Nadia Asparouhova — Tech elites, democracy, open source, & philanthropy

1. 0:00 – 0:26

   Intro

   1. NANadia Asparouhova0:00

      You start with this idea that, like, democracy is great and, like, we should have tons and tons of people participating, tons of people to participate, and then it turns out that, like, most participation is actually just noise and not that useful. That really squarely puts SBF in sort of like the finance crowd, much more so than, um, startups or, or crypto. Founders will always talk about, like, building and, like, startups is, like, so important or whatever and, like, what are all of them doing in their spare time? They're, like, reading books. They're reading essays and, like, and then those, like, books and essays influence how they think about stuff.

2. 0:26 – 9:38

   SBF was Davos elite

   1. NANadia Asparouhova0:26

   2. DPDwarkesh Patel0:26

      Okay. Today, I have the pleasure of talking with Nadia Asparova. She is previously the author of Working in Public: The Making and Maintenance of Open Source Software, and she is currently researching what the new tech elite will look like. Nadia, welcome to the podcast.

   3. NANadia Asparouhova0:45

      Thanks for having me.

   4. DPDwarkesh Patel0:46

      Yeah. Okay, so this is, uh, perfect timing obviously, given what's been happening with SBF. How much do you think SBF was motivated by effective altruism? Wh- where do you place him in the whole dimensionality of idea machines and motivations?

   5. NANadia Asparouhova1:03

      Yeah. I mean, I know there's sort of, like, conflicting accounts going around. Um, like, I mean, just from my sort of, like, charact- character study or looking at SBF, it seems pretty clear to me that he is sort of inextricably tied to the concepts of utilitarianism that then motivate effective altruism. Um, the difference for me in sort of, like, where I characterize effective altruism is I think it's much closer to sort of, like, finance Wall Street elite mindset than it is to startup mindset, even though a lot of people associate effective altruism with tech people. Um, so yeah. To me, like, that really squarely puts SBF in sort of like the finance crowd, much more so than, um, startups or - or crypto and I think that's something that gets really misunderstood about him.

   6. DPDwarkesh Patel1:45

      Interesting. Uh, yeah, I - I find that interesting because if you think of Jeff Bezos when he started Amazon, he wasn't somebody like John Perry Barlow who was just motivated by the free philosophy of the internet. You know, he saw a graph of internet usage going up and to the right and he's like, "I should build a business on top of this." And in a sort of loopholey way tried to figure out, like, what is a thing that is, uh, that is the first thing you would want to put a SQL database on top of to, uh, ship and produce and books was the answer so... And obviously he also came from a hedge fund, right? Would you place somebody like him also in the old finance crowd rather than as a startup founder?

   7. NANadia Asparouhova2:22

      Yeah, he's kind of a weird one because he's both associated with the early complete- computing revolution but then also AWS was sort of like what kicked off all the 2010s sort of startup boom.

   8. DPDwarkesh Patel2:31

      Yeah.

   9. NANadia Asparouhova2:32

      Um, and I think in the way that he's started to thinking about his public legacy and just from sort of his public behavior, I think he fits much more squarely now in that sort of tech startup elite mindset of the 2010s crowd more so than the Davos elite crowd of the - the 2000s.

   10. DPDwarkesh Patel2:47

       Hmm. Oh, w- what - what in specific are you referring to?

   11. NANadia Asparouhova2:50

       Uh, well he's come out and been, like, sort of openly critical about a lot of, uh, uh, like, Davos type institutions. Um, he kind of pokes fun at, uh, mainstream media and for not believing in him, not believing in AWS, um, and I think he's... Because he sort of, like, spans across, like, both of these generations, he's been able to see the - the evolution of - of, like, how, um, maybe like his earlier peers function versus the sort of second cohort of peers that he came across. Um, but to me, he seems much more, like, uh, uh, much - m- much more of the sort of like startup elite mindset, um, and I can kind of back up a little bit there but, uh, the... What I associate with the Davos Wall Street kind of crowd is much more this focus on, um, quantitative thinking, measuring efficiency, um, and then also this, like, globalist mindset. Like, I think the-

   12. DPDwarkesh Patel3:40

       Mm.

   13. NANadia Asparouhova3:40

       ... the - the vision that they want to ensure for the - for the world is this idea of, like, a very interconnected world where we, um, you know, sort of like the - the United Nations kind of mindset and that is really, like, literally what the Davos gathering is. Um, whereas Bezos from his actions today feels much closer to the startup, um, like Y Combinator post-AWS kind of mindset of, um, founders that were... really made their money by taking these non-obvious bets on talented people.

   14. DPDwarkesh Patel4:08

       Mm-hmm.

   15. NANadia Asparouhova4:08

       So they were le- much less focused on credentialism, um, they were much more into this idea of meritocracy. Um, I think we sort of, uh, forget th- like, how commonplace this trope is of, like, you know, the young founder in a - in a dorm room, um, and that was really popularized by the 2010s cohort of the startup elite of being someone that may have, like, absolutely no skills, no background in industry, uh, but can somehow sort of like turn the entire industry over on its head and I think that was sort of like the unique insight of the tech startup crowd. Um, and yeah, when I think about just sort of like some of the things that Bezos is doing now, it feels like he's - he identifies with that much more strongly of, um, being the sort of like lone cowboy or having this like one - one talented person with really great ideas-

   16. DPDwarkesh Patel4:50

       Mm-hmm.

   17. NANadia Asparouhova4:51

       ... who can sort of change the world. Um, I think about the, uh, what is it called? The Al- Altos Institute or, um, the new, like, science initiative that he put out where he was recruiting, um, these, like, scientists from academic institutions and paying them really high salaries just to attract, like, the very best top scientists from around the world. That's much more of that kind of mindset than it is, um, th- than it is about, like, putting faith in sort of like existing institutions which is what we would see from more of like a Davos kind of mindset.

   18. DPDwarkesh Patel5:17

       Interesting. Do you think that, uh, in the future, like, the kids of today's tech billionaires will be future aristocrats? So effective altruism will be a sort of elite aristocratic philosophy? They'll be like tomorrow's Rockefellers?

   19. NANadia Asparouhova5:31

       Yeah, I kind of worry about that actually. Um, I think of there as being, like, within the US, um, we were kind of lucky in that we have these two different types of elites; we have the aristocratic elites and we have meritocratic elites. Uh, most other countries I think basically just have aristocratic elites especially comparing like the US to - to Britain in this way. Um, and so in - in the ar- aristocratic model, your wealth and your power is sort of like conferred to you by previous generations. You just kind of like inherit it from your parents or your family or whomever. Um, and the upside of that, if there is an upside, um-... and so you get really socialized into this idea of what does it mean to be a public steward, what does it mean to think of yourself, um, in, like, your responsibility to the rest of society as a sort of, like, privileged elite person. Um, in the US, we have this really great thing where you can kind of just, you know, we have the American dream, right? So, um, lots of people that didn't grow up with money can break into the elite ranks by, um, by doing something that makes them really successful. And, uh, and that's, like, a really special thing about the US, so we have this whole class of, like, meritocratic elites who may not have aristocratic backgrounds but ended up doing something within their lifetimes that made them successful. Um, and so yeah, I think it's a really cool thing, the downside of that being that you don't really get, like, socialized into what does it mean to, like, have this fortune and do something interesting with your money. Um, you don't have the sort of, like, generational benefit of, um, uh, that, that the aristocratic elites have of sort of, um, presiding over your land or whatever you wanna call it where you're sort of, like, learning how to, um, think about yourself in relation to the rest of society. And so it's much easier to just kind of, like, hoard your wealth or whatever. Um, and so when you, when you think about sort of, like, what are the next generations, uh, the children of the meritocratic elites gonna look like or what are they gonna do, it's very easy to imagine them kind of just becoming aristocratic elites, um, in the sense of, like, yeah, they're just gonna, like, inherit their, the money from their families and, uh, and, and they, they haven't also really been socialized into, like, how to think about their role in society. And so, um, yeah, all the mer- meritocratic elites eventually turn into aristocratic elites, which is where I think you start seeing this trend now towards people wanting to sort of, like, spend down their fortunes within their lifetime or within-

   20. DPDwarkesh Patel7:35

       Mm-hmm.

   21. NANadia Asparouhova7:36

       ... um, a set number of decades after they die because they kind of see what happened in previous generations and they're like-

   22. DPDwarkesh Patel7:40

       Yeah.

   23. NANadia Asparouhova7:40

       ... "Oh, I don't, I don't wanna do that." (laughs)

   24. DPDwarkesh Patel7:42

       Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, it's interesting, uh, you mentioned that the aristocratic elites have, feel they have the responsibility to give back, I guess, moreso than the meritoric- meritocratic elites, but, uh, I- I believe that in the US, uh, the amount of people who give to philanthropy and the total amount they give is higher than in Europe, right, where they probably have a higher ratio of aristocratic elites.

   25. NANadia Asparouhova8:03

       Yeah.

   26. DPDwarkesh Patel8:03

       Uh, wouldn't you expect the opposite if the aristocratic elites are the ones that are, you know, inculcated to give back?

   27. NANadia Asparouhova8:10

       Uh, well, I assume, like, most of the people that are, um, the- the figures about sort of, like, Americans giving back is spread across, like, all Americans not just the wealthiest.

   28. DPDwarkesh Patel8:19

       Yeah. Yeah. So you- you would predict that among the- the top 10% of Americans, there's less philanthropy than the top 10% of Europeans?

   29. NANadia Asparouhova8:30

       Uh, uh, there's... Sorry, I'm not sure I understand the question.

   30. DPDwarkesh Patel8:37

       At- at the el- do, uh, I guess does the ratio of meritocratic-
3. 9:38 – 16:30

   Gender sociology of philanthropy

   1. NANadia Asparouhova9:38

      about the US.

   2. DPDwarkesh Patel9:39

      So there's this common pattern in philanthropy where, uh, a- a guy will ma- become a billionaire and then his wife will be heavily involved with or even potentially in charge of, you know, their- the family's philanthropic efforts, and there's many examples of this, right? Like Bill and Melinda Gates, um, uh, you know, Mark Zuckerberg and-

   3. NANadia Asparouhova10:01

      Moscovitz.

   4. DPDwarkesh Patel10:01

      Yeah, yeah, yeah. Exactly, and Dustin Moscovitz and, um, um-

   5. NANadia Asparouhova10:04

      Regina.

   6. DPDwarkesh Patel10:04

      Uh, uh, yeah, yeah. So it- what is the consequence of this? How is phil- philanthropy, the causes and the foundations, how are they different because of this pattern?

   7. NANadia Asparouhova10:16

      Well, I mean, I feel like we see that pattern... Like, the problem's that ph- what- what even is philanthropy is changing very quickly, so we can say historically that... Not even historically, it's in- in recent history, in recent decades that has probably been true that wasn't true in, say, like, um, late 1800s, early 1900s. It was, you know, Carnegie and Rockefeller were the ones that were actually doing their own philanthropy-

   8. DPDwarkesh Patel10:41

      Mm-hmm.

   9. NANadia Asparouhova10:42

      ... not their spouses. Um, so I'd say it's a more recent trend. Um, but now I think we're also seeing this thing where, like, a lot of wealthy people are not necessarily, um, doing their philanthropic activities through foundations anymore, um, and that's true both within, like, traditional philanthropy sector and sort of, like, the looser definition of what we might consider to be philanthropy depending on how you define it (laughs) , um, which I kind of more broadly want to define as, like, the actions of elites that- that are sort of-

   10. DPDwarkesh Patel11:10

       Mm-hmm.

   11. NANadia Asparouhova11:10

       ... like, you know, public-facing activities. Um, but, like, even within sort of traditional philanthropy circles, we have, like, you know, the 501 (c) (3) nonprofit which is, you know, traditionally how people, uh, you know, house all their money in a foundation and then they do their philanthropic activities outta that. But in more recent years, we've seen this trend towards, um, like, LLCs, um, so Emerson Collective I think might have been maybe the first one to do it, um, that was Steve Jobs' philanthropic foundation, uh, and then, um, Mark Zuckerberg with Chan Zuckerberg Initiative also used an LLC and then since then a lot of other, um, especially within sort of like tech wealth we've seen that move towards people using LLCs instead of 501 (c) (3) 's because they, um, it just gives you a lot more flexibility in the kinds of things you can fund. You don't just have to fund other nonprofits. Um, and then you also see, um, donor-advised funds, so DAFs, which are sort of this, like, hacky workaround to foundations as well. So-... I, I guess point being that, like, this sort of mental model of, like, you know, one person makes a ton of money and then their spouse kind of directs these, like, nice, feel-good, like, philanthropy activities, I think is like, may not be the model that we continue to move forward on. And I'm kind of hopeful or curious to see, um, like, what does, uh, a return to, like, because we've had so many new people making a ton of money in the last 10 years or so, we might see this return to sort of like the Gilded Age style of philanthropy where people are not necessarily just, like, forming a philanthropic foundation and looking for the nicest causes to fund, but are actually just, like, thinking a little bit more holistically about, like, "How do I help build and create, like, a movement around a thing that I really care about? Um, how do I think more broadly around, like, funding companies and non-profits and individuals and, like, doing lots of different, different-"

   12. DPDwarkesh Patel12:49

       Mm.

   13. NANadia Asparouhova12:49

       "... kinds of activities?" Because I think, like, the broader goal that, like, motivates at least, um, like, the new sort of elite classes to want to do any of this stuff at all, like, I don't really think philanthropy is about altruism. I just, I think, like, the term philanthropy is just totally fraught and, like, refers to too many different things and it's not very helpful. Um, but I think, like, the part that I'm interested in at least is sort of, like, what motivates elites to go from just sort of like making a lot of money and then, like, thinking about themselves, to them thinking about sort of like their place in broader public society. And I think that starts with thinking about, "How do I control, uh, like, media, academia, government," are sort of like the three, like, arms of the public sector. Um, and when you think of it in that way a little bit more broadly where it's, it's really much more about sort of, like, maintaining control over your own power, um, more so than sort of like this, like, altruistic kind of, you know, whitewashed-

   14. DPDwarkesh Patel13:41

       Yeah, yeah, yeah.

   15. NANadia Asparouhova13:42

       ... philanthropy, (laughs) uh-

   16. DPDwarkesh Patel13:43

       Yeah, yeah.

   17. NANadia Asparouhova13:43

       ... then it, then it, it becomes like, you know, there's so many other, like, creative ways to think about, um, like, how that might happen.

   18. DPDwarkesh Patel13:49

       Um, that's, that's, that's really interesting. That's a, yeah, that's a really interesting way of thinking about what it is you're doing with philanthropy. Um, isn't the word noble descended from a word that basically means to give alms to, uh, people? Like, if you're in charge of them, you would give alms to them and in a way, I mean, uh, it might have been another word I'm thinking of, but, um, in, in a way, yeah, part of what motivates altruism, not obviously all of it, but part of it, is that, uh, yeah, you, you influence and, uh, power, not even in a necessarily negative connotation, but, uh, that's definitely what motivates altruism. So having-

   19. NANadia Asparouhova14:25

       Yeah.

   20. DPDwarkesh Patel14:25

       ... that put square front and center is refreshing and honest, actually.

   21. NANadia Asparouhova14:29

       Yeah, I don't, I really don't see it as, like, a negative thing at all and I think most of the, like, you know, writing and journalism and, and acting and, um, that focuses on philanthropy tends to be very wealth-critical. I'm not at all, like, I personally don't feel wealth-critical at all. Um, uh, and I, I think, like, again, sort of returning to this, like, mental model of, like, aristocratic and, and meritocratic elites, aristocratic elites are able to sort of like pass down, like, encode what they're supposed to be doing in each generation because they have this kind of like familial ties. And I think, like, on the meritocratic side, like, if you didn't have any sort of language around altruism or public stewardship, then, like, it's, like, you, you need to kind of create that narrative for the meritocratic elite or else, you know, there, there's just, like, nothing to, to hold onto. So I think, like, it makes sense to talk in those terms, um-

   22. DPDwarkesh Patel15:18

       Yeah.

   23. NANadia Asparouhova15:18

       ... Andrew Carnegie being sort of al- the father of modern philanthropy in the US, like, um, wrote these, um, series of essays about wealth that were, like, very influential and where he sort of talks about this, like, moral obligation. And I think, like, really it was kind of this, like, um, uh, quiet way for him to, even though it was ostensibly about sort of like giving back or, um, uh, you know, helping lift up the next generation of pe- of people, next generation of entrepreneurs, like, I think it really was much more of a, a protective stance of saying, like, if he doesn't frame it in this way, then people are just gonna knock down the concept of wealth altogether.

   24. DPDwarkesh Patel15:51

       Yeah. Yeah, yeah. No, that's really interesting. And it's interesting in which cases this kind of influence has been successful and where it's not. When Jeff Bezos bought The Washington Post, it's, uh, uh, has there been any counterfactual impact on how The Washington Post is run as a result? Uh, I doubt it. Um, but, you know, when Musk takes over Twitter, I guess it's a much more expensive purchase. We'll see what the influence is, negative or positive, but it's certainly different than what Twitter otherwise would have been. So control over media, it's, I guess it's a bigger me now.

   25. NANadia Asparouhova16:20

       Yeah.

   26. DPDwarkesh Patel16:20

       Um, uh, um, l- l- let me just take a digression and ask about open source for a second. So, um, based on your experience

4. 16:30 – 22:00

   Was Shakespeare an open source project?

   1. DPDwarkesh Patel16:30

      studying these open source projects, do you find the theory that Homer and Shakespeare were basically container words for these open source repositories that stretched out through centuries, do you find that more plausible now? Rather than them being individuals, of course. Um, do you find that more plausible now given your, uh, given your study of open source?

   2. NANadia Asparouhova16:49

      Sorry, what did-

   3. DPDwarkesh Patel16:49

      Or less plausible?

   4. NANadia Asparouhova16:50

      What did-

   5. DPDwarkesh Patel16:51

      Oh, okay.

   6. NANadia Asparouhova16:52

      ... (laughs)

   7. DPDwarkesh Patel16:52

      So the, the, the idea is that they weren't just one person, it was just like a whole bunch of people-

   8. NANadia Asparouhova16:55

      Yeah.

   9. DPDwarkesh Patel16:56

      ... throughout a bunch of centuries, who-

   10. NANadia Asparouhova16:58

       Uh-huh.

   11. DPDwarkesh Patel16:58

       ... compose different parts of each story or who compose different stories?

   12. NANadia Asparouhova17:03

       This is the Nicolas Barbot model's same concept of, you know, a s- single mathematician who's actually comprised of, like, lots of different mathematicians.

   13. DPDwarkesh Patel17:09

       Yeah, yeah.

   14. NANadia Asparouhova17:10

       Um, I think it's actually the opposite would be the-

   15. DPDwarkesh Patel17:14

       Mm.

   16. NANadia Asparouhova17:14

       ... sort of my conclusion of, we think of open source as this very, like, collective volunteer effort and I think, um, use that as an excuse to not really contribute back to open source or not really think about, like, how open source projects are maintained 'cause we are like, you know, you kind of have this bystander effect where you're like, "Well, you know, someone's taking care of it. It's volunteer-oriented. Like, of course there's someone out there taking care of it." Um, but in reality, it actually turns out it is just one person. So maybe it's a little bit more like a Wizard of Oz-

   17. DPDwarkesh Patel17:40

       Mm-hmm.

   18. NANadia Asparouhova17:41

       ... type model and is actually just, like, one person behind the curtain that's, like, you know, doing everything and you, you see this huge, you know, grander and you think, "There must be so many people that are-"

   19. DPDwarkesh Patel17:49

       Yeah, yeah, yeah.

   20. NANadia Asparouhova17:50

       "... behind it instead of just one person." Um, yeah, and I think that's sort of undervalued. I think a lot of the rhetoric that we have about open source is rooted in sort of like early 2000s kind of starry-eyed idea about, like, the power of the internet and the idea of, like, crowdsourcing and Wikipedia and all this stuff. And then, like, in reality, like, we kind of see this convergence from, um, like, very broad-based-... collaborative volunteer efforts to, like, narrowing down to kinda, like, single creators, and I think a lot of, like, you know, single creators are the people that are really driving a lot of the internet today. And a lot of cultural production.

   21. DPDwarkesh Patel18:22

       Oh, that's, that's super fascinating. Does that in general make you more sympathetic to whether it's the lone view- uh, genius view of accomplishments in history? Not just in literature, I guess, but just like when you think back to how likely is it that, you know, Newton came up with all that stuff on his own versus how much was fed into him by, you know, the, the others around him?

   22. NANadia Asparouhova18:41

       Yeah, I think so. I feel, um, I've never been like a big, like, you know, great founder theory kind of person. Um, I think I'm, like, my, my true theory is I guess that ideas are maybe some sort of, like, sentient, like, concept or virus that operates outside of us, and we are just sort of like the vessels through which, like, ideas flow. So in that sense, you know, it's not really about any one person, but I do think, um, I think I, I tend to lean, like, in terms of sort of, like, where does creative, like, creative effort come from, I do think a lot of it comes much more from, like, a single individual than it does from wisdom of the crowds.

   23. DPDwarkesh Patel19:23

       Interesting.

   24. NANadia Asparouhova19:23

       Uh, but everything just serves, like, different purposes, right? Like, 'cause I think, like, within open source, it's like, not all of open source maintenance work is creative. In fact, most of it is pretty boring and drudgerous, and that's the stuff that no one wants to do and that, like, (laughs) one person kinda gets stuck with doing. Um, and that's really different from, like, who created a, a certain open source project, um, which is a little bit more of that, like, creative mindset.

   25. DPDwarkesh Patel19:44

       Yeah, yeah, that's really interesting. Do you think more projects, uh, in open source, so just take a popular repository. Um, on average, do you think that these repositories would be better off if, let's say a larger percentage of them where pull requests were closed and feature requests were closed? Uh, you can look at the code, but you can't interact with it or its creators in any way. Should more repositories have this model?

   26. NANadia Asparouhova20:09

       Yeah, I definitely think so.

   27. DPDwarkesh Patel20:11

       (laughs)

   28. NANadia Asparouhova20:11

       I think the world would be much happier that way.

   29. DPDwarkesh Patel20:14

       Yeah, yeah. I mean, it's interesting thinking about the implications of this for other, uh, areas outside of code, right, which is where it gets really interesting. I mean, in general, there's like a discussion... Sorry, go ahead, yeah.

   30. NANadia Asparouhova20:25

       Oh, I was just gonna, I mean, that's basically what's ver- the, the writing of, of my book, 'cause I was like, okay, I feel like whatever's happening open source right now, you start with this idea that, like, democracy is great, and like, we should have tons and tons of people participating. Tons of people participate, and then it turns out that, like, most participation is actually just noise and not that useful, and then it ends up, like, scaring everyone away. And in the end you just have, like, you know, one or a small handful of people that are actually doing all the work while everyone else is kinda like screaming around them. Um, this becomes like a really great metaphor for what happened (laughs) in social media, um-
5. 22:00 – 33:55

   Need for charismatic leaders

   1. NANadia Asparouhova22:00

      definitely. I mean, I think we are seeing a little bit, I'm not a corporate governance expert, but I do, I do feel like we're seeing a little of this, like, um, backlash against, uh, like, you know, shareholder activism and, like, extreme focus on sort of like DEI on boards and things like that, and like, I think we're seeing a little of people starting to, like, take the reins and take control again because they're like, "Ah, that doesn't really work so well, it turns out." Um, I think DAOs are gonna learn this hard lesson as well. Um, it's still maybe just too early to say what is happening in, in DAOs right now, but at least the ones that I have looked at, it feels like there is a very common failure mode of people saying, um, you know, like, "Let's just have, like, let's have this be super democratic and, like, leave it to the crowd to kinda like run this thing and figure out how it works." And it turns out you actually do need a strong leader even in the beginning and this, this is something I learned just from looking at open source projects where it's like, you know, very rarely or if at all do you have a project that starts sort of like leaderless and faceless, and then, you know, usually there is some strong creator, uh, leader or, or, or influential figure that is, like, driving the project forward for a certain period of time, and then you can kinda get to the point when you have e- enough of an active community that maybe that leader takes a step back and lets other people take over, but it's not like you can do that off, off of day one and that's sort of this open question that I have for, for crypto as an industry more broadly because I think, like, if I think about sort of, like, what is defining each of these generations of people that are, you know, pushing for new technological paradigms, um, I mentioned that, like, Wall Street finance mindset is very, um, focused on, like, globalism and on, on this sort of, like, efficiency, quantitative mindset. You have the tech Silicon Valley Y Combinator kind of generation that is really focused on top talent, um, and the idea, this sort of like, you know, founder mindset, um, the power of, like, individuals breaking institutions. And then you have, like, the crypto mindset, which is this sort of like faceless, leaderless, like, governed by protocol and by code mindset, which, um, is, like, intriguing to me, um, but I have a really hard time squaring it with seeing, like, in some sense open source was the experiment that started playing out, you know, 20 years before then and some things are obviously different in crypto because tokenization completely changes the incentive system for, um, contributing and maintaining, uh, crypto projects versus, like, traditional open source projects.... but in the end also, like, humans are humans, and, like, I feel like there are a lot of lessons to be learned from open source of, like, you know, they also started out early on as being very starry-eyed about the, the power of, like, hyper democratic (laughs) um, regimes. And it turned out, like, that does, that just, like, doesn't work in practice. And so, like, how is crypto gonna sort of, like, square that? Um, I'm just, yeah, very curious to see what happens.

   2. DPDwarkesh Patel24:41

      Yeah. That's super fascinating. That raises an interesting question, by the way. Uh, you've written about idea machines and you can explain that concept while you answer this question. But do you think that movements, uh, can survive without a charismatic founder who is both alive and engaged? So once Will MacAskill dies, would you be shorting Effective Altruism? Or if, like, Tyler Cowen dies, would you be short, uh, uh, Pro- Progress Studies? Or do you think that, you know, once you get a movement off the ground, it can survive on its own?

   3. NANadia Asparouhova25:10

      That's good question. I mean, like, it, I don't think there's some perfect template. Like, each of these kind of has its own sort of unique quirks and characteristics to them. Um, I guess, yeah, back up a little bit, um, idea machines is this concept I have around, um, what the transition from... We were talking before about sort of like traditional 501 (c) (3) foundations as vehicles for philanthropy. What does the modern version of that look like that is not necessarily encoded in an institution? Um, and so I had this term idea machines, um, which is sort of this different way of thinking about, like, turning ideas into outcomes where you have a community that forms around a shared set of values and ideas. Um, so yeah. You mentioned, like, Progress Studies is an example of that, or Effective Altruism an example. Um, eventually that, um, community gets capitalized by some funders, and then, uh, it starts to be able to develop an agenda and then, like, actually start building, like, you know, operational outcomes and, like, turning those ideas into real world initiatives. Um, uh, and remind me of your question again? It was (laughs)

   4. DPDwarkesh Patel26:06

      Yeah.

   5. NANadia Asparouhova26:07

      ... bring that all back to me.

   6. DPDwarkesh Patel26:07

      So once, uh, uh, once the charismatic founder dies of a movement, can the move- is the movement basically handicapped in some way? Like, maybe it'll still be a thing, but it's never gonna reach the heights it could have reached-

   7. NANadia Asparouhova26:18

      Yeah.

   8. DPDwarkesh Patel26:18

      ... if that main guy had been around.

   9. NANadia Asparouhova26:21

      I think there are just, like, different shapes and classifications of, like, different, different types of communities here. So, like, and I'm just thinking back again to sort of like different types of open source projects where it's not like there's, like, one model that fits perfectly for all of them. So I think there are some communities where it's, like, yeah, I mean, I think Effective Altruism is maybe a good example of that, where, like, the community has grown so much that I... Like, if all their leaders were to, you know, knock on wood, disappear tomorrow or something like that, um, like, I think the movement would still keep going. There are enough true believers, like, even within the, you know, next order of, of that community that, like, I think that would just continue to grow. Um, whereas you have, like, yeah, maybe certain, like, smaller or more nascent communities that are, like... Or just, like, communities that are much more, like, oriented around, um, like, a charismatic, a charismatic founder that's just like a different type where if you lose that leader then suddenly, um, you know, the whole thing falls apart 'cause they're much more like these, like, cults or religions.

   10. DPDwarkesh Patel27:13

       Hmm.

   11. NANadia Asparouhova27:13

       Um, and I don't think it makes one better, better or worse. Um, it's, like, the right way to do it is probably like Bitcoin where you have a charismatic leader for life because that leader is-

   12. DPDwarkesh Patel27:22

       (laughs)

   13. NANadia Asparouhova27:22

       ... not necessarily going that soon. Can't go away, can't ever die, but you still have the, like, you know, North Star, something like that.

   14. DPDwarkesh Patel27:28

       The, yeah, the-

   15. NANadia Asparouhova27:30

       Yeah.

   16. DPDwarkesh Patel27:30

       It is funny. I mean, a lot of prophets have this property of you're not really sure what they believed in, so people with different temperaments can project their own preferences onto him. Um, somebody like Jesus, right? It's l- uh, you know, you, you can be like a super left-winger and believe Jesus stood for everything you believe in. You can be a super right-winger and believe the same. Um.

   17. NANadia Asparouhova27:49

       Yeah, I just think-

   18. DPDwarkesh Patel27:50

       Yeah, as you... Go ahead.

   19. NANadia Asparouhova27:52

       Uh, I, I, I think there's value in, like, writing cryptically more broadly as a, like, I think about, like, I think Curtis Yarvin has done a really good job of this, where, you know, intentionally or not, but, um, because, like, his writing is so cryptic and long-winded and, like, it's like the Bible, where you can just kind of like pour over it endlessly being like, "What did this mean? What did this mean?" Or, and in a weird... You know, you're always told to write very clearly. You're told to write succinctly. But, like, it's actually, in a weird way, you can be much more effective by being very long-winded and non-obvious in what you're saying. (laughs)

   20. DPDwarkesh Patel28:20

       Yes. Which actually raises an interesting question that I've been wondering about. There have been movements, I guess Effective Altruism is a goo- is a good example, that have been focused on community building, um, in a sort of like explicit way, and then there's other movements where they have a charismatic founder, and moreover, this guy, he doesn't really try to recruit people. I'm thinking of somebody like Peter Thiel, for example, right? He goes on... Uh, like once every year or two he'll go on a podcast and have this, like, really cryptic back and forth, um, and then just kind of go away in a hole for a few year- months or a few years. And I'm curious which one you think is more effective, given the fact that you're not really competing for votes, so absolute number of people is not what you care about. It's not clear what you care about, but you do want to have more influence among the elites who matter, um, in, like, politics and tech as well. So anyways, which... Uh, just your thoughts on those kinds of strategies, explicitly trying to community build versus just kind of projecting out there in a sort of cryptic way.

   21. NANadia Asparouhova29:19

       Yeah. I mean, I definitely, being somewhat cryptic myself... (laughs)

   22. DPDwarkesh Patel29:22

       (laughs)

   23. NANadia Asparouhova29:22

       I favor the, the cryptic methodology, um, but I mean, I, yeah. I mean, you mentioned Peter Thiel. I think, like, The Thielverse is probably, like, the most, uh, like, one of the most influential things, in fact, that is hard... It is partly so effective because it is hard to even define what it is or wrap your head around-

   24. DPDwarkesh Patel29:37

       Mm-hmm.

   25. NANadia Asparouhova29:37

       ... but you just know that sort of, like, every interesting person you meet somehow has some weird connection to, you know, Peter Thiel, um, and it's kind of funny. Um, uh, but I think this is sort of that evolution from the, you know, 501 (c) (3) foundation to the, like, idea machine, um, implicit in that is this, this switch from, you know, used to start the, you know, Nadia Asparouhova Foundation or whatever, and it was like-

   26. DPDwarkesh Patel30:00

       Mm-hmm.

   27. NANadia Asparouhova30:00

       ... you know, had your name on it and it was all about, like, "What do I as a funder want to do in the world?" Right? And you spend all this time doing this sort of like classical, um, you know, research, going out into the field, talking to people, and you sit and you think, "Okay, like, here is a strategy I'm gonna pursue." But, like, ultimately it's, like, very, very donor-centric, um, in this very explicit way. And so within traditional philanthropy, you're, you're seeing this sort of like backlash against that, um, in, like, you know, straight up, like, nonprofit land where now you're seeing the locus of power moving from-... being very donor-centric to being sort of, like, community centric and people saying, like, "Well, we don't really want the donors telling us what to do," even though it's also their money. (laughs) Um, and like, you know, instead, let's have this be driven by, um, by the community from the ground up. That's maybe, like, one very literal reaction against that, like, s- having the donor as sort of the central power figure, but I think idea machines are kind of like the, like, maybe like the more realistic or effective answer, um, in that like, the donor is still, like, without the presence of a funder, like, a community is just a community. They're just sitting around and talking about ideas of, like-

   28. DPDwarkesh Patel31:02

       (laughs)

   29. NANadia Asparouhova31:02

       ... what could possibly happen. Um, but like, they don't have any money to make anything happen.

   30. DPDwarkesh Patel31:06

       Yeah.
6. 33:55 – 40:30

   Political reform

   1. NANadia Asparouhova33:55

      great evidence of that being, that working.

   2. DPDwarkesh Patel33:57

      What does that imply about how you think about, uh, uh, politics or at least political structures? You think it would, it, it ... You- you elect a mayor but like, just forget, n- no, no participation. He gets to do everything he wants to do for four years and you can get rid of him in four years but until then, no community meetings. What, what does that imply about how you think cities and states and, uh, countries should be run?

   3. NANadia Asparouhova34:19

      Um...

   4. DPDwarkesh Patel34:21

      (laughs)

   5. NANadia Asparouhova34:21

      I have some very, yeah, c- complicated thoughts on that. Um, I mean, I, I think it's also like, everyone has the fantasy of wouldn't it be so nice if there were just one person in charge. I hate all this squabbling. It would just be so great if we could just, you know, have one person just who has exactly the views that I have and just-

   6. DPDwarkesh Patel34:42

      (laughs)

   7. NANadia Asparouhova34:43

      ... you know, put them in charge and let them run things. That would be very nice. I just, I- I do also think it's unrealistic. Like, I don't think I'm ... You know, uh, maybe like, monarchy sounds great in s- in theory, but in practice just doesn't. Like-

   8. DPDwarkesh Patel34:59

      Mm-hmm.

   9. NANadia Asparouhova34:59

      I- I really embrace and I- and I think like, there is no perfect governance design either in the same way that there's no perfect open source project design or whatever else we were talking about. Um, uh, like, you know, it really just depends on like what is, like, what is your population comprised of. There are some very small homogeneous populations that can be very easily governed by, like, you know, a small government or one person or whatever because there just isn't that much dissent or difference. Um, everyone is sort of on the same page. America is the extreme opposite on that angle and I'm always thinking about America 'cause like, I don't know. I'm American and I love America. (laughs) Uh, but like-

   10. DPDwarkesh Patel35:37

       Yeah.

   11. NANadia Asparouhova35:37

       ... you know, everyone is trying to solve the governance question for America and I think like, yeah, I don't know. I mean, we're an extremely heterogeneous population. There are a lot of competing world views. I may not agree with all the views of everyone in America but like, I also, like, I don't want just one person that represents my personal views. I think like, I- I would focus more on like effectiveness in governments than I would, um, like, having like, you know, just one person in charge or something like that. Um, like, I don't mind if someone disagrees with my views as long as they're good at what they do, if that makes sense.

   12. DPDwarkesh Patel36:08

       Hmm.

   13. NANadia Asparouhova36:09

       Um, and so I think the questions around like how do we improve the speed at which, um, like, our government works and the, yeah, efficacy with which it works. Like, I think there's so much room to be made, uh, room for improvement there, um, versus like, I don't know how much, like, I really care about like changing the actual structure of our government.

   14. DPDwarkesh Patel36:27

       Interesting. Uh-Going back to open source for a second, why do these companies release so much stuff in open source for free? And it's probably literally worth trillions of dollars of value to, in total, and they just release it out and free, and many of them are developer tools that other developers use to build competitors for these big tech companies that are releasing these open source tools. Uh, why do they do it? What, what explains it?

   15. NANadia Asparouhova36:53

       Um, I mean, I think it depends on specific project, but, like, a lot of times these are projects that were developed internally. It's the same reason of like, like I think code and writing are not that dissimilar in this way of like, "Why do people spend all this time writing, like, long posts or papers or whatever and then just release them for free? Like, why not put everything behind a paywall?" And I think the answer is probably similar in both cases where, like, mindshare is a lot more interesting than, you know, your literal IP. Um, and so, you know, you put out... You write these, like, long reports or you tweet or whatever, like, you spend all this time creating content for free and putting it out there because you're trying to capture mindshare. Same thing with, um, companies releasing open source projects. Like, a lot of times they really want, like, other developers to come in and contribute to them, they want to increase their status as, like, an open source friendly kind of company or company... Or show, like, you know, "Here's the type of code that we write internally," and showing that externally. They want to... Like, recruiting is, you know, the hardest thing for any company, right? And so being able to attract the right kinds of developers or people that, you know, might fit really well into their developer culture just matters a lot more, and they're just doing that instead of with words, they're doing that with code.

   16. DPDwarkesh Patel37:56

       Mm-hmm. Uh, you've talked about the need for more idea machines, that you're, like, dissatisfied with the fact that effective altruism is the big game in town. Um, uh, is there some idea or nascent movement where... I mean, other than progress ideas, but like, something where you feel like this could be a thing but it just needs some, like, charismatic founder to take it to the next level? Or even if, if it doesn't exist yet, it just like... And I... Set of ideas around this vein is, like, clearly something there is gonna exist, you know what I mean? Is there anything like that that you notice?

   17. NANadia Asparouhova38:27

       Um, I outlined a couple of different possibilities in that post. Yeah, I think, like, the progress or the meme is probably the largest growing contender that I would see right now. I think there was another one.

   18. DPDwarkesh Patel38:38

       Other than that, yeah.

   19. NANadia Asparouhova38:39

       There's another one right now around sort of like the new right, if... uh, that's not even, like, the best term necessarily for it, but there's sort of, like, a shared set of values there that are maybe starting with, like, politics, but, like, ideally, yeah, spreading to, like, other areas of public influence. Um, so I think, like, those are a couple, like, the bigger movements that I see right now. But then there's, like, smaller stuff too, like I mentioned, um, like Tools For Thought in that post, where... Like, that's a, that's never gonna be a huge idea machine, (laughs) um, but it's one where you have a lot of, like, interesting talented people that are thinking about sort of like future of computing and, um... But, like, until maybe more recently, like, they, there just hasn't been a lot of funding available and the funding is always really uneven and unpredictable. And so that's, to me, an example of, like, you know, a smaller community that, like, just needs that sort of like extra influx to turn a bunch of abstract ideas into practice. Um, but yeah, I mean, I think, like... Yeah, those, those are some of, like, the bigger ones that I see right now. I think there is just so much more potential to do more, but I wish people would just think a little bit more creatively because, yeah, I really do think, like, effective altruism kind of becomes, like, the default option for a lot of people, then they're kind of vaguely dissatisfied with it and they don't, like, think about, like, "Well, what do I actually really care about in the world and how do I wanna put that forward?"

   20. DPDwarkesh Patel39:53

       Yeah. There's also the fact that, uh, effective altruism has this, like, very, uh, fit memeplex in the sense that it's like a polytheistic religion where if you have a cause area, uh, then y- you don't have your own movement, you just have a cause area within our, our broader movement, right? Uh, uh, it just, like, adopts your gods into our, uh, (laughs) um, our movement. Um-

   21. NANadia Asparouhova40:15

       Yeah, that's... I think that's one thing I see of, like, people trying to lobby for effective altruism to care about their cause area, but then it's like you could just start a separate move-... Like-

   22. DPDwarkesh Patel40:24

       Yeah.

   23. NANadia Asparouhova40:24

       ... if, if you can't get EA to care about, then why not just, like, start another one somewhere else?

   24. DPDwarkesh Patel40:29

       Yeah, yeah.

7. 40:30 – 53:35

   Why didn’t previous wealth booms lead to new philanthropic movements?

   1. DPDwarkesh Patel40:30

      Um, um, so, you know, it, it's interesting to me that the wealth boom in Silicon Valley and in tech spheres has led to the sour growth of philanthropy, but that hasn't always been the case, um, even in America. Like, a lot of people became billionaires after energy markets were degre- deregulated in the '80s and, uh, the '90s, and then there wasn't... Uh, and obviously the hub of that was, like, the Texas area or, you know. Um, and there... As far as I'm aware, there wasn't, like, a boom of philanthropy motivated by the ideas that people in that region had. Um, what's different about Silicon Valley? Why are they... Or do you, do y- do you actually think that, uh, these other places have also had their own booms of philanthropic giving?

   2. NANadia Asparouhova41:11

      No, no, I think you're right. Um, yeah, I would make the distinction between, like, being wealthy is not the same as being elite or whatever other term you want to use there.

   3. DPDwarkesh Patel41:20

      (laughs)

   4. NANadia Asparouhova41:20

      Um, and so yeah, there are definitely, like, pockets of let's call, like, more, like, local markets of wealth, like, yeah, Texas, Texas oil or energy billionaires, um, that tend to operate kind of just more in their own sphere, um, and a lot of... If you look at any philanthropic team, they, like, a lot of them will be philanthropic, philanthropically active, but they only really focus on their geographic area. Um, but there's sort of this difference and, and I, I think this is part of where it comes from, um, the, the question of, like, you know, like, what forces someone to actually, like, do something more public facing with their power? And I think that comes from your power being sort of, like, threatened. Um, that's, like, one aspect I would say of that. So, like, tech has only really become a lot more active in the public sphere outside of startups after the tech backlash of the mid-2010s, um, and you can say a similar thing kinda happened with the Davos elite as well-

   5. DPDwarkesh Patel42:13

      Mm-hmm.

   6. NANadia Asparouhova42:13

      ... uh, and, and also for the Gilded Age, uh, cohort of, of, of wealthy. Um, and so yeah, when, when you have sort of... You're kind of like building in your own little world and, like, you know, we had literally like Silicon Valley where everyone was kind of like sequestered off and just thinking about startups and thinking of themselves as like tech is essentially, like, an industry-... just, like, any other sort of, you know, entertainment or whatever. Um, and were just kind of happy building over here. And then it was only when sort of, like, the panopticon, like, turned its head towards tech and started ... and, and they, it had this sort of, like, onslaught of, of, um, uh, critiques coming from sort of, like, mainstream discourse where they went, "Oh," like, "What, what is my place in this world?" And, uh, you know, "If I don't try to, like, defend that, then I'm gonna just kind of, you know-"

   7. DPDwarkesh Patel42:58

      Mm-hmm.

   8. NANadia Asparouhova42:58

      "... we're gonna loo- lose all that power." So I think that, that need to sort of like defend one's power can kind of like prompt that sort of action. Um, the other aspect I'd highlight is just, like, I think a lot of, um, elites are driven by these, like, technological paradigm shifts. Um, so there's this, uh, scholar, Carlotta Perez, who writes about technological revolutions and financial capital, and she identifies, like, a few different technological revolutions over the last, whatever, 100, 100-plus years, um, that, like, drove the cycle of, you know, a, a new technology's invented, it's, um, people are kind of like working on it in this smaller industry sort of way, there is some kind of like, uh, crazy, like, public frenzy, and then, like, a, a backlash. Um, and from after that, then you have this sort of like focus on public institution building. Um, but she really points out that, like, not all technology fits into that. Like, not all technology is a paradigm shift. Sometimes technology is just technology. Um, and, and, uh, and so yeah, I think, like, a lot of wealth might just fall into that category. Um, my favorite example is, by the way, is, um, the Koch family, because you had, you know, the, the Koch brothers, but then, like, their father was actually the one who, like, kind of initially made th-, um, made their wealth, but was, like, very localized in sort of like how he thought about philanthropy. He had his own, like, you know, family foundation, was just sort of like doing that sort of like, you know, Texas billionaire mindset that we're talking about of, you know, "I made a bunch of money. I, I'm gonna just sort of like, yeah, do my local philanthropic activity." It was only the next generation of, of, um, his children that then, like, took that wealth and started thinking about, like, "How do we actually, like, move that onto, like, a more elite stage?" And then thinking about-

   9. DPDwarkesh Patel44:33

      Hmm.

   10. NANadia Asparouhova44:33

       ... like, their influence in the media. Um, but, like, you can see there's, like, two clear generations within the same family. Like, one has a sort of like local wealth mindset and one of them has the more, like, elite wealth mindset. And yeah, you can kind of like ask yourself wh- "Why did that switch happen?" But, um, yeah, it's clearly about more than just money. It's also about intention.

   11. DPDwarkesh Patel44:52

       Yeah. That's really interesting. Um, well- Mm-hmm. ... i- it's interesting because there's, if you identify the current mainstream media as affiliated with, like, that Davos, uh, aristocratic elite, or maybe not aristocratic, but like, uh, the Davos, uh-

   12. NANadia Asparouhova45:06

       Incumbents.

   13. DPDwarkesh Patel45:07

       ... group. Yeah, exactly. Um, there is a growing field of independent media, but you would not identify somebody like Joe Rogan as, uh, s- i- in the Silicon Valley sphere, right? Um, so there isn't new media, it just, uh, I, I guess these startup people don't have that much influence over them yet. Uh, and they feel to, like-

   14. NANadia Asparouhova45:27

       Yeah.

   15. DPDwarkesh Patel45:28

       Yeah.

   16. NANadia Asparouhova45:28

       I think they're trying to, like, take that strategy, right? So you have, like, a bunch of founders, um, like Palmer Lucky and Mark Zuckerberg and Bryan Armstrong and whoever else at, like, well, not really talk to mainstream-

   17. DPDwarkesh Patel45:41

       Yeah.

   18. NANadia Asparouhova45:41

       ... organizations anymore. They will not give a, an interview to New York Times, but they will go to, like, an individual, um, influencer or an individual creator and they'll do an interview with them. So, like, when, um, Mark Zuckerberg announced Meta, like, he did not give grant interviews to mainstream publications. But he went and talked to, like, Ben Thompson at Stratechery. Um, and so I think there is like ... It, it fits really well with that-

   19. DPDwarkesh Patel46:02

       Hmm.

   20. NANadia Asparouhova46:02

       ... like, sort of elite mindset of like, "We're not necessarily institution building. We're going to, like, focus on power of individuals who sort of like defy institutions." Um, and that is kind of like an open question that I have about like, what will the long-term influence of the tech elite look like? Because, like, you know, the, the na- like, human history tells us that eventually all individual behaviors kinda get codified into n- into institutions, right? Um, but we're obviously living in a very different time now, um, and I think, like, the way that the Davos elite managed to, uh, like, really codify and extend their influence across all these different sectors was by taking that institutional mindset and, and, um, and, you know, like, thinking about sort of like academic institutions and media institutions, all that stuff. Um, if the startup mindset is really inherently like anti-institution and says, like, "We don't wanna build the next Harvard necessarily, we just want to, like, blow apart the concept of universities whatsoever," um, or, you know, "We don't wanna create a new CNN or a new Fox News, we wanna just, like, ha- like, fund, like, individual creators to do that same sort of work but in this very decentralized way," um, like, will that work long term? I don't know. Like, is that just sort of like a temporary state that we're in right now where no one really knows what the next in- institutions will look like? Um, or is that really, like, an important part of this generation where, like, we shouldn't be asking this question of like, "How do you build a new media network?" We should just be saying like, "The answer is (laughs) there is no m- media network, we just go to, like, all these individuals instead."

   21. DPDwarkesh Patel47:32

       Hmm. Yeah, that's interesting. Um, w- wh- wh- what do you make of this idea? That, uh, I, I think let's say, that, m- these idea machines might be limited by the fact that if you're going to start some sort of organization in them, you're very much depending on somebody who has made a lot of money independently to fund you and to grant you approval. And, I just have a hard time seeing somebody who is, like a Napoleon-like figure, uh, being willing long term to live under that arrangement, and that ... So, th- there, there'll just be ... Th- the people who are just, uh, have this desire to dominate and be recognized, who are probably pretty important to any movement you wanna create, they'll just want to go off and just like build a company or something that gives them an independent footing first. Um, and th- they just won't fall under any umbrella. You know what I mean?

   22. NANadia Asparouhova48:28

       Yeah, I mean, like Dustin Moskovitz, for example, has been funding EA for a really long time, um, and hasn't, hasn't walked away necessarily.

   23. DPDwarkesh Patel48:36

       Yeah.

   24. NANadia Asparouhova48:36

       Um, I mean, on the flip side you can see like SBF-... carries (laughs) that, that (laughs) kind of a lot of, a lot of risk because to your point, I guess, like, you know, you end up relying on this one funder and the one funder disappears and everything else kind of falls apart. Um, I mean, I think, like, I don't have any sort of, like, preciousness attached to the idea of, like, communities, you know, lasting forever. I think this is, like... Again, if we're trying to solve for the problem of, like, what did not work well about 501 (c) (3) foundations for most of, uh, recent history, like, part of it was that they're, you know, just meant to live on into perpetuity. Like, why, why do we still have, like, uh, you know, Rockefeller Foundation? There are now actually many different Rockefeller Foundations, but, like, why does that even exist? Like, why did that money not just get spent down? Um, and actually when, uh, John D. Rockefeller was first proposing the idea of, uh, foundations, he wanted them to be, uh, like, um, to have, like, a finite end state, so he wanted them to last only, like, 50 years or 100 years when he was proposing this, like, federal charter, but that federal charter failed, uh, and so now we have these, like, state charters and, and foundations can just exist forever. But, like, I think if you wanna, like, improve upon this idea of, like, how do we prevent, like, meritocratic elites from turning into aristocratic elites, how do we, like, um... Yeah, had to actually just, like, try to do a lot of really interesting stuff in our lifetimes. It's, like, a very... It's very counterintuitive because you think about, like, leaving a legacy must mean, like, creating institutions or creating a foundation that lasts forever and, you know, 200 years from now, there's still, like, the Nadia Asparouhova Foundation out there. But, like, if I really think about it, it's like I would almost rather just do really, really, really good interesting work in, like, 50 years or 20 years or 10 years and have that be the legacy versus your name kind of getting, you know, besmirched over, over a century of, of institutional decay and decline. Um-

   25. DPDwarkesh Patel50:21

       (laughs)

   26. NANadia Asparouhova50:21

       So yeah, I don't, like... It, if, you know, you have a community that lasts for... Maybe only lasts 10 years or something like that and it's funded for that amount of time and then it kind of outlives its usefulness and it winds down or becomes less relevant, like, I don't necessarily see it as a bad thing. Of course, like, in practice, you know, nothing ever ends that, that neatly and that quietly, but, um, but yeah-

   27. DPDwarkesh Patel50:43

       Right.

   28. NANadia Asparouhova50:43

       ... I don't think that's a bad thing to aspire to.

   29. DPDwarkesh Patel50:45

       Yeah, yeah. Um, who are some ethnographers or sociologists from a previous era that have influenced your work? So was there somebody writing about, you know, what it was like to be in a Roman legion, um, or what it was like to work in a factory floor and you're like, "You know what? I want to do that for open source," or, "I want to do that for the new tech elite"?

   30. NANadia Asparouhova51:02

       Um, for open source, I was definitely really influenced by Jane Jacobs and, um, Elinor Ostrom, who I think both had this quality of, um... So, uh, yeah, Elinor Ostrom was looking at, um, examples of common pool resources like fisheries or forests or whatever, um, and just, like, going and visiting them and spending a lot of time with them and then saying, like, "Actually, I don't think tragedy of the commons is, like, a real thing or it's, it's not the only outcome that we can possibly have. Um, sometimes commons can be managed, like, perfectly sustainably and it's not necessarily true that everyone just, like, treats them very extractively," um, and just, like, wrote about what she saw. And same with Jane Jacobs sort of, um, uh, looking at cities as someone who lives in one, right? Like, she didn't have any fancy credentials or anything like that. She was just like, "I live in the city and I'm looking around and this idea of, like, top-down urban planning, um, where you have, like, someone trying to design this perfect city that, like, doesn't change and, and doesn't yield to its people just seems completely unrealistic." And the style that both of them take in their writing is very, um... It just, it starts from them just, like, observing what they see and then, like, trying to write about it, and I f- I just... Yeah, that's, that's a style that I really want to emulate, um-
8. 53:35 – 57:27

   Creating a 10,000 year endowment

   1. DPDwarkesh Patel53:35

      I'm not like John Rockefeller in that I only want my organization to last for 50 years. Um, I'm sure you come across these people who have this idea that, you know, "I love making money compound for, like, 200 years and if it just compounds at some reasonable rate, I'll be, it'll be, like, the most wealthy institution in the world unless somebody else has the same exact idea." Um, and if somebody wanted to do that but they wanted to hedge for the possibility that there's a war or there's a revolt or there's some sort of change in law that draws down this wealth, um, how would you set up a thousand-year endowment basically is what I'm asking? Or, like-

   2. NANadia Asparouhova54:06

      Mm-hmm.

   3. DPDwarkesh Patel54:06

      ... a 500-year endowment? Would you just put it in, like, a crypto wallet with a, a, and just... You know what I mean? Like, how, how, how would you go about that organizationally? How would you... Like, that's your goal. I want to have the most influence in 500 years.

   4. NANadia Asparouhova54:18

      Well, I'd worry much less... The question for me is not about how do I make sure that there are assets available to distribute in a thousand years because... I don't know. Just put it in the stock market or something. (laughs)

   5. DPDwarkesh Patel54:28

      (laughs)

   6. NANadia Asparouhova54:28

      Like, you could use up many boring things to just, like, you know, ensure your assets grow over time. Um, the- the more difficult question is, how do you ensure that, uh, whoever is deciding how to distribute the funds distributes them in a way that you personally want them to be spent? Um, so Ford Foundation is a really interesting example of this, um-... where Henry Ford, like, created, uh, Ford Foundation, like, shortly before he died, um, and just, uh, pledged a lot of Ford stock to create this foundation and was doing it basically for tax reasons, had no philanthropic-

   7. DPDwarkesh Patel55:01

      (laughs)

   8. NANadia Asparouhova55:01

      ... interest or anything like that. But just, like-

   9. DPDwarkesh Patel55:03

      (laughs)

   10. NANadia Asparouhova55:03

       ... this- this is what we're doing to, like, house- house this wealth over here," and then, you know, passed away, son passed away, um, and grandson, uh, ended up being on the board. And, but the board ended up being basically, like, you know, a bunch of people that Henry Ford certainly would not have ever wanted to be on his board. Um, and- and so, you know, and you end up seeing, like, the Ford Foundation ended up becoming huge, influential, um, I, like, I have received money from them, um-

   11. DPDwarkesh Patel55:27

       (laughs)

   12. NANadia Asparouhova55:27

       ... so actually this is not at all, uh, an indictment of- of sort of like their- their views or anything like that. It's just much more of, like, you know, you had the intent of the original donor and then you had, like, who are all these people that, like, suddenly just ended up with a giant pool of capital and then, like, decided to spend it however they felt like spending it. And the grandson at the time sort of, like, famously resigned 'cause he was, like, really frustrated and was just like, "This is not at all what my family (laughs) wanted," and, like, basically getting, like, kicked off the board. And, um, so anyway, so that- that is the question-

   13. DPDwarkesh Patel55:56

       Ah.

   14. NANadia Asparouhova55:56

       ... that I would want to, like, figure out if I had a thousand-year endowment is, like, how do I make sure that whomever manages that endowment actually shares my views, one, shares my views, but then also, like, how do I even know what we need to care about in a thousand years? Because, like, I don't even know what the problems are in a thousand years. (laughs) And this is why, like, I think, like, very long-term thinking can be a little bit dangerous in this way because you're sort of, like, presuming that you know what even matters then. Whereas I think, like, figuring out the most impactful things to do is just, like, so contextually dependent on, like, what is going on (laughs) at the time. So I can't, um... I don't know. And, uh, there are also foundations where, you know, the donor, like, writes in the charter, like, "This money can only be spent on, you know, X cause," or whatever, but then it just becomes really awkward over time 'cause it's, like, I don't know, they're spending money on, like, lighthouse keepers or something like that, and it's, like, you know, like, this is just, like, not a thing that actually really, like, you know, should be the main focus (laughs) anymore. Um, so yeah. I don't know. I think I would probably try to figure out a way to, like, select for, like, thoughtful, somehow select for, like, thoughtful people, um, but, like, how to determine... Like, I wonder if there's, like, a committee that, like, short appoin- appointment terms and then, like, there's some committee that can, like, run a contest or something to determine, like, who gets to run this money or distribute this money every generation or something like that. I don't know. I'd have to come up with something pretty crazy like that, but-

   15. DPDwarkesh Patel57:17

       (laughs)

   16. NANadia Asparouhova57:17

       ... wow, but yeah. You'd- you'd... Yeah. That- that would be the biggest challenge I think.

   17. DPDwarkesh Patel57:22

       Yeah, yeah, yeah. I- I just started reading The Foundation, the book about the Ford Foundation. I- I haven't gotten that far in it.

9. 57:27 – 1:02:27

   Why do institutions become left wing?

   1. DPDwarkesh Patel57:27

      It- it's so fascinating. Um, um, but, you know, that raises an interesting question. There is the problem of value drift in charities, but it's a very particular kind of value drift, right? So there's famously conquest second law that any institution that is not, uh, uh, constitutionally and explicitly right wing becomes, uh, left wing over time, and this seems especially true of NGOs and charitable organizations. Wh- what's the explanation? (laughs) Why does conquest second law seem true in this arena?

   2. NANadia Asparouhova57:53

      I'm gonna have to ask, uh, Curtis that. Um...

   3. DPDwarkesh Patel57:55

      (laughs)

   4. NANadia Asparouhova57:56

      (laughs) Uh, I mean, I don't- I don't know that I have... I ca- I think we can observe that that is maybe what is happening. I don't think I have an amazing answer to that. I think... I mean, my- my best guess if I had to- to come up with the answer is I think the- the values of, like, democracy and peace and freedom and whatever, like, there's a set of sort of, like, pacifying social values that are-

   5. DPDwarkesh Patel58:26

      Mm-hmm.

   6. NANadia Asparouhova58:26

      ... very hard to disagree with. Um, and so there's always this sort of, like, natural drift towards that. Um, I do find that, like, I think the most thoughtful people I know are often cons- Like, there is a strong, like, intellectual conservative movement, um, but I think people that love nuance where, you know, where the a- there is no, like, there is no mindless playbook that you can use to just sort of... Like, the answer is not always (laughs) like, direct democracy or peace or whatever. If that's not your, like, guiding star and you are actually interested in, like, a fair bit of nuance, um, like, you're not gonna really run institutions. And I say that as someone who-

   7. DPDwarkesh Patel59:11

      Yeah.

   8. NANadia Asparouhova59:11

      ... is, like... I- I- I am, yeah, much more on the, like, nuanced side, but, like, I, like, I think the trade-off of that is, like, it just doesn't necessarily have mainstream appeal always, um, because you don't have these really simplified messages. So yeah, if you think about sort of, like, institutions are... need to have, like, simplified messages that they pass on to people and those simplified messages, um, work much better when they are things that make people feel good about themselves and you're always gonna have that kind of more or less word- word drift. Um, yeah.

   9. DPDwarkesh Patel59:40

      Yeah, yeah. It raises a question of how you would set up, um... I mean, it's like the two monarchs problem of, like, you- you- you- you know, like, uh, you need somebody who's, like, a good, um, a good director, but then you also need him to be able to appoint somebody who's a good director. Um-

   10. NANadia Asparouhova59:55

       Yeah.

   11. DPDwarkesh Patel59:56

       ... uh, yeah. Um, yeah, it's really interesting. Um, uh, l- let's talk about, like, I guess what, uh, you and I do, uh, or no, before that actually... All right, I'm just gonna make a note for my editor right here but... All right, so next question, uh, is, um, do you think this new funding for science and thinkers, is that going to lead to a resurgence of the gentleman scholar category or has the nature of science just become too different and science has just gotten much more specialized now that that's no longer possible?

   12. NANadia Asparouhova1:00:30

       Hm. Um, yeah. I mean, I think within- within the realm of science specifically, uh, the sort of gentleman scientist era, you know, the Charles Darwin type era, it feels a little bit bygone in the sense of... Yeah, I don't know. It feels like there was a lot of low hanging fruit than the... Maybe, like, science has just-... so much bigger. It is funded in a completely different way that is sort of unrecognizable from where it was before. Um, I think when people talk about problems in science, they like to romanticize the past, or that's probably true for any sort of institutional problem, um, of just, you know, why can't we just have it the way that it was, like, 100 years ago or whatever. And, you know, there's usually good reasons why we don't, things don't run the way they did before, um, and, like, I always try to think about, like, how do we actually take the conditions that we're in right now and, like, come up with something new? Um, that being said, like, even if we don't have sort of, like, a return to, you know, the, the literal gen- gent- gentleman scientist as default way of doing things in science, um, there's, you know, a ton of room to go from the current model of how science is funded and the sort of, like, extremely constrained environments that people have to work in, to, like, giving people a little bit more academic freedom, a little bit more creative freedom, uh, to, to experiment, so. Um, but I think, like, yeah science doesn't really have any, any easy answers. Um, I spent a bunch of time trying to understand it this summer and, um, yeah. It's, I, I think because, like, like, government funding of science became a thing right around, like, the middle of the, of, um, the, the 20th century, uh, a- after sort of, like, World War II and, um, like, the way that science ran before then, where there was very little government funding and very little involvement to where now, like, the fact of the matter is that, like, a lot of it is government-funded or most of it is government-funded, just means that it's like, yeah, a completely different kind of ballgame.

   13. DPDwarkesh Patel1:02:25

       Yeah. Um, but I guess,

10. 1:02:27 – 1:04:12

    Impact of billionaire intellectual funding

    1. DPDwarkesh Patel1:02:27

       uh, then for public intellectuals, there's a change in f- especially if you're making content that is tech-adjacent or something, there's a change in funding from it's no longer, you know, Kevin Kelly's 10,000, um, true fans, but more like one tech billionaire who likes your work and will, you know, write you a check to investigate it for a year. Um-

    2. NANadia Asparouhova1:02:47

       Yes.

    3. DPDwarkesh Patel1:02:47

       What is the consequence of that kind of change in you have much more concentrated sources of funding, um, in terms of what areas one can focus o- on and one does focus on and, like, the ways in which they engage with their audience and publish their content? Um, yeah.

    4. NANadia Asparouhova1:03:03

       Yeah.

    5. DPDwarkesh Patel1:03:03

       Wh- what, what impact does that have?

    6. NANadia Asparouhova1:03:05

       That I'm pretty excited about and, like, can only s- really speak within my relatively narrow sort of, like, tech and tech-adjective creator world, but I definitely have noticed a, a- as someone who's been sort of independently or weirdly funded-

    7. DPDwarkesh Patel1:03:18

       Yeah.

    8. NANadia Asparouhova1:03:18

       ... in a lot of ways for, for a while now, um, like, it feels like that was extremely uncommon, uh, when I started and now I meet a lot of people that are like me. Um, I don't know if that's just because I am meeting more people like me or if that's really a shift, but I thought, like, yeah, you know, five years ago even it was, like, hard to identify a lot of people in that kind of situation. Um, and so yeah, I think it's, it's a really cool... Like, people talk about, like, you know, "How do we bring back the Medicis? How do we bring back this, like, model of patronage?" Like, it's already happening, I think, in a lot of ways, it's just that people don't talk about it. They don't, people don't... You know, unless you're being funded on Patreon or you have Substack subscriptions or there's something, some very legible way to point out, like, how you're making money, like, there's so many people that are just being quietly funded that just don't talk about it.

    9. DPDwarkesh Patel1:04:06

       (laughs)

    10. NANadia Asparouhova1:04:06

        Um, so I, I do actually think, like, the model of patronage is very alive and well right now, it's just not super obvious.

11. 1:04:12 – 1:08:53

    Value of intellectuals

    1. NANadia Asparouhova1:04:12

       Um...

    2. DPDwarkesh Patel1:04:13

       Yeah, yeah. And how do, how do you think about the value of, like, I guess, what you and I... Uh, y- obviously we do different things, but, um, in terms of, like, doing podcasts or writing essays and how do you think about the value of that? Like, should, should, should we just, like, be writing code and digging ditches and doing something that else that is more, more legibly useful to society? Like, what, what is the... You know what I mean? Like, what-

    3. NANadia Asparouhova1:04:32

       Yeah, yeah.

    4. DPDwarkesh Patel1:04:32

       ... what, what... How do you think about what is the value of this?

    5. NANadia Asparouhova1:04:34

       Yeah. You know, I, I'm, like, very, um, like, I only know how to do a handful of things in this world-

    6. DPDwarkesh Patel1:04:41

       (laughs)

    7. NANadia Asparouhova1:04:41

       ... and so, like, I, I feel like I should be doing the thing that I cannot help myself but I have to do all the time. Like, I don't really think... I don't have a very, like, rosy relationship with writing, to be perfectly honest. I hate writing. Writing makes me crazy. Like, I, it's like I, I don't find it to be enjoyable unless... It's, it's always enjoyable once it's over, but like, the actual process is really miserable. Um, but like, you know, I, I... You would think, like, why do you do this thing that makes you miserable? But like I, A, it's just, like, it's the thing I know how to do and it, I don't think there's anything glamorous about it. I don't think there's anything special about it. It might not be the best thing to do. Like, there's probably more impactful things I could be doing with my time. But, like, it's the thing I, like, have to do and I think everyone should just be doing the thing that they, like, absolutely have to do, whatever that is. I, that, that would make me happy in the world, is if everyone was just like, yeah, leaning into their obsession. So, that's my obsession. Um, I do think, like, um, when I think about my own impact, I don't know how y- how you think about it, but, um, like, I think about... Like, I want to, I want my ideas to be heard by people that I think can do something about them. So, in other words, like, I care much more about, like, quality than quantity. I don't, I'm not very active on Twitter. Um, I don't really focus on, like, needing to reach some kind of, like, mass mainstream audience. Um, when I published my book, like, I, I told myself I really... Like, the people that need to hear about how open source works are people that work at tech companies, software developers that use open source software. Like, it mattered less to me that there is, like... This is not the kind of book that needs to be in, like, an airport bookstore or whatever.

    8. DPDwarkesh Patel1:06:16

       (laughs)

    9. NANadia Asparouhova1:06:16

       Um, and same with, like, essays and stuff. Like, I think it's much more important to me that, um, people whose opinions I care about read it and, and hopefully, you know... And I, I, I make my essays public because I hope everyone reads them. But, like, when I think about sort of how do I measure my impact, it's not, like, how many page views did I get on an essay? (laughs) It's more of, like-

    10. DPDwarkesh Patel1:06:35

        Yeah.

    11. NANadia Asparouhova1:06:36

        ... who ended up talking about it and are those people that I wanted to talk about it?

    12. DPDwarkesh Patel1:06:41

        Yep, yep. Yeah. Um-

    13. NANadia Asparouhova1:06:42

        I think there's value in that. I do think, like, people really undervalue, like, this... Like, my, my, my, my sort of, like, personal pet peeve is, like, founders will always talk about, like, building and, like, startups are, like, so important or whatever. I'm like, "What are all of them doing with their spare time? They're, like, reading books. They're reading essays and, like..." And then those, like, books and essays influence how they think about stuff and so it is very, like, indirect sort of influencer in, in... Yeah. Like, but, like-... you can't like, I, I to you like, you know, you can't sort of have out of one mouth saying like, the only important thing in the world is like, starting startups and, and then at the same time talk about like the cool new book you read at a cocktail party. Like, both those things are important in different ways, right?

    14. DPDwarkesh Patel1:07:18

        Yeah. No. I, I totally agree and I, and I don't wanna repeat myself 'cause I, I, I talked about this on my Byrne episode, but one other thing, we were talking about, you know, uh, Caro's books, Robert Caro's books, and one i- one interesting thing is, you know, this guy was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, um, before he wrote The Power Broker. Uh, so he was like, a top tier investigative journalist. And can you imagine, uh, you crunching the numbers w- as a top tier, uh, investigative journalist at the peak of your career and you're like, "You know what'd be a good use of my time? I'm gonna spend the next seven years, in almost poverty, writing about, uh, this one guy who had a lot of influence in New York and I'm going to talk to any person who had conceivably even been in the same room as him or had been indi- indirectly affected by his policies in any way. I'm gonna do that obsessively for the next seven years." Um, yeah. There's no way the co- number crunching would get you there, but it's probably been one of the most influential books in terms of, uh, how urban governance is done. I mean, like, presidents have praised and read the book and said that it, like, changed how they think about politics.

    15. NANadia Asparouhova1:08:18

        Mm-hmm.

    16. DPDwarkesh Patel1:08:18

        So, you know, like, it, it is the kind of thing where I, I, you wouldn't have gotten to that conclusion just from, um, yeah, yeah, thinking about it beforehand and like, "This is the most effective thing I can do."

    17. NANadia Asparouhova1:08:27

        Yeah, totally.

    18. DPDwarkesh Patel1:08:28

        Yeah, yeah. Um, but okay. Uh, you, you had this recent post about, uh, you know, uh, c- climate tribes that I was, that I thought was really interesting, especially the addendum. And by the way, I, I, I have noticed, uh, this, um, this tendency of writers to hide the m- most interesting thoughts in footnotes and addendums and I m- I'm curious why that is, but I think m- it might be because your most interesting thoughts are digressions that you feel like you had to take out of the main text, um-

12. 1:08:53 – 1:18:04

    Climate, AI, & Doomerism

    1. DPDwarkesh Patel1:08:53

    2. NANadia Asparouhova1:08:53

       Yes.

    3. DPDwarkesh Patel1:08:53

       ... but anyways, (laughs) uh, um, what, what I thought was interesting, um, uh, you're comparing, um, climate doomers and to other kinds of doomers and isms that are yet to become fully mature, uh, (laughs) and I, I'm wondering what is your predictions about the different tribes that will emerge when thinking about AI as both capabilities grow and as public awareness of those capabilities grows?

    4. NANadia Asparouhova1:09:21

       Ooh, gosh. I think it's definitely just too early to say on, and I know that sounds like a cop-out, but I don't wanna say things that I don't feel confident about. Um, I think it's too early to say. Even within, like, AI though, like, if you think about... So yeah, I had these sort of like, different tribes that are influencing the climate discourse today. Um, uh, there's, there's some parallel version of that for AI- for AI more broadly, I think, where, um... 'Cause right now, I feel like AI safety gets really constrained to sort of like, I don't know, like, MIRI or something, like very, very specific. Um, I imagine, like, as AI becomes more widespread and more, like, p- more people have experiences with it and have opinions on it, then that might sort of like, lead to other, you know, philosophies kind of forming around that, um, where like... An- and then we'll kind of see this one very narrow view of, like... I, I think this sort of like MIRI mindset is equivalent to, like, the doomer tribe that I identified in climate where it's like, that is one specific tribe, but there are a lot of other people that are really interested in climate that, like, don't feel doomery at all. Um, even though that's sort of like the most flashy, like, media friendly kind of version of it. Um, so yeah. I mean, other than saying, like, as more people interact with AI, I imagine there will be more philosophies emerging there. Um, I think it's still too early to say what, what that will be. AI is still kind of like a big mystery box to me right now, so... (laughs)

Episode duration: 1:22:10