tal than even discovering America, so-called discovering. And it was one person basically. One person did that and beat China. So it's one person who beat over a billion people. How many people are in China? 1.4 billion? We got lots of estimates. Over a billion.

All right. South Carolina, the state, they have announced that they're not going to invest any money in Walt Disney Company. So it's no longer an approved state investment. So now the Disney Company is not only fun for the whole family but considered by one state so evil that you can't even invest in them. But also fun for the whole family, but a state government has decided they're too evil for you to invest in them. So you can take the family but my God don't put your money there, says the state of South Carolina. I don't know if that will form any kind of a trend. We'll see.

I saw a post by Rohan Pandey who is my kind of poster. You ever see on social media where you say, my God that could have been me posting that because it looks like I did it? Or here's one that just looks like something I would have done except I'm not this smart. So if I were smarter I would have posted what Rohan Pandey posted. He noted, he says, a quick schizo theory. Top and bottom quarks, so those are the names for two different flavors of quark. The top and the bottom. They originally called truth and beauty. So there's a truth quark and a beauty quark. Now here's the interesting part. Satya, first name of the leader of Microsoft in Sanskrit, his name means truth. But Sundar, first name of the leader of Google in Sanskrit, his name means beauty. So as Rohan points out, the two motherfuckers he says competing in the race to AGI are named after opposing fundamental particles. And then he says the simulation is effing with us. That's pretty good. That the two people are truth and beauty and that used to be two fundamental particles. Now it's all just coincidences but it's fun. Of course he may have made up all of this but still fun.

How many of you saw a very viral video of a new form of AI called Genie, I think it's Google's, that was doing some amazing things by looking at images and you could draw a picture and it knew what you were drawing and it could compare two things and all that? Well it took all of today to find out that was a fake video. That totally, totally fooled me. But here's what was fake about it. The fake part was you believe that it was a human talking to the computer because what you heard, it was a conversation between a human and a computer. In truth they were giving it super prompts and text but the human was not repeating what the super prompt said. The super prompt was giving it more information than the human was. So the trick was you thought that the computer only knew what it saw plus whatever the human was saying verbally. But what the computer actually knew was what they typed into the prompt which had formatted the question in a way that narrowed the responses. So the amazingness of the responses wasn't nearly as amazing as it would have been if you'd known how they asked the question. But still amazing. Yeah, still amazing. It just wasn't as amazing as the video. Anyway I don't know if it's true but there's a claim that somebody's seen the super prompts and they're different.

All right. Axios is talking about Elon Musk's strategy with his AI called Grok. And apparently it's unclear whether the AI that Elon Musk is building would be part of the X platform or part of a separate company that the X platform accesses and works with. So we don't know that yet. But if it's true that Grok, you know that's the name of the AI that'll be operative on X, if it's true that it gets valued the same as ChatGPT, then Musk will have doubled his investment. So if he paid 44 billion and ChatGPT is already valued on paper more than that, twice that, it's like 90 billion or something, so he could actually double his investment the day that Grok goes live potentially. Because that would depend on people's psychology saying oh no that's as good as ChatGPT so we'll give it the same value. Could happen.

Here's what Axios speculates as at least a possibility and I agree but only after reading Axios. So I did not come to this decision on my own. Axios guided me there. It goes like this. When Musk said about advertisers, don't advertise, fuck you. In other words don't advertise if you have a problem or you're trying to manipulate me or blackmail me. Don't advertise. Fuck you. Now do you think that Musk anticipated how much trouble that would cause or at least knew there was a risk of how much trouble that would cause? Because it seems unlikely that he would be unaware that would be a problem. So one has to wonder, what if he knew how much of a risk it was and he did it anyway? Is it just because he's based and awesome and he just didn't care about 44 billion? Maybe that's actually entirely possible. But I would like to suggest there's one other possibility and it goes like this.

Elon Musk is the only person who's figured out that the advertising model is going to be gone in three years because AI will completely replace it. He might be the one who figured out that he has to get out of, he probably wants to get out of advertising as fast as possible and go to subscription or a model that looks like this. Wouldn't you like to never see an advertisement agai