:15:51)
For space?
Jeff Bezos
(00:15:52)
… for space payloads that need to move about in Earth vicinity or lunar vicinity.
Lex Fridman
(00:15:57)
AWSS space. So, compute and space. So, you get a giant chemical rocket to get a payload out to orbit. And then, you have these admins that show up, this Blue Ring thing that manages various things like compute?
Jeff Bezos
(00:16:13)
Exactly. And it can also provide transportation and move you around to different orbits.
Lex Fridman
(00:16:19)
Including humans, do you think?
Jeff Bezos
(00:16:21)
No, Blue Ring is not designed to move humans around. It’s designed to move payloads around. So, we’re also building a lunar lander, which is of course designed to land humans on the surface of the moon.

Physics

Lex Fridman
(00:16:34)
I’m going to ask you about that, but let me ask you to just step back to the old days. You were at Princeton with aspirations to be a theoretical physicist.
Jeff Bezos
(00:16:45)
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(00:16:47)
What attracted you to physics and why did you change your mind and not become… Why are you not Jeff Bezos, the famous theoretical physicist?
Jeff Bezos
(00:16:57)
So, I loved physics and I studied physics and computer science, and I was proceeding along the physics path. I was planning to major in physics, and I wanted to be a theoretical physicist. And the computer science was sort of something I was doing for fun. I really loved it and I was very good at the programming and doing those things, and I enjoyed all my computer science classes immensely. But I really was determined to be a theoretical physicist. That’s why I went to Princeton in the first place. It was definitely… And then, I realized I was going to be a mediocre theoretical physicist. And there were a few people in my classes, like in quantum mechanics and so on, who they could effortlessly do things that were so difficult for me. And I realized there are 1,000 ways to be smart.

(00:17:52)
Theoretical physics is not one of those fields where only the top few percent actually move the state-of-the-art forward. It’s one of those things where your brain has to be wired in a certain way. And there was a guy named… One of these people who convinced me, he didn’t mean to convince me, but just by observing him, he convinced me that I should not try to be a theoretical physicist. His name was Yosanta. And Yosanta was from Sri Lanka, and he was one of the most brilliant people I’d ever met. My friend Joe and I were working on a very difficult partial differential equations problem set one night. And there was one problem that we worked on for three hours and we made no headway whatsoever. And we looked up at each other at the same time and we said, “Yosanta.”

(00:18:49)
So, we went to Yosanta’s dorm room and he was there. He was almost always there. And we said, “Yosanta, we’re having trouble solving this partial differential equation. Would you mind taking a look?” And he said, “Of course.” By the way, he was the most humble, most kind person. And so, he looked at our problem and he stared at it for just a few seconds, maybe 10 seconds, and he said, “cosine.” And I said, “What do you mean, Yosanta? What do you mean cosine?” He said, “That’s the answer.” And I said, “No, no, no, come on.” And he said, “Let me show you.” And he took out some paper and he wrote down three pages of equations, everything canceled out, and the answer was cosine.

(00:19:30)
And I said, “Yosanta, did you do that in your head?” And he said, “Oh, no. That would be impossible. A few years ago I solved a similar problem and I could map this problem onto that problem, and then it was immediately obvious that the answer was cosine.” You have an experience like that, you realize maybe being a theoretical physicist isn’t what the universe wants you to be. And so, I switched to computer science and that worked out really well for me. I enjoy it. I still enjoy it today.
Lex Fridman
(00:20:07)
Yeah, there’s a particular kind of intuition you need to be a great physicist, and applied to physics.
Jeff Bezos
(00:20:12)
I think the mathematical skill required today is so high. You have to be a world-class mathematician to be a successful theoretical physicist today. And you probably need other skills too, intuition, lateral thinking and so on. But without just top-notch math skills, you’re unlikely to be successful.
Lex Fridman
(00:20:39)
And visualization skill, you have to be able to really do these kinds of thought experiments if you want truly great creativity. Actually Walter Isaacson writes about you and puts you on the same level as Einstein and-
Jeff Bezos
(00:20:53)
Well, that’s very kind. I’m an inventor. If you want to boil down what I am, I’m really an inventor. And I look at things and I can come up with atypical solutions. And then, I can create 100 such atypical solutions for something, 99 of them may not survive scrutiny, but one of those 100 is like, “Hmm, maybe that might work.” And then, you can keep going from there. So, that kind of lateral thinking, that kind of inventiveness in a high-dimensionality space where the search space is very large, that’s where my inventive skills come… I self-identify as an inventor more than anything else.
Lex Fridman
(00:21:43)
Yeah. And he describes in all kinds of different ways, Walter Isaacson does, that creativity combined with childlike wander that you’ve maintained still to this day, all of that combined together. If you were to study your own brain, introspect, how do you think? What’s your thinking process like? We’ll talk about the writing process of putting it down on paper, which is quite rigorous and famous at Amazon. But when you sit down, maybe alone, maybe with others, and thinking through this high-dimensional space and looking for creative solutions, creative paths forward, is there something you could say about that process?
Jeff Bezos
(00:22:26)
It’s such a good question, and I honestly don’t know how it works. If I did, I would try to explain it. I know it involves lots of wandering, so when I sit down to work on a problem, I know I don’t know where I’m going. So, to go in a straight line… To be efficient… Efficiency and invention are sort of at odds, because real invention, Not incremental improvement… Incremental improvement is so important in every endeavor, in everything you do, you have to work hard on also just making things a little bit better. But I’m talking about real invention, real lateral thinking that requires wandering, and you have to give yourself permission to wander.

(00:23:11)
I think a lot of people, and they feel like wandering is inefficient. And when I sit down at a meeting, I don’t know how long the meeting is going to take if we’re trying to solve a problem, because if I did, then I’d know there’s some kind of straight line that we’re drawing to the solution. The reality is we may have to wander for a long time. And I do like group invention. I think there’s really nothing more fun than sitting at a whiteboard with a group of smart people and spit balling and coming up with new ideas and objections to those ideas, and then solutions to the objections and going back and forth. So, sometimes you wake up with an idea in the middle of the night and sometimes you sit down with a group of people and go back and forth, and both things are really pleasurable.
Lex Fridman
(00:24:14)
And when you wander, I think one key thing is to notice a good idea. And maybe to notice the kernel of a good idea. I’ll maybe pull at that string. Because I don’t think good ideas come fully-formed.
Jeff Bezos
(00:24:31)
100% right. In fact, when I come up with what I think is a good idea and it survives the first level of scrutiny that I do in my own head, and I’m ready to tell somebody else about the idea, I will often say, “Look, it is going to be really easy for you to find objections to this idea, but work with me.”
Lex Fridman
(00:24:53)
There’s something there.
Jeff Bezos
(00:24:54)
There’s something there. And that is intuition, because it’s really easy to kill new ideas in the beginning because there’s so many easy objections to them. So, you need to kind of forewarn people and say, “Look, I know it’s going to take a lot of work to get this to a fully-formed idea. Let’s get started on that. It’ll be fun.”
Lex Fridman
(00:25:17)
So, you got that ability to say cosine in you somewhere after all, maybe not on math, but-
Jeff Bezos
(00:25:23)
In a different domain.
Lex Fridman
(00:25:24)
Yeah.
Jeff Bezos
(00:25:25)
There are 1,000 ways to be smart, by the way, and that is a really… When I go around and I meet people, I’m always looking for the way that they’re smart. And you find that’s one of the things that makes the world so interesting and fun is that it’s not like IQ is a single dimension. There are people who are smart in such unique ways.
Lex Fridman
(00:25:53)
Yeah, you just gave me a good response when somebody calls me an idiot on the internet. “You know, there’s 1,000 ways to be smart, sir.”
Jeff Bezos
(00:26:01)
Well, they might tell you, “Yeah, but there are a million to be ways to be dumb.”

New Glenn

Lex Fridman
(00:26:04)
Yeah, right. I feel like that’s a Mark Twain quote. Okay. All right. You gave me an amazing tour of Blue Origin Rocket Factory and Launch Complex in the historic Cape Canaveral. That’s where New Glenn, the big rocket we talked about, is being built and will launch. Can you explain what the New Glenn rocket is and tell me some interesting technical aspects of how it works?
Jeff Bezos
(00:26:29)
Sure. New Glenn is a very large heavy-lift launch vehicle. It’ll take about 45 metric tons to LEO, very large class. It’s about half the thrust, a little more than half the thrust of the Saturn V rocket. So, it’s about 3.9 million pounds of thrust on liftoff. The booster has seven BE-4 engines. Each engine generates a little more than 550,000 pounds of thrust. The engines are fueled by liquified natural gas, LNG as the fuel, and LOX as the oxidizer. The cycle is an ox-riched stage combustion cycle. It’s a cycle that was really pioneered by the Russians. It’s a very good cycle. And that engine is also going to power the first stage of the Vulcan rocket, which is the United Launch Alliance rocket. Then the second stage of New Glenn is powered by two BE-3U engines, which is a upper-stage variant of our New Shepard liquid hydrogen engine.

(00:27:44)
So, the BE-3U has 160,000 pounds of thrust, so two of those, 320,000 pounds of thrust. And hydrogen is a very good propellant for upper stages because it has very high ISP. It’s not a great propellant in my view for booster stages, because the stages then get physically so large. Hydrogen has very high ISP, but liquid hydrogen is not dense at all. So, to store liquid hydrogen, if you need to store many thousands of pounds of liquid hydrogen, your liquid hydrogen tank gets very large. So, you get more benefit from the higher ISP, the specific impulse, you get more benefit from the higher specific impulse on the second stage. And that stage carries less propellant, so you don’t get such geometrically-gigantic tanks. The Delta IV is an example of a vehicle that is all hydrogen. The booster stage is also hydrogen, and I think that it’s a very effective vehicle, but it never was very cost-effective. So, it’s operationally very capable but not very cost-effective.
Lex Fridman
(00:28:56)
So, size is also costly?
Jeff Bezos
(00:28:58)
Size is costly. So, it’s interesting. Rockets love to be big. Everything works better.
Lex Fridman
(00:29:05)
What do you mean by that? You’ve told me that before. It sounds epic, but what does it mean?
Jeff Bezos
(00:29:10)
I mean, when you look at the physics of rocket engines, and also when you look at parasitic mass… Let’s say you have an avionic system, so you have a guidance and control system, that is going to be about the same mass and size for a giant rocket as it is going to be for a tiny rocket. And so, that’s just parasitic mass that is very consequential if you’re building a very small rocket, but is trivial if you’re building a very large rocket. So, you have the parasitic mass thing. And then if you look at, for example, rocket engines have turbo pumps. They have to pressurize the fuel in the oxidizer up to a very high pressure level in order to inject it into the thrust chamber where it burns. And those pumps, all rotating machines, in fact, get more efficient as they get larger. So, really tiny turbo pumps are very challenging to manufacture, and any kind of gaps between the housing, for example, and the rotating impeller that pressurizes the fuel, there has to be some gap there. You can’t have those parts scraping against one another, and those gaps drive inefficiencies. And so, if you have a very large turbo pump, those gaps in percentage terms end up being very small. And so, there’s a bunch of things that you end up loving about having a large rocket and that you end up hating for a small rocket. But there’s a giant exception to this rule, and it is manufacturing. So, manufacturing large structures is very, very challenging. It’s a pain in the butt. And so, if you’re making a small rocket engine, you can move all the pieces by hand, you could assemble it on a table, one person can do it. You don’t need cranes and heavy lift operations and tooling and so on and so on. When you start building big objects, infrastructure, civil infrastructure, just like the launchpad and all this we went and visited, I took you to the launchpad. And you can see it’s so monumental.
Lex Fridman
(00:31:27)
Yeah, it is.
Jeff Bezos
(00:31:28)
And so, just these things become major undertakings, both from an engineering point of view, but also from a construction and cost point of view.
Lex Fridman
(00:31:37)
And even the foundation of the launchpad. I mean, this is Florida, isn’t it swamp land? How deep do you have to go?
Jeff Bezos
(00:31:44)
At Cape Canaveral, in fact, most launch pads are on beaches somewhere on the ocean side because you want to launch over water for safety reasons. Yes, you have to drive pilings, dozens and dozens and dozens of pilings, 50, 100, 150 feet deep to get enough structural integrity for these very large… Yes, these turn into major civil engineering projects.
Lex Fridman
(00:32:15)
I just have to say everything about that factory is pretty badass. You said tooling, the bigger it gets, the more epic it is.
Jeff Bezos
(00:32:22)
It does make it epic. It’s fun to look at. It’s extraordinary.
Lex Fridman
(00:32:26)
It’s humbling also because humans are so small compared to it.
Jeff Bezos
(00:32:29)
We are building these enormous machines that are harnessing enormous amounts of chemical power in very, very compact packages. It’s truly extraordinary.
Lex Fridman
(00:32:44)
But then, there’s all the different components and the materials involved. Is there something interesting that you can describe about the materials that comprise the rocket? So, it has to be as light as possible, I guess, whilst withstanding the heat and the harsh conditions?
Jeff Bezos
(00:33:03)
Yeah-
Lex Fridman
(00:33:00)
Whilst withstanding the heat and the harsh conditions?
Jeff Bezos
(00:33:03)
Yeah, I play a little game sometimes with other rocket people that I run into where say, “What are the things that would amaze the 1960s engineers? What’s changed?” Because surprisingly, some of rocketry’s greatest hits have not changed. They would recognize immediately a lot of what we do today and it’s exactly what they pioneered back in the ’60s. But a few things have changed. The use of carbon composites is very different today. We can build very sophisticated … You saw our carbon tape laying machine that builds the giant fairings and we can build these incredibly light, very stiff fairing structures out of carbon composite material that they could not have dreamed of. The efficiency, the structural efficiency of that material is so high compared to any metallic material you might use or anything else. So that’s one.

(00:34:12)
Aluminum-lithium and the ability to friction stir weld aluminum-lithium. Do you remember the friction stir welding that I showed you?
Lex Fridman
(00:34:20)
Yes. It’s incredible.
Jeff Bezos
(00:34:21)
This is a remarkable technology that’s invented decades ago, but has become very practical over just the last couple of decades. And instead of using heat to weld two pieces of metal together, it literally stirs the two pieces. There’s a pin that rotates at a certain rate and you put that pin between the two plates of metal that you want to weld together and then you move it at a very precise speed. And instead of heating the material, it heats it a little bit because of friction, but not very much, you can literally immediately after welding with stir friction welding, you can touch the material and it’s just barely warm. It literally stirs the molecules together. It’s quite extraordinary.
Lex Fridman
(00:35:06)
Relatively low temperature and I guess high temperatures, that makes it a weak point.
Jeff Bezos
(00:35:11)
Exactly. So …
Lex Fridman
(00:35:13)
Amazing.
Jeff Bezos
(00:35:13)
… with traditional welding techniques, you whatever the underlying strength characteristics of the material are, you end up with weak regions where you weld. And with friction stir welding, the welds are just as strong as the bulk material. So it really allows you … Let’s say you’re building a tank that you’re going to pressurize a large liquid natural gas tank for our booster stage, for example, if you are welding that with traditional methods, you have to size those weld lands, the thickness of those pieces with that knockdown for whatever damage you’re doing with the weld and that’s going to add a lot of weight to that tank.
Lex Fridman
(00:35:54)
Even just looking at the fairings, the result of that, the complex shape that it takes and what it’s supposed to do is incredible because some people don’t know, it’s on top of the rock, it’s going to fall apart. That’s its task, but it has to stay strong sometimes and then disappear when it needs to …
Jeff Bezos
(00:36:14)
That’s right.
Lex Fridman
(00:36:15)
… which is a very difficult task.
Jeff Bezos
(00:36:17)
Yes. When you need something that needs to have 100% integrity until it needs to have 0% integrity, it needs to stay attached until it’s ready to go away, and then when it goes away, it has to go away completely. You use explosive charges for that and so it’s a very robust way of separating structure when you need to.
Lex Fridman
(00:36:40)
Exploding.
Jeff Bezos
(00:36:41)
Yeah, little tiny bits of explosive material and it will sever the whole connection.
Lex Fridman
(00:36:49)
So if you want to go from 100% structural integrity to zero as fast as possible is explosives.
Jeff Bezos
(00:36:58)
Use explosives.
Lex Fridman
(00:36:59)
The entirety of this thing is so badass. Okay, so we’re back to the two stages. So the first stage is reusable.
Jeff Bezos
(00:37:06)
Yeah. Second stage is expendable. Second stage is liquid hydrogen, liquid oxygen. So we get take advantage of the higher specific impulse. The first stage lands down range on a landing platform in the ocean, comes back for maintenance and get ready to do the next mission.
Lex Fridman
(00:37:27)
There’s a million questions, but also is there a path towards reusability for the second stage?
Jeff Bezos
(00:37:32)
There is and we know how to do that. Right now, we’re going to work on manufacturing that second stage to make it as inexpensive as possible, two paths for a second stage, make it reusable or work really hard to make it inexpensive, so you can afford to expend it. And that trade is actually not obvious which one is better.
Lex Fridman
(00:38:00)
Even in terms of cost, like time, cost-
Jeff Bezos
(00:38:01)
Even in terms of … And I’m talking about cost. Space, getting into orbit is a solved problem. We solved it back in the ’50s and ’60s.
Lex Fridman
(00:38:11)
You’re making it sound easy.
Jeff Bezos
(00:38:13)
The only interesting problem is dramatically reducing the cost of access to orbit, which is, if you can do that, you open up a bunch of new endeavors that lots of start-up companies everybody else can do. One of our missions is to be part of this industry and lower the cost to orbit, so that there can be a renaissance, a golden age of people doing all kinds of interesting things in space.
Lex Fridman
(00:38:47)
I like how you said getting to orbit is a solved problem. It’s just the only interesting thing is reducing the cost. You know how you can describe every single problem facing human civilization that way? The physicists would say, “Everything is a solved problem. We’ve solved everything. The rest is just,” what did Rutherford said, “that it’s just stamp collecting. It’s just the details.” Some of the greatest innovations and inventions and brilliance is in that cost reduction stage, right? And you’ve had a long career of cost reduction.
Jeff Bezos
(00:39:18)
For sure. What does cost reduction really mean? It means inventing a better way.
Lex Fridman
(00:39:24)
Yeah, exactly.
Jeff Bezos
(00:39:25)
Right? And when you invent a better way, you make the whole world richer. So whatever it was, I don’t know how many thousands of years ago, somebody invented the plow. And when they invented the plow, they made the whole world richer because they made farming less expensive. And so it is a big deal to invent better ways. That’s how the world gets richer.
Lex Fridman
(00:39:48)
So what are some of the biggest challenges on the manufacturing side, on the engineering side that you’re facing in working to get to the first launch of New Glenn?
Jeff Bezos
(00:40:01)
The first launch is one thing and we’ll do that in 2024, coming up in this coming year. The real thing that’s the bigger challenge is making sure that our factory is efficiently manufacturing at rate. So rate production, so consider if you want to launch New Glenn 24 times a year, you need to manufacture a upper stage since they’re expendable, twice a month. You need to do one every two weeks. So you need to have all of your manufacturing facilities and processes and inspection techniques and acceptance tests and everything operating at rate. And rate manufacturing is at least as difficult as designing the vehicle in the first place and the same thing. So every upper stage has two BE-3U engines.

(00:41:03)
So those engines, if you’re going to launch the vehicle twice a month, you need four engines a month. So you need an engine every week. That engine needs to be being produced at rate and there’s all of the things that you need to do that, all the right machine tools, all the right fixtures, the right people, process, etcetera. So it’s one thing to build a first article, right? To launch New Glenn for the first time, you need to produce a first article, but that’s not the hard part. The hard part is everything that’s going on behind the scenes to build a factory that can produce New Glenns at rate.
Lex Fridman
(00:41:47)
So the first one is produced in a way that enables the production of the second and third and the fourth and the fifth and sixth-
Jeff Bezos
(00:41:53)
You could think of the first article as pushing, it pushes all of the rate manufacturing technology along. In other words, it’s the test article in a way that’s testing out your manufacturing technologies.
Lex Fridman
(00:42:13)
The manufacturing is the big challenge.
Jeff Bezos
(00:42:15)
Yes. I don’t want to make it sound like any of it is easy. The people who are designing the engines and all this, all of this is hard for sure, but the challenge right now is driving really hard to get to is to get to rate manufacturing and to do that in an efficient way, again back to our cost point. If you get to rate manufacturing in an inefficient way, you haven’t really solved the cost problem and maybe you haven’t really moved the state of the art forward. All this has to be about moving this state of the art forward. There are easier businesses to do. I always tell people, “Look, if you are trying to make money, start a salty snack food company or something.”
Lex Fridman
(00:42:56)
I’m going to write that idea down.
Jeff Bezos
(00:43:01)
Make the Lex Fridman Potato Chips.
Lex Fridman
(00:43:04)
Right. Don’t say it. People are going to steal it. But yeah, it’s hard.
Jeff Bezos
(00:43:10)
Do you see what I’m saying? There’s nothing easy about this business, but it’s its own reward. It’s fascinating, it’s worthwhile, it’s meaningful. I don’t want to pick on salty snack food companies, but I think it’s less meaningful. At the end of the day, you’re not going to have accomplished something amazing …
Lex Fridman
(00:43:33)
Yeah, there’s-
Jeff Bezos
(00:43:33)
… even if you do make a lot of money on it.
Lex Fridman
(00:43:35)
Yeah, there’s something fundamentally different about the “business of space exploration.”
Jeff Bezos
(00:43:41)
Yeah, for sure.
Lex Fridman
(00:43:42)
It’s a grand project of humanity.
Jeff Bezos
(00:43:44)
Yes, it’s one of humanity’s grand challenges, and especially as you look at going to the moon and going to Mars and building giant O’Neill colonies and unlocking all the things. I won’t live long enough to see the fruits of this, but the fruits of this come from building a road to space, getting the infrastructure. I’ll give you an analogy. When I started Amazon, I didn’t have to develop a payment system. It already existed. It was called the credit card. I didn’t have to develop a transportation system to deliver the packages. It already existed. It was called the Postal Service and Royal Mail and Deutsche Post and so on. So all this heavy lifting infrastructure was already in place and I could stand on its shoulders. And that’s why, when you look at the internet …

(00:44:40)
And by the way, another giant piece of infrastructure that was around in the early, I’m taking you back to 1994, people were using dial-up modems and it was piggybacking on top of the long distance phone network. That’s how the internet … That’s how people were accessing servers and so on. And again, if that hadn’t existed, it would’ve been hundreds of billions of CapEx to put that out there. No startup company could have done that. And so the problem you see, if you look at the dynamism in the internet space over the last 20 years, it’s because you see two kids in a dorm room could start an internet company that could be successful and do amazing things because they didn’t have to build heavy infrastructure. It was already there. And that’s what I want to do. I take my Amazon winnings and use that to build heavy infrastructure so that the next generation, the generation that’s my children and their children, those generations can then use that heavy infrastructure, then there’ll be space entrepreneurs who start in their dorm room. That will be a marker of success when you can have a really valuable space company started in a dorm room, then we know that we’ve built enough infrastructure so that ingenuity and imagination can really be unleashed. I find that very exciting.
Lex Fridman
(00:46:11)
They will, of course, as kids do, take all of this hard infrastructure ability for granted.
Jeff Bezos
(00:46:16)
Of course.
Lex Fridman
(00:46:18)
That entrepreneurial spirit.
Jeff Bezos
(00:46:19)
That’s an inventor’s greatest dream, is that their inventions are so successful that they are one day taken for granted. Nobody thinks of Amazon as an invention anymore. Nobody thinks of customer reviews as an invention. We pioneered customer reviews, but now they’re so commonplace. Same thing with one-click shopping and so on, but that’s a compliment. You invent something that’s so used, so beneficially used by so many people that they take it for granted.
Lex Fridman
(00:46:49)
I don’t know about nobody. Every time I use Amazon, I’m still amazed, “How does this work, the logistics, the Wazuh?”
Jeff Bezos
(00:46:55)
Well, that proves you’re a very curious explorer.
Lex Fridman
(00:46:57)
All right, all right, back to rocket. Timeline, you said 2024. As it stands now, are both the first test launch and the launch of ESCAPADE explorers to Mars still possible in 2024?
Jeff Bezos
(00:47:11)
In 2024?
Lex Fridman
(00:47:12)
Yeah.
Jeff Bezos
(00:47:13)
Yeah, I think so. For sure, the first launch and then we’ll see if ESCAPADE goes on that or not. I think that the first launch for sure and I hope ESCAPADE too.
Lex Fridman
(00:47:23)
Hope-
Jeff Bezos
(00:47:24)
Well, I just don’t know which mission it’s actually going to be slated on. So we also have other things that might go on that first mission.
Lex Fridman
(00:47:31)
Oh, I got it. But you’re optimistic that the launches will still-
Jeff Bezos
(00:47:35)
Oh, the first launch. I’m very optimistic that the first launch of New Glenn will be in 2024 and I’m just not 100% certain what payload will be on that first launch.
Lex Fridman
(00:47:44)
Are you nervous about it?
Jeff Bezos
(00:47:46)
Are you kidding? I’m extremely nervous about it.
Lex Fridman
(00:47:51)
Oh, man.
Jeff Bezos
(00:47:52)
100%. Every launch I go to, for New Shepherd, for other vehicles too, I’m always nervous for these launches. But yes, for sure, a first launch, to have no nervous about that would be some sign of derangement, I think so.
Lex Fridman
(00:48:09)
Well, I got to visit the launch, man. It’s pretty … I mean, it’s epic.
Jeff Bezos
(00:48:14)
We have done a tremendous amount of ground testing, a tremendous amount of simulation. So a lot of the problems that we might find in flight have been resolved, but there are some problems you can only find in flight. So cross your fingers. I guarantee you you’ll have fun watching it no matter what happens.
Lex Fridman
(00:48:37)
100%. When the thing is fully assembled, it comes up-
Jeff Bezos
(00:48:41)
Yeah, the transporter erector.
Lex Fridman
(00:48:44)
It’s the erector, yeah.
Jeff Bezos
(00:48:45)
Just the transporter erector for a rocket of this scale is extraordinary.
Lex Fridman
(00:48:49)
That’s an incredible machine.
Jeff Bezos
(00:48:50)
The vehicle travels out horizontally and then comes up and-
Lex Fridman
(00:48:57)
Over a few hours?
Jeff Bezos
(00:48:58)
Yeah, it’s a beautiful thing to watch.
Lex Fridman
(00:49:00)
Speaking of which, if that makes you nervous, I don’t know if you remember, but you were aboard New Shepard on its first crewed flight. How was that experience? Were you terrified then?
Jeff Bezos
(00:49:20)
Strangely, I wasn’t.
Lex Fridman
(00:49:22)
When you ride the rocket, wasn’t nerve wracking? Okay.
Jeff Bezos
(00:49:24)
It’s true. I’ve watched other people riding the rocket and I’m more nervous than when I was inside the rocket myself. It was a difficult conversation to have with my mother when I told her I was going to go on the first one. And not only was I going to go, but I was going to bring my brother too. This is a tough conversation to have with a mom.
Lex Fridman
(00:49:44)
There’s a long pause when you told her.
Jeff Bezos
(00:49:47)
She’s like, “Both of you?” It was an incredible experience and we were laughing inside the capsule and we’re not nervous. The people on the ground were very nervous for us. It was actually one of the most emotionally powerful parts of the experience happened even before the flight. At 4:30 in the morning, brother and I are getting ready to go to the launch site and Lauren is going to take us there in her helicopter and we’re getting ready to leave. And we go outside, outside the ranch house there in West Texas where the launch facility is and all of our family, my kids and my brother’s kids and our parents and close friends are assembled there and they’re saying goodbye to us, but they’re saying, “Maybe they think they’re saying goodbye to us forever,” and we might not have felt that way, but it was obvious from their faces how nervous they were that they felt that way. And it was powerful because it allowed us to see … It was almost like a attending year old memorial service or something like you could feel how loved you were in that moment and it was really amazing.
Lex Fridman
(00:51:12)
Yeah, and there’s just a epic nature to it too.
Jeff Bezos
(00:51:17)
The ascent, the floating in zero gravity. I’ll tell you something very interesting, zero gravity feels very natural. I don’t know if it’s because it’s like return to the womb or-
Lex Fridman
(00:51:31)
You just confirmed you’re an alien, but that’s all. I think that’s what you just said.
Jeff Bezos
(00:51:36)
It feels so natural to be in zero G. It was really interesting. And then what people talk about the overview effect and seeing Earth from space, I had that feeling very powerfully. I think everyone did. You see how fragile the Earth is. If you’re not an environmentalist, it will make you one. The great Jim Lovell quote, he looked back at the Earth from space and he said he realized, “You don’t go to heaven when you die. You go to heaven when you’re born.” That’s the feeling that people get when they’re in space. You see all this blackness, all this nothingness and there’s one gem of life and it’s Earth.
Lex Fridman
(00:52:15)
It is a gem. You’ve talked a lot about decision making throughout your time with Amazon. What was that decision like to be the first to ride New Shepard? Just before you talk to your mom, the pros and cons? Actually, as one human being, as a leader of a company on all fronts, what was that decision making like?
Jeff Bezos
(00:52:43)
I decided that … First of all, I knew the vehicle extremely well. I know the team who built it. I know the vehicle. I’m very comfortable with the escape system. We put as much effort into the escape system on that vehicle as we put into all the rest of the vehicle combined. It’s one of the hardest pieces of engineering in the entire New Shepard architecture.
Lex Fridman
(00:53:10)
Can you actually describe what do you mean by escape system? What’s involved?
Jeff Bezos
(00:53:13)
We have a solid rocket motor in the base of the crew capsule, so that if anything goes wrong on ascent, while the main rocket engine is firing, we can ignite this solid rocket motor in the base of the crew capsule and escape from the booster. It’s a very challenging system to build, design, validate, test, all of these things. It is the reason that I am comfortable letting anyone go on New Shepard. So the booster is as safe and reliable as we can make it, but we are harnessing … Whenever you’re talking about rocket engines, I don’t care what rocket engine you’re talking about, you’re harnessing such vast power in such a small compact geometric space. The power density is so enormous that it is impossible to ever be sure that nothing will go wrong.

(00:54:18)
And so the only way to improve safety is to have an escape system. And historically, human-rated rockets have had escape systems. Only the space shuttle did not, but Apollo had one. All of the previous Gemini, etcetera, they all had escape systems. And we have on New Shepard an unusual escape … Most escape systems are towers. We have a pusher escape system. So the solid rocket motor is actually embedded in the base of the crew capsule and it pushes and it’s reusable in the sense that, if we don’t use it, so if we have a nominal mission, we land with it. The tower systems have to be ejected at a certain point in the mission and so they get wasted even in a nominal mission.

(00:55:09)
And so again, costs really matters on these things, so we figured out how to have the escape system be a reusable. In the event that it’s not used, it can reuse it and have it be a pusher system. It’s a very sophisticated thing. So I knew these things. You asked me about my decision to go and so I know the vehicle very well, I know the people who designed it, I have great trust in them and in the engineering that we did. And I thought to myself, “Look, if I am not ready to go, then I wouldn’t want anyone to go.” A tourism vehicle has to be designed, in my view, to be as safe as one can make it. You can’t make it perfectly safe. It’s impossible, but you have … People will do things. People take risk. They climb mountains, they skydive, they do deep underwater scuba diving and so on. People are okay taking risk. You can’t eliminate the risk, but it is something, because it’s a tourism vehicle, you have to do your utmost to eliminate those risks.

(00:56:16)
And I felt very good about the system. I think it’s one of the reasons I was so calm inside and maybe others weren’t as calm. They didn’t know as much about it as I did.
Lex Fridman
(00:56:26)
Who was in charge of engaging the escape system? Did you have-
Jeff Bezos
(00:56:28)
It’s automated. The escape system is …
Lex Fridman
(00:56:31)
Okay. I was visualizing-
Jeff Bezos
(00:56:33)
… completely automated. Automated is better because it can react so much faster.
Lex Fridman
(00:56:38)
Okay. So yeah, for tourism rockets, safety is a huge, huge, huge priority for space exploration also, but a delta less.
Jeff Bezos
(00:56:46)
Yes. I think if you’re doing … There are human activities where we tolerate more risk if you’re saving somebody’s life, if you are engaging in real exploration. These are things where I personally think we would accept more risk in part because you have to.
Lex Fridman
(00:57:09)
Is there a part of you that’s frustrated by the rate of progress in Blue Origin?
Jeff Bezos
(00:57:15)
Blue Origin needs to be much faster. And it’s one of the reasons that I left my role as the CEO of Amazon a couple of years ago, “I wanted to come in and Blue Origin needs me right now.” And so I had always … When I was the CEO of Amazon, my point of view on this is, “If I’m the CEO of a publicly traded company, it’s going to get my full attention.” And it’s just how I think about things. It was very important to me. I felt I had an obligation to all the stakeholders at Amazon to do that. And so having turned the CEO, I’m still the executive chair there, but I turned the CEO role over, and the primary reason I did that is that I could spend time on Blue Origin, adding some energy, some sense of urgency, “We need to move much faster and we’re going to.”
Lex Fridman
(00:58:14)
What are the ways to speed it up? You’ve talked a lot of different ways at Amazon removing barriers for progress or distributing, making everybody autonomous and self-reliant, all those kinds of things. Is that apply at Blue Origin or is-
Jeff Bezos
(00:58:37)
It does apply. I’m leading this directly. We’re going to become the world’s most decisive company across any industry. And so at Amazon, for ever since the beginning, I said, “We’re going to become the world’s most customer-obsessed company.” And no matter the industry, one day, people are going to come to Amazon from the healthcare industry and want to know, “How are you so customer-obsessed? How do you not just pay lip service that, but actually do that?” All different industries should come want to study us to see how we accomplish that. And the analogous thing at Blue Origin and will help us move faster is we’re going to become the world’s most decisive company. We’re going to get really good at taking appropriate technology risk and making those decisions quickly, being bold on those things and having the right culture that supports that.

(00:59:40)
You need people to be ambitious, technically ambitious, “If there are five ways to do something, we’ll study them, but let’s study them very quickly and make a decision.” We can always change our mind. Changing your mind, I talk about one-way doors and two-way doors, most decisions are two-way doors.
Lex Fridman
(01:00:03)
Can you explain that because I love that metaphor?
Jeff Bezos
(01:00:06)
If you make the wrong decision, if it’s a two-way door decision, you pick a door, you walk out and you spend a little time there. It turns out to be the wrong decision, you can come back in and pick another door. Some decisions are so consequential and so important and so hard to reverse that they really are one-way door decisions. You go in that door, you’re not coming back. And those decisions have to be made very deliberately, very carefully. If you can think of yet another way to analyze the decision, you should slow down and do that. So when I was CEO of Amazon, I often found myself in the position of being the chief slow down officer because somebody would be bringing me a one-way door decision and I would say, “Okay, I can think of three more ways to analyze that. So let’s go do that because we are not going to be able to reverse this one easily. Maybe you can reverse it if it’s going to be very costly and very time-consuming. We really have to get this one right from the beginning.”

(01:01:10)
And what happens, unfortunately, in companies, what can happen, is that you have a one-size-fits-all decision-making process where you end up using the heavyweight process on all decisions …
Lex Fridman
(01:01:28)
For everything, yeah.
Jeff Bezos
(01:01:29)
… Including the lightweight ones, the two-way door decisions. Two-way door decisions should mostly be made by single individuals or by very small teams deep in the organization. And one-way door decisions are the irreversible ones. Those are the ones that should be elevated up to the senior-most executives who should slow them down and make sure that the right thing is being done.
Lex Fridman
(01:01:55)
Yeah, part of the skill here is to know the difference between one-way and two-way. I think you mentioned …
Jeff Bezos
(01:01:55)
Yes.
Lex Fridman
(01:02:01)
I think you mentioned Amazon Prime, the decision to create Amazon Prime as a one-way door. It’s unclear if it is or not, but it probably is and it’s a really big risk to go there.
Jeff Bezos
(01:02:14)
There are a bunch of decisions like that are … Changing the decision is going to be very, very complicated. Some of them are technical decisions too because some technical decisions are like quick-drying cement. Once you make them, it gets really hard. Choosing which propellants to use in a vehicle, selecting LNG for the booster stage and selecting hydrogen for the upper stage, that has turned out to be a very good decision. But if you changed your mind, that would be a very big setback. Do you see what I’m saying?
Lex Fridman
(01:02:51)
Yeah, yeah.
Jeff Bezos
(01:02:52)
So that’s the kind of decision you scrutinize very, very carefully. Other things just aren’t like that. Most decisions are not that way. Most decisions should be made by single individuals and done quickly in the full understanding that you can always change your mind.
Lex Fridman
(01:03:11)
One of the things I really liked, perhaps it’s not a two-way door decisions, is, “I disagree and commit,” phrase. So somebody brings up an idea to you, if it’s a two-way door, you state that you don’t understand enough to agree, but you still back them. I’d love for you to explain that-
Jeff Bezos
(01:03:35)
Well, yes, disagree and commit is a really important principle that saves a lot of arguing. So-
Lex Fridman
(01:03:39)
Yeah, I’m going to use that in my personal life, “I disagree, but commit.”
Jeff Bezos
(01:03:44)
It’s very common in any endeavor in life, in business and anybody where you have teammates, you have a teammate and the two of you disagree. At some point, you have to make a decision. And in companies, we tend to organize hierarchically. Whoever’s the more senior person ultimately gets to make the decision. So ultimately, the CEO gets to make that decision. And the CEO may not always make the decision that they agree with. So I would be the one who would disagree and commit. One of my direct reports would very much want to do something in a particular way. I would think it was a bad idea. I would explain my point of view. They would say, ” Jeff, I think you’re wrong and here’s why,” and we would go back and forth.

(01:04:35)
And I would often say, “You know what? I don’t think you’re right, but I’m going to gamble with you and you’re closer to the ground truth than I am. I’d known you for 20 years. You have great judgment. I don’t know that I’m right either. Not really, not for sure. All these decisions are complicated. Let’s do it your way.” But at least then you’ve made a decision and I’m agreeing to commit to that decision. So I’m not going to be second guessing it. I’m not going to be sniping at it. I’m not going to be saying, “I told you so.” I’m going to try actively to help make sure it works. That’s a really important teammate behavior.

(01:05:18)
There’s so many ways that dispute resolution is a really interesting thing on teams. And there are so many ways when two people disagree about something, even … I’m assuming the case for everybody is well-intentioned. They just have a very different opinion about what the right decision is. And in our society and inside companies, we have a bunch of mechanisms that we use to resolve these kinds of disputes. A lot of them are, I think, really bad. So an example of a really bad way of coming to agreement is compromise. So compromise, we’re in a room here and I could say, “Lex, how tall do you think this ceiling is?”
Jeff Bezos
(01:06:00)
I’m here and I could say, “Lex, how tall do you think this ceiling is?” And you’d be like, “I don’t know, Jeff, maybe 12 feet tall.” And I would say, “I think it’s 11 feet tall.” And then we’d say, “You know what? Let’s just call it 11 and a half feet.” That’s compromise, instead of. The right thing to do is to get a tape measure or figure out some way of actually measuring, but think getting that tape measure and figure out how to get it to the top of the ceiling and all these things, that requires energy. Compromise, the advantage of compromise as a resolution mechanism is that it’s low energy, but it doesn’t lead to truth. And so in things like the height of the ceiling where truth is a noble thing, you shouldn’t allow compromise to be used when you can know the truth.

(01:06:51)
Another really bad resolution mechanism that happens all the time is just who’s more stubborn? This is also, let’s say two executives who disagree and they just have a war of attrition, and whichever one gets exhausted first capitulates to the other one. Again, you haven’t arrived at truth and this is very demoralizing. So this is where escalation, I try to ask people on my team and say, “Never get to a point where you are resolving something by who gets exhausted first. Escalate that.” I’ll help you make the decision because that’s so de-energized and such a terrible, lousy way to make a decision.
Lex Fridman
(01:07:40)
Do you want to get to the resolution as quickly as possible because that ultimately leads to high velocity of decision?
Jeff Bezos
(01:07:45)
Yes, and you want to try to get as close to truth as possible. Exhausting the other person is not truth seeking.
Lex Fridman
(01:07:53)
Yes.
Jeff Bezos
(01:07:54)
And compromise is not truth seeking. And there are a lot of cases where no one knows the real truth and that’s where disagree and commit can come in, but escalation is better than war of attrition. Escalate to your boss and say, “Hey, we can’t agree on this. We like each other. We’re respectful of each other, but we strongly disagree with each other. We need you to make a decision here so we can move forward.” But decisiveness, moving forward quickly on decisions, as quickly as you responsibly can is how you increase velocity. Most of what slows things down is taking too long to make decisions at all scale levels. So it has to be part of the culture to get high velocity. Amazon has a million and a half people and the company is still fast. We’re still decisive, we’re still quick, and that’s because the culture supports that.
Lex Fridman
(01:08:53)
At every scale in a distributed way-
Jeff Bezos
(01:08:53)
Yes.
Lex Fridman
(01:08:56)
Try to maximize the velocity of decisions.
Jeff Bezos
(01:08:58)
Exactly.

Lunar program

Lex Fridman
(01:08:59)
You’ve mentioned the lunar program. Let me ask you about that. There’s a lot going on there and you haven’t really talked about it much. So in addition to the Artemis program with NASA, Blue is doing its own lander program. Can you describe it? There’s a sexy picture on Instagram with one of them. Is it the MK1, I guess?
Jeff Bezos
(01:09:20)
Yeah, The Mark 1. The picture here is me with Bill Nelson, the NASA Administrator.
Lex Fridman
(01:09:26)
Just to clarify, the lander is the sexy thing about the [inaudible 01:09:29]. I really want to clarify that.
Jeff Bezos
(01:09:32)
I know it’s not me. I know it was either the lander or Bill.
Lex Fridman
(01:09:34)
Okay. I love Bill, but-
Jeff Bezos
(01:09:37)
Thank you for clarifying.
Lex Fridman
(01:09:37)
Okay.
Jeff Bezos
(01:09:40)
Yes, the Mark 1 lander is designed to take 3,000 kilograms to the surface of the moon and to cargo expendable cargo. It’s an expendable lander. Lands on the moon, stays there, take 3,000 kilograms to the surface. It can be launched on a single New Glenn flight, which is very important. So it’s a relatively simple architecture, just like the human landing system lander, they’re called the Mark 2. Mark 1 is also fueled with liquid hydrogen, which is for high energy emissions like landing on the surface of the moon. The high specific impulsive hydrogen is a very big advantage.

(01:10:24)
The disadvantage of hydrogen has always been that since it’s such a deep cryogen, it’s not storable. So it’s constantly boiling off and you’re losing propellant because it’s boiling off. And so what we’re doing as part of our lunar program is developing solar-powered cryo coolers that can actually make hydrogen a storable propellant for deep space. And that’s a real game-changer. It’s a game-changer for any high energy mission. So to the moon, but to the outer planets, to Mars, everywhere.
Lex Fridman
(01:11:00)
So the idea with both Mark 1 and Mark 2 is the New Glenn can carry it from the surface of earth to the surface of the moon?
Jeff Bezos
(01:11:12)
Exactly. So the Mark 1 is expendable. The lunar lander we’re developing for NASA, the Mark 2 lander, that’s part of the Artemis program. They call it the Sustaining Lander Program. So that lander is designed to be reusable. It can land on the surface of the moon in a single stage configuration and then take off. So if you look at the Apollo program, the lunar lander and Apollo was really two stages. It would land on the surface and then it would leave the descent stage on the surface of the moon and only the ascent stage would go back up into lunar orbit where it would rendezvous with the command module.

(01:11:56)
Here, what we’re doing is we have a single stage lunar lander that carries down enough propellant so that it can bring the whole thing back up so that it can be reused over and over. And the point of doing that, of course, is to reduce cost so that you can make lunar missions more affordable over time, which is that’s one of NASA’s big objectives because this time… The whole point of Artemis is go back to the moon, but this time to stay. So back in the Apollo program, we went to the moon six times and then ended the program and it really was too expensive to continue.
Lex Fridman
(01:12:35)
And so there’s a few questions there, but one is how do you stay on the moon? What ideas do you have about sustaining life where a few folks can stay there for prolonged periods of time?
Jeff Bezos
(01:12:51)
Well, one of the things we’re working on is using lunar resources like lunar regolith to manufacture commodities and even solar cells on the surface of the moon. We’ve already built a solar cell that is completely made from lunar regolith stimulant, and this solar cell is only about 7% power efficient. So it’s very inefficient compared to the more advanced solar cells that we make here on earth. But if you can figure out how to make a practical solar cell factory that you can land on the surface of the moon and then the raw material for those solar cells is simply lunar regolith, then you can just continue to churn out solar cells on the surface of the moon, have lots of power on the surface of the moon. That will make it easier for people to live on the moon.

(01:13:51)
Similarly, we’re working on extracting oxygen from lunar regolith. So lunar regolith by weight has a lot of oxygen in it. It’s bound very tightly as oxides with other elements. And so you have to separate the oxygen, which is very energy intensive. So that also could work together with the solar cells. And then ultimately, we may be able to find practical quantities of ice in the permanently shadowed craters on the poles of the moon. And we know there is ice water or water ice in those craters, and we know that we can break that down with electrolysis into hydrogen and oxygen. And then you’d not only have oxygen, but you’d also have a very good high efficiency propellant fuel in hydrogen.

(01:14:57)
So there’s a lot we can do to make the moon more sustainable over time, but the very first step, the gate that all of that has to go through is we need to be able to land cargo and humans on the surface of the moon at an acceptable cost.
Lex Fridman
(01:15:16)
To fast-forward a little bit, is there any chance Jeff Bezos steps foot on the moon and on Mars, one or the other or both?
Jeff Bezos
(01:15:27)
It’s very unlikely. I think it’s probably something that gets done by future generations by the time it gets to me. I think in my lifetime that’s probably going to be done by professional astronauts, sadly. I would love to sign up for that mission. So don’t count me out yet, Lex. Give me a finding shot here maybe, but I think if we are placing reasonable bets on such a thing, in my lifetime, that will continue to be done by professional astronauts.
Lex Fridman
(01:15:59)
So these are risky, difficult missions?
Jeff Bezos
(01:16:02)
And probably missions that require a lot of training. You are going there for a very specific purpose to do something. We’re going to be able to do a lot on the moon too with automation. So in terms of setting up these factories and doing all that, we are sophisticated enough now with automation that we probably don’t need humans to tend those factories and machines. So there’s a lot that’s going to be done in both modes.
Lex Fridman
(01:16:28)
So I have to ask the bigger picture question about the two companies pushing humanity forward out towards the stars, Blue Origin and SpaceX. Are you competitors, collaborators? Which and to what degree?
Jeff Bezos
(01:16:44)
Well, I would say just like the internet is big and there are lots of winners at all scale levels, there are half a dozen giant companies that the internet has made, but there are a bunch of medium-sized companies and a bunch of small companies, all successful, all with profit streams, all driving great customer experiences. That’s what we want to see in space, that kind of dynamism. And space is big. There’s room for a bunch of winners and it’s going to happen at all skill levels. And so SpaceX is going to be successful for sure. I want Blue Origin to be successful, and I hope there are another five companies right behind us.
Lex Fridman
(01:17:25)
But I spoke to Elon a few times recently about you, about Blue Origin, and he was very positive about you as a person and very supportive of all the efforts you’ve been leading at Blue. What’s your thoughts? You worked with a lot of leaders at Amazon at Blue. What’s your thoughts about Elon as a human being and a leader?
Jeff Bezos
(01:17:46)
Well, I don’t really know Elon very well. I know his public persona, but I also know you can’t know anyone by their public persona. It’s impossible. You may think you do, but I guarantee you don’t. So I don’t really know. You know Elon way better than I do, Lex, but in terms of judging by the results, he must be a very capable leader. There’s no way you could have Tesla and SpaceX without being a capable leader. It’s impossible.
Lex Fridman
(01:18:22)
Yeah, I hope you guys hang out sometimes, shake hands and sort of have a kind of friendship that would inspire just the entirety of humanity, because what you’re doing is one of the big grand challenges ahead for humanity.
Jeff Bezos
(01:18:40)
Well, I agree with you and I think in a lot of these endeavors we’re very like-minded. So I’m not saying we’re identical, but I think we’re very like-minded. And so I love that idea.

Amazon

Lex Fridman
(01:18:56)
All right, going back to sexy pictures on your Instagram, there’s a video of you from the early days of Amazon, giving a tour of your, “Offices.” I think your dad is holding the camera.
Jeff Bezos
(01:19:10)
He is. Yeah, I know, right? Yes. This is what? The giant orange extension cord.
Lex Fridman
(01:19:12)
And you’re explaining the genius of the extension cord and how this is a desk and the CRT monitor, and that’s where all the magic happened. I forget what your dad said, but this is the center of it all. So what was it like? What was going through your mind at that time? You left a good job in New York and took this leap. Were you excited? Were you scared?
Jeff Bezos
(01:19:37)
So excited and scared, anxious. Thought the odds of success were low. Told all of our early investors that I thought there was a 30% chance of success by which I just mean getting your money back, not what actually happened. Because that’s the truth. Every startup company is unlikely to work. It’s helpful to be in reality about that, but that doesn’t mean you can’t be optimistic. So you have to have this duality in your head. On the one hand, you know what the baseline statistics say about startup companies, and the other hand, you have to ignore all of that and just be 100% sure it’s going to work, and you’re doing both things at the same time. You’re holding that contradiction in your head.

(01:20:24)
But it was so exciting. From 1994 when the company was founded to 1995 when we opened our doors, all the way until today, I find Amazon so exciting. And that doesn’t mean… It’s full of pain, full of problems. It’s like there’s so many things that need to be resolved and worked and made better and et cetera. But on balance, it’s so fun. It’s such a privilege. It’s been such a joy. I feel so grateful that I’ve been part of that journey. It’s just been incredible.
Lex Fridman
(01:21:04)
So in some sense, you don’t want a single day of comfort. You’ve written about this many times. We’ll talk about your writing, which I would highly recommend people read and just the letters to shareholders. So explaining the idea of day one thinking, I think you first wrote about in 97 letters to shareholders. Then you also in a way wrote it about, sad to say, is your last letter to shareholders as CEO. And you said that, “Day two is stasis followed by irrelevance, followed by excruciating painful decline, followed by death.” And that is why it’s always day one. Can you explain this day one thing? This is a really powerful way to describe the beginning and the journey of Amazon.
Jeff Bezos
(01:21:56)
It’s really a very simple, and I think age-old idea about renewal and rebirth and every day is day one. Every day you are deciding what you’re going to do and you are not trapped by what you were or who you were or any self-consistency. Self-consistency even can be a trap. And so day one thinking is we start fresh every day and we get to make new decisions every day about invention, about customers, about how we’re going to operate. Even as deeply as what our principles are, we can go back to that. It turns out we don’t change those very often, but we change them occasionally.

(01:22:49)
And when we work on programs at Amazon, we often make a list of tenants. And the tenants are… They’re not principles, they’re a little more tactical than principles, but it’s the main ideas that we want this program to embody, whatever those are. And one of the things that we do is we put, “These are the tenets for this program and parentheses.” We always put, “Unless you know a better way.” And that idea, “Unless you know a better way,” is so important because you never want to get trapped by dogma. You never want to get trapped by history. It doesn’t mean you discard history or ignore it. There’s so much value in what has worked in the past, but you can’t be blindly following what you’ve done. And that’s the heart of day one, is you’re always starting afresh.
Lex Fridman
(01:23:51)
And to the question of how to fend off day two, you said, “Such a question can’t have a simple answer,” as you’re saying. “There will be many elements, multiple paths, and many traps. I don’t know the whole answer, but I may know bits of it. Here’s a starter pack of essentials, maybe others come to mind. For day one, defense, customer obsession, a skeptical view of proxies, the eager adoption of external trends and high velocity decision-making.”

(01:24:19)
So we talked about high velocity decision-making, that’s more difficult than it sounds. So maybe you can pick one that stands out to you as you can comment on. Eager adoption of external trends, high velocity decision-making, skeptical view of proxies. How do you fight off day two?
Jeff Bezos
(01:24:36)
Well, I’ll talk about… Because I think it’s the one that is maybe in some ways the hardest to understand, is the skeptical view of proxies. One of the things that happens in business, probably anything where you have an ongoing program and something is underway for a number of years, is you develop certain things that you’re managing to. The typical case would be a metric, and that metric isn’t the real underlying thing. And so maybe the metric is efficiency metric around customer contacts per unit sold or something like. If you sell a million units, how many customer contacts do you get or how many returns do you get? And so on and so on.

(01:25:30)
And so what happens is a little bit of a kind of inertia sets in where somebody a long time ago invented that metric and they invented that metric, they decided, “We need to watch for customer returns per unit sold as an important metric.” But they had a reason why they chose that metric, the person who invented that metric and decided it was worth watching. And then fast-forward five years, that metric is the proxy.
Lex Fridman
(01:26:02)
The proxy for truth, I guess.
Jeff Bezos
(01:26:04)
The proxy for truth. Let’s say in this case it’s a proxy for customer happiness, but that metric is not actually customer happiness. It’s a proxy for customer happiness. The person who invented the metric understood that connection. Five years later, a kind of inertia can set in and you forget the truth behind why you were watching that metric in the first place. And the world shifts a little and now that proxy isn’t as valuable as it used to be or it’s missing something. And you have to be on alert for that. You have to know, “Okay, I don’t really care about this metric. I care about customer happiness and this metric is worth putting energy into and following and improving and scrutinizing, only in so much as it actually affects customer happiness.”

(01:27:03)
And so you’ve got to constantly be on guard and it’s very, very common. This is a nuanced problem. It’s very common, especially in large companies, that they’re managing to metrics that they don’t really understand. They don’t really know why they exist, and the world may have shifted out from under them a little and the metrics are no longer as relevant as they were when somebody 10 years earlier invented the metric.
Lex Fridman
(01:27:29)
That is a nuance, but that’s a big problem. Right?
Jeff Bezos
(01:27:33)
It’s a huge problem.
Lex Fridman
(01:27:34)
There’s something so compelling to have a nice metric to try to optimize.
Jeff Bezos
(01:27:38)
Yes. And by the way, you do need metrics.
Lex Fridman
(01:27:41)
Yes, you do.
Jeff Bezos
(01:27:41)
You can’t ignore them. Want them, but you just have to be constantly on guard. This is a way to slip into day two thinking would be to manage your business to metrics that you don’t really understand and you’re not really sure why they were invented in the first place, and you’re not sure they’re still as relevant as they used to be.
Lex Fridman
(01:28:03)
What does it take to be the guy or gal who brings up the point that this proxy might be outdated? I guess what does it take to have a culture that enables that in the meeting? Because that’s a very uncomfortable thing to bring up at a meeting. “We all showed up here, it’s a Friday.”
Jeff Bezos
(01:28:21)
You have just asked a million-dollar question. So if I generalize what you’re asking, you are talking in general about truth-telling and we humans are not really truth-seeking animals. We are social animals.
Lex Fridman
(01:28:42)
Yeah, we are.
Jeff Bezos
(01:28:44)
And take you back in time 10,000 years and you’re in a small village. If you go along to get along, you can survive. You can procreate. If you’re the village truth-teller, you might get clubbed to death in the middle of the night. Truths are often… They don’t want to be heard because important truths can be uncomfortable, they can be awkward, they can be exhausting.
Lex Fridman
(01:29:12)
Impolite and all that kind of stuff.
Jeff Bezos
(01:29:14)
Yes, challenging. They can make people defensive even if that’s not the intent. But any high performing organization, whether it’s a sports team, a business, a political organization, an activist group, I don’t care what it is, any high performing organization has to have mechanisms and a culture that supports truth-telling. One of the things you have to do is you have to talk about that. You have to talk about the fact that it takes energy to do that. You have to talk to people, you have to remind people, “It’s okay that it’s uncomfortable.” Literally tell people, “It’s not what we’re designed to do as humans.” It’s kind of a side effect. We can do that, but it’s not how we survive. We mostly survive by being social animals and being cordial and cooperative, and that’s really important.

(01:30:10)
And so science is all about truth-telling. It’s actually a very formal mechanism for trying to tell the truth. And even in science, you find that it’s hard to tell the truth. Even you’re supposed to have hypothesis and test it and find data and reject the hypothesis and so on, it’s not easy.
Lex Fridman
(01:30:36)
But even in science, there’s like the senior scientists and the junior scientists.
Jeff Bezos
(01:30:36)
Correct.
Lex Fridman
(01:30:41)
And then there’s a hierarchy of humans where somehow seniority matters in the scientific process, which it should not.
Jeff Bezos
(01:30:49)
Yes, and that’s true inside companies too. And so you want to set up your culture so that the most junior person can overrule the most senior person if they have data. And that really is about trying to… There are little things you can do. So for example, in every meeting that I attend, I always speak last. And I know from experience that if I speak first, even very strong-willed, highly intelligent, high judgment participants in that meeting will wonder, “Well, if Jeff thinks that, I came in this meeting thinking one thing, but maybe I’m not right.” And so you can do little things like if you’re the most senior person in the room, go last, let everybody else go first. In fact, ideally, let’s try to have the most junior person go first and the second and try to go in order of seniority so that you can hear everyone’s opinion in an unfiltered way. Because we really do, we actually literally change our opinions. If somebody who you really respect says something, it makes you change your mind a little.
Lex Fridman
(01:32:17)
So you’re saying implicitly or explicitly, give permission for people to have a strong opinion, as long as it’s backed by data.
Jeff Bezos
(01:32:27)
Yes, and sometimes it can even… By the way, a lot of our most powerful truths turn out to be hunches, they turn out to be based on anecdotes, they’re intuition based. And sometimes you don’t even have strong data, but you may know the person well enough to trust their judgment. You may feel yourself leaning in. It may resonate with a set of anecdotes you have, and then you may be able to say, “Something about that feels right. Let’s go collect some data on that. Let’s try to see if we can actually know whether it’s right. But for now, let’s not disregard it. It feels right.”

(01:33:06)
You can also fight inherent bias. There’s an optimism bias. If there are two interpretations of a new set of data and one of them is happy and one of them is unhappy, it’s a little dangerous to jump to the conclusion that the happy interpretation is right. You may want to compensate for that human bias of trying to find the silver lining and say, “Look, that might be good, but I’m going to go with it’s bad for now until we’re sure.”
Lex Fridman
(01:33:36)
So speaking of happiness bias, data collection and anecdotes, you have to… How’s that for a transition? You have to tell me the story of the call you made, the customer service call you made to demonstrate a point about wait times?
Jeff Bezos
(01:33:57)
Yeah. This is very early in the history of Amazon.
Lex Fridman
(01:34:00)
Yes.
Jeff Bezos
(01:34:00)
And we were going over a weekly business review and a set of documents, and I have a saying, which is when the data and the anecdotes disagree, the anecdotes are usually right. And it doesn’t mean you just slavishly go follow the anecdotes then. It means you go examine the data because it’s usually not that the data is being miscollected, it’s usually that you’re not measuring the right thing. And so of you have a bunch of customers complaining about something and at the same time, your metrics look like they shouldn’t be complaining, you should doubt the metrics.

(01:34:43)
And an early example of this was we had metrics that showed that our customers were waiting, I think less than, I don’t know, 60 seconds when they called a 1-800 number to get phone customer service. The wait time was supposed to be less than 60 seconds, but we had a lot of complaints that it was longer than that. And anecdotally it seemed longer than that. I would call customer service myself. And so one day we’re in a meeting, we’re going through the WBR, the weekly business review, and we get to this metric in the deck, and the guy who leads customer service is defending the metric. And I said, “Okay, let’s call.” Picked up the phone, and I dialed the 1-800 number and called customer service, and we just waited in silence.
Lex Fridman
(01:35:39)
What did it turn out to be?
Jeff Bezos
(01:35:40)
Oh, it was really long, more than 10 minutes, I think.
Lex Fridman
(01:35:42)
Oh, wow.
Jeff Bezos
(01:35:43)
It was many minutes. And so it dramatically made the point that something was wrong with the data collection. We weren’t measuring the right thing, and that set off a whole chain of events where we started measuring it right. And that’s an example, by the way, of truth-telling is like that’s an uncomfortable thing to do, but you have to seek truth even when it’s uncomfortable, and you have to get people’s attention and they have to buy into it, and they have to get energized around really fixing things.

Principles

Lex Fridman
(01:36:16)
So that speaks to the obsession with the customer experience. So one of the defining aspects of your approach to Amazon is just being obsessed with making customers happy. I think companies sometimes say that, but Amazon is really obsessed with that. I think there’s something really profound to that, which is seeing the world through the eyes of the customer, like the customer experience, the human being that’s using the product, that’s enjoying the product, the subtle little things that make up their experience. How do you optimize those?
Jeff Bezos
(01:36:55)
This is another really good and deep question because there are big things that are really important to manage, and then there are small things. Internally into Amazon, we call them paper cuts. So we’re always working on the big things, if you ask me. And most of the energy goes into the big things, as it should, and you can identify the big things. And I would encourage anybody, if anybody listening to this is an entrepreneur, has a small business, whatever, think about the things that are not going to change over 10 years. And those are probably the big things.

(01:37:38)
So I know in our retail business at Amazon, 10 years from now, customers are still going to want low prices. I know they’re still going to want fast delivery, and I just know they’re still going to want big selection. So it’s impossible to imagine a scenario where 10 years from now where a customer says, “I love Amazon, I just wish the prices were a little higher,” or, “I love Amazon, I just wish you delivered a little more slowly.” So when you identify the big things you can tell they’re worth putting energy into because they’re stable in time.

(01:38:10)
Okay, but you’re asking about something a little different, which is in every customer experience, there are those big things. And by the way, it’s astonishingly hard to focus even on just the big things. So even though they’re obvious, they’re really hard to focus on. But in addition to that, there are all these little tiny customer experience deficiencies, and we call those paper cuts. We make long lists of them. And then we have dedicated teams that go fix paper cuts because the teams working on the big issues never get to the paper cuts. They never work their way down the list to get to… They’re working on big things, as they should and as you want them to. And so you need special teams who are charged with fixing…
Jeff Bezos
(01:39:00)
Special teams who are charged with fixing paper cuts.
Lex Fridman
(01:39:04)
Where would you put on the paper cut spectrum the Buy now with the 1-Click button? Which is, I think, pretty genius. So to me, okay, my interaction with things I love on the internet, there’s things I do a lot. I, maybe representing a regular human, I would love for those things to be frictionless. For example, booking airline tickets, just saying. But it’s buying a thing with one click, making that experience frictionless, intuitive, all aspects of that, that just fundamentally makes my life better, not just in terms of efficiency, in terms of some kind of-
Jeff Bezos
(01:39:49)
Cognitive load.
Lex Fridman
(01:39:50)
… Yeah, cognitive load and inner peace and happiness. Because, first of all, buying stuff is a pleasant experience. Having enough money to buy a thing and then buying it is a pleasant experience. And having pain around that is somehow just you’re ruining a beautiful experience. And I guess all I’m saying as a person who loves good ideas, is that a paper cut, a solution to a paper cut?
Jeff Bezos
(01:40:17)
Yes. So that particular thing is probably a solution to a number of paper cuts. So if you go back and look at our order pipeline and how people shopped on Amazon before we invented 1-Click shopping, there was more friction. There was a whole series of paper cuts and that invention eliminated a bunch of paper cuts. And I think you’re absolutely right by the way, that when you come up with something like 1-Click shopping, again, this is so ingrained in people now, I’m impressed that you even notice it. Most people-
Lex Fridman
(01:40:54)
Every time I click the button, I just-
Jeff Bezos
(01:40:54)
… most people never notice.
Lex Fridman
(01:40:55)
… just a surge of happiness.
Jeff Bezos
(01:41:00)
There is in the perfect invention for the perfect moment in the perfect context, there is real beauty. It is actual beauty and it feels good. It’s emotional. It’s emotional for the inventor, it’s emotional for the team that builds it. It’s emotional for the customer. It’s a big deal and you can feel those things.
Lex Fridman
(01:41:23)
But to keep coming up with that idea, with those kinds of ideas, I guess is the day one thinking effort.
Jeff Bezos
(01:41:29)
Yeah, and you need a big group of people who feel that kind of satisfaction with creating that kind of beauty.
Lex Fridman
(01:41:38)
There’s a lot of books written about you. There’s a book Invent & Wander where Walter Isaacson does an intro. It’s mostly collective writings of yours. I’ve read that. I also recommend people check out the Founders Podcast that covers you a lot and it does different analysis of different business advice you’ve given over the years. I bring all that up because I mentioned that you said that books are an antidote for short attention spans. And I forget how it was phrased, but that when you were thinking about the Kindle that you were thinking about how technology changes us.
Jeff Bezos
(01:42:20)
Changes us. We co-evolve with our tools. So we invent new tools and then our tools change us.
Lex Fridman
(01:42:30)
Which is fascinating to think about.
Jeff Bezos
(01:42:32)
It goes in a circle
Lex Fridman
(01:42:33)
And there’s some aspect, even just inside business, where you don’t just make the customer happy, but you also have to think about where is this going to take humanity if you zoom out a bit?
Jeff Bezos
(01:42:45)
A hundred percent and you can feel your brain. Brains are plastic and you can feel your brain getting reprogrammed. I remember the first time this happened to me was when Tetris who’d first came on the scene. Anybody who’s been a game player has this experience where you close your eyes to lay down to go to sleep and you see all the little blocks moving and you’re kind of rotating them in your mind and you can just tell as you walk around the world that you have rewired your brain to play Tetris. But that happens with everything. I think we still have yet to see the full repercussions of this, I fear, but I think one of the things that we’ve done online and largely because of social media is we have trained our brains to be really good at processing super short form content.

(01:43:52)
Your podcast flies in the face of this. You do these long format things.
Lex Fridman
(01:43:59)
Books do too.
Jeff Bezos
(01:44:00)
And reading books is a long format thing and if something is convenient, we do more of it. We carry around in our pocket a phone, and one of the things that phone does for the most part is it is an attention shortening device because most of the things we do on our phone shorten our attention spans. And I’m not even going to say we know for sure that that’s bad, but I do think it’s happening. That’s one of the ways we’re co-evolving with that tool. But I think it’s important to spend some of your time and some of your life doing long attention span things.
Lex Fridman
(01:44:41)
Yeah, I think you’ve spoken about the value in your own life of focus, of singular focus on a thing for prolonged periods of time, and that’s certainly what books do and that’s certainly what that piece of technology does. But I bring all that up to ask you about another piece of technology, AI, that has the potential to have various trajectories to have an impact on human civilization. How do you think AI will change us?
Jeff Bezos
(01:45:14)
If you’re talking about generative AI, large language models, things like ChatGPT, and its soon successors, these are incredibly powerful technologies. To believe otherwise is to bury your head in the sand, soon to be even more powerful. It’s interesting to me that large language models in their current form are not inventions, they’re discoveries. The telescope was an invention, but looking through it at Jupiter, knowing that it had moons, was a discovery. My God, it has moons. And that’s what Galileo did. And so this is closer on that spectrum of invention. We know exactly what happens with a 787, it’s an engineered object. We designed it. We know how it behaves. We don’t want any surprises. Large language models are much more like discoveries. We’re constantly getting surprised by their capabilities. They’re not really engineered objects.

(01:46:35)
Then you have this debate about whether they’re going to be good for humanity or bad for humanity. Even specialized AI could be very bad for humanity. Just regular machine learning models can make certain weapons of war, that could be incredibly destructive and very powerful. And they’re not general AIs. They could just be very smart weapons. And so we have to think about all of those things. I’m very optimistic about this. So even in the face of all this uncertainty, my own view is that these powerful tools are much more likely to help us and save us even than they are to on balance hurt us and destroy us. I think we humans have a lot of ways of we can make ourselves go extinct. These things may help us not do that, so they may actually save us. So the people who are overly concerned, in my view, overly, it is a valid debate. I think that they may be missing part of the equation, which is how helpful they could be in making sure we don’t destroy ourselves.

(01:48:07)
I don’t know if you saw the movie Oppenheimer, but to me, first of all, I loved the movie and I thought the best part of the movie is this bureaucrat played by Robert Downey Jr, who some of the people I’ve talked to think that’s the most boring part of the movie. I thought it was the most fascinating because what’s going on here is you realize we have invented these awesome, destructive, powerful technologies called nuclear weapons and they’re managed and we humans, we’re not really capable of wielding those weapons. And that’s what he represented in that movie is here’s this guy, he wrongly thinks… he’s being so petty. He thinks that Oppenheimer said something bad to Einstein about him. They didn’t talk about him at all as you find out in the final scene of the movie. And yet he’s spent his career trying to be vengeful and petty.

(01:49:19)
And that’s the problem. We as a species are not really sophisticated enough and mature enough to handle these technologies. And by the way, before you get to general AI and the possibility of AI having agency and there’s a lot of things would have to happen, but there’s so much benefit that’s going to come from these technologies in the meantime, even before there are general AI in terms of better medicines and better tools to develop more technologies and so on. So I think it’s an incredible moment to be alive and to witness the transformations that are going to happen. How quickly will happen, no one knows. But over the next 10 years and 20 years, I think we’re going to see really remarkable advances. And I personally am very excited about it.
Lex Fridman
(01:50:12)
First of all, really interesting to say that it’s discoveries, that it’s true that we don’t know the limits of what’s possible with the current language models.
Jeff Bezos
(01:50:24)
We don’t.
Lex Fridman
(01:50:24)
And it could be a few tricks and hacks here and there that open doors to hold entire new possibilities.
Jeff Bezos
(01:50:33)
We do know that humans are doing something different from these models, in part because we’re so power efficient. The human brain does remarkable things and it does it on about 20 watts of power. And the AI techniques we use today use many kilowatts of power to do equivalent tasks. So there’s something interesting about the way the human brain does this. And also we don’t need as much data. So self-driving cars, they have to drive billions and billions of miles to try to learn how to drive. And your average 16-year-old figures it out with many fewer miles. So there are still some tricks, I think, that we have yet to learn. I don’t think we’ve learned the last trick. I don’t think it’s just a question of scaling things up. But what’s interesting is that just scaling things up, and I put just in quotes because it’s actually hard to scale things up, but just scaling things up also appears to pay huge dividends.
Lex Fridman
(01:51:40)
Yeah. And there’s some more nuanced aspect about human beings that’s interesting if it’s able to accomplish like being truly original and novel. Large language models, being able to come up with some truly new ideas. That’s one. And the other one is truth. It seems that large language models are very good at sounding like they’re saying a true thing, but they don’t require or often have a grounding in a mathematical truth, basically is a very good bullshitter. So if there’s not enough data in the training data about a particular topic, it’s just going to concoct accurate sounding narratives, which is a very fascinating problem to try to solve, how do you get language models to infer what is true or not to introspect?
Jeff Bezos
(01:52:41)
Yeah, they need to be taught to say, “I don’t know,” more often and I know several humans who could be taught that as well.
Lex Fridman
(01:52:50)
Sure. And then the other stuff, because you’re still a bit involved in the Amazon side with the AI things, the other open question is what kind of products are created from this?
Jeff Bezos
(01:53:01)
Oh, so many. We have Alexa and Echo and Alexa has hundreds of millions of installed base inputs. And so there’s Alexa everywhere. And guess what? Alexa is about to get a lot smarter. And so from a product point of view, that’s super exciting.
Lex Fridman
(01:53:27)
There’s so many opportunities there,
Jeff Bezos
(01:53:30)
So many opportunities. Shopping assistant, all that stuff is amazing. And AWS, we’re building Titan, which is our foundational model. We’re also building Bedrock, which are corporate clients at AWS. Our enterprise clients, they want to be able to use these powerful models with their own corporate data without accidentally contributing their corporate data to that model. And so those are the tools we’re building for them with Bedrock. So there’s tremendous opportunity here.
Lex Fridman
(01:54:03)
Yeah, the security, the privacy, all those things are fascinating. Because so much value can be gained by training on private data, but you want to keep this secure. It’s a fascinating technical problem.
Jeff Bezos
(01:54:13)
Yes. This is a very challenging technical problem and it’s one that we’re making progress on and dedicated to solving for our customers.
Lex Fridman
(01:54:21)
Do you think there will be a day when humans and robots, maybe Alexa, have a romantic relationship like in the movie Her?
Jeff Bezos
(01:54:29)
Well, I think if you look at the-
Lex Fridman
(01:54:31)
Just brainstorming products here.
Jeff Bezos
(01:54:32)
… if you look at the spectrum of human variety and what people like, sexual variety, there are people who like everything. So the answer to your question has to be yes.
Lex Fridman
(01:54:43)
Okay. I guess I’m asking when-
Jeff Bezos
(01:54:45)
I don’t know how widespread that will be.
Lex Fridman
(01:54:45)
… All right.
Jeff Bezos
(01:54:48)
But it will happen.

Productivity

Lex Fridman
(01:54:49)
I was just asking when for a friend, but it’s all right. Moving on. Next question. What’s a perfectly productive day in the life of Jeff Bezos? You’re one of the most productive humans in the world.
Jeff Bezos
(01:55:03)
Well, first of all, I get up in the morning and I putter. I have a coffee.
Lex Fridman
(01:55:09)
Can you define putter?
Jeff Bezos
(01:55:11)
I slowly move around. I’m not as productive as you might think I am. Because I do believe in wandering and I read my phone for a while. I read newspapers for a while. I chat with Laura and I drink my first coffee. So I move pretty slowly in the first couple of hours. I get up early just naturally, and then I exercise most days. Most days it’s not that hard for me. Some days it’s really hard and I do it anyway, I don’t want to, and it’s painful. And I’m like, “Why am I here?” And I don’t want to do any of this.
Lex Fridman
(01:55:52)
“Why am I here at the gym?”
Jeff Bezos
(01:55:53)
“Why am I here at the gym? Why don’t I do something else?” It’s not always easy.
Lex Fridman
(01:55:59)
What’s your social motivation in those moments?
Jeff Bezos
(01:56:02)
I know that I’ll feel better later if I do it. And so the real source of motivation, I can tell the days when I skip it, I’m not quite as alert. I don’t feel as good. And then there’s harder motivations. It’s longer term, you want to be healthy as you age. You want health span. Ideally, you want to be healthy and moving around when you’re 80 years old. And so there’s a lot of… But that kind of motivation is so far in the future, it can be very hard to work in the second. So thinking about the fact I’ll feel better in about four hours if I do it now, I’ll have more energy for the rest of my day and so on and so on.
Lex Fridman
(01:56:42)
What’s your exercise routine, just to linger on that? How much you curl? What are we talking about here? That’s all I do at the gym so I just…
Jeff Bezos
(01:56:52)
My routine on a good day, I do about half an hour of cardio and I do about forty-five minutes of weightlifting, resistance training of some kind, mostly weights. I have a trainer who I love who pushes me, which is really helpful. He’ll say, “Jeff, can we go up on that weight a little bit?”

(01:57:18)
And I’ll think about it and I’ll be like, “No, I don’t think so.”

(01:57:23)
And he’ll look at me and say, “Yeah, I think you can.” And of course he’s right.
Lex Fridman
(01:57:31)
Yeah, of course. Of course.
Jeff Bezos
(01:57:32)
So it’s helpful to have somebody push you a little bit.
Lex Fridman
(01:57:34)
But almost every day, you do that?
Jeff Bezos
(01:57:37)
Almost every day, I do a little bit of cardio and a little bit of weightlifting and I’d rotate. I do a pulling day and a pushing day and a leg day. It’s all pretty standard stuff.
Lex Fridman
(01:57:48)
So puttering, coffee, gym-
Jeff Bezos
(01:57:49)
Puttering, coffee, gym, and then work.
Lex Fridman
(01:57:53)
… work. But what’s work look like? What do the productive hours look like for you?
Jeff Bezos
(01:57:59)
So a couple years ago, I left as the CEO of Amazon, and I have never worked harder in my life. I am working so hard and I’m mostly enjoying it, but there are also some very painful days. Most of my time is spent on Blue Origin and I’m so deeply involved here now for the last couple of years. And in the big, I love it, and the small, there’s all the frustrations that come along with everything. We’re trying to get to rate manufacturing as we talked about. That’s super important. We’ll get there. We just hired a new CEO, a guy I’ve known for close to 15 years now, a guy named Dave Limp who I love. He’s amazing. So we’re super lucky to have Dave, and you’re going to see us move faster there.

(01:58:46)
So my day of work, reading documents, having meetings, sometimes in person, sometimes over Zoom, depends on where I am. It’s all about the technology, it’s about the organization. I have architecture and technology meetings almost every day on various subsystems inside the vehicle, inside the engines. It’s super fun for me. My favorite part of it is the technology. My least favorite part of it is building organizations and so on. That’s important, but it’s also my least favorite part. So that’s why they call it work. You don’t always get to do what you want to do.
Lex Fridman
(01:59:31)
How do you achieve time where you can focus and truly think through problems?
Jeff Bezos
(01:59:36)
I do little thinking retreats. So this is not the only way, I can do that all day long. I’m very good at focusing. I don’t keep to a strict schedule. My meetings often go longer than I planned for them to because I believe in wandering. My perfect meeting starts with a crisp document. So the document should be written with such clarity that it’s like angels singing from on high. I like a crisp document and a messy meeting. And so the meeting is about asking questions that nobody knows the answer to and trying to wander your way to a solution. And when that happens just right, it makes all the other meetings worthwhile. It feels good. It has a kind of beauty to it. It has an aesthetic beauty to it, and you get real breakthroughs in meetings like that.
Lex Fridman
(02:00:37)
Can you actually describe the crisp document? This is one of the legendary aspects of Amazon, of the way you approach meetings is this, the six-page memo. Maybe first describe the process of running a meeting with memos.
Jeff Bezos
(02:00:51)
Meetings at Amazon and Blue Origin are unusual. When new people come in, like a new executive joins, they’re a little taken aback sometimes because the typical meeting, we’ll start with a six-page narratively structured memo and we do study hall. For 30 minutes, we sit there silently together in the meeting and read.
Lex Fridman
(02:00:51)
I love this.
Jeff Bezos
(02:01:17)
Take notes in the margins. And then we discuss. And the reason, by the way, we do study, you could say, I would like everybody to read these memos in advance, but the problem is people don’t have time to do that. And they end up coming to the meeting having only skimmed the memo or maybe not read it at all, and they’re trying to catch up. And they’re also bluffing like they were in college having pretended to do the reading.
Lex Fridman
(02:01:42)
Yeah. Exactly.
Jeff Bezos
(02:01:43)
It’s better just to carve out the time for people.
Lex Fridman
(02:01:47)
Yeah. And do it together.
Jeff Bezos
(02:01:47)
So now we’re all on the same page, we’ve all read the memo, and now we can have a really elevated discussion. And this is so much better from having a slideshow presentation, a PowerPoint presentation of some kind, where that has so many difficulties. But one of the problems is PowerPoint is really designed to persuade. It’s kind of a sales tool. And internally, the last thing you want to do is sell. Again, you’re truth seeking. You’re trying to find truth. And the other problem with PowerPoint is it’s easy for the author and hard for the audience. And a memo is the opposite. It’s hard to write a six-page memo. A good six-page memo might take two weeks to write. You have to write it, you have to rewrite it, you have to edit it, you have to talk to people about it. They have to poke holes in it for you. You write it again, it might take two weeks. So the author, it’s really a very difficult job, but for the audience it’s much better.

(02:02:45)
So you can read a half hour, and there are little problems with PowerPoint presentations too. Senior executives interrupt with questions halfway through the presentation. That question’s going to be answered on the next slide, but you never got there. If you read the whole memo in advance… I often write lots of questions that I have in the margins of these memos, and then I go cross them all out because by the time I get to the end of the memo, they’ve been answered. That’s why I save all that time.

(02:03:11)
You also get, if the person who’s preparing the memo, we talked earlier about group think and the fact that I go last in meetings and that you don’t want your ideas to pollute the meeting prematurely, the author of the memos has got to be very vulnerable. They’ve got to put all their thoughts out there and they’ve got to go first. But that’s great because it makes them really good. And you get to see their real ideas and you’re not trompling on them accidentally in a big PowerPoint presentation meeting.
Lex Fridman
(02:03:50)
What’s that feel like when you’ve authored a thing and then you’re sitting there and everybody’s reading your thing?
Jeff Bezos
(02:03:54)
I think it’s mostly terrifying.
Lex Fridman
(02:03:57)
Yeah. But maybe in a good way? Like a purifying?
Jeff Bezos
(02:04:02)
I think it’s terrifying in a productive way, but I think it’s emotionally, a very nerve-racking experience.
Lex Fridman
(02:04:13)
Is there a art, science to the writing of this six-page memo or just writing in general to you?
Jeff Bezos
(02:04:20)
It’s really got to be a real memo. So it means paragraphs have topic sentences. It’s verbs and nouns. That’s the other problem with PowerPoint presentations, they’re often just bullet points. And you can hide a lot of sloppy thinking behind bullet points. When you have to write in complete sentences with narrative structure, it’s really hard to hide sloppy thinking. So it forces the author to be at their best, and so they’re somebody’s really their best thinking. And then you don’t have to spend a lot of time trying to tease that thinking out of the person, and you’ve got it from the very beginning. So it really saves you time in the long run.
Lex Fridman
(02:05:03)
So that part is crisp, and then the rest is messy. Crisp document, messy meeting.
Jeff Bezos
(02:05:07)
Yeah, so you don’t want to pretend that the discussion should be crisp. Most meetings, you’re trying to solve a really hard problem. There’s a different kind of meeting, which we call weekly business reviews or business reviews that may be weekly or monthly or daily, whatever they are. But these business review meetings, that’s usually for incremental improvement. And you’re looking at a series of metrics, every time it’s the same metrics. Those meetings can be very efficient. They can start on time and end on time.

Future of humanity

Lex Fridman
(02:05:35)
So we’re about to run out of time, which is a good time to ask about the 10,000-Year Clock.
Jeff Bezos
(02:05:43)
It’s funny.
Lex Fridman
(02:05:44)
Yes, that’s what I’m known for, is the humor. Okay. Can you explain what the 10,000-Year Clock is?
Jeff Bezos
(02:05:53)
Is? 10,000-Year Clock is a physical clock of monumental scale. It’s about 500 feet tall. It’s inside a mountain in west Texas at a chamber that’s about 12 feet in diameter and 500 feet tall. 10,000-Year Clock is an idea conceived by a brilliant guy named Danny Hillis way back in the ’80s. The idea is to build a clock as a symbol for long-term thinking. And you can kind of just very conceptually think of the 10,000-Year Clock as it ticks once a year, it chimes once every a hundred years, and the cuckoo comes out once every a thousand years. So it just sort of slows everything down. And it’s a completely mechanical clock. It is designed to last 10,000 years with no human intervention. So the material choices and everything else. It’s in a remote location, both to protect it, but also so that visitors have to make a pilgrimage.

(02:06:57)
The idea is that over time, and this will take hundreds of years, but over time, it will take on the patina of age, and then it will become a symbol for long-term thinking that will actually hopefully get humans to extend their thinking horizons. And in my view, that’s really important as we have become, as a species, as a civilization, more powerful. We’re really affecting the planet now. We’re really affecting each other. We have weapons of mass destruction. We have all kinds of things where we can really hurt ourselves and the problems we create can be so large. The unintended consequences of some of our actions like climate change, putting carbon in the atmosphere is a perfect example. That’s an unintended consequence of the Industrial Revolution, got a lot of benefits from it, but we’ve also got this side effect that is very detrimental.

(02:07:56)
We need to start training ourselves to think longer term. Long-term thinking is a giant lever. You can literally solve problems if you think long-term, that are impossible to solve if you think short-term. And we aren’t really good at thinking long-term. Five years is a tough timeframe for most institutions to think past. And we probably need to stretch that to 10 years and 15 years and 20 years and 25 years, and we’d do a better job for our children or our grandchildren if we could stretch those thinking horizons. And so the clock, in a way, it’s an art project, it’s a symbol. And if it ever has any power to influence people to think longer term, that won’t happen for hundreds of years, but we are going to build it now and let it accrue the patina of age.
Lex Fridman
(02:08:52)
Do you think humans will be here when the clock runs out here on earth?
Jeff Bezos
(02:08:56)
I think so. But the United States won’t exist. Whole civilizations rise and fall. 10,000 years is so long. No nation state has ever survived for anywhere close to 10,000 years.
Lex Fridman
(02:09:12)
And the increasing rate of progress makes that even fantastic.
Jeff Bezos
(02:09:15)
Even less likely so. Do I think humans will be here? Yes. How will we have changed ourselves and what will we be and so on and so on? I don’t know, but I think we’ll be here.
Lex Fridman
(02:09:25)
On that grand scale, a human life feels tiny. Do you ponder your own mortality? Are you afraid of death?
Jeff Bezos
(02:09:32)
No. I used to be afraid of death. I did. I remember as a young person being very scared of mortality, didn’t want to think about it, and so on. And as I’ve gotten older, I’m 59 now, as I’ve gotten older, somehow that fear has sort of gone away. I would like to stay alive for as long as possible, but I’m really more focused on health span. I want to be healthy. I want that square wave. I want to be healthy, healthy, healthy, and then gone. I don’t want the long decay. And I’m curious. I want to see how things turn out. I’d like to be here. I love my family and my close friends, and I’m curious about them, and I want to see. So I have a lot of reasons to stay around, but mortality doesn’t have that effect on me that it did maybe when I was in my twenties.
Lex Fridman
(02:10:38)
Well, Jeff, thank you for creating Amazon, one of the most incredible companies in history, and thank you for trying your best to make humans a multi-planetary species, expanding out into our solar system, maybe beyond, to meet the aliens out there. And thank you for talking today.
Jeff Bezos
(02:10:55)
Lex, thank you for doing your part to lengthen our attention spans. Appreciate that very much.
Lex Fridman
(02:11:04)
I’m doing my best. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Jeff Bezos. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you with some words from Jeff Bezos himself. Be stubborn on vision, but flexible on the details. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.