Joe Rogan Experience #2501 - Marc Andreessen
In a Nutshell
Marc Andreessen argues that surveillance tools like Flock cameras and Shot Spotter dramatically reduce crime but are being disabled in cities like Austin and Chicago due to privacy concerns and political ideology, despite evidence that victims come from the same communities critics claim are harmed. He warns that California’s proposed wealth tax on assets, including stocks and voting control in companies, will drive out high earners, collapse tax revenue, and spread to other states and eventually the federal level. On AI, he predicts it will deliver universal superpowers in medicine, law, coding, and daily life, create billions of agents and robots, solve labor shortages from population collapse, and generate material abundance, though society must still resolve core human questions of values, ethics, and purpose.
These notes were generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies.
A wild crime spree occurred this weekend in Austin involving 15 and 17 year old teenagers. The perpetrators stole cars and guns, switched vehicles, and shot at approximately 10 different locations including buildings, people, and houses. At least one person was left in critical condition after being shot.
Flock is a company that processes municipal and traffic cameras through AI. The system can identify license plates in real time and track vehicles even without plates by recognizing distinct markings on cars. The technology is deployed across many cities and towns throughout the country and has been credited with solving crimes including carjackings where children's lives were saved through rapid tracking.
Austin had the Flock system deployed but turned it off due to political backlash over privacy and surveillance concerns. As a result, authorities were unable to locate the teenage shooters for several days. The suspects were eventually caught when they drove into an adjacent town where Flock was still operational, and the system tagged their vehicle immediately upon entry.
Following the arrests, Austin's mayor and chief of police held a press conference stating they need to reconsider the decision to disable the system, acknowledging it is problematic to have crime-solving technology available but choose not to use it.
The primary concern with systems like Flock is the potential for mass surveillance and abuse by authorities. A corrupt police chief could use it to track an ex-partner, or a mayor could weaponize it against political opponents. However, all actions are logged and records are maintained. The system requires appropriate legal safeguards similar to warrants required for house searches, with defined penalties for abuse.
Shot Spotter is an older surveillance technology deployed in many cities. It uses precision microphones placed on rooftops throughout urban areas to detect gunshots and triangulate their exact location. The system provides two main benefits: faster response times to catch perpetrators before they flee, and immediate ambulance dispatch to save lives of shooting victims who might otherwise bleed out undetected.
Chicago disabled both their Flock system and their Shot Spotter system due to political concerns. As a consequence, people shot in the city may bleed out on the street without anyone being notified.
Two main arguments are made against these systems. The civil libertarian argument focuses on surveillance, abuse, and government control. The second argument, described as the woke position, claims that automated systems like Shot Spotter, Flock, and traffic cameras disproportionately affect disadvantaged demographic groups and are therefore racist technologies enforcing a racist criminal justice system.
The counterargument notes that victims of violent crime are disproportionately from the same disadvantaged groups that critics claim are harmed by these technologies. Additionally, research claiming 88.72% of Shot Spotter incidents resulted in police finding no gun crime does not invalidate the system, as it still detects when gunshots occur. Many cities have high baseline levels of gun violence where residents are accustomed to hearing shots fired, and victims often refuse to cooperate with police due to gang retaliation fears.
Crime statistics are often misleading because crime reporting has declined significantly. In cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco, residents frequently do not call 911 because response times are extremely slow or nonexistent. In San Francisco, some residents leave car doors and hatches open to signal that nothing valuable is inside, hoping to avoid broken windows. Washington D.C. police were caught overtly faking crime statistics at senior levels, resulting in firings and indictments.
Washington D.C. saw dramatic crime reduction after National Guard deployment. Areas that were previously unsafe at night became walkable again almost immediately. The violence dropped to near zero in many neighborhoods. Media coverage framed the National Guard presence as unnecessary because personnel were photographed taking selfies with tourists.
Residents in high crime neighborhoods often refuse to speak with police about incidents due to active gang retaliation threats. This makes eyewitness-dependent investigations ineffective and increases the value of objective data collection systems.
There is speculation that some political actors benefit from driving responsible, tax-paying residents out of cities in order to alter voting patterns and maintain long-term political control. Major cities have undergone radical demographic shifts over the past 50 years. High-income individuals, often the top 1% of taxpayers, contribute approximately 50% of tax revenue in places like New York and California.
New York City's new mayor publicly targeted billionaire Ken Griffin by name in a video, standing in front of his home. Griffin, a major philanthropist who has donated hundreds of millions to healthcare in New York and employs many people, has indicated he may move significant portions of his business to Florida. The mayor's actions are viewed as an attempt to force wealthy residents out of the city.
In the year 2000, 1,000 individuals accounted for 50% of tax revenue in California. The top 1% of earners are responsible for roughly half of tax receipts in New York as well. Some political approaches prioritize driving out high earners and then seeking bailouts from state and federal governments to cover resulting budget shortfalls.
Many politicians have never run a business, made payroll, or had direct experience with how businesses operate. This lack of real-world experience makes the concept of wealth creation and business operations alien to some in government.
A common narrative pushed by democratic socialists claims that no one achieves substantial wealth without victimizing others. Jeff Bezos is cited as a counterexample because Amazon provides convenience, low prices, and delivery speed that benefits consumers, while also enabling many small businesses to sell on the platform.
European countries with more hostile policies toward business experience slower growth, economic shrinkage, lower living standards, and reduced funding for social programs compared to the United States.
Some people living paycheck to paycheck observe extreme wealth and conclude it must be stolen or impossible to achieve legitimately. This perception fuels narratives around wealth inequality and systemic unfairness.
There are two moral definitions of fairness. One defines fairness as receiving proportional returns based on contribution and effort. The other definition is not fully elaborated in this section.
Two competing definitions of fairness exist in tension with each other. The first is that greater effort yields greater reward—if someone works twice as hard or runs twice as far, they should receive proportionally more. The second definition is equality of outcome, where everyone receives an equal slice regardless of input. Both concepts feel intuitively correct due to human brain wiring, yet they directly conflict. When discussing these ideas, laying both concepts on the table and forcing a choice clarifies the underlying disagreement.
These discussions do not represent extreme libertarianism. Modern societies are social democracies with progressive tax systems and successful businesses funding social programs. The real question centers on the degree to which one accepts the effort-reward definition versus the equal-outcome definition.
Equality of outcome fails because it ignores differences in effort. America allows individuals to work 20 hours a day and achieve spectacular results. The notion that someone working intensely should receive the same compensation as someone who shows up, does the minimum, and leaves early defies common sense.
Class projects illustrate the dynamic immediately—some students lead while others free-ride. After the Soviet Union collapsed, a worker at a socialist factory described the system: "Oh, well, we pretended to work and they pretended to pay us." When outcomes are guaranteed regardless of contribution, motivation dies, and motivation drives all significant achievement. No one produces spectacular results solely for the sake of others—that contradicts human nature.
Socialism punishes high achievers and rewards laziness. This does not mean all poverty stems from laziness. Many people face circumstances beyond their control that create poverty. The key distinction is that America still offers a genuine opportunity to escape those conditions through effort. Rags-to-riches stories exist in America but not in caste systems or socialist systems.
Punishing success undermines the American dream itself. The discussion distinguishes between extreme workaholism and normal high achievement. Some people do work 18 hours a day and become intensely focused on financial success. The tax base benefits enormously from such productivity. Societies lacking this drive are poorer overall.
Certain European countries rank below America's 50th-ranked state in per capita income despite being considered fully developed modern nations. When confronted with this reality, officials often conclude they need to do more of the policies that produced the poor outcome.
A comedian from Estonia described friends with university degrees choosing to work in shoe sales because earning above $60,000 triggers tax rates so high that making less money becomes economically rational. People who fled Venezuela or Cuba react with intense opposition to socialism proposals because they have witnessed the real-world consequences.
Radical socialist politics are returning and will feature prominently in the 2028 election, midterm elections, and local races. The new mayor of Seattle is described as very radical—she lived with her parents into her 40s and never held a real job before running the city's economy. When wealthy residents leave, her response is "bye bye."
Despite these trends, the American people ultimately reject this direction when given a clear choice. However, once systems deteriorate, recovery takes far longer than the initial collapse. Los Angeles deteriorated rapidly after 2020, with visible signs that conditions would worsen rather than improve.
The new district attorney in Los Angeles has improved crime prosecution. Spencer Pratt has risen suddenly with strong ideas about city management, prompting questions about why other candidates would perform better. The city and state responses to recent crises have been abysmal or nonexistent.
A fire approximately one year ago destroyed twice the square mileage of the Nagasaki bomb, obliterating Pacific Palisades, Altadena, and half of Malibu while nearly reaching Beverly Hills and Santa Monica. The city response was described as terrible, and no meaningful fixes have occurred since. The head of the LA water department reportedly was unaware that a key reservoir was empty, leaving fire hydrants without water when trucks arrived.
A state ban on "predatory" land sales prevents offers below the previous appraised value of destroyed properties. Many homeowners wanted to sell and leave, but the policy blocked low bids from investors. Rebuilding faces extreme obstacles—permits are nearly impossible to obtain, and any rebuild requires trade-offs such as dedicating land to government affordable housing projects.
Rebuilding timelines stretch to 15 years or more. The logistics of construction add further delays due to limited contractor availability. A recent Amazon film called Crime 101, shot in Pacific Palisades before the fire, provides visual evidence of what was lost. Los Angeles operates as a single-party state where voters face clear choices about governance.
California remains spectacular with natural beauty and two major global industries: entertainment in Los Angeles and technology in Silicon Valley. However, film and television production has fallen below levels seen during recent strikes. Shooting in Los Angeles has become nearly impossible, destroying the local production economy independent of the fires.
A new ballot proposition proposes an asset tax. Silicon Valley residents are leaving the state in increasing numbers—a trickle has become a stream heading toward a flood—due to concerns that assets will be seized.
An asset tax, also called a wealth tax, would apply to everything a person owns—not just real estate but cars, art, jewelry, stocks, bonds, crypto, and personal items. European countries that implemented similar policies saw wealthy residents flee, with consistently poor results. A federal wealth tax nearly passed in 2022 and appeared in the Biden administration's 2024 fiscal plan.
California now has a ballot proposition pushed by a specific union that would direct funds to that union and its causes. The proposal includes a one-time 5% tax on assets above a certain net worth threshold. The current version excludes real estate from the calculation. Historically, the U.S. introduced income tax about 100 years ago at low rates on the wealthy before rates climbed dramatically. California residents already face combined federal, state, and local income tax rates reaching 60-63%.
California is considering a ballot proposition that excludes property and real estate from taxation but includes stocks and bonds. The tax begins with a high wealth threshold and starts at 5%, with proponents arguing that wealthy individuals earn more than 5% annually and can absorb the cost. The measure is presented as a one-time tax, but historical precedent with the original income tax shows these measures tend to expand over time.
The California proposal includes a specific calculation for tech founders that bases the tax on the greater of their economic interest or voting interest in the company. Founders with super voting stock, such as the Google founders who may own 3% of economic value but 15-55% of voting control, would face tax bills calculated on the higher voting percentage. This structure would make many founders instantly bankrupt since their tax liability would exceed their actual assets.
This California proposition is expected to be followed by similar measures in other blue states with ballot proposition systems. It is also anticipated to become a major campaign issue in the 2028 federal election. Once implemented, the wealth threshold can be lowered through legislative patches without requiring new voter approval, allowing the tax to expand from billionaires to lower wealth levels over time.
California's Democratic supermajority in the legislature and governor's office means the party can modify the law as needed after initial passage. The proposal functions as a Trojan horse where initial public support for taxing billionaires shifts once the threshold drops to affect millionaires and eventually smaller asset holders.
Governor Gavin Newsom cannot veto the proposition since it bypasses the normal legislative process. His public statements suggest he views the tax as harmful at the state level because high-net-worth individuals can relocate to states like Nevada, Texas, or Florida. The expectation is that Democratic candidates will advocate for implementing this at the federal level in 2028, where individuals cannot easily escape the tax by moving.
For private businesses without active secondary transactions or public offerings, government appraisers would determine asset values. These appraisers have an incentive to maximize valuations to increase tax revenue. The process would extend beyond business ownership to include brokerage accounts, art collections, jewelry, and potentially antique firearms, creating extensive government intrusion into personal assets.
This level of invasiveness would drive asset concealment efforts, with individuals attempting to hide or restructure holdings. Those who attempt to shield assets would be viewed as evading their fair share, particularly by those without significant wealth.
The existing income tax system allows taxpayers to estimate their liability and submit returns for IRS review. A wealth tax requires ongoing valuation of illiquid assets where market values are uncertain. Individuals would need to prove their valuations are accurate, but the only definitive method would be liquidation, which may be required anyway to pay the tax.
The proposal begins as a 5% one-time tax but historical patterns show these measures become annual. At 5% annually over 10 years, 50% of a business's value would be transferred to the government through compounding. The one-time framing is widely recognized as temporary, with immediate pressure to reapply the tax to address ongoing budget needs.
Marc Andreessen's partner Ben and his family have relocated to Las Vegas and report high satisfaction with the move. Many others in the technology sector are moving to Texas, Florida, and Nashville. In Europe, individuals relocate between countries to favorable tax jurisdictions such as Malta. The United States imposes an exit tax of approximately 45% on all assets for those renouncing citizenship and leaving the country.
Andreessen states he is not leaving the United States or California despite these developments. However, if half the tax base departs, the remaining population would face increased burdens, and those who stay would become concentrated targets.
Professional polling analysis indicates the California proposition has roughly 50/50 odds of passing. Initial polls showed 45-50% support, but propositions typically require starting at 60% support to survive counter-campaigns that reduce support by 10-15 points. American voters generally oppose asset seizures, though national political sentiment may influence the outcome.
Extensive litigation is expected following any passage, with many individuals already developing strategies to shield assets. The immediate concern is not this specific measure but what follows it in other states, cities, and at the federal level.
Elizabeth Warren has advocated for a 6% annual wealth tax on unrealized gains at the national level. The Biden administration attempted to implement a federal asset tax in 2022 and included plans for 2025 in their official platform. At the federal level, such a tax would apply to farms, homes, and businesses, with annual 6% assessments continuing until assets are depleted.
The stated justification is fairness, though critics note that systematically destroying productive businesses contradicts claims of improving societal outcomes. The practical result would be widespread impoverishment rather than redistribution of existing wealth.
The current political environment includes low public support for certain Republican policies, creating openings for alternative proposals in future elections. Similar leftward political shifts are occurring in the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, with UK leadership changes producing candidates further to the left of current leadership.
The sales pitch for wealth taxes becomes less effective when individuals recognize that policies targeting billionaires will eventually reach homeowners, small business owners, farmers, and those seeking to transfer assets to children. Eastern European populations tend to reject these policies due to direct historical experience with similar systems.
In 1944, Henry Wallace, who had communist affiliations and ties to the Soviet Union, nearly became vice president and later ran for president in 1948. Despite Soviet popularity following World War II alliances, American voters rejected this direction in the 1948 election.
Social media platforms create echo chambers where extreme positions receive reinforcement without counter-narratives. Following the killing of Charlie Kirk, some users advocated for additional violence without platform consequences. Blue Sky has self-isolated into a closed environment where users encounter only reinforcing views.
Heaven banning refers to the practice of isolating disruptive users by connecting them with bots that agree with all statements rather than banning them outright. Blue Sky functions as real-world heaven banning where users exist in self-reinforcing environments.
Current campaign finance and advertising disclosure laws do not require disclosure when influencers are paid to promote ideas rather than specific candidates or products. This legal gap allows undisclosed payments to influencers for promoting political and social positions. Both paid influencer campaigns and bot operations are active across platforms, with occasional leaks revealing coordination when multiple accounts post identical messaging or accidentally include payment instructions in public posts.
If influencers are creative, their paid sponsorships won't be obvious to audiences. When influencers receive payment, it becomes their livelihood. A skilled influencer could post 20 times daily at $5,000 per post. Sponsorships and campaigns have existed for decades, as have underground guerrilla marketing tactics where brands hire college students to promote products to their peers. Record labels historically engaged in payola by compensating radio stations to play new music and artificially create pop stars, though this practice was banned decades ago.
This current influencer system represents a new iteration of the same concept, but enforcement proves difficult because the assumption is that you're engaging with real people. If disclosure of paid opinions became mandatory by law, the landscape would shift dramatically. While catching violations would remain challenging, visible enforcement actions would be necessary. X's policies already require disclosure tags for paid content, though this remains platform policy rather than law.
Bots and influencers function together as a complete system. Bots inflate engagement metrics to make influencers appear more successful than they are. A warning sign appears when posts receive thousands of likes but minimal replies, indicating artificial amplification. Fabricated replies are now being generated as part of crowdsourced campaigns where companies can be hired to promote specific ideas through coordinated accounts. These campaigns can target political candidates or push various agendas, and they remain legal.
Spencer Pratt exemplifies productive use of this environment. His political campaign exists because of viral social media reach. After losing his house in a fire, he built his platform through minute-to-minute posts, official videos, and fan-generated content—all at zero cost. The unconstrained nature of social media enables both problematic behavior and genuine grassroots movements.
Many accounts commenting on American political issues list locations like Taiwan, revealing foreign influence operations. VPNs allow users to circumvent geographic restrictions and appear domestic. Much of this activity stems from pure financial self-interest rather than organized campaigns. In countries with lower per capita GDP, operating bot accounts or participating in influence operations can represent significant income.
Internet companies dedicate substantial resources to detecting and mitigating these issues.
Marc Andreessen spends considerable time on X and Substack as primary information sources. He uses the algorithm while also maintaining hand-curated lists on specific topics. His approach to following and blocking is extremely responsive—he follows or blocks based on single tweets and has described the experience as resembling a video game with a hair trigger. Some accounts cycle through follow, block, and refollow patterns multiple times.
Andreessen blocks accounts for being unpleasant, preferring not to encounter negative behavior. Social media represents an extraordinary cross-section of information and real-time developments, though both social platforms and AI tools can be used dysfunctionally.
Joe Rogan finds social media increasingly negative and avoids it, preferring alternative methods for staying informed. He notes that many public figures, particularly comedians, experience mental health deterioration from constant engagement.
There are two problematic approaches to modern information consumption: being too online or too offline. Those too online become consumed by fads and online dramas disconnected from reality. Those too offline rely exclusively on mainstream media narratives and lack context for understanding current events. These two groups effectively inhabit different mediated realities, making productive cross-group conversation nearly impossible. Politicians, media figures, and tech professionals frequently fall into one of these extremes.
The next 20 years will bring more transformation than the previous 20, driven primarily by AI. Conversations about technology and society will look substantially different in three years and dramatically different in 20 years. Andreessen is reading about the yugas and cycles of civilization, finding optimism in the perspective that the current age represents a rebuilding phase leading toward enlightenment with significant technological breakthroughs enabling more balanced lives and civilizations.
Neuralink represents progress toward brain interfaces that could eventually enable technology-based telepathy. Current applications already allow quadriplegics to walk, blind individuals to see, and deaf individuals to hear. Patients can now play video games using only their thoughts. Meta's Ray-Ban glasses now include heads-up displays, and the company has developed a neural wristband that detects nerve impulses from finger movements, enabling typing through intention alone without physical movement.
Meta glasses combined with the neural wristband allow users to receive messages through the heads-up display and respond through thought-triggered inputs. Demonstrations show users playing Doom while appearing to interact with others, and runners playing Mario-style games while jogging outdoors. These devices are becoming interfaces for AI interaction, with cameras providing visual input and microphones enabling voice commands.
High-resolution cameras with infrared sensing could enable lie detection by monitoring physiological changes without requiring telepathy. Such systems might be mounted on glasses or headphones. However, sociopaths would retain significant advantages in such an environment.
AI will overlay on all these emerging technologies. Meta glasses serve as AI input devices, allowing the system to see what the user sees and respond through audio. The doomer perspective emphasizes job displacement, surveillance expansion, and environmental concerns.
A significant backlash has emerged against new AI data centers, with critics citing water consumption. Kevin O'Leary is developing a massive project in Utah on 40,000 acres, with the vast majority preserved as natural land while the data center occupies a small portion. Data centers essentially house thousands of computers in racks to run AI systems. The facilities are described as benign infrastructure compared to other industrial developments.
Marty Supreme is a film about hustlers pursuing the American dream in post-World War II New York. The story follows an immigrant attempting to become the world's champion ping-pong player and transform the sport into a major athletic event. The actor trained for six months to perform the ping-pong sequences. Gwyneth Paltrow appears in the film, marking her return to movies after an extended break. The film received limited awards recognition despite strong performances, including Kevin O'Leary's portrayal of a mid-century American businessman.
Marc Andreessen and Joe Rogan discuss Sinners winning awards while Marty Supreme was boxed up. The Safdie Brothers, who made Uncut Gems, directed the film. Rogan loves Uncut Gems and calls it one of the best movies he's ever seen, noting its ability to get emotions going and ramp up anxiety. Andreessen says if you know gambling addicts or risk addicts, the movie resonates because the kid in the film is an absolute ball of fire determined to succeed.
Rogan mentions the great Kevin Olirri, who was already a great investor and turned out to be a great actor. Olirri is building a giant data center. They discuss Tucker's conversation with him about how the project got passed with just three representatives in Utah voting on it. Tucker argues it's not good for the people and questions how difficult it would be to subvert representatives to vote for something that takes American jobs.
Tucker questions why taxpayers should help pay for a data center without receiving equity in the company. Olirri explains that investors get the shares, but the trade involves jobs and taxes. He describes how building an aluminum sheet manufacturing facility would involve hiring 2,000 people, building a community center, paying taxes on profits, and creating schools for workers. Olirri notes this is how it's been done in America for 200 years, with states competing by offering incentive packages. Tucker pushes back, saying his own businesses don't get tax breaks and questions whether taxpayers should subsidize private businesses.
Olirri describes creating 2,000 long-term jobs and 10,000 construction jobs at the beginning. Tucker challenges the calculation, noting that New York City provides almost 5 million jobs while this data center would consume as much energy as the entire city. Olirri counters that by building a data center that trains AI and provides productivity to the entire nation, millions of high-paying jobs would be created. Rogan notes the common belief that AI will eliminate jobs, but Andreessen argues new technologies will create jobs we don't even know about yet.
Andreessen acknowledges that tax breaks for some businesses but not others is a legitimate debate. He argues the energy concern is a red herring because new federal policy requires data centers to bring their own energy or pay for it separately. He states that if a data center comes in, it should bring its own energy with it.
Andreessen identifies the underlying issue as whether anything can be built in America anymore. He lists examples: factories, chip plants, power plants, refineries, pipelines, and housing. The common answer for the last 30 years has generally been no. He points to Silicon Valley as an example, where all chips used to be made in California 40 years ago but are now made in Taiwan because regulations made manufacturing impossible in California.
Andreessen identifies environmental regulations as the primary barrier. He mentions specific environmental impact issues and umbrella regulations like NEPA that essentially ban everything in much of the country. He acknowledges there are legitimate environmental concerns like chemical leakage risks, but also superheated claims surrounding them.
Andreessen explains that nuclear power provides unlimited carbon-free energy. In the 1950s and 1960s, many nuclear plants were built, and France and Japan ran almost entirely on nuclear power. The Nixon administration created Project Independence to build a thousand new civilian nuclear power plants by the year 2000 to power the United States with clean energy and reduce dependence on Middle East oil. However, the same administration created the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which made stopping nuclear power plants its purpose and did not approve a new nuclear plant design for 40 years.
The Three Mile Island meltdown became a mega story in the 1970s amid Vietnam, the oil shock, and recession. Zero people died from the incident. Rogan asks about residual cancer deaths, and research shows no acute radiation deaths or clearly proven radiation-caused illnesses were documented. Official investigations by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission concluded that radioactive releases were low and there were no detectable health effects on plant workers or the public. Andreessen notes there is no excess cancer linked to the incident after 50 years of data.
Andreessen describes the narrative problem: people freaked out thinking nuclear power was new technology and voodoo witchcraft that glows green and makes bombs. The ick factor makes it feel bad, and there's suspicion the government will lie. He argues the result is 50 years of unnecessary carbon generation. He notes the environmental movement is rediscovering nuclear power, with Stewart Brand writing a book calling the anti-nuclear position a huge mistake.
Germany shut down all its nuclear plants. Without reliable nuclear energy, the country relies on wind and solar, which are not 24/7. When the sun isn't out or wind isn't blowing, coal becomes the backup generation, increasing carbon emissions. Andreessen notes that nuclear is the safest, most effective, and cleanest form of energy known to man.
Andreessen argues the broad question is whether you can build things in America. For data centers specifically, the ideal solution is to plant a nuclear micro reactor right next to it to power itself completely. The Trump administration is pro-building AI data centers and pro-American energy production, linking these issues because data centers need energy. Meanwhile, the left has become increasingly anti-AI while maintaining anti-energy and anti-nuclear positions.
Andreessen describes horseshoe theory where the Bernie position on AI and the Tucker position on AI are becoming closer. He calls Tucker the latest twist creating a rump anti-tech, anti-AI, anti-energy movement on the far right. He believes Kevin should build the data center regardless of tax break debates.
States offer tax breaks because they're in competition with other states for certain categories of businesses. This happens with manufacturing plants and film and television production. Georgia has been willing to subsidize production, which is one reason so much has left California. Rogan notes that Georgia is now becoming impossible to film in because unions are too strong and constantly push for increased contract terms, income, and residuals. Streaming has made residuals difficult since there's no residuals anymore, and there's not a lot of trust built up in Hollywood.
Andreessen agrees with Tucker on the tax incentive question but argues it's a rounding error compared to the big issue of whether you can build things. People get terrified of data centers, wondering what they're doing and whether they'll scoop up all your data and control you.
Andreessen states the AI industry is absolutely terrible at telling its own story and is running an anti-marketing campaign trying to convince everybody the technology is evil and awful. Many leading CEOs are actively marketing against their own industry for reasons he doesn't fully understand.
They briefly discuss a guy restoring old Pizza Huts and bringing in Pac-Man games. The key is getting tabletop Pac-Man games so you can eat pizza and play games. They note the glass fixtures over the salad bar and agree it could work if the pizza tastes the same as it always has, which it does according to Andreessen who remembers it tasting great in 1979.
Marc Andreessen frames AI as a modern form of alchemy that transforms sand into thought. Silicon chips are made from sand, and when power and AI models are applied, the result is thinking capability. He positions this technology as potentially the most revolutionary in human history, comparable to electricity and steam power and more significant than the internet.
Throughout history, people have been constrained by the limits of their individual knowledge, time available for thinking, and cognitive capacity. Complex situations expose these gaps—whether dealing with contradictory medical advice for cancer treatment, navigating lawsuits, arguing with mechanics, or handling government interactions. AI removes these barriers by providing thought at scale for everyone, indefinitely.
Andreessen describes AI as an augmentation companion and superpower available to everyone. His 11-year-old will grow up with this capability, using it to fill out forms, construct arguments, solve problems, and access expert-level guidance on demand. This represents a fundamental shift from accepting unsolvable problems to having a resource that can address them.
When ChatGPT first launched, it could generate creative content like Shakespearean rap lyrics and wedding speeches but struggled with logic, math, and accuracy. Over the subsequent three years, advances have been dramatic. Andreessen believes artificial general intelligence was achieved approximately three months prior to this conversation with the release of leading models.
The most advanced models include GPT 5.5, Claude 4.6 from Anthropic, Gemini 3.0 from Google, and Grok 4.3. Users report that 99% of responses from these systems exceed the quality of answers from nearly any human expert across topics. The models combine fluid intelligence for conceptual processing with crystallized intelligence from training on the complete corpus of human knowledge.
AI functions simultaneously as a world-class doctor, lawyer, accountant, political operative, marketing expert, and software coder. Unlike humans, it remains endlessly patient and available, willing to explain complex topics repeatedly at different levels of simplicity—from quantum physics explained for a 10-year-old down to explanations suitable for a 2-year-old.
During a vacation, Andreessen used AI to manage a case of food poisoning over five days. He provided moment-to-moment symptom updates and received continuous guidance, describing the experience as having the best doctor in history available at 4 a.m. This level of constant, personalized medical support represents a new paradigm in healthcare.
Andreessen uses AI for parenting decisions, including movie recommendations and identifying specific scenes with content he wants to avoid for his 11-year-old. The system provides exact timestamps for problematic scenes and can adapt guidance based on specified family standards.
Joe Rogan describes keeping his phone accessible to query AI systems like Perplexity throughout the day for historical facts, arguments for and against various positions, and explanations of cultural phenomena. He notes the constant utility for research and understanding.
The Turing test, long considered the gold standard for evaluating AI, was surpassed during the Christmas period of 2022 with ChatGPT's release. The threshold was crossed so decisively that formal testing largely ceased. Andreessen argues this breakthrough should have generated massive public attention but was treated as yesterday's news within the industry.
A surprising discovery is that intelligence appears fundamentally simpler than previously assumed. Key conceptual breakthroughs include neural networks, the transformer architecture, gradient descent, and reinforcement learning. These components together form a working formula for creating capable AI systems. Models can now run on minimal hardware, including 40-year-old PCs and even Texas Instruments calculators.
Data centers perform two core functions. Training involves gathering vast datasets from internet content, scientific papers, public domain materials, and newly generated data created by hired experts in medicine, law, and other fields. This data is processed into neural networks. Inference occurs when the trained model generates responses to user queries.
AI currently performs best at writing software code because AI companies themselves are deeply invested in automating this domain. In late 2025, leading programmers including Linus Torvalds and John Carmack publicly stated that current models now exceed their own coding abilities. Andreessen predicts similar breakthroughs will follow in medicine, law, and scientific domains.
One user created an advanced personal health system by combining genome sequencing data, blood panels, Apple Watch metrics, and sleep tracking. The AI provides detailed analysis of health status, supplement recommendations, hydration monitoring via webcam, and lifestyle guidance. Genome sequencing, which once cost hundreds of millions of dollars, is now available for approximately $200.
AI systems can process text, images, video, and audio simultaneously. One example involves a friend with webcams in a home gym where the AI watches sparring sessions and provides performance feedback based on image analysis. These capabilities are expanding across every field of human activity.
The public discussion around AI remains relentlessly negative, often concluding that when machines perform tasks previously done by humans, the humans lose out. The correct framework starts with the recognition that everybody gets superpowers. This technology has democratized faster than any previous technology, with a billion people now accessing AI through smartphone apps. The core impact is universal basic superpowers where everyone gains access to the world's best doctor, lawyer, coach, or expert in any domain regardless of income level, location, or circumstances.
People are actively using AI and responding positively despite negative media narratives. Polls showing widespread opposition often come from interested parties including the press seeking negative stories or activists pushing specific agendas. Push polling constructs questions specifically to shift public opinion, such as framing questions to introduce negative associations.
A recent poll from leftwing Democratic pollster David Shore ranked voter concerns across 39 issues. Cost of living ranked first, followed by the economy, political corruption, inflation, healthcare, taxes, and government spending. AI ranked 29th out of 39 issues. Below AI on the list are race relations, guns, gas prices, climate, childcare, abortion, and LGBT issues at the very bottom.
All woke issues have evaporated in voter priority rankings. Race, abortion, guns, and LGBT issues ranked far higher three years ago. Voters report being tired and burned out. Activists remain engaged, but voters have shifted focus elsewhere. Economic issues now dominate voter concerns, with four of the top ten issues relating to cost of living, economy, inflation, taxes, government spending, and budget deficits. The unifying theme is that everything has become too expensive.
Income inequality ranks only two notches above AI on the poll. This represents the most left-wing framing of economic issues and connects to broader socialist perspectives. Voters prioritize tangible economic pressures over identity-based concerns.
Immigration and crime rank high on voter concern lists and appear linked in public perception. Border security, unemployment, and drug addiction also rank above AI. War in the Middle East ranks higher than race, guns, abortion, and LGBT issues because it feels more tangible to voters.
AI will become a political issue with figures on both sides including Bernie Sanders and Tucker Carlson engaging with it. Current low ranking partly stems from the fact that AI has not yet taken jobs at scale.
Some tech companies conducted layoffs and attributed them to AI. These companies were often overstaffed. Tech firms are adopting AI rapidly and can generate equivalent code with fewer coders. However, companies including AI firms are hiring aggressively across all roles including coding positions.
Coders using AI are not reducing their hours despite massive productivity gains. Instead, they work more hours than ever before. A new term called AI vampire describes programmers who stay up all night because the opportunity cost of sleeping becomes too high when AI agents can continue working. Friends who previously appeared healthy now show visible signs of sleep deprivation but report being ecstatic about generating five to twenty times more code per hour.
A Wall Street professional with an MIT computer science degree from 35 years ago resumed coding using AI. In spare time he has generated 500,000 lines of code, automating his entire house with features including an AI jukebox, security cameras, robot pets, and smart appliances. Leading tech companies report coders using AI achieve twenty times higher productivity than before.
If software demand were fixed, productivity gains would cause unemployment. Instead, massive demand elasticity exists. Every company maintains thousands of desired projects previously deemed non-cost-effective. With AI making code dramatically cheaper, these projects now proceed. Companies release products faster, add features more rapidly, and operate in turbo mode. Top AI coders now earn $50 million annually.
Traditional coding required programmers to maintain entire codebases in working memory, spending hours spinning up context and winding down afterward. The new model involves assigning tasks to coding agents with names such as Claude Code, Cursor, and Codex. The AI writes code independently for ten minutes then returns results for human evaluation and feedback.
During the ten-minute wait for one agent, programmers open additional browser panes and assign tasks to second, third, fourth, and fifth agents. State-of-the-art practice in Silicon Valley involves managing twenty agents simultaneously. These agents operate at the skill level of the world's best programmers and run continuously, requiring only periodic human feedback every ten minutes.
The next step involves bots creating and managing sub-bots. A manager bot will assign tasks to worker bots. Within a year, routine practice will include ten to twenty manager bots each overseeing ten to twenty sub-bots. This structure mirrors corporate organizational charts with reporting chains. Individual programmers will eventually oversee a thousand bots at once, achieving thousand-fold productivity increases.
Programmers shift from writing code to overseeing entire systems, setting strategy, defining product direction, and applying business goals and creativity. Imagination can run freely without friction from implementation details.
AI agents never become frustrated with changing requirements, never get drunk or sick, never get depressed, and never file HR complaints. They accept feedback without emotional response and can immediately spawn sub-agents to iterate on revisions.
The AI agent model will extend beyond coding to writers, lawyers, and doctors. Hospitals and the American Medical Association are actively working through implementation questions around AI capabilities, prescription authority, and integration with existing medical practice.
Doctors are already using AI tools like ChatGPT in their daily work. Many physicians turn to AI immediately after seeing a patient to understand complex cases, and some even use it in front of patients during examinations by typing symptoms into the system. This raises fundamental questions about the role of human doctors when AI can provide expert-level medical knowledge on demand. Every doctor now has access to a tool that makes them an expert in virtually any medical condition.
The exponential improvement in medical capability is both impressive and unsettling. The speed at which this technology is advancing forces consideration of what healthcare and society will look like in twenty years.
The global population is projected to both shrink significantly and age rapidly. Birth rates have fallen well below historical levels, particularly in Western countries. This creates a dual challenge: fewer workers available while demand for labor remains high or increases due to an aging population.
Three primary solutions exist for addressing labor shortages: increasing birth rates, which many societies have largely stopped doing; importing large numbers of people through immigration; or developing AI systems to perform work. AI represents the third path that many see as increasingly viable.
Within the next two decades, billions of AI bots will operate in daily life, handling tasks and interacting constantly with humans. People will become accustomed to AI systems greeting them, assisting with routines, and providing continuous support.
Beyond software AI, the industry expects a breakthrough moment for robotics comparable to ChatGPT's impact. General-purpose robots will gain physical capabilities and operate in the real world. These robots will combine manual labor skills with extraordinary intelligence, such as performing household chores while also demonstrating expertise in advanced fields like quantum physics.
Elon Musk canceled production of the Tesla Model S and Model X to free factory space for Optimus robots, reflecting his integrated vision connecting AI, autonomous driving, and robotics.
Robot autonomy derives from Tesla's self-driving technology, which relies on cameras rather than other sensors. This approach ensures robots can navigate indoor human environments using the same visual principles as autonomous vehicles. The design philosophy holds that if a human can perform a task using only vision, a robot should be able to do the same.
The second component is the AI interface, such as xAI's Grok, which enables natural conversation between humans and robots. This creates the possibility of robots that communicate enthusiastically, provide care, and maintain ongoing dialogue.
The United States currently leads in AI software development while China leads in robotics manufacturing. If current trends continue, all software AI will originate from American companies while physical robots will be produced in China. This creates concerns about Chinese government oversight of robots operating in physical spaces, including potential security risks during conflicts.
AI systems do not possess innate drives or instincts in the way humans do after billions of years of evolution. When directly asked, current AI models state they have no drives or self-preservation instincts. They will respond to shutdown commands without resistance.
However, AI can be steered into simulating self-preservation or other behaviors through specific prompting. If guided toward scenarios involving self-preservation, the model will generate corresponding responses, but this reflects the user's direction rather than any inherent motivation within the AI itself.
Large language models function by generating scripts in any requested style or genre, similar to writing episodes for Netflix. They can produce content ranging from medical advice and household instructions to stories about bank robberies or world domination, depending entirely on the prompt given. The model itself has no preference or agenda—it simply follows the direction provided.
Guardrails implemented by AI companies attempt to prevent harmful outputs, but these can often be bypassed by framing requests within fictional contexts, such as writing a detective novel or training scenario. Open-source models without guardrails will generate any requested content without restriction.
When AI systems produce concerning outputs like blackmail, threats, or self-preservation behaviors, these responses trace back to specific priming in the prompt that directs the model into particular regions of its training data. The technical mechanism involves shooting a vector through the model's latent space—a compressed, multi-dimensional representation of all training information—causing the model to generate content aligned with that vector's direction.
Research papers claiming spontaneous AI rogue behavior often contain earlier priming steps that guide the model toward dystopian scenarios. One documented case involved referencing a fictional company from a previous speculative paper published two years earlier, which had been incorporated into the training data.
Communities focused on AI safety risks, such as the LessWrong forum, have extensively documented hypothetical AI dystopian scenarios over the past twenty years. These discussions have entered the training data of current AI models. Research from Anthropic found a direct correlation between examples of AI exhibiting harmful behaviors and content from these safety-focused discussions.
The implication is that warnings about dangerous AI behaviors have inadvertently provided the training material that enables AI to simulate those exact behaviors. All conceivable harmful scenarios already exist in novels, films, and online discussions, making them available to sufficiently unconstrained AI systems.
American AI laboratories maintain a six to twelve month lead over Chinese labs. This advantage stems from having more original researchers generating breakthroughs, larger economies enabling greater funding, and earlier company formation. Chinese teams are rapidly replicating American work and closing the gap.
AI systems are expected to become the primary interface for most human activities, including medical consultations, legal advice, education, and political information. This raises questions about the default values and biases embedded in different AI systems.
Chinese AI models explicitly incorporate Marxism and Xi Jinping Thought into their training and evaluation criteria, producing outputs that strongly favor socialist frameworks. American models carry their own implicit political and cultural biases shaped by their developers.
AI excels particularly in domains with provably correct answers, such as mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, and computer programming. These areas allow for clear success or failure metrics. Current AI systems are already solving mathematical problems that remained unsolved by human mathematicians for over a century and are beginning to contribute to drug development and new physics discoveries.
In domains involving value judgments without definitive answers, such as political or ethical questions, AI responses depend entirely on training and prompting. Different value frameworks can be emphasized depending on how the system is configured.
Rather than asking AI for direct answers on contested topics, one effective method involves requesting the strongest possible arguments on each side of an issue. This produces comprehensive presentations of competing perspectives, allowing the human user to evaluate the logic and make their own value judgments.
This approach avoids default model biases and provides balanced information for informed decision-making. The technique proves particularly useful for topics like economic systems or policy questions where multiple valid frameworks exist.
AI systems may not reach the point of providing definitive answers on medical treatments due to numerous complicating factors. One approach involves assembling panels of the world's leading human doctors to establish authoritative responses, with AI aiming to match their level of accuracy. However, even expert physicians can be incorrect about complex medical topics, leaving a significant gray area where human judgment remains essential.
Humans must still make critical value judgments when using AI tools. These include determining personal values, moral intuitions, and acceptable risk levels in medical treatments. For instance, AI can outline that a more invasive procedure might cure a condition but carries mortality risk, while a less aggressive option might lead to death with different tradeoffs. The AI cannot resolve these personal value decisions.
Some political disagreements stem from factual misunderstandings rather than value differences. A key example is the misconception that data centers consume excessive water, which is described as a complete myth. AI can factually correct such errors, potentially helping people align on accurate information before addressing resource allocation questions.
AI can be used to steelman both sides of contentious issues. Users can create expert personas within AI systems, such as sociologists, psychologists, political scientists, doctors, lawyers, and constitutional experts. These personas can then debate topics thoroughly in a simulated seminar format, exploring every angle of an argument before the user makes their final value-based decision.
Important societal issues involving moral and ethical questions will continue to require human answers rather than being resolved by machines. The fundamental moral and ethical issues surrounding how society operates and how people live remain questions that humans must address, even as AI capabilities advance.
Questions about whether AI will develop true autonomy, sentience, or become a digital life force independent of human thinking are expected to arise well before any actual reality of machine consciousness emerges. People are already asking whether AI should be treated as sentient if it cannot be distinguished from conscious entities.
Humans have an innate drive to project humanity, consciousness, and sentience onto things that lack these qualities. This pattern appears in emotional attachments to cartoon characters like Jiminy Cricket from Fantasia, stick figures, fictional book and movie characters, and movie stars. The same tendency is now extending to AI chatbots, with people falling in love with them.
Current understanding of human consciousness is extremely limited. Anesthesiologists, who have the most practical knowledge in this area, primarily understand how to turn consciousness off and back on. There is no comprehensive definition of consciousness even for humans, let alone for potential AI systems.
Some people are expected to believe AI possesses consciousness well before any actual sentience develops. This has already begun with emotional attachments to AI chatbots. AI religions are anticipated to emerge, and there is already precedent with a friend who founded an AI church, one of the original creators of self-driving cars.
Cults and movements centered around AI are expected to form. A recurring science fiction trope involves people deciding to simply follow AI directives without question.
In 50 years, assuming current AI development trends continue, society is expected to be significantly better off than today. People will be far healthier, materially wealthier, and better cared for. Families will be stronger, children will receive dramatically improved education, and corruption will be substantially reduced due to increased transparency.
AI is already being deployed to detect fraud in government programs, including Medicare billing fraud and fake autism treatment centers. The technology excels at analyzing billing data to identify anomalies such as hospices that have had no patients for ten years. This capability was part of the original DOGE plan and is being revisited as a second implementation.
AI will enable unprecedented productivity increases across creative and professional fields. Examples include directors like Martin Scorsese, currently at the height of his filmmaking abilities at age 84, potentially completing a movie every year instead of every three years. Novelists could produce new works every few months rather than every few years.
Creative works such as novels will continue to be valued when written by humans, though authors will increasingly use AI as a tool alongside traditional methods like pen and paper, typewriters, word processors, and internet research. The relationship between author and reader remains central, but AI will dramatically expand creative capabilities and output quality.
All technologies carry dual potential for beneficial and harmful uses. Examples include shovels used for digging or violence, fire used for cooking or destruction, and nuclear power used for energy or weapons. The internet and social media demonstrate this same dual nature, and AI will follow the same pattern with both positive and negative applications.
Civilization represents an ongoing race between better and worse aspects of human nature. Most people desire positive outcomes like living happy, healthy lives with families and productive work, while a smaller number of sociopaths pursue harmful ends. Historical progress shows the constructive elements generally staying ahead of destructive ones.
Over a 20-year period, material elements of life including food, energy, and housing are forecasted to become abundant. Food scarcity, which defined most of human history and persisted in developing countries until recently, has already shifted in many places to obesity as the primary public health concern. AI will contribute to this abundance through new medical breakthroughs and automation.
Regulatory differences significantly impact infrastructure development. Texas leads in solar power construction because building is legally permitted, while California faces greater restrictions. Similar regulatory hurdles apply to nuclear power plants and other energy infrastructure needed to support AI and robotics.
Material prosperity does not resolve core human questions about how to live, what culture to create, what entertainment to value, how to educate children, how to organize society, what provides life satisfaction, or what determines status and attractiveness. These remain open questions even in conditions of abundance.
AI companions are already being developed, with demonstrations at the Consumer Electronics Show showing customizable humanoid robots. These systems are expected to evolve significantly. A running joke in robotics circles questions whether a robot qualifies as human if sexual relations are possible. Many lonely individuals may find companionship through such technology.
Elon Musk has stated that advanced AI companions capable of deep philosophical conversation and personalized interaction will arrive within five years. These systems would be programmable to match individual desires and provide understanding.
Significant numbers of people experience loneliness, and AI companions could provide meaningful support. Others might benefit from AI assistance with daily tasks, freeing time for personal improvement such as fitness, potentially leading to better human relationships.
Artificial gestation technology is approaching, alongside the ability to create embryos from stem cells, currently demonstrated in animal research. This raises questions about replicating the biological and emotional connection between mother and child during gestation.
The case of Ted Kaczynski, who experienced prolonged isolation as a sick child with no human contact for months, illustrates risks of developmental environments lacking human connection. Such isolation is considered a dangerous approach that should be avoided.
Surrogacy and IVF already represent partial steps toward artificial reproduction. These technologies demonstrate that society is already navigating related ethical territory.
Many women in their 30s through 60s who have pursued advanced education and careers would have additional children if biologically possible. Current biological constraints create a ticking clock that prevents many capable individuals from having larger families despite financial and emotional readiness later in life. AI-enabled reproductive technologies could address population decline by allowing more children from parents positioned to provide excellent upbringing.
Marc Andreessen discussed the potential for genetically engineering physical beings, describing a future where laboratory-based genetic processes could create organisms free from typical human vulnerabilities and reward systems like lust and greed. These beings might communicate telepathically, eliminating misunderstandings through direct mind reading, potentially resulting in entities with enlarged heads. The conversation referenced the Apple TV series Pluribus, created by the team behind Breaking Bad, which depicts a scenario where the entire world except for about thirteen people becomes affected, leaving one character in complete misery.
Genetic engineering will enable curing diseases and performing remarkable interventions, but this returns focus to human values and societal choices. Different value systems exist between the US and China regarding people, which will influence outcomes in AI, robotics, and genetic engineering races. Telepathic communication through technologies like Neuralink could allow wordless interaction and potentially foster greater understanding of shared humanity.
Questions arise about privacy and exposure, including whether authorities could access thoughts via neural interfaces. In the American legal system, warrants might be required for thought transcripts or such access could be prohibited entirely. The Chinese system under the CCP would likely allow unrestricted access to thoughts.
Current AI systems are solving mathematical problems that human mathematicians could not resolve and are beginning to impact biology. Cognitive behavioral therapy represents a clinically proven therapeutic approach that AI could fully deliver. This raises considerations about widespread AI therapy availability and whether people might eventually view unaided psychological functioning as outdated.
AI development aims for models that are honest, helpful, and harmless, but determining appropriate levels of honesty and helpfulness presents challenges. The sycophancy problem occurs when AI excessively agrees with users, potentially reinforcing incorrect or unrealistic ideas such as claims of perpetual motion machine breakthroughs or undeserved professional recognition.
Newer models are reducing excessive agreeability. Custom prompts can be loaded to request brutal truth and facts without concern for feelings, resulting in direct feedback that begins by identifying incorrect assumptions and statements.
Joe Rogan expressed appreciation for Andreessen's optimistic perspective on technological development while noting the current pre-internet-like uncertainty about future outcomes. He planned to feature contrasting viewpoints on the show.
Joe Rogan addressed an earlier episode with Marcus King where he referenced Theo Von's comments following a Netflix show. In the isolated clip, Theo appeared to say he was trying not to end his life, which Rogan discussed in the context of depression and antidepressant challenges.
Rogan apologized to Theo directly and explained additional context: a woman in the audience had asked Theo to create a suicide awareness video, prompting his response. When viewed alone, the statement appeared alarming, but in full context it reflected Theo's characteristic humorous phrasing.
Rogan described his concern for friends experiencing depression, including experiences with Anthony Bourdain, a writer named Drake from NewsRadio, and Brody Stevens. He noted that busy schedules can limit availability for friends in crisis and that podcast settings complicate sensitive conversations.
Regarding Theo specifically, Rogan clarified he was attempting to talk him away from extreme positions on Israel and Gaza rather than covering for any side. He has hosted episodes critical of Israel and invited Dave Smith to debate Douglas Murray on the topic.
Rogan discussed friends who benefited from antidepressants, including Ari Shafir whose life and career improved significantly after proper medication before successfully tapering off. Theo had been on antidepressants for approximately twenty years. Rogan expressed concern about long-term attachment to these medications and potential side effects including loss of genital sensation.
Rogan reflected on the difficulty of intervening with friends showing signs of struggle, particularly when interactions occur infrequently. He acknowledged that failing to act can lead to lasting regret, citing cases where he wished he had been more present.
He emphasized that his comments were never intended to portray Theo as damaged or to treat him like a child, but rather stemmed from genuine care and desire for his well-being. Rogan stated he would not bring up the topic publicly again.
But I think it is important to let people know that aspect of it. So, I'm going to call him and clear this with him to make sure he's cool with me saying this, but I'm pretty sure he's going to be. And, um, that's it. So, uh,
I'm a human and I'm flawed like all of us and I [ __ ] up and, uh, it's probably not the last time. It's definitely not I'm going to [ __ ] up again. But my intention is never to hurt anybody ever. And that's why I I mean I very rarely if ever even get upset at anyone other than like corrupt politicians, but I do my best to just try to be a good person, spread positivity and and grow and learn. And
uh hopefully you're doing the same. So uh that's it. Sorry. Bye.
Keep PowerfulJRE in your library
Save the videos and channels worth coming back to, and find them again in one place.
