Interview with writer David Perell (founder of Write of Passage, host of How I Write) exploring how he uses ChatGPT in his work. Topics include deep reading of old books, finding spreadable anecdotes, understanding personal taste, identifying heroes, uncovering leadership blind spots, and analyzing business strategy (with a workshop on the New York Times). Also covers using DALL-E to bring books like Moby Dick to life and ChatGPT for textual analysis. # Channel Identity Observations ## Video Identity - **Title:** "How David Perell Uses ChatGPT to Write for Millions - Ep. 6 with David Perell" - **Format:** Episode 6 of an interview-style show, indicating an **ongoing episodic series** with numbered episodes. - The host is identified in-transcript as **"Dan"**, and the guest describes the enterprise as "a creator-led media business" and references a company called **Every** ("we have this thing that we say at Every"). ## Intended Audience - The content is aimed at **writers, creators, and knowledge workers interested in using AI tools (ChatGPT) in their creative and intellectual processes**. - Evidence: the entire episode demonstrates ChatGPT workflows for self-reflection, business strategy, reading old books, and writing. - Evidence: the host addresses practical creator concerns — "if you want to record with high-level and busy guests" discussion about podcast prep work. - Implied audience includes **people running or building creator/media businesses**: - > "I tried to run it like a software company for a long time... It's a media business. It's a creator-led media business." ## Claimed Scope - **Explicitly stated scope (by host):** ChatGPT and creative work. - > "So, we're going to talk about ChatGPT, obviously. And we're going to get into how you use it in your creative process, how you use it to think, how you use it to write, how you use it to learn new things." - **Demonstrated scope:** The show covers practical AI prompting techniques, psychology/self-knowledge, business strategy analysis, reading comprehension of classic texts, and writing craft — all through live ChatGPT use on camera. - Recurring framing motif: the channel hosts **notable guests** with established audiences: - > "You're an amazing internet writer. You run Write of Passage, and you're the host of the How I Write podcast." - The host also mentions a prior interview: "I interviewed Linus Lee a couple weeks ago. He's a researcher who works at Notion on their AI team." ## Self-Description Evidence - The channel positions itself within a **media company (Every)** with an expressed philosophy: - > "The stories we tell become the businesses we build." - The host describes himself as someone who struggled with reading and anecdotes, framing the show as **learning-in-public**: - > "I feel like I'm terrible at anecdotes... I've started to use ChatGPT for it." - The host describes his business-building journey (software vs. media company), establishing credibility as a creator-operator rather than a pure journalist. ## Demonstrated Presentation Patterns (Observable) - **Live, unscripted software walkthroughs** — the host and guest use ChatGPT on camera, iterating prompts in real time. - **Conversational, friendly intimacy** — the two note a pre-existing friendship: "We've been friends for a while." - **Educational meta-commentary** — the host pauses to extract lessons ("one thing I'm getting a lot from you is I'm asking too many things when I prompt GPT"). - **Personal/emotional depth** — the conversation moves into personal weaknesses and self-knowledge (enneagram, motivational interviewing), suggesting the channel tolerates vulnerability beyond pure tool tutorials. ## Claims vs. Demonstrations | Type | Observation | Evidence | |---|---|---| | Creator claim | Guest is a successful writer reaching millions | Host's introduction: "You're an amazing internet writer" | | Demonstrated | Hands-on AI prompting methodology (expand-then-compress, one-question-at-a-time, named frameworks) | Live walkthroughs throughout transcript | | Demonstrated | Audience-facing instruction on evaluating AI output ("slugging percentage vs. batting average") | Baseball analogy segment | | Creator claim | Show quality bar is high | Host: "I have really high quality bar and I'm always trying to... raise my quality bar" | # Delivery Observation Report **Video:** *How David Perell Uses ChatGPT to Write for Millions - Ep. 6 with David Perell* --- ## 1. Overall Format - **Conversational two-person dialogue** (host Dan + guest David Perell), structured around **live ChatGPT demonstrations** on a shared screen. - Delivery alternates between **abstract reflection** (identity, excellence, integrity) and **hands-on tool use** (typing prompts, reading outputs aloud, reacting in real time). - The host repeatedly **steers with transitions**: *"So, I think this is great. We did the strategy stuff. I'd love to... talk about how you use it for reading and specifically reading old books."* --- ## 2. Tone - **Warm, enthusiastic, affirming** — both speakers, especially the host: - *"Yeah, I love that."* - *"That's really beautiful."* - *"Wow. That's really cool."* - **Playful irreverence** appears in bursts, especially when Perell reacts to a weak AI answer: > "this is just buzzword bingo and this is ridiculous... I feel like I'm at, you know, the business school 301 seminar just like rolling on a Tuesday morning." - **Moments of genuine vulnerability**, e.g. the host on reading tutoring: *"I was very slow to read and my parents were very concerned..."* --- ## 3. Vocabulary & Signature Phrases ### Recurring terms (Perell) - **"Exactly halfway right"** — used twice as a framing device: > "there's a lot in society right now around be yourself... I think it's exactly halfway right." > "there's this whole conversation around hard work. And once again, it's exactly halfway right." - **Fault lines / vectors / tapestry of knowledge** — his vocabulary for intellectual synthesis: > "now we can start having a conversation amongst those three people to see where... they agree and then what do they disagree on. And then the fault lines of disagreement." - **Numbers-as-structure**: he likes compressing into lists of three — "diversity, accessibility and speed." - **Religious/spiritual register**: "surrender," "God, creator," "hallelujah," "God's word." ### Recurring terms (Host) - **"That's really cool" / "I love that"** — high-frequency affirmation (appears many times). - Framing teaching moves as **experiments**: *"if you're treating what it gives you as an experiment in your life..."* - **Baseball/VC metaphor** he coins on the fly: *"you have to evaluate GPT on slugging percentage instead of batting average."* --- ## 4. Teaching Habits ### Analogies as primary explanation tool Both speakers lean heavily on concrete analogies: - **Butter knife vs. steak knife** (right tool for the job): *"You wouldn't try to get a butter knife to cut a steak."* - **Archaeology/oil drilling**: *"It's sort of like archaeology, right? So what you're doing is you're digging and you're digging..."* - **Arty anecdote** (fraternity president) to illustrate joyfulness + seriousness. - **Procrustes myth** retold in full as a career parable. ### Live prompting with narration Perell **thinks aloud while prompting**, explaining his reasoning before showing results: > "So, I just want to set this up. Yeah. This is the bad answer and I don't think that it's going to be that helpful." This **predict-then-verify** pattern (bad answer first, specific prompt second) is a deliberate, repeated teaching structure in the NYT strategy segment. ### Modeling meta-lessons about the tool Explicit instructive maxims, repeated across segments: - *"You have to give GPT shape and direction."* - *"I basically assume GPT is like a super fast wizard with like super high IQ, but then also just... not creative at all."* - *"it's not expecting it to give you a good first answer, but thinking of it as a dance."* - *"you get out of it what you put in."* --- ## 5. Communication Patterns - **Stuttered repetition for emphasis**: *"It's really a surrender. It's really a surrender."* / *"I love fives. I love fives."* / *"That that it's even like even like a really small thing."* This is frequent in Perell's speech. - **Filler clusters under excitement**: the host: *"like like like"* runs, e.g. *"it's like it's like that diamond in the rough."* - **Quote-then-react rhythm**: one speaker reads ChatGPT output aloud, the other reacts and interprets: > "Look at how much better this is." - **Interrupt-and-redirect**: *"I got to say one more thing. Do you know the story of the bed of Procrustes?"* - **Self-correcting vocabulary precision**: Perell rejects a word and replaces it: *"I actually don't like the word balancing. I like full-on both. You want full grace and full truth."* --- ## 6. Stable Patterns vs. Isolated Moments | Pattern | Evidence strength | |---|---| | Affirmation-heavy host tone ("I love that") | **Stable** — dozens of instances | | Analogy-based explanation by both speakers | **Stable** — recurring throughout | | Perell's "exactly halfway right" framing | Only **two** instances — treat as emerging habit, not signature | | Live demo + predict/compare structure | **Stable** in NYT and Enneagram segments | | Religious framing in Perell's speech | Concentrated in early and Bible sections; not uniform across the video | | Vulnerable personal disclosure (reading struggles) | **Isolated moments** from both speakers | --- ## 7. Uncertainty Notes - Timestamps in the transcript are **index markers, not reliable seconds**, so no temporal claims are made here. - Speaker attribution is occasionally ambiguous where transcripts interleave short turns; quotations above were selected only where attribution is clear from context. - "Exactly halfway right" and the fraternity anecdote appear **once each as complete units** — patterns cannot be confirmed beyond what is shown. # Position Record: How David Perell Uses ChatGPT to Write for Millions **Speakers:** David Perell (guest; writer, Write of Passage founder, *How I Write* host) and Dan Shipper (host). Attribution below relies on conversational context in the transcript. --- ## 1. Self-Knowledge, Integrity, and "Being Yourself" - **Perell on "be yourself":** He calls the societal message "exactly halfway right." He believes a creator/God has endowed people with a "unique fingerprint" and "grain" — citing Michael Phelps and LeBron James as bodies made for their sports, and arguing we forget this applies to intellectual talents too. - **Perell's critique:** "Be yourself" in practice becomes "a moral hall pass to do whatever they want" leading to "a lot of degeneracy." He prefers being yourself in an **integrity-heavy** way: clear values, clear principles, and consistency along those principles. - **Perell on conformity:** The pattern of children becoming lawyers/doctors from a narrow list has nobility ("do your family well") but "misses human individuality." - **Perell's core value:** "The pursuit of excellence is my number one value." He observes world-class people (Djokovic, great entrepreneurs, Tyler Cowen) exhibit a "graciousness to their effort" — they're *compelled* to do what they do. - **On Tyler Cowen:** The lesson is "not be more like Tyler" but "what is Tyler seeking, and how can I seek that same thing in my own life?" - **Perell on surrender:** "You have no shot at being the best in the world at what you do if you aren't aligned with the shape of your soul that God has given you." - **Perell's Procrustes parable:** Many people take a "Procrustean approach to their career," conforming themselves to the bed rather than the bed to themselves, creating "a lot of misery" rooted in shame and guilt. ## 2. Dan Shipper on Heroes and Misapplied Patterns - **Shipper's lesson:** Emulating heroes wholesale fails; "usually there's a thing about heroes that you like that does resonate with you... but if you just wholesale take their whole life... it doesn't work." - **Concrete example:** He tried to run Every "like a software company" when it's a "creator-led media business," where the CEO makes the content. He notes a "deep symmetry" (in both, the CEO does what they're best at) but says applying the software pattern to media "just doesn't work" — learned "from so much pain and effort over years." ## 3. Using ChatGPT for Self-Discovery - **Shipper's method:** Treating ChatGPT as a "dance" — not expecting a good first answer; quality comes on the "fourth, fifth, sixth answer." He recommends expansion first (summarize the vibes), then compression (one paragraph, four points, one sentence). - **Perell's model of GPT:** "A super fast wizard with like super high IQ, but... not creative at all. It just has to do exactly what I tell it to." - **Result noted by both:** GPT synthesized Perell's heroes list (built over months, ~15 people) into four traits — passion for excellence, intellectual curiosity, "heart-led and joyous approach," commitment to personal/spiritual values. Perell: "this is a solid B+... in 5 minutes." - **Key discovery (Perell):** "Balance of joyfulness and seriousness" was "the first thing I've seen that has now given me something back that I hadn't quite put into words before." He connects it to a story about his fraternity president "Arty" from ten years earlier. - **Redo technique (Shipper):** Credited to interviewing Linus Lee — regenerate responses multiple times; "it's not like an intern because it doesn't get angry if you ask it to redo its work." - **Shipper on one question at a time:** Prompting GPT to ask one question at a time in a **motivational interview** about Perell's stated core weakness: knowing a truth but fearing to express it "because I'm worried about how it's going to make me look." - **Live application:** Perell disclosed an unexpressed critique to Dan directly — that podcast prep work should be reduced for busy guests (citing a cancellation and a Notion-access failure), modeled with the butter analogy: cold, unspreadable butter happens because "whoever's making the butter isn't eating the butter." - **New-chat practice (Shipper):** Long chats "go off the rails"; start fresh with a distilled summary. ## 4. Grace and Truth / Who to Work With - **Perell's objection:** He dislikes "balancing honesty with empathy" — "I don't like balance cuz it's not a spectrum. It's full of both." Grace has "tenderness... humanity"; truth has "firmness... logic... strength"; he wants "fullness of both." - **Perell on his psychology:** Enneagram three wing four; works well with **eights** (direct, conflict-forward) and **fives** (information synthesis, knowledge). - **Shipper's caution:** GPT's collaborator suggestions ("supportive communicators") were partly wrong — Perell needs the opposite. Shipper: "it's not going to be 100% all the time... take what it says with a grain of salt and check it with your own experience" — treat outputs as experiments. - **Slugging percentage (Perell's framing):** Evaluate GPT on slugging percentage, not batting average — like venture capital. The value is "one out of 100" moments where it names something you'd always felt. - **Shipper's analogies:** Archaeology (follow intuition for where to dig) and geology (survey the map, then strike oil occasionally). - **Perell on weaknesses:** "Problems emerge... from an ignorance of weaknesses," invoking Charlie Munger's circle of competence; exceeding it is "pride... arrogance." - **Shipper on self-awareness buckets:** First, neutralize weaknesses; second, surround yourself with people who cover them. Underneath avoidance is "deep shame about having a weakness"; naming it openly ("not an excuse") creates power to change. ## 5. Business Strategy Analysis (New York Times Case) - **Shipper's setup:** Broad prompts ("critique this business model") yield poor answers; "you have to give GPT shape and direction." - **First (bad) answer diagnosed:** GPT's general risks answer was "buzzword bingo" (Perell) — because, per Shipper, it searched the web and summarized others rather than reasoning. - **Names as compression (Shipper):** "Names are the ultimate compression" — citing Clayton Christensen, Michael Porter, Ben Thompson pulls in jobs-to-be-done, five forces, aggregation theory, enabling a "Socratic debate" among them. - **Results discussed:** Low-end disruption (Chris Williamson podcast, Every moving up-market), Porter's five forces applied to NYT, aggregation theory risk (Google/Facebook). - **Perell's emergent idea:** What if NYT had "a Barstool-style suite of independent creators" — noting NYT actually pursues this (Cooking, games, Wordle, The Athletic). - **Shipper's filter:** GPT's Ben Thompson recommendation (become a superior aggregator) was "too obvious... the New York Times could never become Facebook" — outputs must be filtered through your own logic. - **Prompt discipline (Shipper):** Ask one thing at a time; let GPT "do its thinking out loud" first, then compress — expansion before contraction (Shipper likened to writing out math steps). - **Shipper's final synthesis:** NYT's flywheel is best reputation + most capital → best writers → more readers/subscriptions, plus low-end acquisition and bundling. He judged GPT's summary "very close. I think ChatGPT solved it." - **Perell on strategy:** "Strategy is just who you are for a company" — simple but hard to accept, like accepting who you are. - **Perell's three dimensions where GPT is uniquely good:** **Diversity** (a room of Christensen, Thompson, Porter — impossible to assemble), **accessibility** ($20/month), **speed** (10–20 minutes). - **Shipper's tool frame:** We anthropomorphize GPT; instead, like a hired person, ask "what are they actually good at? Did I set them up for success?" ## 6. Reading Old Books - **Shipper's Moby Dick workflow:** Since it's public domain (~70 years, per GPT in-session), he photographs paragraphs, asks for interpretation — which "opened up the whole paragraph" without needing a class. - **Shipper's personal stake:** He was in reading comprehension tutoring throughout middle school and "just couldn't do it"; going from that to "tech-enabled adult" who can interpret stories is a "huge level up." - **Dan's parallel:** He was slow to read, sent to "reading camp" with flashcards, then sped ahead — relentless childhood focus turned it into a strength. - **DALL·E pipeline (Shipper):** Photograph a scene → GPT writes a DALL·E prompt → image. "It can create a prompt for you from your raw material... probably going to be better than the prompt you might create on your own." - **Perell against the "never-ending now":** The internet's recency bias is "terrible"; striving too much for being informed sacrifices **wisdom**. "Mother wisdom and father time work together" — read things that stood the test of time (Moby Dick, Nietzsche). - **Perell's reading technique:** Use custom instructions to exclude recent material; find scholars' disagreements on old texts to "see where the fault lines of discussion are. And decide what you think." ## 7. Bible Study and Etymology: *Archegos* - **Perell's framing:** Hebrew is "right-brained, much more intuitive"; Greek is "left-brained, much more analytical" — the two testaments' languages map to the brain's two hemispheres. - **Method:** Compare translations of Acts 3:15 — ESV/NIV render *archegos* as "author," KJV as "prince." The Greek word means author, leader, prince, **and** pioneer — "totally separate things in English... totally the same thing in Greek." - **Extension:** John 1:1 (Jesus as the Word/author) → leader → prince → pioneer. Modern *archegos* examples: GPT suggested Elon Musk and Steve Jobs; Perell added Jeff Bezos, the founding fathers (Federalist Papers), Satoshi. - **Application to Perell's work:** He can now "make an argument for writing... rooted in this Greek word" — a "pin that synthesizes all of these seemingly conflicting desires." - **Shipper's resonance:** He felt tension between being a writer and doing things in the world; *archegos* shows "it's not the path, it's the same thing." Every's saying: "the stories we tell become the businesses we build" — "Elon Musk doesn't become Elon Musk without Isaac Asimov." He called the exchange personally touching. ## 8. Writing Process - **Perell's efficiency gain:** He dislikes typing, loves talking — talks through feedback/ideas, then has GPT summarize main points and structure them. - **Shipper's parallel:** Free-associates on walks, then extracts an outline; pastes long idea-notes into GPT for outlining. "The outline's going to be like mostly wrong" but reveals the basic form (problem → solution) hiding in plain sight. - **Perell's psychological point:** Humans create better by responding than creating from scratch (the living-room designer analogy) — GPT helps "shape marble that already exists rather than having to go out and find the marble." - **Shipper on taste:** Articulating likes/dislikes is a developed practice; GPT converting intuition into words enables refinement. - **Perell quoting Whitehead:** "Civilization expands by the number of functions we can perform without having to consciously think about them" — creative leadership expands by making feelings concrete. Translation from intuition to words is lossy, but going from describing "8 of them to 74" of a hundred units of intuition makes you dramatically more productive; concrete words also let others "cross-reference ideas" and use GPT to "outsource you as a sparring partner" (his taste examples: Rococo, French 18th–19th century interior design, masculine decorative arts, Persian rugs). ## 9. Anecdote-Finding (Live Demo) - **Perell's memory theory:** Memory is "layered and sort of behind doors," stored in space (childhood-home recall, *Moonwalking with Einstein* memory palaces) — so specific prompts (NYC buildings 1910–1933) act as "checkpoints" to surface memories. - **Result:** The Woolworth Building surfaced a college-era meeting where someone said "Hiring and dating is a max function" — 99 duds don't matter if the one hire/person is right. He then reframed the piece around **max vs. min/distributed functions**. - **Perell's meta-point:** "We went in thinking we were going to write an article about New York City and taste, and we came out with this Max Min thing, and that's just how the creative process works. Like that is not a mistake." - **Shipper's meta-point:** All creators must learn to follow such sparks rather than filter them as off-topic. ## 10. Closing Theme: Writing from Conversation - **Perell's concept:** "Conversations are an algorithm for randomness" — they pull the mind out of grooves. He quotes John O'Donohue on great conversations ("food and drink for the soul") where people find "things inside of them that they never knew that they knew." - **Perell's claim about the technology:** "Until the development of this technology, you could only do that with another human being and now you can do that with an extremely smart computer." - **Shipper's agreement:** Called this "totally spot on" and a fitting close. --- ## Preserved Qualifications & Tensions - Perell rates GPT's synthesis only "a solid B+" — enthusiasm coexists with graded judgment. - Shipper repeatedly flags GPT error modes: web-search-dependent answers, "buzzword bingo," obvious/unrealistic recommendations, chats "going off the rails," and wrong collaborator suggestions requiring personal verification. - Perell concedes a live workshop with a living Christensen would beat GPT — his defense rests on diversity/accessibility/speed, not superiority. - Uncertainty left as stated: public-domain duration ("I think it's maybe 75, 70 or 100"), which GPT in-session answered as 70 years. # Video Attribution Record **Title:** How David Perell Uses ChatGPT to Write for Millions - Ep. 6 with David Perell **Video ID:** `01a0f15b-353a-7e56-b764-84c5e49e4e96` ## Speakers & Roles - **Dan** — **Host / Creator**. Identified by name in transcript ("I had this conversation with my friend Dan"; "I'm recording your podcast with my friend Dan"). Runs the podcast, describes himself as CEO of a creator-led media business, and states he is a "type three" Enneagram. Guides the live ChatGPT demonstrations and prompts. - **David Perell** — **Guest**. Introduced by host as internet writer, founder of **Write of Passage**, host of the **How I Write** podcast, and "an investor in every" (i.e., in the host's company, Every). Demonstrates his ChatGPT workflow live. - **No narrator, third-party voices, or other speakers** appear. No curated metadata was supplied. ## Referenced Sources & Third-Party Claims (as cited by speakers) ### People quoted or referenced by speakers - **Novak Djokovic** — quoted by Perell: "I just love hitting the tennis ball." - **Tyler Cowen** — cited by Perell as funder and model; praise is Perell's own claim. - **Linus Lee** — cited by host as Notion AI researcher interviewed previously. - **"Arty"** (host's fraternity president anecdote) — paraphrased quotation. - **Charlie Munger** — "circle of competence" concept cited by Perell. - **F. Scott Fitzgerald** — first-rate mind aphorism, cited by Perell. - **Alfred North Whitehead** — quoted by Perell on civilization. - **John O'Donohue** — quoted by Perell on conversation. - **Clayton Christensen, Michael Porter, Ben Thompson** — frameworks (jobs-to-be-done, disruption, five forces, aggregation theory) invoked as ChatGPT prompting anchors; Perell notes Christensen is deceased. - **Steven Sinofsky, Chris Williamson, Satoshi Nakamoto ("Satoshi"), Elon Musk, Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Michael Phelps, LeBron James, Peter Thiel, Isaac Asimov** — all mentioned as examples; all characterizations are speaker claims. ### Texts & works referenced - **Moby Dick** (public domain, per speakers), **the Bible** (Books of Acts, John, Hebrews; Greek word *archegos*), **Moonwalking with Einstein**, **Federalist Papers**, Nietzsche (unspecified). ### Institutional facts cited by speakers (unverified) - **New York Times** revenue figures (~$2.31B, 2022; ~9M subscribers) — attributed by speakers to ChatGPT's output, not independently verified. - Public-domain term stated as **70 years** — sourced to ChatGPT's answer in-transcript. ## Promotional Segments - **None flagged.** No sponsor reads, product promotions, or calls-to-action appear in the transcript. ChatGPT/DALL·E usage is demonstrative, with the host noting the "$20 a month" cost — a factual mention, not a promotion. ## Provenance & Availability Notes - **Comment availability:** No transcript or metadata statement about comments; **unavailable/unknown**. - **Curated metadata:** Not supplied beyond title and transcript. - Claims about ChatGPT outputs (NYT figures, Enneagram recommendations, summaries) are **model-generated per the speakers** and should be treated as such, not as verified facts. I started reading Moby Dick recently. It can make the books come alive, not just through language, but through pictures. So, wow. That's really cool. cool? Yeah. We are seeing something through the Greek that the English doesn't reveal. And GPT is really useful cuz I can see the different translations, look at the discrepancies, and get my answer. Isn't that kind of wild? So now, I just had an anecdote that showed up in the very first example, and we're going to change what it is that we're writing about, okay? We went in thinking we were going to write an article about New York City and taste, and we came out with this Max Min thing, and that's just how the creative process works. Like that is not a mistake. And that's what GPT is really good for. David, welcome to the show. Thanks, man. I'm excited to be here. Yeah, I'm excited to have you. We've been friends for a while. You're an amazing internet writer. You run Write of Passage, and you're the host of the How I Write podcast, which is a fantastic show. Thanks. And yeah, I'm just I'm just really excited to have you to talk about ChatGPT. in every And an investor in every, yeah. Most importantly. Yeah, big big supporter. You've been a big supporter for many, many years, and I really appreciate getting to spend time with you. Yeah. Thank you. So, we're going to talk about ChatGPT, obviously. And we're going to get into how you use it in your creative process, how you use it to think, how you use it to write, how you use it to learn new things. Um but where I want to start is I want to just want to start with you. One of the things that I think is really just special and unique about you is you're on this mission to understand more about who you are, and then to reflect that back into your work. Mhm. And you're on on a mission to understand why that's surprisingly difficult to do, and why it's hard to accept in some ways who you are. Mhm. And so, what I want to start with is is you. Tell us about you. Tell us about what you've learned about yourself maybe over the last year, and we'll see where that goes. Yeah. Well, I think that there's a lot in society right now around be yourself and be who you are, and I think it's exactly halfway right. Because be who you are, look, I just believe that God, creator, has given us all a series of gifts, and has endowed us with a unique fingerprint and basically a unique grain, a shape of our personality that allows us to do certain things easily and other things more in more difficult ways, right? Take someone like Michael Phelps. Like that guy is just made to be a swimmer. He has an insane wingspan, super long torso. LeBron James is made to be a basketball player, but somehow when it comes to intellectual talents, we forget that there's certain things that people really have an aptitude for. And so, I've been thinking a lot about what am I made to be doing? And the first thing there is it's really a surrender. It's really a surrender. Like this wasn't my choice. I believe in God, so what did God make me to do? And actually responding to that. Mhm. So, that's the first thing. And then the other thing is there's a lot around, "Oh, be yourself. Be yourself." And what I find is it in practice ends up giving people a moral hall pass to do whatever they want, and it leads to a lot of degeneracy, which I'm not a big fan of. And so, I'm interested in how do you be yourself in a way that's rooted in integrity. And integrity I think of as coming from two places, which is clear values and a clear set of principles, and also consistency along those principles. And I like the idea of being yourself in a very integrity heavy way. And one place we try to get integrity without people being themselves is the classic thing where you see it with a lot of children where they become lawyers and doctors and they go into a very small list of fields. And what I think lacks integrity about that, I mean, there's a nobility to it of, "Hey, you're going to do your family well." But what lacks integrity about it is it misses human individuality, which I really value and think is important. Mhm. In your life, what has brought about this that focus for you? Like what made you realize that this is really important to figure out for yourself, to live with integrity, know your values, know your individuality, and surrender to it? So, the pursuit of excellence is my number one value. And I spend a lot of time with people who I think are in pursuit of excellence, who I think are world-class in their field. That's one of the core ways I spend my time. If you really spend time with them, you realize that there's a graciousness to their effort. You know, Djokovic says, "I just love hitting the tennis ball." You spend time around great entrepreneurs, and there's a way that they're just living fluidly. And, you know, there's this whole conversation around hard work. And once again, it's exactly halfway right. You know, early in your career, you do have to sort of grit your teeth and grind a bit to get the snowball rolling. But the people who I know who have really done well, yes, they work their tails off, but there's a sense that they have where they're just doing what they're made to be doing. I think a lot about the word compulsion. They're compelled to do that thing, right? You spend time with a drummer. You're hanging out on a Saturday night, and they're just tapping their fingers. They're making beats, right? And I played golf at a fairly high level with many people who now are on the PGA tour. And when I would hit balls with them growing up, I mean, there was just of course I'm going to wake up and go to the to the golf course all day. And then, you know, the other person who comes to mind who is really a model for me here is Tyler Cowen. Tyler Cowen funded me early in my career, is a good friend of mine, and he's outstanding in terms of the depth, the breadth of his knowledge. I've never met anybody like him. But if you just watch a video with him, spend time with him, there's a joyousness that comes from every interaction because he is just has such alignment between his career and the things that he's drawn to. And when you find that, there's a real attractiveness, a charisma that comes from it because it's so rare. And I look at Tyler, and the lesson isn't be more like Tyler. The lesson is to think, "What is Tyler seeking, and how can I seek that same thing in my own life?" That's really that's really interesting. I love that. I mean, I think you're you're mentioning all these things that feel very core to you and and and also feel core to me, like feeling like you're you have this sense of of joy in the work that you do, or maybe a sense of compulsion to like to to do it really well, or or drive for excellence. One of the things that I think would be fun to try, just going right into ChatGPT, is I think it's really great at you know, you've done a you can do a really good job of articulating who you like, who you look up to, and why, and what that says about you. And I think ChatGPT is really good for giving you more depth and clarity and insight into that stuff. So, one thing that we could try is taking some of the people that you mentioned. So, like maybe a Tyler Cowen or Michael Phelps, writing into ChatGPT like, what who you like and why you like them to some degree, and then seeing if we can push it a little bit to maybe find some more people that you might not have heard of, or maybe give you a little bit more depth of synthesis on what are the things you like about them, and then we can see where where where that goes. Great. Cool. Let me say one thing, and then why don't you walk me through that? Let's do it. So, one of the things that I've always just been drawn by is being the best in the world at whatever it is that I do. And I was really obsessed with basketball and baseball and golf as a kid. And I've always just been drawn to excellence. Fundamentally, the reason why you have to surrender to your nature, and why you really have to think about these questions, is you have no shot at being the best in the world at what you do if you aren't aligned with the shape of your soul that God has given you. If you're trying to fight that, you have no chance because somebody else has that, and now you're competing against them. So, the only way to truly be the best is to be aligned with that nature. And if you are, then you have the advantage rather than fighting other people on their terms. Yeah. I love that. I think it's such an important lesson. It's one that I've had to learn over and over again because one of the dangers of heroes is that you try to emulate the things that they do, and then you end up like doing something that's not quite right for you cuz you're following their path and not yours. And usually there's a thing about heroes like that that you like that that does resonate with you, and that thing is like true and real. But like if you just wholesale take their whole life and try to like do it, it doesn't work. And I I just found that over and over again cuz with every, for example, I tried to run it like a software company for a long time, and it's not really a software company. It's a it's a media business. It's a creator-led media business, right? And so, the way that you run a creator-led media business is if I'm like one of the top creators, I got to make stuff. I got to be in this room with you like making podcasts or writing or doing all that kind of stuff. But if you're the CEO of a software business, like you don't make the stuff. You hire the people to make the stuff, and you raise the money, and you hold the vision, and whatever. And I had to like learn that lesson a lot because it's such a different way of thinking about what to do and how to build a company. Mhm. And there's a deep symmetry between the way that you build a software business and build a media business, which is that in both cases, the CEO does the thing that they are best at. And in media businesses, that's usually making the content or making the thing because that's like the rarest thing. And in software businesses, that's raising the money and having the vision and hiring the team. Mhm. But if you just wholesale take the like software business pattern and apply it to media, it just it doesn't work. And I had to like learn that from like just so much pain and effort over years cuz it's so different, you know? I got to say one more thing. Do you know the story of the bed of Procrustes? Mhm. Okay, so this myth is amazing. It it's a old Greek fable. And there's a hotel owner named Procrustes. And he's sort of this tyrannical hotel owner. And what he does is his entire hotel only has one size of bed. And he wants people to fit in the bed perfectly. So, if somebody is too short, he stretches them out. And if somebody is too tall, he chops off their arms and legs. So that they can fit in the bed. And I think that a lot of people take a Procrustean approach to their career where they say, "I need to be this person. I need to fit into that bed." So, rather than conforming the bed to who I am, I'm going to conform myself to the bed. And it creates a lot of misery in the world. And I think the root of that is there's like so there's shame in a lot of ways and guilt and like not being able to do something that you think you should do, you know? And I think figuring out what are the overlaps with what other people have done and what are the things that are just uniquely mine is sort of like it's the work, you know? And and I think that that brings us right back to ChatGPT. Like what I want to do is find a little bit more about like who you are and what you like through this and then and then maybe we can bring it back to what are the not overlaps or what are the things that are not you about the people you love and what have you had to learn and all that kind of stuff. Yeah, can you help me prompt? Let's do that. Yeah, yeah. Let's start with people that you like. People that you are inspired by. And I want to find some of the overlaps and some of the some of the synthesis there. So, I think that's great. Here here are some of my heroes. You know, I think I Give me a second. I think I've actually written out all my heroes. And I think that I can just copy and paste it. be perfect. Yeah. So, what I did here, Dan, is I had been building this for for many months and I gathered a list of people and creators who I really admire. And I just had some I guess you could call them adjectives on what it is that I admire about them. So, I don't know, there's 15 people in here and I just put into GPT, "Here's a list of my heroes and why I like their personality and writing. Is there anything else that you think I should add?" Yeah, let's um let's scroll to the bottom and um just say like um can you um can you summarize um the the vibes um of these of these people and then yeah, just um let's just see how that goes. We're just going to explore together. Yeah, I think one of the things that always strikes me about GPT is not expecting it to give you a good first answer, but thinking of it as a dance. And the fourth, fifth, sixth answer is really when you get quality. And one of the things I like to have it do is when you ask it to to just summarize the vibe, what it will do is it will sort of like expand from the name into um more about like about that person. So, for each person it's saying like Peter Thiel, known for his curiosity and boldness. And what we're going to do is take that and then compress it down into something that like finds a lot of the overlaps and it synthesizes it, but it's helpful to like have it in expanded form first. Yep. Yeah. Interesting. So, what you're trying to do is you're trying to get as much information onto the page. Basically give it a lot of receptors and then it goes into distillation. I like that. Cool. Yeah. I'm curious like how you feel about the summaries of these of these people. Like do you think it's using the right words for them? The the right descriptions? It's very good. Okay, cool. So, now I want what I want you to do is write something like, "Can you um can you help me synthesize these? I want to try to find the underlying um overlaps and commonalities between these people." So, then what I did is I said, "Limit one paragraph, then share the four corporeal points, then summarize in one sentence." And I like doing that with GPT. I like giving it very specific prompts and instructions. I basically assume GPT is like a super fast wizard with like super high IQ, but then also just like in a funny way not creative at all. It just has to do exactly what I tell it to. And we'll see what it says. what I love about this, right? It says heart-led and joyous approach. So like ChatGPT doesn't know that one of the things you said that you love about Tyler Cowen is that he's joyous. And it just like found that, right? And you're self-aware and you think about this enough to know that that's why you like Tyler Cowen, but if you're a person and and many of us are who like you you generally know that you have heroes, but like you haven't spent the time to like really articulate why, it just did that for you in a in a way that took like I don't know, a minute or two. And um I don't know how much time it you took to like identify that about Tyler Cowen, but I think this sort of like fast forwards that process in a really interesting way. Well, it basically says four things. First, a passion for excellence and innovation. I mean, my core value It got you. My core value is literally the pursuit of excellence. The second is intellectual curiosity and insightfulness. I mean, that's my job trying to do those things. Yeah. Heart-led and joyous approach. I mean, those are that is exactly how I approach the world. Yeah. I'm also quite intuitive in terms of how I move through my interactions. And then finally, commitment to personal and spiritual values. Many of your heroes are guided by a dedication to God, a commitment to truth and fairness, or a drive for personal authenticity. Yeah, I think that's pretty good. I mean, this is a solid B+ It's yeah, it's pretty good. And 5 minutes. Why don't you hit the redo button? I just want to see like if it if you do it again like if you get anything different. Is that this one? Yeah. Well, that's one of the things I really like to do is uh and it's actually come out of some of these interviews is um I interviewed Linus Lee a couple weeks ago. He's a researcher who uh works at Notion on their AI team. And he just does like four of them for each response just to sort of like get the lay of the land. Like I think um one thing that people miss about ChatGPT is it's not it is kind of like an intern, but it's not like an intern because uh it doesn't get angry if you're if you ask it to ask it to redo its work, you know? It'll just keep going and going. And what you want to do is traverse all of the different ways it might respond to your question to see if you're missing anything. Yeah, I mean, to your point, I really like what it said here, which is balance of joyfulness and seriousness. I think I balance both of those quite a bit. I'm I am a fairly joyous person, but I'm also extremely serious about my craft and I have really high quality bar and I'm always trying to maintain those standards and then every single day do things to raise my quality bar for what excellence looks like. Yeah. And this idea of the balance between joyfulness and seriousness, this is the first thing I've seen that has now given me something back that I hadn't quite put into words before. Yeah, I love that. That's such a good feeling when you cuz now when you have words for it, you can do something with it, right? it reminds me of So, my fraternity president my freshman year, I was talking to a guy at a party one night and I said, "Tell me about Arty." And the line was so good. It was exactly this. He's like, "Arty is 90% the most slap back, hang out, funny guy. Mhm. But the 2% of seriousness that he is is the most serious of anyone you will ever meet." And it's funny to read this. I had that conversation 10 years ago. It's so funny. exactly what this is. And something about that sentence really really resonated with me. I love that. I guess like there's a couple different places you can go. First of all, I'm curious like what are you curious about? Like what do you want to know about yourself right now from from having read this? I want to know the kinds of people I would work well with and who I need around me in order to Yeah, that's that's that's what I'm curious about. And one of the things that we might want to plug in is some of my weaknesses. And I've noticed that I work very well with people who are enneagram eights and they tend to be very direct. Mhm. And I also work well with people who are enneagram fives because fives are all about information synthesis and knowledge. So, some of my weaknesses are basically all my problems in life come down to one thing. And if you even want to write down this sentence, it could even be interesting, which is there's the truth that I know and I'm worried about expressing that truth and saying what I need to say because I'm worried about how it's going to make me look. That's my core weakness in life. So, I work really well with people who the eights tend to be conflict forward and they say what they mean and they mean what they say. So, I'm curious to know given my enneagram three tendencies, I'm a three wing four, who then do I need around me Yeah. in the work world? So, I want to start at a previous place, which is like before we get to like who you work well with. Mhm. I want to like unpack this truth that you know that Right. you're worried about expressing that truth and saying what you need to say. So, like what I want you to do is start a new chat. Okay. And ask ChatGPT, "I want you to do a motivational interview with me." And motivational interviewing is a technique in psychology that's about unpacking the sort of conflicting forces within you that produce ambivalence or a behavior that you don't really like and helping you to like move into a better understanding of those forces so you can integrate them and do things differently. So, I want you to do a motivational interview with me. I'm thinking about my tendency to know a truth and be worried about expressing that truth and saying what I need to say. Specifically, I'm worried about how that's going to make me look. I want to try to understand that that better where that and where that comes from. Okay. Please do a motivational interview and ask me one question at a time. One thing I've noticed is ChatGPT is just like it will spew like 10 questions and then it's like you can't answer 10 questions at once. Right. Um and so the one question at a time is really good. So it's So it's asking, "When you think about situations that hold you back from expressing a truth, what are the specific fears or concerns that come to mind and how might it affect your image or reputation?" And I'd add to that like, "Why don't we pick one specific one?" Mhm. Vengeful. Yeah, so I wrote being seen as vengeful or uncaring. Mhm. Can you recall a specific instance where you felt that you were being seen as vengeful? Yeah. This is going to be This is getting real. Is there anything in this room between us? Yeah. Cuz this is It's pretty safe with me. Yeah. Yeah. That that it's even like even like a really small thing, cuz even the smallest thing will be like will be a big thing. Yeah. So like, is there something between us that you have felt you're holding back and like Yeah. Okay. So Okay. So here's one. So uh I think that one of the things if you're going to make this podcast successful is how do you figure out how you can get a lot of the information that you're asking for in advance? Mhm. How do you get it without it being a bunch of work, right? Cuz we were going to record this podcast a few weeks ago. big a big document. And then I didn't factor that in to my week and then I canceled on you. And then yesterday I was able to do it, but then I couldn't open up the Notion. So then I sent you a text. Yeah. And like how do you make that prep work really easy so that you can get the prep work, but then as a guest then it's fluid and easy for me? And you didn't totally tell me that. Like you sort of told me. You were sort of like, "Hey, like I got to cancel." And then you didn't tell me for example that you didn't know where the Notion doc was and you just sent me a text. Like Why don't you Why don't you throw that in there? So you're saying like, "I'm recording your podcast with my friend Dan. There was quite a bit of prep work in advance. I hadn't mentioned to him that I want to think through how he can reduce the prep work required for the show while also having it be as good as he wants it to be if he wants to record with high-level and busy guests. Yeah, there shouldn't be a lot of you know, there can't be much prep work. Um that's really great. And it said like, "In considering the situation, what do you believe are the potential benefits of of discussing your thoughts on reducing prep work with him and how do you think this conversation could align with your shared goals for the podcast?" Yeah, I think that first question is better than the second one. I think the benefit is it's important I mean, in any experience for you as the creator of the experience to know what it's like to consume the experience. Like you know what drives me crazy? Yeah. When you're at a restaurant and they don't have the butter is too cold so it doesn't easily spread on the bread. And the reason that that that that happens is whoever's making the butter isn't eating the butter and spreading it on the bread. So then it gets chunky and blocky. Right. And I think that when you're consuming any experience, whether you're putting on a show, whether you run a hotel, whether you run a restaurant, and whether you run a podcast is knowing what it's like to be on the other side because you're just blind to it when you're creating that thing. Yeah. That That That makes a lot of sense. So what I want to do now, you've given it a bunch of information about like who you are where you're where you're getting stuck with the pattern is. I want you to ask it to summarize everything it's learned about your psychology from this interview. Yeah, that's that's great. And then what we're going to do is we're going to start a new chat and we're going to use what we've learned to have it help you think about how to be a leader who you should work with. Mhm. When do you start a new chat? I tend to I mean, uh I think we could do it in this one. My experience is that with chats the longer they go on the more likely it is to sort of go off the rails. Mhm. And so if you can start with like a really concise piece of information like a summarized paragraph of like here is the nugget of stuff about me um and start it with a new chat, it'll be less likely to like kind of mess up. Okay. Yeah. Yeah, there's a few things here. I think sensitivity to perception. Like you exhibit a strong awareness of how your words and actions might be perceived by others. Yeah. No doubt about that. Yeah. Yeah, I think balancing honesty with empathy. I always think of balancing grace and truth. Mhm. And I actually don't like the word balancing. I like full-on both. You want full grace and full truth. Mhm. I don't like balance cuz it's not a spectrum. It's full of both. Well, yeah. That's great. I think we should um maybe throw that in there. We can We We can copy paste that and and uh and just and change that that Cool. that little thing. So what I want you to do, and I can start doing this for you if you want. Like do you think that would make it easier for you? lot easier. Okay, cool. So what I'm going to do is I'm going to take um take what you wrote. And we we pulled out some patterns that are about your sensitivity to your your your perceptions, to your past experiences, getting feedback and giving it, all that kind of stuff. I'm going to You You You mentioned um you don't like the word balancing honesty with empathy. What would you what would you like uh replace it with? Like harmonizing or grace and truth and full in both of them. So grace is a there's a tenderness to grace, an understanding to grace, and a real humanity to grace. And then truth is there's a firmness, there's a logic. And there's a strength to truth. Yeah. And you want full of both of them. I don't like the balance of grace and truth. I like the fullness of both of them. Yeah, I love that. Um trying to fully live. Grace and truth. Okay, cool. So what I'm going to do, so we have a we have a bunch of stuff about you. And I want to help you figure out like who would be Who are the kind of people that you should be working with? And then we can see if it if it if it knows the Enneagram eights and Enneagram What What was the other one? Five. Enneagram five. And it would be interesting if it could figure out your Enneagram number Yeah. from just this. So like uh let's say like I'm I'm trying to figure out who are good personalities for me to work with based on my own psychology. Here's a bunch of stuff. Stuff about me. Um can based on this, can you help me understand what kinds of people uh would be helpful for me to work with and who I should avoid. Let's just see if that works. I don't know if it will. Supportive communicators. These are people who can provide constructive feedback in a way that's encouraging rather than critical. need the opposite, actually. Interesting. Because I need people who push me to be more critical. Like I Yeah. I think five is good. Yeah. Yeah, five is really good. Like independent and self-confident people. That really helps me. Mhm. It says overly critical or negative individuals are people to be cautious about. What do you think? Or those who avoid conflict at all costs. I think two is a big one. I mean, if I'm around other people who avoid conflict at all costs, it's it's it's a mess. Yeah. It's a mess. I'm really good with people who are direct. And and I can really help them, too, because I can come in and Yeah. and help them out. over. Yeah. I mean, I've already had that happen today where somebody was direct and then I came in on the other side and I said, "Okay, hold on here. You don't need to talk like that." Yeah. Let's see. So I said, "I feel like I need the opposite of supportive communicators. I need people who push me. I really like independent and self-confident individuals and those who avoid conflict at all costs." Yeah. Let's see what it does. I like people who mean what they say and they say what they mean. Yeah. Challenging communicators. Seek out people. So I mean, at this point it's it's sort of repeating something that that you know intuitively. And I think that's that's That's a really interesting part of ChatGPT is it's not going to be 100% all the time. But when you get these directives from it like you know, supportive communicators or empathetic and understanding colleagues or assertive yet compassionate leaders or strategic thinkers or independent and self-confident individuals, some of them are going to be bang on and some of them are going to be wrong. Mhm. And it's really important to take what it says with a grain of salt and check it with your own experience Mhm. and use it as like a Okay, here's some things that I like. Here's some things I don't like and and keep pushing with it rather than being like, "Oh, it sucks." or like, "Oh, like it's not working." And also I think to take some of these things and be like, "Okay, this is an experiment." Like maybe if you didn't know yourself as well, you could have seen the supportive communicators and been like, "Actually, maybe I maybe I need that." And like and tried it and found that supportive communicators are often conflict averse and that that doesn't work for you. Mhm. And so even if it's giving you something that's not totally right, if you're treating what it gives you as an experiment in your life, you can start to make progress knowing knowing who you are. What I hear you saying is you have to evaluate GPT on slugging percentage instead of batting average. Yeah. So batting average is what percentage of the time do you get on base? What percentage of the time are you successful? Yeah. Whereas what you're saying is slugging percentage, which is when you're successful, how successful are you? So venture capital It's exactly the same. is very much a slugging percentage game. Yeah. And that's how you have to think about GPT. And I think a a lot of people they evaluate GPT based on batting average. So what they do is they say "This percentage of things is off." Rather than what you're saying is how do you work with GPT to get the one or two nuggets, the one or two threads that you wouldn't have found elsewhere. Exactly. It's like it's like that diamond in the rough. Like one out of 100 you're like, holy that just like completely put into words something that I like I'd always felt but then I had never been able to say. Right. And also it's like you get out of it what you put in, right? So if you're giving it good prompts, you're going to get good results. Mhm. And so if you're not getting what you want, trying to push it to get more of it is I think the best thing to do. Right. It's sort of like archaeology, right? So what you're doing is you're digging and you're digging and you're digging. Yeah. And an archaeologist doesn't go out expecting every single second of every single day to yield a new insight. Yeah. But what they're doing is they're sort of following their intuition for what's interesting, where an area could be. Yeah. And then they end up finding the ruins that they were looking for. And there's a sixth sense that's created. It's the same thing with how a geologist goes out and looks for oil, right? Yeah. You look at the map. Yeah. You have a sense of the map and then you say, these sorts of places are more likely to have oil. Yeah. And then you strike oil and you say, "Woo, hallelujah." Yeah. But you don't expect every single place to to have it. And those are very different modes of engaging with a technology. Yeah, 100%. I want to see like um well, I think I think we can do one more thing here which is what Enneagram types do you think I'd work best with? What's what's your type by the way? I'm a three wing four. Interesting. I'm a type three. If you had to pick two others, um which would you pick as best to work with me? There you go. Isn't that kind of wild? Uh there you go. Did I call it or did I call it? No, it's I mean it's crazy, right? Like that is pretty cool, right? That is intuitively what I picked up on. And what's really funny is if I look at the people who I enjoy spending time with the most in my life, Yeah. I love fives. I love fives because they help me understand what's going on. They're analytical, they're perceptive, they're innovative. Wow, that's hilarious. And then I love eights. They're assertive, they're confident, they're decisive. Yeah. Wow. Yeah. Chat GPT banger alert. That's really funny. Isn't that interesting to you like those words analytical, perceptive, and innovative? Like once you have them and there's there's something really special about that. You know what, this is actually really good. So okay, now we're onto something. So analytical, perceptive, innovative. This is where you started. You basically said, what GPT can do is it can give you clarity and put words to things that you just had a hazy intuition around. So I'm just going to skim through this. So yes, I'm goal-driven nature and I'm I'm probably too risk-averse around perception. Okay, so analytical, perceptive, and innovative. Yeah. I also am a little bit sort of in fantasy land around sort of a more in terms of hopefulness around perfection than being like a realist. So I like fives because they are realists and they're analytical. They value knowledge and competency. I love competency. They complement my drive for achievement, efficiency, no doubt. They dive deep into subjects. I'm super curious, so they can give me that well-structured information. Yeah. Then they give me insight, strategy. Yep. And then the eights, this is the other side, right? They're assertive, they're confident, they're decisive. They're not afraid to take charge, confront challenges head-on, right? Like they're much more in a boxing match with the world. And they help me push my limits, take decisive action, straightforward, ability to handle conflict, tough decisions, direct communication. Those are things that I'm very attracted to because I lack those things in myself. Right. And so of course there's an element of me where I'm trying to adopt more of that. But if I can just have people around that who are like that is like it just makes me so relaxed. Yeah. Yeah. Cuz I'm like, we have that covered, so I can just be more of me. And that's that's about that I think that's that's so about um you know, surrendering to who you are. Like going back to the thing we started with which is yeah, you could totally work on being less conflict-averse and that's probably a nice thing for you to do. But also um different contexts and different relationships and different people will either bring out the conflict aversion or force you to be less conflict-averse because they will just push you on it. Right. And that is really valuable to know cuz like either way you're making the change. Either way you're creating a context for yourself where you're not being conflict-averse. One way is like to do it yourself and another way is to like create the context in the relationships that do it for you. And I think that that's just a really smart, valuable thing. Well, to that point, so there's two buckets of self-awareness. Yeah. There is the first thing of self-awareness which is these are my weaknesses and I'm going to basically try to neutralize those weaknesses. Yeah. The second thing is how do I get people around me who make it so that I don't even have to because they can sort of cover that for me. Yeah. And I think that the problems that emerge don't come from weaknesses. They come from an ignorance of weaknesses. The worst things that happen Yeah. are when people try to take on projects that require them to have a strength in a place where they're weak. When they say, "Oh, I know this." when they actually have no idea what they're talking about. And this goes back to Charlie Munger's circle of competence point. The something that's actually more important than how much you know is just being honest about what it is that you know and then living a life where you are congruent with the shape of your skills and knowledge. And once you try to go beyond your skis, that then is pride. That then is arrogance and that's really when you get the problem. And I think that people would do better to just be honest about what they are and aren't good at rather than trying to basically deceive other people into saying, "Oh, you know, I am really good at that." and sort of puffing themselves up. Yeah. No, I think and I think you're right like and underneath the pride and the arrogance is like this sort of deep shame about like having a weakness. And that's what I think is so powerful about doing this with ChatGPT is cuz it can help you explore that stuff. And also for you for example, being able to say, "I'm conflict-averse." Like a lot of times like I'm conflict-averse too. Like I want to hide that cuz I want to be different or whatever. But just being able to stand on that as like it's not an excuse. It's not like a I'm just going to do this but it is like a I think that you should know about me and something that I'm currently working on and there's a lot of power in that because if you don't have to hide it, you can make changes that that make up for it. Yeah. Yeah. Cool. So this is great. Um I feel like we've done a lot of good stuff like kind of using ChatGPT to explore a little bit more about who you are, your strengths and your weaknesses and and who are good people to work with for you. I would love to move into the next section and just talk about like how are you using it now that you know who you are. How how are you using it to like to make stuff? How are you using it to write? How are you using it to create? So one of the other things that I found with GPT is it's really good at looking at something like a business model. And one of the things that people miss is they'll put in their business model and they'll say, "GPT, critique this business model." Yeah. And what they end up doing is when you're that broad, your answer is going to be very poor. You have to give GPT shape and direction. You have to, otherwise it won't give you a good example. So what we can do is we can put in the every business model and you can put in here's how we make money. Yeah. Here's how we're growing. Here's our product. Yeah. And let's say that you want to you know, let's do the New York Times. Let's do the New York Times. That would be really interesting cuz there'll actually be a tapestry of knowledge that it can build on. So the New York Times and maybe you want to write this. So the New York Times they came out with a memo. I want to say it was 2015 or 2016 and it's actually extremely interesting where they spoke about how they need to change as a company in order to stay in business. And the New York Times, they make money by being the authoritative source on news stories around the world, politics and culture. And what they have needed to do is shift from advertising revenue to subscription revenue. So what I would like to know and maybe we can ask GPT is what is their annual revenue? How many readers do they have per year? What are the most profitable parts of the business? What are the least profitable parts of the business? And then we can just ask GPT to critique the business model. So have that be the final sentence. And what I want to do is I want to show that it's not going to do a very good job of critiquing the business model. Great. So I've written all the stuff out. I think it will it will sort of work um but it might not be able to accurately answer each of these questions in one prompt because you know, the way it requests information from the web it like will do a search and if it can find one article with all the information it'll work but if it requires multiple searches, it's not that good at that. So we'll try it. See see how it works and then and then keep going. So a public company. So we'll see if it's there but I'm excited to see if it works. Um okay. So we'll see if it works and then I'll ask it to to critique the strategy um afterwards. So we asked it, "Tell me more about how the New York Times makes money." Well, what we want to know is what their annual revenue is, how many readers they have and what are the most profitable parts of the business and least profitable parts. So New York Times reached an annual revenue of approximately 2.31 billion dollars uh which was an 11% increase from the previous years. Previous year's 2.07 billion. The revenue was from subscriptions was significant amounting to 1.5 billion in 2022. Uh and they had 9 million subscribers in 2022. Advertising revenue was 523 million. Um and um yeah, I don't know if it I did Do you feel like it answered all the questions that you have? That's a really good answer. So, why don't we do this? Tell me about the biggest risks in the business over the next 10 years. So, I just want to set this up. Yeah. This is the bad answer and I don't think that it's going to be that helpful. What I want to do is I want to look at this and then I want to compare it to the next answer and I want to set something up Yeah. about how to use GPT really effectively as a sparring partner if you're some sort of investing analyst where we're going to get some really specific answers afterwards. it. So, one of the things that you should know is it just searched used being to search for the answer to your question. Mhm. So, rather than answering from its own sort of knowledge, it just Googled like what are the biggest risks for media companies over the next 10 years, which is something that you might want it to do, but it will affect the answer because it's basically just summarizing things that other people have written directly from its first search Mhm. rather than like just creating it from it from from what it knows. So, um that's just that's just one thing to keep in mind. You We may want to redo it and have it not not look on the web, but No, I love this. I mean, this is just buzzword bingo and this is ridiculous. Cybersecurity threats, disruptive innovation and digital transformation. Like I feel like I'm at, you know, the business school 301 seminar just like I rolling on a Tuesday morning. It's like, "Oh my goodness, pandemic-related challenges, supply chain of vendor risk." Like these are just ridiculously broad swath climate risk. Like What? Right. No, like these aren't the actual risks, right? So, let's get super specific and let's say, "Don't search the web. Look up the work of Clayton Christensen, Michael Porter, and Ben Thompson and focus on how the New York Times can continue to shift from advertising revenue to subscription revenue." Um and tell me like how you got that. Like why why you want to do that versus the the previous prompt, which was which was much more general. Great question. So, GPT is magical when it comes to names. Yeah. Names are like the ultimate compression. And that's what you want to do. Whenever you're communicating something, you want to think about compression, right? How much can I deliver in just a few words? Yeah. And if I say "Clayton Christensen", what it's going to do is it's going to look up his jobs to be done framework. It's going to look up his disruption theory. And just in two words, I can subsume all those ideas into that prompt and I can do the same thing with Porter's five five forces. I can do the same thing with Ben Thompson's aggregation theory. Yeah. And it'll probably give me something about aggregation theory, about Porter's five forces. And now what we've done is we have that tapestry of knowledge and now we can start having a conversation amongst those three people to see where Mount Rushmore of business strategists agree Right. and then what do they disagree on? And then the fault lines of disagreement Yeah. now we can follow those and we can see what the different vectors of strategy can be. that. I love that. So, like so we got our answer. So, you want to you want to read it out for us? Sure. So, I mean, this is exactly it. So, now we have Look at how much better this is. So, we have disruptive innovation, smaller, nimbler competitors who offer cheaper, more accessible, or innovative solutions that gradually move up market. So, that's what you're seeing with somebody like Chris Williamson's podcast is doing this. He is a one-man show, basically, and he's moving up market with better and better production quality. Okay, interesting. Not a direct competitor, but these small media companies, that's what we're seeing there. Like every There we go. I mean, that's what this is, right? This is you moving up market. Hey, we're on video and stuff like that. Great example. Now, Porter's five forces. I don't actually know what these are, so let's look at them. So, threat of new entrants. Can enter the market with lower barriers, especially in the digital space. Now, that's a great answer. Okay, so the ability to produce and distribute content has been democratized. Yeah. Absolutely. Bargaining power of customers. Huh, what's this? Have more options for news and content. Their willingness to pay might decrease unless the New York Times offers distinct value. I love those words, distinct value. What does that mean? Let's index that, bookmark it, we'll come back to it. Threat of substitutes. Alternate alternative sources of news and information. I don't know if you saw what uh Steven Sinofsky wrote about Twitter a few months ago, but this is what's happening. We're seeing this rise of citizen journalism and media companies can no longer compete on certain vectors. So, what happened in the late 20th century is a company like the New York Times, they could have privileged special access to certain high-level people. Now, with Google and even just all the people who have boots on the ground, the people who are there can often distribute information faster. The famous example of this was when the solely US Airways airplane crashed. Mhm. The people on the plane, the people who were by the Hudson River, they were reporting better than a lot of the media companies because they were just there sharing information. Right. Bargaining supply of suppliers. I mean, I've written about this that the cost of retaining top talent is getting harder and harder. You have people who are leaving these traditional media companies and they're going to launch their own thing, right? And the media companies have to do a better and better job of convincing the journalists who they work with to stay. Industry rivalry. Okay, I don't think that one is quite as interesting. Aggregation theory. A risk lies in the potential dominance of digital platforms like Google and Facebook that aggregate news content. I mean, there's no doubt, right? So, look at how much came from this. We have very specific things Yeah. and now it's given us it's given us some strategies. Now, what I would be interested in, maybe for the next question, is name the number one strategy Yeah. for the New York Times to use. Period. Tell me a recommendation from Clayton Christensen, Ben Thompson, and Michael Porter. Give me an answer for each one that's no longer than one paragraph. Mhm. So, now we're going to get a one-sentence strategy. We're going to get a paragraph to summarize and we're going to get three different perspectives. Cool. So, what we should first do is you want to ask it to first have it write out the recommendations to the bigger ones and then have it summarize it in one. So, one thing I'm getting a lot from you is I'm asking too many things when I prompt GPT. I need to do one thing, one thing, one thing. of the ways to think about it is is So, yes, you want to you want to have it ask it like one focused thing if you can. And then also, in the same way that when I ask you a question, it can be easier for you to write out the answer before you like write out everything that you know about something before you compress it, GPT's going to be the same. So, what you want it to do is like have it do its thinking out loud with you and then compress that thinking into something that's like, "Here's my one recommendation." Interesting. So, you're doing expansion then contraction then contraction and you really want to expand before you contract. I've never thought of that before. It's sort of like uh when you do math problems, for example, if you write out all the steps in the math problem rather than doing it in your head, you'll have a more accurate answer. It's a sort of similar similar idea. Yeah. Cool. Tell me a recommendation um um e- from each each from Clayton Christensen, Ben Thompson, and Michael Porter, a strategy recommendation, right? Yep. Yeah, and then I would just say, "The question being, what is the one strategic move that we should make? Question mark." Yeah. Is the one strategic move that uh the NYT should make. There's something here where I'm not necessarily trying to get the answer from GPT. I'm trying to basically do is set up some sort of Socratic debate Yeah. where I can see what the different dimensions are, the different vectors that people could walk and then it's like Fitzgerald, right? The the mark of a first-rate mind is to hold opposing ideas in your head at the same time and still retain the ability to function. And that's what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to see there's this idea, there's this idea, there's this idea Yeah. and then make some sort of strategic decision from that. So, let's see what it says. that. So, would likely advise to invest in creating or acquiring lower-end, more accessible digital media products. Okay, so what this would be, the way that I see this. So, now See, I'm getting new ideas and this comes back to GPT isn't necessarily trying to do is give me the answer. Yeah. What I'm trying to do is have it give me prompts that then give me the answer. So, what I just got from this is what if the New York Times basically had a Barstool-style suite of independent creators? So, then they hit the low-end disruption cuz those are the people who would potentially disrupt them now they're under the New York Times. And this is actually like I I have to say, this is sort of the the strategy that the New York Times is pursuing. They've got the cooking app, they've got games, they've got Wordle, they bought The Athletic. So, they are definitely like moving out of the like traditional news news product into a larger New York Times media bundle that targets non-news consumers and is at a lower price point. Interesting. Yeah. There we go. Yeah. The New York Times should focus on becoming a superior aggregation platform that delivers unique value to both users and content creators. That's okay. What I would want is more specificity there. And I mean, I think what it's saying is like Ben Thompson would recommend that the New York Times become Facebook, which it never will never will be. Exactly. is one of those things where with ChatGPT, it's going to give you that obvious answer. Like, "Yeah, I guess Ben Thompson would say that cuz of aggregation theory, but also Ben Thompson would never say that cuz the New York Times could never become Facebook, you know?" It just wouldn't it's just not realistic. So, you have to like you have to filter what it's saying through your own logic and intelligence and know that some of the answers are going to be really great like it's it's answer about Clay Christensen and some of them are not going to be they're going to feel like too obvious or too simple simple-minded. And also we're seeing that what Clayton Christensen has written based on what GPT is pulling from is going to be more useful than what Ben Thompson has said. So then we'll get into Porter's five forces. Differentiation by leveraging its brand reputation for quality journalism and in-depth reporting. And investigative journalism, exclusive stories, expert analysis. And this would just have me scratching my head. So basically we're seeing two things here. The first is how do we target the low-end disruption? Yeah. And what are the potential competitors that can come from the low-end and this is what you were saying about the apps and what I was saying about the individual creators. And then the second thing here is now the New York Times has a seriously positive reputation. Yeah. And you know, they have that build big building on 40th and 8th in Manhattan. So they have a certain amount of access, a certain amount of capital that they can deploy to do things that independent creators can't do. And so we're now pulling from both different sides. And then we're basically putting together a strategy there. I wouldn't have gotten there without this help. And I I really think that this is this is totally right. Like that's their flywheel to some extent is they have the the the best reputation and the most money and so they can get the best writers. Mhm. Which attracts more readers, more subscriptions, all that kind of stuff. And so they can just sort of keep going that flywheel on the high end of reputation for news. And then on the low end they can acquire other media properties and other verticals like, you know, sports or games or whatever and then bundle them all together. And I I think that was actually a really coherent strategy and that's basically what they're doing. Yeah. Yeah. So do you want me to summarize it in one sentence and see how it does? Yeah, what I would say is give me a description of Clayton Christensen's recommendation in one sentence and Michael Porter's. So I want to get one sentence on both of them. Yeah. So we have invest in and develop accessible lower cost digital media products to attract a broader audience and preempt disruption from new market entrants. That's what Clayton Christensen is saying. And then Michael Porter's saying focus on differentiating the brand through high-quality exclusive journalism and operational efficiency to enhance competitive advantage. So what I would just say there is the high-quality exclusive and then the lower cost digital media products. Yeah. Yeah. I'd just be curious to know how much that aligns with what they're doing. it's very close. I think ChatGPT solved it. And that's the interesting thing about strategy. It's honestly similar to some of the stuff we we did with personality and understanding yourself is strategy is often pretty simple. It's just hard to do and it's hard to accept that that that should be your strategy. Same for accepting who you are. Like strategy is just who you are who you are for a company. And I think it's very good at distilling those simple sort of obvious things in a way that you're just seeing it in black and white for you and then you can't really ignore it. Right. Yeah. One of the things that is becoming clear here is where GPT is uniquely good. So if Clayton Christensen was still alive Yeah. and he was here and we could have the whole day to workshop strategy Yeah. with him we could end up with a better answer. Okay, fine. I'll concede that. I'll concede it, fine. But he's literally no longer alive. Yeah. And we did this in 10 minutes, 20 minutes, right? So what GPT is really good at is along three dimensions. Diversity, so we could basically have a room of Clayton Christensen and Ben Thompson and Michael Porter, all three of them. So we have a very diverse group of people. I mean we literally couldn't get all those people in the same room now. First thing. Second thing is the accessibility, right? This is $20 a month. So it's very cheap in order to do this. And then the third thing is speed. We did this super fast and it didn't take the whole day. So if you we do this with any other tool where we evaluate it along certain dimensions, right? You wouldn't try to get a butter knife to cut a steak. And I don't know if you've ever tried to get a steak knife to like put it in like the little jar with butter. Like it's ridiculous. But for whatever reason with GPT we really look at what it's designed for and I think diversity, accessibility and speed on those three vectors it's just fantastic. you're totally right and I think that that's part of the thing with how much we anthropomorphize it where and all the super intelligent stuff you're like, oh, it could do anything. And then you like try it and you're like, it's not doing it right or whatever. And it's like, no, this is a tool. It might feel human. It might feel like you can interact with it in the same way as a human being. But like it's good at certain things. It's it's bad at others. It's if you've ever hired people like humans are like that too. Like if you hire someone and you and you give them a job and they do it poorly like the first thought shouldn't be like, well, I'm going to just going to fire them. It's like, well, what are they actually good at? And did I like did I set them up for success here? And like maybe they're not a fit for the role or maybe there's something else or some other way that they should be working in this role that is good for them. And I think G- GPT is exactly the same. Yeah. Yeah. So I think this is great. We did the strategy stuff. I'd love to I know you also use ChatGPT for reading and specifically reading old books. Yeah. That's so it's so special to me cuz like I've been doing the same thing. Like I'll show you um I I started reading Moby Dick recently. Nice. And the the thing about reading a book like Moby Dick with ChatGPT is one, it's in the public domain. So ChatGPT has read Moby Dick already. Mhm. Um which which makes it a lot easier. Do you know exactly is it 100 years where the copyright becomes public domain? I think it's maybe 75, 70 or 100, something like that. Well, let's ask GPT. Let's ask GPT. When do books enter the public domain? The other nice thing about GPT is I just never correct my typos because it just it just knows what you're what you're doing. I don't care. Like you you can just type as quickly as you as you want and it knows, yeah. 70 years. 70 years. There we go. Nice. So so I so I found these like old chats that I that I was doing where you know, with with Moby Dick it's like it's it's a difficult book. So you take a photo of it. a photo on my phone and then I upload it and then I say, can you interpret the last the last paragraph? So like, you know, in this paragraph it's saying, by reason of these things then the whaling voyage was welcomed. The great floodgates of the wonderworld swung open and in the wild conceits that swayed me to my purpose two and two there floated into my inmost soul endless processions of the whale and midmost of them all one grand hooded phantom like a snow hill in the air. And I was just like, interpret the last paragraph. know what that is. Yeah, cuz I'm like, look, like that's there's so much good language there, right? But like I would literally need to be in an English class to like actually know what what's being said. of the wonderworld swung open. Exactly. And so it's saying like, you know, the last paragraph you shared reflects the narrator's deep inner conflict and yearning. Ishmael is expressing his irresistible draw toward the unknown and perilous the wild conceits that lead him to his purpose. Like after I read that it just like opened up the whole paragraph for me where I could match the the the underlying intuition I had that that paragraph was really important and the lyricism and the poeticism of it was so great with my actual understanding of what was being said and I didn't have to do it in the context of a class. I could just do it myself and I was literally on an airplane when I was doing this. And and that was like so powerful for me. It like made this book come alive. Mhm. And the other thing that really that really does it is go to reading comprehension tutoring when I was a kid. It was brutal. So I just couldn't understand Mhm. books well at all. So my entire middle school I was in reading comprehension tutoring and this is basically what I would do is I would have to interpret paragraphs and I was I just couldn't do it. I couldn't do it. So for me going from I still struggle with it a bit. Like I'm not very good at understanding stories and now going from kid who can't do it to tech-enabled adult who can do it actually better than even some of the best people in the world at looking at stories is huge huge level up for me. That's really funny cuz like I had the exact same thing. Like I was very slow to read and my parents were very concerned that like maybe like I you know, I I wouldn't be able to read or whatever. And so they sent me in like elementary school to this like what they called reading camp but like really it was just after school I would go to this place and they would just like drill me on like words and like flash cards and and all that stuff to like get me up to this up to the point of being able to read and to catch up with my classmates. And it turned out like I was just sort of slow but like once the light turned on I just like zoomed ahead and I was like you know, reading at like a seventh grade level in like third grade or whatever. And um and I think that that's where all of this sort of comes from to some degree is like as a as a kid like I just had to focus so relentlessly on it that like it became a strength. Yep. Yeah. So one one last thing that I want to share and then I I really want to I want to talk talk you through how you read with it. But one of the things that I think is really interesting about reading with ChatGPT is it can make the books come alive not just through language but through pictures. So it had Moby Dick has all these scenes where it's um you know, he he's in a he's in an old inn and there's like, you know, uh there's whale bones everywhere or whatever. And so what I did is I took a picture of some of those scenes and I said, can you turn this into a prompt that I can feed into Dolly to visualize it? And it was a scene from a book where he's he's in a bar. And um so we we got this prompt depicted dimly lit antique barroom inside the Spouter Inn from the 19th century with vast arched whale's head over the bar, all that kind of stuff, which is like it's taking the text from the book and it's just like re-summarizing in its own way. And then I just threw it back into Dolly. And then it like gave me this image which is like it's so like evocative. I'm like I'm there, you know, it like makes the book like feel like this different reading experience that's way more engaging and I just love that. Wow. That's really cool. Yeah. And just make that for you. Yeah. Dimly lit antique bar. That's impressive. Isn't it cool? And literally all I did was I didn't there was no prompting. I just took a picture and I was like turn this into a prompt. And that's one of the really powerful things I think about the fact that ChatGPT is bundled with DALL-E because you're not prompting DALL-E directly necessarily. It It can create a prompt for you from your raw material and then throw that into DALL-E and that prompt it creates is probably going to be better than the prompt you might create on your own. Totally. Yeah, the the language here is so specific. Yeah, to your point about reading with GPT one of the things that I really don't like about the internet is that it's pulled us into this never-ending now. And what I mean by that is if you look at the way the internet is designed, it's all based off a recency bias. So you open up our social media feeds and basically everything was created in the last 24 to 48 hours. Same thing with Instagram stories, Snapchat stories, even if you do a Google search, the news is very much has a recency bias. And I think that this is terrible, just terrible because you want to read exactly the opposite way for the most part. I mean, sure, sometimes it's helpful to know what's going on, but like being informed has become way too much of a virtue that we're trying to strive for. And you always have to ask if you're striving for one virtue, what is the thing that you're giving up? And the thing that we're giving up is wisdom. And the way that mother wisdom shows her head is through time, through father time. So mother wisdom and father time work together. And father time basically filters information and what ends up at the bottom of the filter is mother wisdom. And so what you want to do if you're going for wisdom is you want to read old things, things like Moby Dick, people like Nietzsche, things that have stood the test of time and it's exactly the opposite of what the internet has done. Yeah. So what I think that we should be doing is when we read with GPT first of all, what GPT does is it doesn't have the same recency bias. You can literally in your custom instruction say, I don't want anything before 1970. I don't want anything. Okay, so you get out of it there. And also where GPT is really good to your point earlier about things being in the public domain is these old books. Because not only can GPT read the book, but also there's a whole consortium of scholars who have done work on books like Moby Dick. So one of the things I could we could say to this is give me three different perspectives and you just go on Amazon for 5 minutes, we say, okay, who are the three great scholars of Moby Dick and then you can see what their disagreements are. So not only can you get an interpretation, you can see the disagreements in interpretation to see where the fault lines of discussion are. And decide what you think. Decide what you think. And now you're a layer deep into the text. So what I love about GPT is what it should be doing at a societal level is getting us to read more old books, which we should be doing. Yeah, I love that. And yeah, and read read old books, get them to come alive and help the help us to understand them. And I think that I think that's really great. I know you said you wanted to talk through an old an old book in particular. Do you want to do you want to do that? Yeah, so I want to talk through the Bible. So would you mind getting up just prompting GPT, open up a new chat? So I do a Bible study every day and I've just fallen in love with the etymology of words and particularly in the New Testament looking at the Greek. Greek is a very So what's cool about the Bible is Hebrew is a right-brained, much more intuitive language. Greek is a left-brained, much more analytical and logical language. And so the languages themselves almost form two the two halves of the cognitive structure in the two brain hemispheres, which is beautiful to think that these two books are are are are God's word. There's something to that. So there is I think it's Acts 3. Well, you here, let's just do this. Where in the book of Acts does the word archegos show up? A R C H E G O S? Yep. I think it's Acts 3 and Acts 5 and then I think it's in Hebrews 2, Hebrews 12, but I'm not exactly sure. Acts 3. I think it's also Acts 5. Yeah. There you go. So then let's say give me the translations of the two Acts quotes in the ESV translation, the NIV the KJV and NASB. N A S B. See if it does it. So what it should do is it should give us different translations. Okay, let's see. Hm. So give give us some context here while while it's writing this out. So let's start with Acts 3:15. Okay, so the book of Acts is So you have the four Gospels and the Gospels are written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. And Luke wrote two letters and they were letters to a guy named Theophilus and the first letter is the book of Luke and then the second letter is the book of Acts. And Acts is about the story of the early church. It's basically a history book. And Luke is particularly interesting because he was a physician and physicians then, as with now, they're very precise about their details. So what we're getting here is through Luke in the book of Acts, we are seeing the different ways that Luke's Greek writing is translated into English. So the ESV and the NIV are more modern, slightly more accessible versions. Now, they're not as accessible as something like The Message, which really twists the words so that it can be easily understood. Actually, not necessarily in a negative way so long as you know what is happening. Whereas the NASB is the one that I really like to read and it's the most faithful to the original text. So it seems like it can't find the NASB, so maybe we should just find it ourselves. Cool. Um but let's see. Yeah, well, actually we can just look at this right here. Okay, cool. So this doesn't give doesn't give the the specific translations except for the first one. So why don't we just say show me how the Acts Acts 3:15 is translated in the English Standard Version the New International Version and the King James Version. Great. So what we're going to see is the English Standard Version and the New International Version is going to use the word author. And the King James Version is going to use the word prince. Okay. Interesting. So what I do when I read is I try to look for discrepancies. What are the discrepancies and what do they reveal? Here we go. You and you killed the author of life whom God raised from the dead. You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. And you killed the prince of life whom God hath raised from the dead, whereof we are witnesses. Okay. Yeah. Author, prince. How could author and prince be the same word? An author is someone who sits in a room and writes. A prince is somebody who leads. Yeah. So now we ask, okay, what's going on there? What is the original Greek word for the word author and prince? And it's going to give us the word archegos. Nice. Okay. So now we have an insight. Okay? The word archegos means author, leader, prince or pioneer. Those are totally separate things in English. They're totally the same thing in Greek. Okay? So now we are seeing something through the Greek that the English doesn't reveal. That Jesus is the author, leader, prince and pioneer. He is the writer. Type in John 1:1. And what is he there? He is the the the text is going to say in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God. So Jesus is the word and he is like this author of life. There we go. Then from that he becomes a leader, a leader of this new movement and he's almost this like prince, right? He like Jesus reigns, he's the king, he's the prince and he's this pioneer of a whole new way of living. Yeah. So then you're like, okay, we can ask, what are some examples of an archegos in the modern world? Hm, that's really interesting. And I think you have a few examples. You have someone like Jeff Bezos. Jeff Bezos is an author. He's effectively a prince. He's definitely a leader and he's wholeheartedly a pioneer. There you go. It went right for Elon Musk and Steve Jobs. Okay. Now, apply this to ask it about the American founding fathers. Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, this is what they did. You don't just think of them as these people who were founding America. What did they do? They wrote the Federalist Papers. They wrote the Constitution. They were these authors. So, you start with being the author, then you go into being the founder, from being the Satoshi, right? He becomes the author, then he founds the thing, pioneers the new thing, becomes the prince. And you see the same thing with George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, right? So, type that in. And now what you can basically see is for me in my work running Write of Passage, I can now make an argument for writing that is rooted in this Greek word that the Greek has revealed to me that all these things that I thought were totally different are actually one in the same. And that then is why you should write. And I can only get there by following the etymology of these words, and GPT is really useful cuz I can see the different translations, look at the discrepancies, and get my answer. That's really beautiful. I think in particular why it resonates with me is there's always this tension between being a writer and doing things in the world. Exactly. And I think one of the reasons why it was hard for me to admit that I wanted to be a writer is because there is this part of me that like wants to run businesses and wants to do things. And like I have all these ideas and I want to like make an impact in the world. And it was hard to reconcile that with the the writer part of me. And also I think there's a lot of social pressure to like not follow the writer thing and do the do this other thing in the world. And this is like a really beautiful embodiment of the path from writing to like changing the world. It it it's not the path, it's the same thing. It's the same thing. What you were seeing as two separate things, the Greek is showing you that they're linked together. That through authorship, you then get world change. And if that is your tack, you now through this Greek word of archegos, you have a pin that synthesizes all of these seemingly conflicting desires and is showing you. And so then what you can do is then we can write, "What are examples of archegos in ancient Greek literature?" And we might get something from Homer, we might get something from somebody else. And you can actually get different archetypes of them. And you can say, "I resonate with that one. I resonate with this one." And almost by going back in history and diving into the mythology, there's something that's concrete and real about that. You have a whole tapestry of stories that you can draw from. I love that. I think that's I think that's really great. Yeah, thanks for sharing that. I mean like that really touched me. It's such a deep thing for me to figure out how to be a writer and to do things in the world. And I feel like that's such a It's It's just been my sort of like quest to like admit admit that to myself that that's what I want. And we have this thing that we say at Every that's um that's basically the stories we tell become the businesses we build. And that's been a thing that I have come to myself without without this word for it, which is that uh you know, Elon Musk doesn't become Elon Musk without Isaac Asimov. And I think people really underestimate the degree to which stories motivate and inspire to do things in the world. So, even if you're not the one going in going in building the business yourself, like telling the stories that you want to tell about what to build and why is going to change what gets built. And I think archegos is a really clean way to express that how that works. So, I really appreciate you sharing that. I love that word. I I I I feel the same thing. There's something that's so It's galvanizing. You know, you hear the author becomes the founder who becomes the pioneer who becomes the prince. Let's go. And the Greek gets it. And we don't have that in English. Right. Right. Right. Totally. So, I want to talk I want to talk more about the writing stuff. So, like you know, I think like obviously the reading old books is like it's like the first step. It's like doing that that taxonomy, doing that like deep engagement lets you swim in these ideas that like light you up. But then you're kind of like, well, I got to go do something with that. I want to like reflect that in my own through my own prism into the into the world through the work that I do. And one of the ways that you do that best is through writing. And I'm super curious to hear about like how you have used ChatGPT in your own writing process. Yeah, so there's a few things. So, one of the big ways that I think about my own efficiency gain is I don't really like typing very much. I love talking. So, one of the best things that GPT can help me with is if I can just talk through something and I'll do it with when I'm giving feedback. I'll do it when I'm thinking through an idea. I'll talk through an idea and then I'll ask GPT to summarize it. What is the main point that I'm trying to make? What are the core bullet points? And I talk through ideas and then I get GPT to help me structure and synthesize that. Yeah. I love that. I have I have I have that too. Like I'll often just go on a walk and then just like blab, like just free associate. And then I'm like, "What was interesting about this?" And I'll just like make an outline and I'll just pull out those like little little things that I can use to like you know, write a piece or whatever. I think it's also really great for um I don't know if you have this, but I'm sure you do. But like sometimes when I write a piece, it's something I've been thinking about for so long and I have a one big note that just like it's a giant list of like all the ideas and quotes and whatever. And I'm just like, "Where do I even start?" And it's really good to just like paste it into ChatGPT and be like, "Make an outline." Um and the outline's going to be like mostly wrong. But what it's really good at is I think when you've been noodling on idea for so long and you're like, "This is so special." It's like you know, your essay on Peter Thiel. It's like you have something that really big that you want to say, you can often forget that there's like a couple of really basic forms that an essay takes and that the form is probably staring you staring you right in the face because you're like, "Well, this is my special thing. It'll probably be a different basic structure." But it's like, "No, a lot of times it's like thesis, like problem, and then solution or something like that, you know?" And ChatGPT is really great at taking your long complicated thing and being like, "Okay, just talk about the problem at the top and then talk about your solution right afterwards." And you're like, "Oh yeah, that's right." Well, there's a deep psychological point here that we've been that's been a thread through this entire conversation. Humans aren't very good at creating things from scratch compared to responding to things that already exist. So, if you ask somebody, "Hey, what do you want your living room to look like?" And you're a designer. I don't know. I don't know. But if you take that same person and you show them a bunch of furniture, they can tell you what it is that they like and don't like. Exactly. So, the point of that exercise is not to have the perfect living room. It is to create objects that are concrete that then you can start rearranging and moving around. And just when you go from nothing to something with which GPT is really good at, now you're responding and you can start shaping marble that already exists rather than having to go out and find the marble in the first place. This is this is the thing that I think is so critical is I think people listen to you talk and they're and you can you're so articulate and succinct about like what you like and why. And I think there's like a thing and it's like, "Well, I don't know if I could ever do that." And he's got such great taste. And I think there's this thing that's like it's something that you develop by trying. And everyone has everyone, whether you know why or not, you have things that you like and dislike. And you've gone undergone this practice of like feeling what you like and don't like and then trying to think about it and put words to it. And once you have words to it, you can refine and narrow. And And there's there's so much power there for like creating new things. And I think that's the that's the thing that we keep coming back to about why it's so valuable that ChatGPT can name those things because it can take you from the thing you already know, which is already inside you and is intuitive about what you like, and it can reflect it back to you in words that you can then use to narrow and refine. And that's incredibly powerful as a creative tool. Mhm. Yeah. Yeah, you could almost say that Alfred Whitehead has a line where he says, "Civilization expands by the number of functions we can perform without having to consciously think about them." Great line. Yeah. There's something similar when you're doing creative work is that your ability to lead a creative team expands by how many things that you've made concrete that were initially only obvious to you through feelings. And if you can take feelings and put them into words, there's always lossiness in a translation. There's all there there always is. It's the same way that if you're converting energy from one unit to another, there is a something that gets removed. It's never perfectly efficient. That's not what we're going for. But if you can take, say that you have a hundred units of intuition and go from being able to describe eight of them to 74 of them, you'll be dramatically more productive. And that's what GPT is really good for is going from I can't express this to I can and then telling other people about that. And then get this, now that you have it in words that are concrete, they can cross-reference ideas with the words that you've given them. And now through GPT, you've basically outsourced you as a sparring partner. So, then they can deliver you something that's of a much higher quality. cuz they can be like, "Is this I know I know, you know, David likes things that are um that are that are older and aren't like in the in the never-ending now. And I know that he likes things that are precise and clear and and evocative. And it's like, "Is this that?" you know, as opposed to like trying to just simulate you in your in their head without having the words. Right, exactly. So, for example, I really like Rococo. I really like Rococo design and I really like sort of French interior design and like 18th and 19th century. And then I also like decorative arts that are a little bit more masculine in their style. Okay, so now I can take those three things and I can because it's concrete, we can say, "Okay." And then then I might like the the colors and styles of Persian rugs. And now we just have four things and GPT can easily pull from that to help us find the shape of what we're going for. And now, like you said with the DALL-E integration, now we can get images and words in our output. Yeah, I love that. So, basically what we're finding is that the returns to making your thinking legible and clear have skyrocketed with this technology. 100% and it is it is a a tool for making your thinking legible and clear and then getting a return on that investment. Yeah, 100%. So, one of the things I love most about your writing is I think you've mastered the art of the anecdote. Like you're really good at like finding a little anecdote that like really hits and like really gets you right at the top of the piece to be like, "Okay, I want to like lean in and and understand this." And and I'd noticed that cuz I feel like I'm terrible at anecdotes. Really? Um like I always like I I feel like I should have this like library of stories that I can use to like elucidate my examples or whatever and I've just I I've never really had it, but I've started to use ChatGPT for it and I'm like it's it's it pretty helpful for it and I know that that's something that you do and I just really love to for you to talk through like how you find those anecdotes and how you use ChatGPT to do that. Okay. I'm going to need your help with GPT. Please. So, what we're going to do is we're going to write a piece on how New York City, just by virtue of living here, Mhm. allows you to have better taste. Mhm. I love that. Okay. Great. So, what we're going to do is we're going to say, "What buildings in New York are the most beautiful and distinctive?" Question mark. Give me a series of buildings built between 1910 and 1933. And why are you asking that? Cuz I want to find an anecdote. Okay. I want to find an anecdote. you start there? So, what I'm looking for is I want to do something specific and then hopefully it'll give me a building that I've been to. And now the way that memory works is memory is basically layered and sort of behind doors. So, what we do is we outsource our memory to little checkpoints that we find. And the way that I know this to be true, I'm not a psychologist, is when you go back to your childhood home and you're back in your childhood home, how many things do you think of that you hadn't thought of in a decade that all of a sudden become clear? That's because those memories are stored in space. How do the world's memory champions think of their ideas? They associate them with spaces and then they walk through the house, right? Moonwalking with Einstein. He's going through and he's walking through the house and then when he sees that space, he thinks of a new memory. So, you're using this basically to like prime your contextual memory to like surface something that might be interesting. So, like yeah, let's read through through this. Like what are you seeing and what's it what's it making you think of? So, we have the Woolworth Building. Here we go. So, now I just had an anecdote that showed up in the very first example and we're going to change what it is that we're writing about, okay? So, many years ago I walked into the Woolworth Building and I had a meeting. I was in college and there was a guy who was big on Twitter who I was very intimidated to meet with and he was working there and we were talking about hiring and he had a great line. He said, "Hiring and dating is a max function." So, here's what that means. It means that certain things what you're trying to do. So, for example, if you're designing furniture in a room, it's not a max function cuz you need a bunch of different things that need to sort of play together and stuff like that. Whereas if you're just working on hiring one person, you could have 99 total duds, but it doesn't matter as long as the one person who you're trying to find is good. You only marry one person. You only hire one person to be the new CEO for your company, right? And I remember that conversation so vividly and the Woolworth Building basically prompted that and I could start that with an anecdote and I could basically say there's certain parts about the world where that averages really matter. So, ask what is the opposite of a max function. I don't actually know. A min function. It maybe. Well, there's probably max min and then there's probably like a distributed one. So, there's some functions where all that matters is how good your top value is and then there's other things where how many things you have are really useful. And what I would just say is now we've just set up a piece that basically present two different ways of walking through the world and two basically fields that you can play in. Certain things are about maximums and minimums. Certain things are about the broad swath. So, now you asked about an anecdote. We went into GPT, we found the anecdote. I was this college kid, I was nervous, I was an intern. I didn't actually know what this meant. And now we can basically write a short piece to say whenever you enter a working arrangement, whenever you enter a project, you can ask, "Is it the max function or is it this other thing that we're setting up?" And then we just given someone a worldview off the top of our head. This is I think that's really really amazing and it's like and one thing that I I want people to notice is that we went in thinking we were going to write an article about New York City and taste and we came out with this max min thing or max and average thing and that's just how the creative process works. Like that is not a mistake. The mistakes are the things that work that that that turn into things that are interesting and what what you did is you had a little thing where you're like, "I'm little I'm inspired about New York. Like I want to I want to I want to think about New York stuff." You threw it into ChatGPT, it like reminded you of this other story and you just like followed that thread instead of being like, "Oh no, this is not on topic. Like I should filter that out." You're like, "No, no, no, this is really interesting." And I think that's A, that's what ChatGPT is really good at is sort of pushing your brain in new into new areas that you wouldn't have thought of. And one of the things that you're good at and all creators have to get good at is allowing that to happen without filtering it out and being like, "That's not on topic." It's just following the spark. Mhm. And I think you just did that live and that was really cool. Yeah. Yeah. Well, Well, I have this idea called writing from conversation and that's what GPT allows us to do. So, the way that I think about writing is I'm going to have a bunch of conversations with friends, with co-workers, with mentors and through those conversations I always think of conversations are an algorithm for randomness. So, the way that the mind works is it gets caught in these grooves. It gets caught in these cycles. Yeah. What a conversation can do is it pulls you out of those, right? John O'Donohue has a line where he says, "When was the last time that you had a great conversation? A conversation that wasn't just two intersecting monologues, but a conversation effectively what he's saying is where two people are in new territory. They're actually ascending onto a new plane finding things inside of them that they never knew that they knew." And then he ends it and he says, "Conversations like that are food and drink for the soul." Right. And until the development of this technology, you could only do that with another human being and now you can do that with an extremely smart computer. I love that. I think you're I think you're totally spot on and I think that's that's a wonderful place place to end it. Um this is a this is an incredible conversation. I learned a lot. I felt touched honestly that we got to do this together. So, thanks for doing it. Thanks for hosting me, man. Yeah. See you soon.