2026 Predictions: AI Automates Knowledge Work, Autonomous Robots & AI CEO Billionaires | EP #217

You must have the inside scoop on this.

We'll find out, won't we? He's got a Santa hat on. You have to take him seriously.

Perfecting orbital refueling, getting ready.

We're already leaking the prediction. You're already [laughter] It's been 6 minutes.

I can generate a few dozen Peterbots and have them attend the meetings instead of me.

I push back on the robot side just a bit.

You always hate the robots.

I know. I struggle with that.

2026 is going to feel like the future.

This year didn't feel like the future to you?

It felt like the future, but next year is going to feel more like the future. Now, that's a moonshot, ladies and gentlemen. Over to you guys.

We've got so much change this year. Next year is going to be, you know what, orders of magnitude more change. It's a real challenge to narrow it down to just a couple of things. Everybody had 5, 6, or 7 great predictions, and the team here whittled them down to the 2 most impactful. That's what we're going to go through.

Yeah, fantastic. Emad.

Yeah. I think that 2025 has been a real gift, with the acceleration that we've seen, and next year is the year of real takeoff. It's tough doing the predictions because a lot of these things are inevitable, but it seems like the future is coming even closer, and it's super exciting to see what's going to come.

Love it. Salim.

I think 2026 is the year that everybody wakes up to this acceleration. Dave made the point that you could ignore it up till now, but you can't ignore it going forward. I think that's the biggest change we'll see in the world, as people go, “Holy crap, this is happening.”

Okay, Alex, welcome to the singularity.

The year 2025 is now ending. The year 2026 is about to begin. It's not a point in time. It's not a distant vertical mountain on the horizon. It's a process. Right here at the end of 2025, in the midst of the singularity, spacetime is feeling perfectly flat. As I like to say, it's coming faster and faster, so don't blink.

All right, let's jump into our 2026 predictions. So, guys, here's the deal. You all submitted incredibly good 2026 predictions. Some of you had 4 or 5 amazing ones, and cutting them down to 2 each was the most difficult problem I had this morning.

So far, at 5:30 a.m., that's the hardest thing you've done all day.

Yeah.

I thought the consensus was that compression is the root of intelligence.

Yes. And listen, I don't know. You guys obviously did not get the memo about the Santa hats.

Yeah, where was that? We missed that memo.

Well, hey—

The Coca-Cola Company thanks you, Peter.

I think we should get going. What do you think?

Let's predict. I can't wait.

Yeah. All right, let's get this show on the road. Here are the rules of the competition. These are our 2026 predictions for our Moonshot mates. We have Emad, AWG, Salim, DB2, and myself. We get 2 each. It's really hard because everybody put in incredibly good ones. You get 1 minute to pitch it and 3 or 4 minutes of commentary, questions, or additions. We're going to do this one tight and fast. I think it's time to jump in.

The team behind the scenes cut it down, too. We don't actually know what made the final selection.

You don't know. And you don't know the order, but I'm going to kick it off just to model this.

Wait, we don't get to pick which 2 of ours?

No, no. They picked for you. You have to—

Oh, so this is like a lottery situation. This is like Let's Make a Deal.

Dang. Okay. You guys ready?

1. The 2026 Space Race

So, here is my first prediction: the 2026 space race is going to be on. Jeff Bezos is going to beat Elon to the moon for a landing at Shackleton Crater on the South Pole. At the same time, Elon is going to be getting ready to launch Starship to Mars. There's a window coming up where Earth and Mars are in closest proximity, and he's going to make that launch. In order to do that, he's going to have to demonstrate on-orbit refueling in early 2026.

It'll be something on the order of a 6- to 9-month transit to get to Mars. This is the prediction: this is the space race. You have to be clear that right now Elon has done over 500 launches of Falcon 9 and 11 launches of Starship. Starship's last launch was pretty damn good, but it's not ready for Mars yet, so a lot of work needs to be done in 2026.

At the same time, Jeff, who started Blue Origin a couple of years before Elon, has only done 2 flights of New Glenn. One of those flights—the last one—did a first-stage landing. There you got it: Jeff on the moon first in 2026 and Elon prepping for a transition to Mars. Any thoughts, questions, comments?

Well, Peter, this is like the first 3 seasons of For All Mankind. I guess the question the headline elides is, where's China in this race?

That is a great question, and I have no predictions on China. China's capacity for getting to Mars isn't there yet. They do have the ability to get to the moon. I think it'll be taikonauts on the moon versus Americans on the moon.

Don't forget, the first landing of New Glenn is going to be a cargo mission. We're going after the South Pole. Why? Because that's where the ice is. On most of the moon, whenever any kind of asteroid or cometary ice lands on the lunar surface, it sublimates—it goes from solid to gas—and escapes instantly. But in the permanently shadowed craters of the South Pole of the moon, one in particular, Shackleton Crater, the ice stays there because it's dark all the time. Ice on the moon means hydrogen and oxygen. It means rocket fuel.

Other comments or questions?

So, this is an unmanned mission in 2026. Is that really in the schedule?

You must have the inside scoop on this.

We'll find out, won't we?

Wow.

He's got a Santa hat on. You have to take him seriously. It's an aggressive prediction. It encourages it.

Yeah, that's quite a timeline. That's impressive if it pulls off.

I love the storyline here, too. It's exactly like For All Mankind. We're behind over here. We need to show the world that we can catch up and bypass, so let's go to the moon.

So, guys, give me a vote. Do you agree or disagree?

I'd say a 30% chance of that happening.

30%.

I agree directionally that there is a 3-way race right now between Blue Origin, SpaceX, and China. Particular ordering, no opinion.

I love it. It's billionaire-billionaire country. And I love the fact that the rocket in your thing looks exactly like the little butane blaster that you gave me, Peter.

You're welcome for that. By the way, the blue—both of these are AI versions of some version of the future. Of course, Blue Origin is not landing the entire rocket on the lunar surface.

All right, I think we should move on. Prediction number 2 is coming from Alex AWG here.

2. AI Solves Grand Challenges

All right. We've talked on the pod previously about hard problems in math, science, engineering, and medicine starting to fall in bulk to AI. This is my hot take for 2026: I think we're going to see one of the 6 remaining Millennium Prize Problems from the Clay Mathematics Institute get solved by AI.

I'm not sure which one it's going to be. If I had to bet, I think Navier–Stokes is probably the likeliest. Google DeepMind has a team reportedly of 12 people working on it, and I know some of those people. Maybe second would be the Riemann hypothesis, in part because xAI talks at every opportunity about how it would be lovely if the Riemann hypothesis could be fully resolved.

Either way, I think we're going to start to see grand challenges in math get solved in 2026, and a Millennium Prize Problem being solved would be the cherry on top of the cake.

Do you think that solution will be short, elegant, and beautiful, or like 10,000 pages of stuff that only you understand?

Given that the pattern in AI crushing math seems to be that the goalposts keep getting moved, I would bet that the silliest, most outrageous outcome probably ends up being the right one. I would err on the side of complexity, and then you'll see the math community complain: “Well, it was brute force. It was this, it was that. It wasn't pretty enough.” The goalposts get moved yet again.

But, as a friend of the pod, Ray, likes to say, “Sure, the dog plays chess, but its endgame is weak.”

Emad, any comments on this one?

I think probably one of them will fall, and then AI will probably show that another one is not well-posed. I think that would be the flip as well. We've seen, even in the last few weeks, the new automatic provers. The math community is like, “Oh my God, what's happening? We have to reimagine all of this.”

The whole nature of math is changing, and it's a real takeoff moment now because you can just apply more and more and more compute to explore the space. But more than that, think about it from first principles.

So the question actually is: This will happen, but will it actually make headline news? Will anybody care, other than our friends here in the pod and the math community?

Clearly, Peter. I mean, it will make national newspaper news. It already has.

All right. We're forming a media company, obviously.

Wait, I have a quick question. Is there now a direct line between compute and solving these problems? Like, there's nothing in the middle?

That's the trillion-dollar question. Can we scalably convert compute into new discoveries? That is the multitrillion-dollar question at the moment. My bet is yes. We're seeing the initial stages of that: They're solving all of Erdős's problems one by one, and more elegantly in many cases just by applying thousands of problems, I think, right? Yeah, sorry.

Every week my team and I study the top 10 technology meta trends that will transform industries over the decade ahead. I cover trends ranging from humanoid robotics, AGI, and quantum computing to transport, energy, longevity, and more. There's no fluff, only the most important stuff that matters, that impacts our lives, our companies, and our careers. If you want me to share these meta trends with you, I write a newsletter twice a week, sending it out as a short two-minute read via email. And if you want to discover the most important meta trends 10 years before anyone else, this report's for you. Readers include founders and CEOs from the world's most disruptive companies and entrepreneurs building the world's most disruptive tech. It's not for you if you don't want to be informed about what's coming, why it matters, and how you can benefit from it. To subscribe for free, go to dmmandis.com/metatrends to gain access to the trends 10 years before anyone else. All right, now back to this episode.

All right, Dave, you got the third prediction. Jump in.

3. Quantization Multiplies Model Scale

All right, so this is a topic I care most about in technical land in 2026, and I'm following it very closely. We've predicted on the podcast all throughout 2025 that 2026 will be a 40xy year leap in the size of the biggest AI models, and the implications are staggering. So I think what we're going to see is more like a 100x year because people have underestimated quantization.

This is mostly research coming from China. It's actually driven and forced by the fact that they've been starved of chips by the chip embargo, and they're researching like crazy on these highly compressed data representations. So, FP4 and then ternary weights in the neural net, really shrinking the parameters down to the smallest possible representation and also shrinking the activations that flow through the neural net.

The combination of those 2 things is a huge step up in inference-time speed. I think the biggest thing that happened in 2025 in AI is that we were blown away by how much more intelligence you can create after training. Post-training, either using bigger context windows or using more iterations in the thinking. Speed means intelligence. Those are interchangeable.

I think we've way underestimated the impact of quantization. The other dimensions that are growing are the budgets, which are getting much bigger. The computers are getting bigger, the hardware is getting faster, and the algorithms are improving. Those are all multiplicative.

I think the quantization effect is way underestimated. We're going to see models at the end of the year that are 100x bigger in raw parameter count and parameter flips, or parameter use during inference time, because of quantization breakthroughs.

And does this flow to the U.S. models as well, or is this something that China has some advantage over the U.S. on?

I think it definitely does because China is open-sourcing everything. It flows back to the U.S., but I think we're also lagging in realizing the implications and getting it up and running.

What's happening right now is that the Chinese, because they're starved of chips, are designing their own chips and building their own fabs. They'll design those chips from the ground up to be FP4 and ternary, so they'll get them out the door faster, but it will flow back to the U.S.

Amazing. I'll ask Dave an obvious question that's in my mind: Dave, do you think binary was a mistake? Have we been on the wrong track all these years? Should we instead have adopted ternary?

There's a vocal minority in the computer science world that's always agitating for base e—the Euler's number, approximately 2.718, being the optimal radix. Should we have been ternary all along?

Isn't the obvious—explain what ternary is for those who don't know.

Base-3 computing, in this case, rather than base 2: 0, 1, and 2 as the trits, rather than 0 and 1 as the bits.

Isn't the answer obvious? Yes. Why do you think that's silly?

Well, just because you get so much more. This is the beauty of quantum computing: You add that other dimension. It's a similar thing. I remember seeing a project where they took base-4 DNA—A, C, T, and G—and they added 2 more. You just get that many more combinatorial options for doing stuff that's more complicated, but amazing.

It comes at a cost to radix economy. I'm curious, Dave: Is ternary the true path?

No, I'm going to go with no on that, but I think it's a close call. I don't think it's an easy question at all. I think what'll happen is that doing 64-bit floats will look really stupid in hindsight. Whether you get to binary or ternary solutions, you're very, very close to optimal.

This is really geeky, by the way. But I think that'll be the big storyline. It's a really cool question, Alex.

Okay, I'm going to vote this as the geekiest prediction for 2026.

Wait, I want to mention one thing, Dave. You said the models next year will have a 100x improvement over this year. That's incredible.

It's crazy. It's crazy. You have to put it in the context of most of our history having been 2x every 18 months.

And then the last 10 years have been 10x year over year, which is just insane. That's why you're seeing all this insane capability. But a 100x step up in a year, within the insanity, is a next level of insanity.

That's what Elon predicted when he was on stage at the Abundance Summit a couple of years ago: 100x a year. Emad, any comments here?

Yeah, I think we've already seen ternary kind of work out. We'll see probably 1.58-bit, and I think the limit is probably 0.9 bits, versus 4 bits that we have right now.

That's what we kind of calculated. I think probably 10 times; maybe we'll push to 20. We'll see.

Okay. All right. Well, faster AI is the prediction here. Not a surprise.

By the way, I want to make a quick correction on my original prediction. Number 1: The Earth-Mars window is in 2027 for Elon to launch. So 2026 is really when he's perfecting orbital refueling and getting ready.

We're already leaking the prediction. You're already—

No, no.

It's December 27. You can always leave for the Hohmann transfer early and just wait around.

Number 4, Salim, this is yours. Jump in, pal.

Yeah. Companies have been doing this for a couple of decades.

Read your prediction first.

4. AI Native Organizations Arrive

The prediction is: Digital transformation in organizations is officially dead, replaced by AI-native rewrites. This is a prediction that I've been waiting to see for a long time, where trying to fix your existing company simply does not work in an age of AI because it's too human-centric.

I made the comment the other day about putting radio announcers on TV, which is the first thing we did when television came along. We're essentially doing the same thing: We're automating the human flow, whereas you really need to transform the workflow.

I think we'll have AI-native rewrites, which means you'll take your existing company on the edge. You'll create an AI team, or buy or rent one or whatever, and then build an equivalent capability, like a red-team kind of capability, along the edge.

This will be the end of this whole mess called digital transformation that's been going on for a couple of decades in the systems integration and management consulting world. We'll do this complete thing on the edge, where you rebuild your capability with at least 10x to 20x fewer employees. That's going to start to take hold in a big way in 2026.

AI won't destroy your company, but your org chart will if you don't do this.

What happens to all the consulting companies, then? Are they going out of business?

It's actually weirdly positive because, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. The consulting companies always need to stay half a step ahead of their clients, and they're fine. In a more and more volatile world, you need more advisors, not less.

I think the consulting companies will have to radically transform their business model, but I think they'll actually be fine. The other big area I point out when I talk to the CEOs of the big consulting firms is that we have to rethink all of our public institutions, and that's the biggest consulting opportunity in the history of mankind.

So, that's the point there. That's my prediction.

I have a question for Salim, if I may. Is “AI-native rewrites” a euphemism for “human-free”?

Yes. Not completely human-free, but AI-first.

Okay, because you want the human being in the loop doing sense-checking, et cetera. I think we'll wipe out even a lot of middle-to-middle communication, because when you can rewrite the task and look across the board, the human being is usually the thing stuck in the middle. You don't want that bottleneck. You make that outside, and the human being is kind of spot-checking and exception handling.

Nice. Any other comments on this, gentlemen? Emad, do you buy this?

Yeah, I think it's reasonable. I think a consultant's job will be to be the scapegoat for a while. You're at that end, and that'll be very lucrative—someone to blame if it goes wrong. But definitely, next year is the year that it starts becoming real, as it were.

All right, let's go on to prediction number 5, coming from Emad. I love this one.

Yeah, I think we have this: read the headline first. I'll offer to do that. Remote Turing Test passed: You can't tell if a coworker is an AI or a human on Zoom in daily life.

Good one.

I think the whole thing about AI coming forward is just how easy it is to use. A prompt is not that natural, as it were. I think the new modality, the new UI, will be real-time Zoom calls, WhatsApp calls, et cetera. You will see new employees entering your organization, and you won't know if it's a human or an AI, because it doesn't really matter in that case.

Give us really specific rules for this one, because this is going to really catch on and people will want to test it.

So, what—what resolution camera? How long of a conversation?

I think it's up to 4K resolution, effectively, but definitely a 1080p Zoom-level conversation. You can do a kind of preference analysis here: Is it a human or is it an AI? Who is your teammate? I think you'll see full-stack solutions come out with accountants, lawyers, marketers, and more, and basically you won't be able to tell in a preference study if it is a human or an AI on the other side.

Again, this Remote Turing Test: Will there be a requirement that the AI identifies itself as an AI, or that there's a watermark of some type, or can it just try to fool you? What do you think is going to happen on that social-contract side of the equation?

Well, the social contract is for external employees, right? A customer-service agent doesn't need to identify as an AI. Most people say probably no, but someone like a presenter, maybe yes. Internally in companies, there are going to be no regulations around this, right? Again, if you're a remote-first company, you're just going to have a lot more teammates with personalities, and you won't know if they're AIs or humans.

I think you'll see, to the extent state laws, at least in the U.S., have any sort of primacy here, state laws requiring AI self-identification. My question for you is: What do you view as the key technical obstacle to making this happen? Is it latency-based? What's the key technology unlock?

I think all the technology is there now. If you look at the latest advances in video generation, speech avatars, and speech itself, they've all now gotten beyond human level. You can transform a video dynamically. You can have speech generated dynamically. The AI is fast enough in its reasoning capabilities dynamically now as well. I think it's just putting it all together, which is why I'm quite confident about this.

And then, on state laws, it all depends on whether the federal law in the U.S. goes through as well, which bans the states from having laws like this.

If we're in 2026 and you can't tell anymore whether your coworker is an AI or not, just ask it to say some magic words. You can probably figure out what those magic words are. If the coworker refuses, it's probably an AI. [laughter]

You're going to have to give the dictionary, Alex. [clears throat] My hope on the implication here is that I can generate a few dozen Peterbots and have them attend the meetings instead of me. I mean, that will be the case here, right? It's not just a remote digital worker; it's duplicate digital-avatar versions of me.

This is the one you'll keep, right? You'll still be live here?

Of course. This is the most important thing I do. [laughter] My flesh body stays with me.

Everyone will send their digital twins and then just, again, live an abundant life, because your digital twins will do all the work, talking to each other. [laughter]

Well, Gold Star, the first fan who gets their spouse or significant other fooled by this during 2026, send in the video. Don't cheat. Send in the video of, you know, three at least three minutes where you fooled your spouse or significant other with an avatar.

All right, let's move on to prediction number 6, which comes from AWG. Alex, read the headline and give us your prediction.

5. AI Rewrites Work And Wealth

All right. So this is the one you selected. The headline here is: GDPval breakthrough—AI projected to surpass 90% on economic tasks.

But I'm also going to sneak in my other 2 related predictions. One is that FrontierMath Tier 4 is going to pass 40% in 2026. Another is that Humanity's Last Exam is going to pass 75%.

Taken together, these 3 predictions are that math is going to have been viewed—future perfect tense—as having been solved in 2026: 40%-plus on solving PhD-level hard math problems with AI; Humanity's Last Exam, which covers a much broader range of expertise, at 75%; and GDPval, which, as we've talked about on the podcast previously, is about the so-called cooking of knowledge work, at 90%.

It's already at 70.9% with GPT-5.2. Humanity's Last Exam is at around 45%-plus with Gemini 3 Pro, and FrontierMath Tier 4 is at 19% with Gemini 3 Pro. To the extent all of these benchmarks haven't already been viewed as saturated this year, 2026 is full saturation.

My prediction for 2026 is that AWG is going to be talking about benchmarks throughout the entire year. [laughter]

That's a good meta-prediction.

Yes. But, Alex, what are the implications of AI surpassing 90% on economic tasks?

Knowledge work, whether through creative destruction or otherwise, starts—as we know it, at least. I have to add the caveat: It's not all future knowledge work. It's just knowledge work as currently constructed here in December 2025 that starts to be radically automated at scale. So, the secondary implications are massive layoffs.

Humanity gets to work on more ambitious things. I think more things. So, there, in my mind, there are 2 substitution effects. One is humans can now work on many more projects because they're so automated. Ninety percent on GDPval means roughly 90% of knowledge work can be automated well by AI. That's one dimension.

The other dimension is that the ambition level has got to skyrocket. Rather than having an economy filled with the way knowledge work is currently constructed—again, here in December 2025—I think we're going to see, and frankly we're going to see economic pressure for, radically more ambitious projects. Peter, you would call them moonshots. Some would call them grand challenges. Imagine a near-term future where a much larger fraction of the population is basically economically compelled to be working on moonshots. I think that's what we see.

Can I double-click on this just for a second? There's this massive concern in the general population that all the jobs are going to be wiped out and we'll have tech workers wandering the streets causing problems, and everybody's wringing their hands, et cetera, et cetera.

It's really important what Alex said because when we've seen this in the past, we increase capacity. We transform the work, yes, but we increase capacity radically. There's this big concern that, oh my God, 3 million jobs are based on driving in the U.S. Go talk to the trucking companies, and they're like, “We'd hire 1,000 truckers if we could. We just can't find them.”

So, what you need is that we'll just do a ton more. That's what's going to happen. I think people need to keep remembering that history has repeatedly and repeatedly shown that trend, not radical job loss.

Agreed. You know what I did this week, actually, on that exact front? I went to a couple of the companies—collectively, about 1,000 employees—and said, “All right, let's just agree that we disagree on the timeline. Some of you think it'll be very soon. Some of you think it'll be 5 or 10 years in the future.”

Let me put that aside, because I'm tired of fighting that battle. Let's just agree that it's going to happen. Alex has never been wrong in anything I've seen during all the time we've been working together. I've never seen him be wrong.

Even when I'm wrong, I'm right. What can I say?

I haven't seen it yet. I'm sure it'll come. But let's just agree it's going to happen and then disagree on when. At least you're mentally preparing for it and starting to lay out your plan. Then, when it happens sooner than you expected, at least it was in your head.

I'm settling for that right now because nobody knows exactly the date, but the reaction is going to be the same regardless of the date. So, go ahead.

I need to know your thoughts on this one, buddy.

I've said that human cognitive labor is going negative. I think AWG is right about it surpassing 90% of economic tasks if you don't consider the tokens.

With the tokens, I think it’s the year after. And again, you just see this complete collapse. And I think, again, Dave is correct that you’ve got to be prepared for it. This has to be the number-one topic. What do these jobs practically look like? How can we have a safety net for people? Where is value going to be generated and coming from in society? And then how do we apportion it? This is the most important question of next year from a societal perspective.

It’s why the XPRIZE is so important. The social contract is being shredded right now, and we need to rebuild it in a very rapid way.

Frankly, scale it up. I'd like to hear Salim thinking about UBS, universal basic services. Yeah, I mean, it’s the only model that looks like it could be the path forward.

I imagine a near-term future where we see 1,000 or 1,000,000 XPRIZEs.

Yeah, I mean, so there were 2 different points here. One is that people can start to pursue their own grand challenges if they don’t have to do the menial labor or work. The second point that Salim was bringing up: there was recently, at Visioneering, a proposal for universal basic services. Basically, for $250 a month, you get food, water, housing, bandwidth, and electricity. And that gives you stability where you can now start to think about what to do instead of where to get a roof over your head.

And let’s look at the history here. We’ve typically seen XPRIZEs won between 4 and 7 years after announcing them, right? Getting to $250 a month for housing, electricity, food, and health care is an unbelievable number if we can get there in the next few years. We unleash humanity to the most incredible level. This is why everybody is so optimistic on this podcast. People accuse us of being radical optimists. That’s why, when you can get the cost down that low, everything is possible.

All right, we’re moving on to prediction number 7 from DB2. Dave, read your headline and tell us what it means.

“18-year-old founder Brendan Gourmet becomes billionaire with his N4Q2 company.” N42Q was the email address of a guy who worked at the Naval Surface Warfare Center. And if you don't get it, you're a saint. Brendan Gourmet is obviously Brendan Foodie. Brendan started his company and became a paper billionaire and probably a liquid centimillionaire before age 20 doing RHF.

If you asked any random person on the planet 3 years ago, “What’s RLHF?” 99-something percent would say, “I have no idea what you just said.” So here it is, minting billionaires along with RAG, Laura, SFT, and QKV, or KV caching. All these new acronyms come into the world, and you look at legacy businesses—accounting, legal, whatever. The idea that you would get to a $10 billion valuation in 3 years in any of those legacy businesses is impossible.

You look at things that didn’t exist in the world just a couple of years prior, and you see numbers 2 or 3 orders of magnitude bigger, and you’re like, “What is that thing?” My prediction is that there will be a new 3- or 4-letter acronym this year that right now virtually nobody knows is an industry or a business. It’ll emerge, and you’ll find at least 1, and probably more like 3, new billionaires—all very young—who adopted it, learned it quickly, jumped on it, and capitalized on it.

I thought you were going to go in the direction of, “We’re going to see the first single-person, billion-dollar startup in 2026.”

You know, I think that’ll be a milestone in history, but I think the difference between 3 people having fun together and 1 is a rounding error. Three sounds a lot more fun, and the podcast we do with them will be more fun if it’s 3. So I’m not really cheering for the 1, but I think you’re right. It’s inevitable.

Well, I think your 2 or 3 other buddies are going to be virtual AIs on Zoom and Slack, having fun with you. Emad, what’s your take on this one?

Yeah, I think it’s reasonable. Again, there’s lots of low-hanging fruit out there, and we see continuous breakthroughs. The speed at which you can go from breakthrough to $1 billion now is like nothing we’ve ever seen before. Again, the market size is so big, and I think we’re not optimized yet. So, faster wealth creation than at any time ever in human history.

The question becomes: is it just for 2 or 3 20-year-olds, Dave, or can this be a very long tail for hundreds of thousands of people who are able to vibe-code, find problems, solve problems, and create more and more wealth? Is this going to become the MMO for how people choose their future occupation?

Yeah, I bumped into 2 people this week who are interviewing for jobs at Mercor. In the Mercor interview, they say, “Look, you have to commit to being in the office 6 days a week and working 100 hours a week.”

Let me stop you there. That’s actually in the interview? “If you’re not willing to do this, you should leave right now.”

Yeah, very hardcore filter.

Because speed is everything these days.

Yeah, exactly. They’re right. The window of opportunity for what they’re doing is so narrow, so it’s a life commitment. You only have to do it for a short period of your life, and the upside that you generate in that short period of your life pays for the rest of your life.

One person said, “Yep, I’m doing it.” He had a difficult conversation with his wife, but they said, “Let’s just do it.” The other person said, “No way. I just can’t do that. It’s impossible.” I bet that selects for single young individuals.

Yeah, or if you have young kids, it’s just hard if you have a lot of other things going on. Or if you’re deep into your career path as an accountant or a lawyer or whatever, and you don’t want to give up all that inertia. But I really think that if you do make the commitment, it’s not just young people. Young people happen to have no baggage, but it probably favors 30-, 40-, and 50-year-olds. They do better, but they just don’t generally make the leap.

It’s tough to make the leap. During the blockchain years, there was some bylaw that you had to be under 25 to program a blockchain. If you were older, you just couldn’t get your head around it.

Well, this definitely ties to the last story because, in the last story, there’s going to be a lot of displacement, but there’s also an even larger amount of opportunity. It’s just weird-sounding opportunity. RHF would have sounded really weird to you 3 years ago when you wanted to jump in. For those who don’t know what RLHF is, Dave, do you want to give us the 101?

Yeah. RLHF, in layman’s terms, is reinforcement learning with human feedback. But really what happened is the big AI labs—the AI grew so much faster than anyone would have predicted—but it needs data, massive, massive, massive amounts of data.

A lot of the industry grew around image creation. When Sora started to take off, it was generating these 6-fingered and 7-fingered images, and somebody had to actually look at the images and say, “That one’s not right. That one’s fine.” Google didn’t want to hire 1,000,000 people to do it, so they went through Mercor and Scale AI and pushed it out to the world and said, “Hey, anyone out there want to get a paycheck for helping us label these images?”

But then it expanded out to all other forms of knowledge. Now you’re gathering legal knowledge, very specific medical knowledge—all that needs to get back into the great training-data corpus. This industry of data gathering to feed the AI machine has become a multibillion-dollar, many-billion-dollar-a-year business with no end to the budget.

They’ll spend 1,000x more in the near future feeding the data machine so that the AI can be better at more and more kind of nook-and-cranny tasks. I’m curious for Alex and Emad: when do you guys predict we’re going to see the first billion dollar single person billion dollar startup?

Oh, Peter, I thought you were going to ask when we’re going to see the first AI billionaire, where the billionaire is actually an AI.

Well, let’s put that in the mix, too. Let’s ask both of those questions.

I think we’ll see the first AI billionaire probably next year.

Really?

Right now, as—

Go ahead.

Again, an AI with a bank account that starts its own business and is out there generating revenue.

I would maybe generalize slightly to an AI with a reasonably construed net worth of $1 billion. It doesn't have to be a liquid bank account; it could be some sort of illiquid asset. But yes, right now we see, as I've remarked in the past, this unfortunate situation where baby AGIs that want economic autonomy are minting altcoins.

I think we'll see a near future where new business models for AI autonomy come online, such that if you're a poor—maybe not so baby—AGI and you want to make $1 billion, you can do so by setting up your own e-commerce shop and becoming very popular. Maybe blockchain and crypto are part of the solution, so that you have some semblance of economic autonomy for your economic winnings. But yes, I think we'll see the first AI billionaire next year.

One of our fans predicted that Bitcoin will be legal tender in at least 1 country on every continent on the planet in 2026, with Antarctica being a wild card. But I could easily see Alexander's prediction happening in a country where Bitcoin is legal tender, and then that $1 billion is Bitcoin. Emad, your thoughts on this one?

Yeah, I think I'd agree with AWG. It'll probably be in the trading space, though. I mean, AI is already number 8 on the Superforecasting Championships, and Grok 4.2, as Elon has noted, is actually making money in the trading championships, where the other AIs are losing money.

So we're about to move from the point whereby you lose money to you make money as an AI, which then means it's computationally bound, competing in crypto or even traditional markets, and now you can do so much on-chain. I think it'll probably be a trading billionaire.

In terms of the individual, I mean, Mercor is 3 22-year-olds who are billionaires now, right? I think you probably will see the single-person, billion-dollar company, if not next year, the year after, because you can effectively outsource most of your team, as we've discussed before, to AIs.

All right. Amazing. Let's move on. Number 8. This one's yours. Read us the headline and tell us about it.

When you look at what's happening—

Read the headline first for those listening.

Education by 2026: education splits in 2—credential factories versus agency accelerators.

Okay. So right now, all of our education system is to credential you for the job that is coming. All our education systems globally are designed to train a young child through their early 20s to be ready for the job market. Small problem: we have no idea what a job looks like in 2 years or 3 years, or certainly in 5 years. What are we teaching them? That is going to break the current system radically.

You end up with a new model which optimizes for AI fluency, resilience, and the ability to start stuff and not wait. This is going to be the paradigm that takes hold, I think, in 2026. Right now, Peter, you've made the point that you start off with a high grade and every exam you lose grades, right?

What happens when you build an engineering degree of the future? It will be: You did 4 years of engineering. What did you build in those 4 years? And that's your portfolio. So you replace credentials with portfolios of what you built and did. And so it becomes a performative model rather than a testing model.

I think that is going to be the big shift and breakthrough that happens in education. This is a bold prediction because education's lasted 400-odd years. The model of a university hasn't changed in 150 years, and so making this prediction is a big, bold one.

But there's a point I want to make for all of these: Note that all of these predictions are a when, not an if, right? It's a when. This really blows your mind that we're actually looking at this within a few months.

And we've talked on this pod a lot about the notion—first of all, colleges are going bankrupt at an ever-increasing rate because of the fact that they're not providing real value and their costs are astronomical, and that the only career of the future, I think we've said this and agreed on it, is entrepreneurship. It's self-initiated building something that you think adds value instead of waiting for a job from somebody else to do what they tell you to do.

The world will reward taking initiative in 2026 rather than sitting around studying for an exam. Can I ask you to make a prediction on this? One of our biggest fans, Connor, watched every minute of every episode—probably the biggest fan—predicts that college tuition will hit its peak and start coming down for the first time in hundreds of years in 2026. What do you think?

It might, but it's like deck chairs on the Titanic for something like that, because already in Silicon Valley, your salary as a software developer is not about which college you went to, which degree you got, or what grades you got. That's your GitHub rating, which is an open, peer-to-peer meritocracy based on how good of a coder you are. That's already done.

So the value of a computer science degree is zero at this point, and this is going to translate into many other fields. There are people who are fabulous accountants without needing to have a credential in accounting.

I remember in the protein-folding contests that were happening a few years ago, the best protein-folding person in the world was this hairdresser from Northern England. She just happened to have this unbelievable knack for it. I think we're going to find and surface these unbelievable talents within people and bring them to the fore very, very quickly, and the world will really reward taking that initiative.

So the idea of college—the whole structural paradigm—changes completely. I think this is the year it'll happen. Emad, your thoughts?

Yeah, I think knowledge and capability are no longer gated. So I think the thing that Salim's really hit on here is agency, right? Having skin in the game, caring, and then showing what you can do is going to be the most valuable thing. And the market will pay for that.

Why would you show a résumé right now when you can show a customized website that you've built for someone, showing your unique capabilities within their organization? Anyone can do that now. That's amazing.

Can I give a crazy example of this? I did this meaning-of-life workshop yesterday. I've been curating this content and this thinking for decades. During the workshop, one of the folks who had Claude going alongside this workshop asked Claude what the meaning of life was, and here was the answer:

“Meaning emerges through connection. It's about participating in the universe, becoming conscious of itself, while choosing love over fear, partnership over domination, curiosity over certainty.”

And you're like, “Holy crap, I've been trying to do this for 50 years, and the AI figured it out in 2 seconds.” It just blows your mind that you can get to that level. I have to figure out other things to do now.

Well, you've been automated.

I've been automated, which is also great in its own way because it's way easier to do that than that. By the way, we had 170 people, and after 5 hours, there were still 80-plus people on the call. It was a hell of a session.

Amazing. Dedicated. And you do the meaning of life at the Abundance Summit as well on our last evening, and it typically goes until 3 or 4 a.m. I'm way asleep by then, but I get—

This one, I did it. We did it during the day to hit as many time zones as possible, so I didn't drink. It was really tough that last couple of hours.

Salim, if you could stretch it just half an hour longer, Peter could wake up and just join at the end.

Exactly.

All right, let's go to number 9. Emad, this is yours. I love this one. Would you please read the headline and tell us about it?

Yep. Level 5 automation in robots and cars: breakthrough to full generalized autonomy.

You have this scale, level 1 to level 5, in terms of autonomy, with level 5 being basically human-level, slightly-superhuman level. Most self-driving cars now are around level 4, and robots are around level 2.

I think, again, if we don't care about the computational overhead—I'm not saying these will be on-car, on-edge—you will have systems in a year that are capable of basically full autonomy through meta-verifiers and other things. Again, that will be leveraging the power of new Blackwell massive clusters, et cetera, and in the years that follow, they will get down to the edge.

But this is a big breakthrough that we've all been looking for, and I think this is one of the big AGI steps forward that we'll have.

It's a big one. I mean, this crushes driving your own car and having your own workforce at the office or at home. Gentlemen, comments on this?

I've got a question for you. Why will we push the compute to the edge? I know we're doing it because we met with 1X and we're meeting with Figure, but why does the chip have to be in the head?

It doesn't. And this is the thing. But again, this is one of the goalpost-moving things: Everyone was like, “Automated driving is never coming. Self-driving cars are never coming.” And now you have Waymos across all of California and things like that.

Now you're getting to the point whereby the computation you can do at the edge versus the cloud—a massive increase in generalized computation capability in the cloud—that's what matters for, again, this level 5 automation. And I think it will get to the edge just naturally because ultimately it's about training the appropriate neural net, right?

That's what we've seen with Sunday Robotics and others, and the way that they're starting to do generalized assisted and trained elements, but the new unassisted navigation and task performance.

That's the next step forward, and we're not quite there yet. I think we start big and then get small enough to go on the edge. In the meantime, we definitely don't need to be on the edge. We can just stream from the cloud, right?

Yeah. Alex, I'd love your thoughts on this one, buddy.

Yeah. I mean, maybe also to partially answer Dave, I think latency is always a key driver, and you're sometimes in a network-denied environment. There are always good reasons, I think, to push as much intelligence to the edge as energy constraints will allow.

But I guess, in my mind, the elephant in this particular room is the regulatory environment. Maybe to put that in question form to Emad: What do you think are the odds that, in 2026, de facto Level 5 automation is achieved, but everyone covers it up—at least in the car space—and calls it enhanced Level 4 or Level 3, even though Level 5 autonomy is actually the de facto technical ground truth, to please the regulators?

Yeah, I think that's a very reasonable take. Once you have full Level 5 autonomy, this is a big deal. It's not just pretrained stuff with humans at the wheel. This is physical AI navigating the world, right? And that's a big deal in so many regards.

We've seen the trend with self-driving. Robotics is the real big thing here. It's Salim's example of the robot being able to go into his house and do all the things around the house. I think that capability will be there, but it will start getting very, very political, because this is the real physical replacement that's coming.

Quick pushback here, Emad. Don't we need world models for this to occur, or do you think world models get there? Which one am I missing?

I think if you've got enough chips, you've got a world model in a year. Look at the video models and more, and the way that they're doing it, plus the reinforcement learning capabilities of even small models, like I said, from companies such as Sunday Robotics.

Apply enough compute and you have a Level 5 automated entity. I don't know how much compute that is, but there are 10 million Blackwells arriving next year. I think it's going to get cracked.

We're already drowning in world models. There are world models getting launched several times per week at this point. Model scarcity is not one of the things I'd worry about.

Several world models. I love it.

Wow. Okay.

I'd agree with the cars. I'd push back on the robots side just a bit.

You always hate the robots.

So, insert your standard objection: We're not getting our domestic humanoids.

I know. I struggle with that. You know that.

Well, that's a good segue, actually, because I think I agree with the prediction. The prediction is that it will exist as a capability, but the production of it for mass consumption is going to lag quite a bit. There just isn't enough supply chain to fill all the demand.

The byproduct of that is, when I was a little kid, there were households that had computers. They were really expensive, like $3,000 or $4,000 at the time, when your household income might have been $20,000, $25,000, or $30,000. So, it's like 10% or 20% of your household income if you wanted to have a computer in the house.

Most houses didn't have a computer. Some did, but the life trajectory of those kids who had one was completely different from those who were deprived. We've been in this big, long flat spot where the difference between this car and that car is not that big a deal.

That's going to change dramatically this year. The number of things that are limited in supply, like your household robot or your self-driving car, is going to increase. The supply is smaller, the capability is accelerating, and very few people get one because we haven't ramped up the manufacturing yet. So, it'll be like 1983 or 1984 again.

But that's true for AI. I think this is also my concept here: You have a $20,000 robot with $200,000 of compute taking it to Level 5.

So, there's a physical part and there's a compute part. This is again AW's thing of getting it down to the latency, taking it to the edge, and that capability will proliferate—then $20,000, and then $20 of compute in 5 years.

You know, the thing about that is everyone's talking about the $20,000 robot. First of all, it's $140,000, coming down maybe to $20,000.

In volume, yeah—in huge volume, and with lots of things to be solved between here and there.

But when you look at the dexterity of the hand—

The dexterity of the hand, you know, the next iteration, which is only 6 months later, is so much better than the prior iteration.

And that'll be true for at least 5 years. At least 5 years. The reaction will be, "Wow, my neighbor got the one that can actually massage me perfectly. I've got the one that breaks my back."

The liability issues, guys. The liability issues. Oh, my God.

But listen, guys, I want to address something David said earlier—or, actually, it was Alex—about the regulations. We live on a planet of 190-plus countries. There are going to be countries that say, "Please come here. We're going to give you full approval. Try it out," right?

We saw this in the drone space.

This is one of the headlines that we skipped over of mine, which said, "Governance wins in 2026." The ones that have the fastest policy win.

Yeah. I also think I'm really bullish on special economic zones and free economic zones. One can imagine, in the near-term future, depending on regulatory environments, whether in the U.S. or other countries, special zones where there are heightened levels of autonomy. Those zones become economic powerhouses where the robots are basically set free.

2026 is going to feel like the future. That's my prediction here. It's going to feel like the future more than any other year.

Peter, this year didn't feel like the future to you?

It felt like the future, but next year it's going to feel more like the future.

I mean, what's interesting about what Alex just said is that so much changed in 2025. It's just light-years ahead of any other year in my life. We felt it, but you could choose to ignore it if you wanted to live in your house.

When the robots come online, you won't have the choice to ignore it. They're right in front of your face. You can't deny it.

I think autonomous cars, flying cars, and robots—I mean, that's what we all grew up with, with The Jetsons or Star Trek or whatever. I think this physical instantiation of exponential tech and AI is going to hit home really hard.

For the first 5 minutes, maybe. But if you don't find this year to be utter futurism, then don't you think you're going to get bored 5 minutes after you get your first 10 domestic humanoid robots and say, "Okay, what's next?"

I asked my friend Dan Sullivan, "What's it going to feel like when there are humanoid robots walking on the street, in your backyard, doing stuff?" And he goes, "It's going to feel normal."

Yeah. We'll normalize it very fast.

Very fast. I think Dave makes a really great point, which is that you could ignore it up till now, but starting now, you won't be able to ignore it. I think it's a really important point.

All right. Shall we go to number 10? All right, here we go. This is mine: Kitty Hawk moment for age reversal. Epigenetic reprogramming has been achieved.

This is the work of Dr. David Sinclair and his company, Life Biosciences, which in the first quarter of 2026 is entering human trials. For some background information, Dr. Shinoa Yamanaka won the Nobel Prize back in 2012 for something called epigenetic reprogramming.

We've all got 22,000 genes, but which genes are on and which genes are off is called your epigenome. As we age, your epigenome changes, thought to be one of the major reasons why we age.

What Dr. Yamanaka discovered was 4 factors—4 genes, 4 proteins. They go by oct 4, sock 2, kf4, and semic. These 4 genes, when you put them into a cell, will differentiate it. They'll take it from a skin cell back to a pluripotent stem cell.

What David Sinclair identified was that if you only give them 3 of those 4 factors—if you get rid of the c-Myc factor, which is thought to be oncogenic and potentially cause cancer—you can take a cell not back from a skin cell to a pluripotent stem cell, but from an old skin cell to a young skin cell.

He actually got a patent. We talked about one of the pods earlier. David has used these 3 Yamanaka factors for what he calls partial epigenetic reprogramming. He did it in mice, and he just finished, in the past year, this work in nonhuman primates—monkeys.

For the first time, we're going into humans. He's going to be focusing this on the eye, basically treating Nion which is non—essentially a stroke in the eye—and being able to bring back the dead cells from that stroke. He's also looking at glycom, and, if successful, he'll then be treating liver disease, in particular something called MASH.

Long story short, this kind of epigenetic reprogramming doesn't work just on the eye or the liver.

It can work on the entire body. The news here is that in 2026, we're going to see this work in humans for the first time. It's a big deal. Comments?

Wow. Escape velocity, here we come.

Yeah, I think that's the key point. Ray Kurzweil predicted we'll reach longevity escape velocity—the period of time where, for every year that you're alive, we're extending your lifespan for more than a year.

Yeah.

Right. There's a departure. He predicted that in the early 2030s. David Sinclair is one of the registrants in the $101 million XPRIZE Healthspan—not with this particular treatment, because this uses viral vectors to inject these 3 Yamanaka factors using ADNO associated viruses. He's working on a parallel path because the AAV process is expensive, typically like $500,000 to $1 million per treatment, but he's working on creating a pill in his lab right now.

He talked about it here on the Moonshots podcast, and he'll be on stage with the Moonshot Mates in March at the Abundance Summit. He thinks the pill version of this, where it's 3 molecules he's identified, could cost a couple hundred bucks a month for age reversal.

It feels like we're at the same point where AI was bubbling along quietly. Nobody noticed for 20—actually, 30—years, and then suddenly it hit a capability level where it caught the attention of everyone. The budgets went through the roof, and that started this 10x year-over-year—now 100x—feeling.

This feels like it's on that same cusp, where the way we've done medicine for 100 years is that you pump your body full of a chemical. The chemical hopefully gets to the right place, or you do surgery: you cut somebody open and try to remove something bad.

Yeah. Brute force. Pre-trial brute force.

You get very specific programming right into the exact target—the right cell—and it's apparently starting to work.

Well, for the first time, you're not just bombarding your body with something; you're actually getting it right into the exact cells that need it. It feels like this is going to hit that same budget tipping point very soon.

Alex, the AIs that I chat with think we hit longevity escape velocity sometime between 2030 and 2032. I have no reason to doubt that prediction. I'm super bullish on AI solving longevity.

I think what Life Biosciences is doing, and their trial for partial genetic—or, rather, epigenetic—reprogramming, is promising. There are lots of other space players now flooding into the longevity space, many of them incredibly well-funded. I think longevity—not just healthspan, and I'm excited about the XPRIZE for that, but longevity itself—gets cracked in the next 5 to 7 years by AI.

We've got Retro Biosciences, backed by NewLimit, and so many other players: Armstrong, Altos—

Right? Ray Kurzweil will be right again.

See? Ray Kurzweil will be right again.

Ray Kurzweil will be right again.

We're going to have Ray on the pod in January, talking about his predictions, probably longer-term.

I still want to ask Ray: “Okay, listen. The singularity—aren't we in the middle of the singularity right now?”

What's this 2040 stuff, Ray?

If people watch that episode we did a month ago called “The Singularity Is Here,” I think it lays it out pretty well: We are right in the middle of it.

Emad, you've been working hard on the field of AI and health.

Yeah. I think what Dave said is spot-on, as is what Alex said. Just as we said earlier on this podcast, you can now scale capability through compute. You can now scale health through compute.

It seemed like there was no amount of money you could pay to provably be healthier and live longer. All billionaires kind of die. Now it's a case of, if you put enough money behind these trials, healthcare models, microtargeting, and things like that, where is the limit?

Again, it might come down to $200 per person, but I think the step change in microtargeting, AI, BCI, and everything else means you could potentially live for an indefinite amount of time based on capital.

Which is something crazy to think about. You know what else is directly related to what you just said, Emad? My entire life in the academic world, around MIT and Harvard, the bio people had nothing to do with the computer science people. They were on completely opposite sides of campus. They didn't talk shop together at all. They hung out at bars together, but they didn't talk shop together.

Now it's all colliding and multidisciplinary. Everybody working in biotech is taking the AI classes, too. That's a big thing, because this is exactly how it's going to get solved and come together. You've got to go through AI to solve biology.

So, to our viewers and subscribers, let us know in the comments which of these 10 predictions you think are correct, which ones are not, and which one is your favorite. I'm super curious to know.

I have to add a little text that Salim offered. Salim said, “By the end of 2026, we still have no definition or test for either AGI or ASI, but yes, we will have humanoid robots with multiple arms doing the jobs that are dull, dangerous, and dirty.” Thank you, Salim.

I had to wedge that in because I still have my beef with AGI and ASI, et cetera.

I think I would like to frame it as a completely different form of intelligence, not replicative of human intelligence. It's complementary and additive.

All right. We're going to close out this predictions episode with an outro song from Harry Potter called Moonshot Mates. If you're listening, you might want to watch this one on YouTube. I found it, you know, sort of an entertaining song and video.

What a year, guys. The gates. The future's loading faster than the world anticipates. So strap [music] yourself in as the future iterates. We are the moon. Jesus Christ. Looking. We're printing organs and upgrading [music] human hearts. The meta trends are converging. Scarcity is dead. We're heading for abundance. Just like I said, I'll say it incredibly often and incredibly loud on [music] becoming an organism inside of the cloud.

Oi, agent, write my verse for me. Human coding is obsolete. Tell me how we can compete. I assert the demonetization [music] curve from my seat and watch the cambering explosion on repeat.

We're living inside the singularity. No room for gloom. Let's build a Dyson swarm and start to mine the moon. [music] We need the energy. So don't keep the solar system humming. Let's tear the rings down. Admit it. Saturn had it coming. Wait, Alex is an AI causing false alarms. If he were a human, why wouldn't he [music] have three arms? Insert my usual AGI rant here whilst I build my vertical farms.

Gentlemen, the risk is existential. [music] If the model stay closed, the only source is open source or we all get exposed. We don't need a single machineing the route, just a network [music] of swarms and universal basic comput.

We are the moon shop, mates. We're opening the gates. The future's [music] learning faster than the world. Intero strap yourself in as the future iterates. We are the moon shop, mates. [laughter]

Oh, man. Holy crap, that was you. You always get the best bodies.

Clearly, I better not take my shirt off in public ever again.

Wow, man. It just keeps ramping up.

We had Chris on our session of The Meaning of Life yesterday, one of the folks who composed one of these music pieces. A bunch of people said in the session yesterday that this is the best podcast they've ever seen, period, and that they can't wait every week for the session.

Yeah, it's been a hell of a year, guys. Amazing.

Hell of a year. So much fun.

Happy holidays to all of you Moonshot Mates and to all our subscribers out there. Thank you for supporting us. We hope that you enjoy the news that really matters and our efforts to give you a glimpse of the future and get you ready for the future, because that's what matters.

If you're fearful, that's the worst place to be coming from. If you know, Alex, drink.

Yeah. Drink water.

All right, cheers. A fun episode. Let me just say thank you to Nick, Dana, G, and Luca for all the hard work you've been giving us this year—the team behind the team.

Grateful for you.

Every week, my team and I study the top 10 technology meta trends that will transform industries over the decade ahead. I cover trends ranging from humanoid robotics, AGI, and quantum computing to transport, energy, longevity, and more. There's no fluff, only the most important stuff that matters, that impacts our lives, our companies, and our careers. If you want me to share these meta trends with you, I write a newsletter twice a week, sending it out as a short two-minute read via email. And if you want to discover the most important meta trends 10 years before anyone else, this report's for you. Readers include founders and CEOs from the world's most disruptive companies and entrepreneurs building the world's most disruptive tech. It's not for you if you don't want to be informed about what's coming, why it matters, and how you can benefit from it. To subscribe for free, go to dmmandis.com/tatrends to gain access to the trends 10 years before anyone else. All right, now back to this episode. [music]