Elon and Trump, OpenAI's Next Moves, and Melinda French Gates' $1B Donation

[Ad reads omitted for brevity - standard podcast ad format]

Kara Swisher: Hi, everyone. This is Pivot from New York Magazine and the Vox Media Podcast Network. I'm Kara Swisher.

Scott Galloway: And I don't know if you know this about me, Kara, but I'm actually the son of Mexican Jews. My father used to tell me we were the Chosen Juans. Get it? Chosen Juans?

Kara Swisher: Oh, my God. That is a terrible joke.

Scott Galloway: Is that wrong? A little Jew humor. I don't know what's wrong.

Kara Swisher: It's unfunny. It's unfunny.

Scott Galloway: A little Jew humor.

Kara Swisher: It's unfunny. Here, I'm going to do a joke that Clara did. We were in California, and we were with my brother, who likes stupid jokes like you do. But Clara told the best joke of the day. What did the cookie say to the doctor?

Scott Galloway: I give up. What did the cookie say to the doctor?

Kara Swisher: I feel crummy. I feel crummy? Get it.

Scott Galloway: You're going to lose this game. Where are you, Kara?

Kara Swisher: I'm in San Francisco.

Scott Galloway: Oh, that's why you seem tired and irritable, even more so.

Kara Swisher: I'm not irritable. It's seven in the morning here, for goodness sake. Why are you in San Francisco?

Scott Galloway: I was here to get another Lifetime Achievement Award.

Kara Swisher: No, Jesus Christ. I literally just threw up in my mouth again.

Scott Galloway: I know you did. Who's the Lifetime Achievement Award for here?

Kara Swisher: The Legacy Achievement, this one. Legacy. Code for America. You're not that old. I know that. It's getting weird. I have another one next week here. So it's Code for America, which is a really great group. It's a lot of people who work in the public sector for government and digital. It's just those people who don't like cashing in and want to make the world a better place. So it was a very pleasant place to be. And then there was a big Lady Fest party, which you were not invited to yesterday, at Aileen Lee and Jackie Reese's. They do it every year. And it's all the power ladies of Silicon Valley.

Scott Galloway: Oh, yeah. I remember you telling me about that. It's fun. Wasn't there supposed to be a waiter at one of those things?

Kara Swisher: Yeah, I thought about it. And then I thought better of it.

Scott Galloway: And then you got better of it?

Kara Swisher: Yeah. Although a lot of people were like...

Scott Galloway: And then common sense kicked in?

Kara Swisher: Well, a lot of people were like, "Introducing the chosen Juan." Juan. This is what people did. This is their new thing now is Scott.

Scott Galloway: Yeah. Like that. [Sighs] Scott. [Eye roll] Yeah. [Shakes head] Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But they like you. Then they go on to say, "I don't understand it, but I like him. I don't understand why."

Kara Swisher: You know who likes me and is quite handsome and you set me up with him? Who?

Scott Galloway: Chris Wallace. I was on with Chris Wallace.

Kara Swisher: Oh, yeah. I was yesterday. Were you? Good. I'm glad that worked out. Good. He's a good interviewer. He's very good. He sets people up for success. And also, he's interested. He has a very good thing. Anyway, had a great time here. Was with Jeff Swisher up in Inverness, which you are well invited to. He has a beautiful house. Dr. Swisher. And I met Anne Lamott, who's an essayist. She's a very famous essayist. We had brunch. It was good. I love San Francisco.

Scott Galloway: Famous essayist. What does Anne write about?

Kara Swisher: Anne Lamott. She's incredible. She's like, oh, Joan Didion. She's big. She's big. She's big. Don't worry about it.

Scott Galloway: I've heard her name.

Kara Swisher: She's got "Operating Instructions." She's written tons and tons of books, "Bird by Bird" about writing.

Scott Galloway: Sounds like a very PBS weekend.

Kara Swisher: It was. It was a very PBS weekend. But the Lady Fest was really fun.

Scott Galloway: Nice. Anyway, we've got a lot to get to today, including OpenAI's new model and safety measures. We'll see. Plus, Melinda French Gates makes a major philanthropic move. But first, Donald Trump's fate in his hush money trial is now in the hands of the jury. As of this recording, the jury is still deliberating. They started on Wednesday afternoon. They might have a decision by the time this posts. If Trump is found guilty on any of the 34 felony counts, the judge will decide whether to sentence him to prison time or probation. Any thoughts?

Kara Swisher: I'm so conflicted on this one. I have such animosity towards the person. I think he's such a threat to democracies around the world. And generally speaking, I think he's just not a good person. So I just have trouble objectively evaluating any of this. I also think this case was a mistake. And if you look at the poll numbers, I would argue that his popularity has actually gone up because of this case. Some people say if he's convicted, they won't vote for him. But I think this is giving too much credibility to the whole "deep state Democratic prosecutors going after him" narrative. And also, I'm just incredibly pissed off at Merrick Garland that he didn't bring these cases sooner.

Scott Galloway: Yeah. Well, they didn't want to go against the sitting president. They wanted to make that a rule, right? That was the whole thing.

Kara Swisher: Well, yeah, but he's been out of office for three and a half years.

Scott Galloway: Yeah, but by then, I guess this was already in the works. I agree with you. It's a really problematic case. At the same time, it has a mobster feel, the whole thing.

Kara Swisher: It does have a mobster feel. Doesn't it?

Scott Galloway: But I think the, quote unquote, general voting public sees it as, "Okay, they're going after it. This is the guy who was sleeping with a porn star while his newborn baby was at home." But as Bill Maher said, people sort of expect that from him.

Kara Swisher: Yeah.

Scott Galloway: And it does feel, whether you agree with this or not, the perception is this is selective prosecution because there are a lot of people who have sex outside their marriage and pay off their mistress and could get legally entangled. And if you were going to do this across every politician or billionaire that's done this, you're going to need more courts.

Kara Swisher: Well, you're not. You're doing it to prevent others from doing it. I think that's the hope. That's what a lot of prosecution is.

Scott Galloway: Well, to send a signal.

Kara Swisher: Yeah. Yeah. Look, the reality is, and I don't think the Democrats and the media are being fully honest with themselves, the last few months have been terrible for Biden and great for Trump. And if you look at what has happened in the polls, and everybody says the polls don't matter, but typically what's more consistent is the polls have a bias towards Biden because there's a lot of closeted Trump voters. But the numbers just look awful right now.

Scott Galloway: Although the Times wrote one today saying, actually, it's closer than you think. Is that right?

Kara Swisher: Yeah, they did. The case that's really quite astonishing on the other end, which is quite unfair to the prosecutors, is that Judge Cannon, who seems either incompetent or in the tank for Trump.

Scott Galloway: This is the nuclear secrets case?

Kara Swisher: Yes, the nuclear secrets. That is supposedly the legally tightest case against him. Yes, exactly. And she's slow rolling the whole thing. And acting like she doesn't know what a courtroom is in a series of incompetent or kind of perplexing rulings that all favor Donald Trump. So I think it evens out. And in that one, it's a very serious case. And I think also the election when he asked to find a few votes. I mean, there was a plan across the country to try to flip the election. And that's where the legality is. It's not "stop the steal." It stopped Donald Trump from stealing the election. I think they'll probably find him guilty.

Scott Galloway: But meanwhile, he's thinking he's going to be president. And he and Elon Musk have discussed a possible advisory role for Musk if Trump wins the reelection, according to the Wall Street Journal. The New York Times also had a piece on this a little bit before that. And it's something Kara Swisher said months ago on the Jen Psaki show, that they are going to be hand in glove working together. The two men have reportedly talked about ways to give Musk input and influence over policies tied to border and the economy.

Kara Swisher: I cannot believe this.

Scott Galloway: Yeah, right. Because he wears a cowboy hat down at the border. Musk and Nelson Peltz also told Trump about an influence campaign in which Musk and his allies are holding gatherings to convince business leaders not to support Biden. There's actually an event here. Investors David Sacks and Chamath Palihapitiya, David Sacks is very closely allied with Musk, happened to be hosting a fundraiser for Trump very soon, next week, I think. And here in Silicon Valley, which is a big shift for Musk because he had been a supporter of Obama, of course, and to me really expressed incredible distaste for Donald Trump many, many, many times.

Kara Swisher: Chamath Palihapitiya, another person you and I both know, Mr. SPAC.

Scott Galloway: Be clear, I don't know him. I've never met him.

Kara Swisher: Yeah, well, it's a... how should we describe the SPAC efforts of Mr. Palihapitiya?

Scott Galloway: Yeah. Very self-interested. Look, he was pairing companies with this new vehicle called a SPAC. He's allowed to do it. You could argue he was smart to do it. He made a ton of money. He did. But I would argue that Chamath, Cathie Wood, and Adam Neumann, there are few people who have made more money losing other people's money.

Kara Swisher: Yeah.

Scott Galloway: And he didn't do anything wrong. He was smart to tap into this wave. But some of the companies that the SEC let go public through the SPAC, whether it was Opendoor, there was one that claimed to help kids with ADHD on video games. I mean, investors lost 95 percent of their money. And what he did was he was the banker. The banker gets paid either way. He didn't do anything wrong. But hold on to your wallet if there's another SPAC boom and Chamath shows up, because what CNBC did was platform him and essentially let him market the shit out of these things.

Kara Swisher: Yeah, I was going to say he's a hand waver of the most disturbing.

Scott Galloway: Yeah, but he's very compelling. He's very articulate. He makes very strong arguments. It's easy to believe him. And then there was such FOMO and so much pent-up demand that exceeded the supply of quote unquote institutional grade companies that he tapped into that. He filled that void with this new SPAC mechanism to bring companies public. And then CNBC would let him on every day to talk about why this company that's buying homes with an algorithm was going to be the next big thing in real estate. And people believed him and that's fine, but he got paid either way. And I imagine he's, I imagine, I don't know how much stock he held onto. And then David, David's built a nice brand for himself in conservative politics. The thing that these guys are allowed to do this, good for them. I think political discourse and engagement, even though, that's fine. What is strange or very disappointing for me is that I think where the Biden campaign is really screwed up, and I think this is their opportunity, somebody at the White House needs to pull together a list of about 1,000 or 2,000 powerful, articulate, well-resourced, committed surrogates. Like right now, Robert De Niro is a great surrogate for Biden. There are thousands of people ready. They're like, "Put me in coach. I want to go talk about the economy. I want to talk about what he has done for women. I want to talk about the Infrastructure Act." There's a lot of good data here. And he has not weaponized enough surrogates.

Kara Swisher: Yeah.

Scott Galloway: And they need to be much more. But they need to have someone out there every day on every channel talking about lowest inflation in the G7.

Kara Swisher: Yeah. Strongest job growth. It's like Pete Buttigieg. Oddly enough, I ran into his husband at the airport there. He's going to be on the road talking a lot about the infrastructure bill, for example. That's what his husband was telling me, because they need to talk about their successes.

Scott Galloway: Absolutely. One of the things with Chamath, every time I've had a meeting with Chamath, he is the most hand wavy character and everything he promises never happens.

Kara Swisher: Right. Just doesn't.

Scott Galloway: I remember I have so many meetings with him where he said, "This is going to change everything and venture capital is broken. And I've just figured out a way to..." I just have these bad memories at these meetings and it just none of them came to pass. But I have to say, a gifted bullshit artist. A gifted bullshit artist, and without any care and always making a killing for himself, always, every single fucking time. And Sacks is just a loathsome character of Silicon Valley, has had a very bad influence on Musk as an adult.

Kara Swisher: But has a bad influence on Musk.

Scott Galloway: There's a group of people who use politics and what I'll call exaggerated wealth to present themselves to the world.

Kara Swisher: Yeah.

Scott Galloway: And then there's another group of advocates, politically involved, political donors, who are really interested in the issue. Reid Hoffman would be that.

Kara Swisher: You stole my thunder.

Scott Galloway: Reid Hoffman doesn't need to go on Johnny Carson. He's not doing it to present himself to the world and raise his Q rating. He's doing it because he believes in these issues. And behind the scenes, that guy is powerful. And then there's a group of people who pretend to be wealthier than they are, want the headline. And unfortunately, in our economy, it works. We're talking about him. And this goes back a little bit to Trump talking about Musk. Trump has figured out, "I need to be in the news cycle every 48 hours. So I'm going to threaten to make Aaron Rodgers vice president." But every 48 hours, the Biden campaign is probably already thinking, "I've got a list of 500 people who would be great ambassadors, deputy undersecretaries," but they don't put it out at a press release every day hoping to dominate the news cycle. Who gives a fuck they're considering Musk for a role? Who cares? Fine. You're allowed to do that. You could argue that Musk would be a good advisor around tech issues. There's just no denying his achievements and his insight. But border. The reason they put border in there is they knew it would inflame people like you and me and we would talk about it. One of the last things I'll say when we should move on is if Biden wins, Musk is in for a world of hurt because SpaceX is going public. They will investigate national security issues. There's all sorts of swirl around Tesla and the statements the company has made around FSD, autonomous driving. And they're going to be looking at him with a fine tooth comb. Under Trump, he gets, speaking of selective prosecution, under Biden, he will get scrutiny. Under Trump, he will get a pass. So there we have it.

Kara Swisher: That's... I got it, but just to call balls and strikes, product of the year for me, hands down product of the year, Starlink.

Scott Galloway: Yeah.

Kara Swisher: Product, the opposite product of the year, Cybertruck. But I was on a plane. I had one of those moments. I was flying up from Miami and the pilot goes, "Look over the left." And it was, I saw a rocket going up and it was a SpaceX rocket. And then he said, "Oh, by the way, we have Starlink on board." And I pulled up Starlink and my son called me on FaceTime and it was crystal clear. I mean, it really is amazing technology.

Scott Galloway: Brilliant, he got way ahead. He's going to have competition in that. That's the issue is he's first out the gate. We'll see if the planes are covered with the bodies of pioneers with Tesla and others. But absolutely, no question. Let's give him credit for that. But then the Cybertruck and other things and loathsome comments. Anyway, let's move on. The U.S. Court of Appeals has fast-tracked the TikTok ban case for September.

Kara Swisher: That's a good thing. This has to be dealt with. As we learn about an interesting deal that TikTok offered to the Biden administration in 2022, TikTok proposed having federal officials pick its U.S. board of directors and paying a U.S. company to monitor its source code, according to the Washington Post. This is something that had been in talks before, by the way. It also offered to give U.S. officials a kill switch that would shut down the app in the U.S. if they felt it was a threat. Although that's a strange thing, I don't think they'd quite do that. The Biden administration ended up rejecting TikTok's proposal. A senior official told The Post that the deal would have been insufficient to address serious national security risks presented.

Scott Galloway: Speaking of hand-waving, I think that's the case with the TikTok offer here. It's sort of a fig leaf of protection would be my assessment. I don't know. What do you think?

Kara Swisher: This is ByteDance's PR and comms team leaking information selectively to the press trying to deposition or make the case against the government's case. This is something I'm more confident in. I think as we get closer to the decision here, people are just going to start to, as they learn more, it's like, "Well, let me get this. They don't allow any media companies into China. Why has this company that's so big not gone?"

Scott Galloway: Reciprocity, yes, yes.

Kara Swisher: Why has this company that is so big not gone public? Is it because they have another objective here? We're going to start learning about instances where they were following or tracking the private information and whereabouts of a journalist at Forbes. We're going to find out that it would be almost impossible to monitor their influence on the algorithm. We're going to start saying that anytime there's a disproportionate number of videos served in one direction relative to public opinion, all you have to do is ask yourself, "What would the CCP want?" And that's what the ratio is. The White House is smart. They're going to start leaking their own information. And again, what I've always said is that when you have bilateral direct negotiations, which you can do between ByteDance slash the CCP and the White House, they'll come to some sort of accommodation as we get closer to the case.

Scott Galloway: Yeah, they will. This was speaking of, it's a hand-wavy day today on Pivot. Just for, let me give attribution, Emily Baker White, who we've had on the show, if you recall, wrote a lot of the details of this kind of offer, and I'll put that in quotes. Anyway, she's a great reporter and deserves credit for the reporting. She was the one they were tracking, I think, I believe. And she did a lot of this reporting. But I think hand wavy is a very good way to say it. Everyone's waving their hands, Chamath and TikTok together, waving their hands at people, jazz hands everywhere.

Kara Swisher: Okay, let's get to our first big story. It's been another busy week for OpenAI. The company announced it has a new model in the works to succeed GPT-4 that will take the technology to a whole new level of capabilities. Again. And it's magical. They really, speaking of PR, they've got to get ahead. And they're working every last minute to do so. The OpenAI board has also formed a new safety and security committee to evaluate and further develop processes and safeguards. It's all internal people.

Scott Galloway: Wait, there's more.

Kara Swisher: OpenAI has also just announced licensing and product partnerships with The Atlantic and Vox Media. That's the most interesting thing for us. I think, let me just say, they're making all these announcements because they're trying desperately not to be Netscape and stay ahead and be at the forefront of this. It's the smart thing to do as a startup, given all their competitors. And so they're trying to look like "Jesus is coming, look busy" kind of stuff. Anyway, whatever, they're riding their own chicken coop, the foxes, I guess. I don't know what to say. The super alignment team that focused on safety was disbanded a few weeks ago. The new committee will be led, as I said, by Sam Altman, as well as board chair Brett Taylor and two other board members. Adam D'Angelo, who tried to oust Sam, is on it too. And then Nicole Seligman. Anyway, I don't know. I don't know if he should be on the committee. Sam Altman probably shouldn't.

Scott Galloway: I had this discussion at a talk I give. Whenever you go to or I present to a group of people, a corporation, someone inevitably stands up and says, "This is how L'Oreal is going to change the world by making women feel better about themselves and our role in society." And I get it. I think you want to be good people. You want to be good citizens. But I worry that a lot of the CSR has been nothing but a misdirect that gives the populace some sort of belief that, "Oh, this new generation of leaders are more socially conscious." And what I find is it's mostly a misdirect to avoid regulation. And I think we just continue to fall for it. About a year ago, everyone was talking about Sam Altman being a new type of leader and that we didn't need to be as worried because it was all these thoughtful people with their hushed tones talking about the dangers of AI. And it's like, okay, folks, trust me on this one. They're going to do whatever makes their shareholders wealthier. And these trust and safety committees, the trust and safety committee should reside in DC and it should have real authority and the ability to pass laws and thoughtful regulations such that, yeah, have your own trust and safety committee, but we're not going to entrust the trust and safety of our populous to you. And we keep getting fooled again. And just because you paint an iPod red doesn't mean this company doesn't need to be regulated.

Kara Swisher: Yeah. Agree. Agree. I mean, look, he had a better shtick and he's made lots of friends in Washington. And I like him, as I've said many times, but he's just as aggressive and wanting to keep his company on top as every other person. It's weird. He really does engender a lot of both hatred and not as much love, but really people focus everything on him, which I find odd.

Scott Galloway: Well, he's become the face of AI.

Kara Swisher: He has. That's true.

Scott Galloway: I just, it's a really interesting phenomenon that they just, I've had people say, "If he doesn't get stopped, he's going to kill humanity." And I'm like, not the rest of them. Like, it's weird. I just find it really interesting and people are widely offended if I like him. And I do. That's just the way it is. And I agree. But I always preface by saying this is an aggressive, very crafty entrepreneur who is all in his self-interest.

Kara Swisher: To keep part of capitalism. And the self-interest of the company. But what do you think of the Vox thing, the Vox deal? Just so you know, we're not included, I think.

Scott Galloway: Where's our check?

Kara Swisher: Yeah. Get banked off on the phone. We're not included. Daddy needs new shoes.

Scott Galloway: Look, what did we say last week? What was our prediction? That you are going to see a new high margin revenue stream for some smaller media companies.

Kara Swisher: Yeah. It's either sue or deal. Sue or deal.

Scott Galloway: That's right. What'll be interesting is to see if this is the beginning of a bidding war that takes these prices up, or if all of these LLMs are going to do is crawl this data and then invent their own LLMs that produce new similar content or content twins, and they no longer need these guys.

Kara Swisher: That's right.

Scott Galloway: So I don't, I mean, my mind just sort of goes into this weird rabbit hole that what happens when you can say, I mean, Alexa is essentially the front end for Anthropic's slash Amazon's AI. It's basically the brand ad for whether Amazon gets AI or not. But what happens when I say, and I do think it's going to head to voice when I say, "Okay, Alexa or Siri or whoever it is, or ChatGPT, which will have a voice front end. I would like today's business news in the voice of Dave Chappelle, but organized for a podcast with a focus on these three stories." I mean, you're going to be able to probably manicure something to the extent that you won't need to go directly to the media company. And then the even scarier thing is, is AI going to be able to mimic their content such that you don't even need to enter into these licensing agreements? Or is it still the petroleum and the fossil fuel out of the ground that they will always need? And the price for New York Times content will go up and up and up. I can't figure it out.

Kara Swisher: Yeah, they're holding out. Like, I think this idea, you're either going to sign or you're going to sue or you're going to do both. I think that suing is a negotiating tactic. The second thing is, just so you know, folks, by the way, our stuff is not included in this deal. I will say that. I will not say how I know, but it's not. I also own my own stuff. They cannot sell it to OpenAI, my own stuff. And so do you, Professor Galloway, correct? You own all your Prof G.

Scott Galloway: I own Prof G, yeah.

Kara Swisher: Right. And you didn't make any deal. Neither of us made a deal. So our stuff is not in here. But they own Pivot, right? They could do Pivot. But what's it worth? It's like old news. I don't know. A lot of penis jokes show up next week on ChatGPT4. We know what's going on. That's the only value. We know what's going on. That's the only fucking value because we're so ephemeral, the penis jokes. That's where the money's to be made.

Scott Galloway: Ephemeral. I love it when you talk dirty. Did you learn that from whatever her name was, Joan Didion or whatever, your PBS weekend?

Kara Swisher: Oh, my God. I'm sending you her books. It's amazing. Books, many books. The other thing.

Scott Galloway: I'll get right on that. You've made me lose my train of thought with the penis joke idea.

Kara Swisher: Yeah. But we own our stuff. But just folks, just keep in mind, everything on Instagram, everything on YouTube, they can crawl it without your permission that you put up there. Your tweets, you give away the rights to it when you put it up there. By posting it there, it's theirs. And so your stuff is all, everybody, all your stuff is going up. I don't know if it's worth anything, but we'll see. But good luck, Vox. Good luck for getting like $53, which is great. All of you, Atlanta.

Scott Galloway: You don't know the terms of the deal?

Kara Swisher: No, I think one of them, the News Corp one was what, $250 million. It's probably in the tens. It's a good revenue stream for these companies like Atlantic, who could use the extra $10 million or $12 million or whatever. We're also hearing a lot about some of the events that led up to Sam Altman's ouster last year. And this interview was interesting. She's finally spoken. And former OpenAI board member Helen Toner was on the TED AI Show podcast this week, and it revealed how the board first learned about ChatGPT, among other things. Let's listen.

[Audio clip plays]

Helen Toner: When ChatGPT came out November 2022, the board was not informed in advance about that. We learned about ChatGPT on Twitter. Sam didn't inform the board that he owned the OpenAI Startup Fund, even though he constantly was claiming to be an independent board member with no financial interest in the company. On multiple occasions, he gave us inaccurate information about the small number of formal safety processes that the company did have in place, meaning that it was basically impossible for the board to know how well those safety processes were working or what might need to change.

[Audio clip ends]

Kara Swisher: Current board chair Brett Taylor noted in a statement that an independent review of Sam's firing concluded the board's decision was not based on concerns over safety, security or finances. So, boards, I don't know what to say. Boards are never informed of a lot of things. And I guess this is the dirty little secret that she's revealing is that boards typically don't know what's going on and the CEOs manipulate them almost continually whether you like them or not. I think their statement at the time was not fully honest, essentially, they had some weird term that they never explained themselves. And here she's explaining herself, I guess. Thoughts?

Kara Swisher: I don't know this, but I'm going to make a thesis here that she hasn't served on a lot of boards. Because the way boards work is the following. There's the board, and then there's the real board. And the real board consists of usually one person who has established a lot of credibility for whatever reason on the board, and the person who's the largest shareholder. Essentially, everybody talks about and makes decisions over unimportant issues or the daily administration of corporate governance. Then when it comes to big issues like firing the CEO or if and when to sell the company, it basically comes down to one or two voices. Everyone just kind of says their piece and then looks at those people to decide. I call it the board meeting that happens in the parking lot where the largest shareholder and the person who carries the most gravitas on the board get together and decide what they're going to do. That voice was Microsoft and still is.

Scott Galloway: For her to be upset and offended, not recognizing that she didn't understand power as it relates to corporate governance... She has every right to be indignant, and she's going on a revenge tour right now. Good for her. It sucks to be a grownup. This is how boards play out. She did not understand the dynamics of power as it relates to corporate governance. The largest shareholder and the person with all the power is not even in the boardroom. I'm on a board right now, and I got sick of having two board meetings because the largest investor had a representative on the board. Whenever there was a big decision, his representative would go back to this very large investor and get the real decision. You need to come on the board because this is a waste of all of our time playing postman here. To their credit, this is a tier one VC firm. They said fine, and they put the managing partner of that VC on. Now the board meetings are much more productive. But here's the bottom line. When you're on the board, Brett Taylor has a ton of credibility now. But at the end of the day, somebody is calling Satya on big decisions and saying, are you down with this? Because power is a function, unless it's a dual class shareholder company, of ownership. That's capitalism. She's going on what I call a revenge tour, which is really like, I don't understand power.

Kara Swisher: Yeah, I would agree. I was sort of like, what was it? Wasn't consistently honest? What was the expression? There was some expression they used, but they never defined. Consistently candid or something?

Scott Galloway: Candid, candid, right.

Kara Swisher: Yeah, what a weird word that is. That's not the right word. He's lying. They should have just said he lies to us. That's what they should have said. That's what I wish they had said. But I think what's different here, and I will make Helen Toner's case for this, is she thought it was a different company than it became once the money was cleared. I think she thought it was for the good of humanity. She's a well-known academic in these areas of safety. This is her concern, the safety. Very smart woman. I think she thought it was a different company. The rest of us knew what company it was, which was a multi-trillion dollar opportunity. They're at the front of it. You think we're going to sit around and be good people? My first line of my book was "It was capitalism after all." In every one of these cases, Helen, I'm sorry. I appreciate your worries about safety. I share them, not the way all of you do. I think a little of you are overly dramatic on the topic. But this is how boards work, exactly what Scott said. When it became clear this was a money-making opportunity, this company, which started in a very different format, became something else. You were not seeing what was happening. Same thing with Elon Musk going on about safety and his concerns. Now he just raised $6 billion. Give me a break. You think he cares about safety now? No, he cares about the money. These guys are going to disappoint you every time, Helen Toner. I'm sorry.

Scott Galloway: Well, what I would tell Helen is that I've been on public boards since I was like 36. I used to get outraged on a regular occasion when the board would come to a decision and it would end up being overridden by the largest shareholder. So I just want to invite Helen over for ice cream and cigarettes, and we can talk about all the injustice that we've experienced on boards. We'll go through millions of gallons of ice cream, and I'll bring Paul Malls because I just like that term, Paul Mall.

Kara Swisher: I know, Paul Mall. You've come a long way, baby. Oh wait, that's Virginia Slims. By the way, that industry killed my mother.

Scott Galloway: I know. So look, corporate governance... if you're looking for justice on a cap table or corporate governance, the way you get justice is through ownership. There usually is someone on the board that carries that weight. On the New York Times board, there was this guy named Bob Denham. He was the lawyer for Warren Buffett. He was on the board of the New York Times. He was just so quiet and had such a great economy of words. Every time he'd say something, you'd think, Jesus Christ, this dude is smart. He had the ability to push back on Janet, who was nothing but a foil for the Salzburgers who controlled the company. It would have been very hard for them to steamroll him because the board would have lined up. There's usually one of those on every board. But for the most part, the board at a place like this is an advisory board. They're there to do all the bullshit work, approve options packages. But when shit gets real, it's Satya who's going to make the decisions here in concert with Sam Altman.

Kara Swisher: Yeah, because of the money. I respect her ethics. I really do. I think it's laudable, but to be shocked that gambling's going on in this place is just sort of like...

Scott Galloway: What she should do is try and figure out a way to get on the AI trust and safety team in D.C. And pass regulation.

Kara Swisher: That's right. I think she probably will. I think she's in D.C. In any case, Helen, I'm sorry this happened to you, but none of us are surprised. This is a for-profit company. I know it was started differently, but that's what it is now. Come over to my place. We can talk about how horrible men are. You can braid hair. And how it was difficult having a perfect mother growing up, and they fucked you up. But it was a good interview anyway. It was interesting. It was an interesting little data point. All right, Scott, let's go on a quick break. When we come back, we'll talk about Melinda French-Gates' next chapter and take a listener mail question about tech we can't stand.

[Ad break]

Kara Swisher: Scott, we're back with our second big story, Melinda French-Gates. She announced her next chapter in philanthropy this week as she appears to leave the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. She plans to donate $1 billion globally over the next two years to help support women and families as well as reproductive rights in the U.S. A portion of the money will also be distributed in the form of $20 million grants to individuals like former New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and director Ava DuVernay to use at their discretion. I think Melinda was a funder of her recent film, for example. There's a whole bunch of people. She's given all these grants to really terrific groups. It's a fascinating move between her and Mackenzie Scott. We have entered a very interesting era of philanthropy. Mackenzie Scott, as you know, used to be married to Jeff Bezos, donated $640 million to over 300 nonprofits a few months ago. She donated $2.2 billion last year. She is burning up getting rid of her money as if it's like lava. This is really interesting, these two women. And then Laurene Powell Jobs is making media investments. She has her own Emerson Collective that does both philanthropy and investments. What do you think about this?

Scott Galloway: I think it's wonderful. I think I'm a sexist. I think there are certain behaviors that are more prone to people born as women and born as men. One of the things I notice about philanthropy from women is they're not as big on the ribbon cutting and believing that they should have input and influence into education because they give $50 million to the Newark school district, not recognizing they don't know a thing about public school education. I find that generally speaking, when women give money away, they ask for less in return and they're more promiscuous. They're like, I've got a shit ton of money. It makes no sense to hoard wealth. I'm going to start pushing it out and I'm going to ask for almost nothing in return. I think Mackenzie Scott is an outstanding American. Look at... I'm here for Jeff Bezos' midlife crisis. I actually enjoy watching it. I can relate to it.

Kara Swisher: You do.

Scott Galloway: But while he's building super yachts for $300 million, Mackenzie Scott is sending $15 million to the Jed Foundation to work on teen suicide. By the way, she doesn't demand anything. She doesn't want to show up. She doesn't want her name on anything. She just wants to start helping people. I'm a glass half empty kind of guy. I talk a lot about what's wrong with America. But here's the reality. Despite our House of Representatives insulting each other's looks, despite the zombie apocalypse of useful idiots on campuses, America is singular around some really wonderful things. This is an American story. I'm a big fan of Richard Reeves. He kind of got highlighted to me or brought to my attention some of the things going on with the struggles that young men face. He's at the Brookings Institute. He's an outstanding scholar. He takes a risk, starts his own business. It's a nonprofit, but it's a true nonprofit. He doesn't answer to Microsoft. It's called the American Institute for Boys and Men. He takes a risk. He starts this thing just to produce research around the struggles that young men are facing. Then a woman named Melinda French Gates finds him and gives him $20 million. This is a uniquely American story. It does happen in other parts of the world, but it doesn't happen as often as it happens in America. So for all of the shitposting and the catastrophizing, of all of the clickbait around everything that's wrong with our nation, this is one of the things that's right with it. We create tremendous economic value and then good people want to push it out to do good work. I just love this story. I'm really happy for Richard. Also, Melinda French Gates has said bodily autonomy and women's rights are hugely important. She's passionate about it. It's wonderful. But at the same time, she said, if we're going to have a vibrant community, who wants more economically and emotionally viable young men? Women. She's giving money to an institute that's focused on boys. I think she's wonderful. She's excellent. Go, Melinda French Gates.

Kara Swisher: Let me make a comparison of something we just talked about. These sort of childish men are doing their stupid Trump fundraiser with very little money that they're putting out to get a lot of influence and doing no good for humanity except for themselves. They're self-aggrandizing themselves, both Chamath and David Sachs. And also Elon Musk is doing this, but doing nothing to help all of society. They're just giving a piddling amount of money to whorish politicians in order to have influence. Meanwhile, Melinda Gates and Mackenzie Bezos are using real money, not little tiny multimillion dollar, $5,000 donations to have dinner with someone who has been found liable for rape. No, they're not using their money for that. They're giving away billions and billions of dollars to laudable people across the globe to make the world a better place. What a comparison. These men are sad and dickless, and these women have balls as big as all ever. That's all I'll say.

Scott Galloway: Sad and dickless. Jesus Christ.

Kara Swisher: No, but they're doing this so they can have a party in Silicon Valley for Trump. It drives me nuts that these people think they're important when this is where the real... if you have money like this, this is what you should do with it.

Scott Galloway: Thank you. Well, again, they're not presenting their money to issues. They're using a small amount of money to present themselves.

Kara Swisher: That's correct. One is vanity. One is philanthropy.

Scott Galloway: But I don't know if you knew this, but my girlfriend often compared me to Bill Gates when we would have sex because I'm Microsoft.

Kara Swisher: Oh, my God. That's good.

Scott Galloway: Literally putting a penis joke.

Kara Swisher: That's good. Well, all of it. You are angry this morning. You are going after it. You've got to be careful in San Francisco. There's a lot of these pretend to care about the world. Rich people run around there. They don't care about the world. That's the thing. These women do. They're actually putting their money where their mouth is. By the way, are you hearing from Mackenzie Scott? She just gives the money and leaves in the dark of night. Melinda French Gates gave a few interviews talking, and she's giving to help reproductive rights. By the way, they're putting it all over the place. It's not just in liberal causes. They're putting it in places that matter for kids and families. They're putting it to feed people. The contrast is so vast. I'm not mad. I'm like, these terrible men compared to these amazing women is just such a great contrast for me. By the way, one of the things that the Gateses did start was the giving pledge with Warren Buffett in 2010. Sam Altman and his husband just announced that they plan to give away most of their wealth as part of the giving pledge. I've always thought that was a cool thing.

Scott Galloway: I don't think it is.

Kara Swisher: You don't. Why? Tell me why.

Scott Galloway: To pledge to give away all your wealth? Big fucking deal. The giving pledge says that after I'm dead, somebody is going to give my money away. Great. You don't believe in dynastic wealth. It has absolutely no impact on you. Maybe you even put it into a donor advised fund where you get a tax deduction.

Kara Swisher: That's different.

Scott Galloway: Yeah, but that's a component of this notion that you're a good person because at some point you're going to give your money away. I'm going to use a lot of virtue signaling right now. I hit my number seven years ago, and I've decided that above that number, I'm giving everything away now. Here's the thing. This is a virus that ails America, hoarding money. There needs to be a movement in America that once you hit your number, you just start giving it away now. You don't say, I want credit for being a great guy after I have had all my Boeing business jets, after I have bought football teams, after I've had seven midlife crises. And then when I'm dead and it no longer matters to me, I'll give it away.

Kara Swisher: You know what, Scott? You have literally just convinced me. You are correct. I don't say this very well. Cats living with dogs. The world has stopped rotating. God, you're right. You're right. That's why I love these badass women. They're giving it away. Literally. Billions. You know what the goal is?

Scott Galloway: What?

Kara Swisher: The goal is to give in. I'll leave my kids a little bit of money, but this is the goal, to be at the end of your life, to spend the money on other people and experiences and be surrounded, die at home, be surrounded by people who are going to be really bummed that you're leaving. Not a bunch of press releases saying, why the fuck are you worth $100 billion?

Scott Galloway: Yeah, Scott, you're right. Why didn't you start giving it away at $100 million? How much are you leaving your kids? What is the number? This is the challenge, and this is a good problem, but you want to give them enough money such that they can do anything, but not enough money such that they can do nothing.

Kara Swisher: Ah, yes. Buy a house. Give them money for a house. That's what I say. Money that they don't have access to until they're 25, 35, and 45. Money for education, money for a home, but not enough money such that they don't have to work.

Scott Galloway: Yep. We're on the same parenting thing.

Kara Swisher: That's correct. Yes, that's exactly right.

Scott Galloway: But I've decided, and I love it, I hit my number seven years ago, and my number's probably a lot lower than most of these guys. I'm like, anything above that, I'm going to either spend it at the Hotel Du Cap on me, by the way, on friends and people I love, or I'm going to give it away. There is no reason, once you're above a certain number, to hoard wealth. Do you realize what a virus hoarding is in this nation?

Kara Swisher: I agree with you. I was doing some stuff that I like at my house here in San Francisco. Someone was like, it's a lot of money. The other day I was with someone, it was fantastic, there was a lot of tech law stuff. We were talking about that. I'm like, oh, it's a little bit of money. She looked at me and she goes, you can't live in stock. I was like, you're right. What she's meaning is I'm enjoying it now. You can apply the same thing to giving it away too. Now is the time to do it, not later.

Scott Galloway: 100%. I've repeated that to several people because I thought it was really smart. You can't live in stock, meaning hoarding your stock. That made me feel better about spending the money. The same thing should apply to donations and giving things away. It should happen in the now.

Kara Swisher: Scott?

Scott Galloway: But it's not even giving. I'm a big fan of Daniel Kahneman. I went back and read some of his work when he passed away. Let's pick a number, $100 million. If it grows 4% or 6% a year, $4 to $6 million a year gets you a beautiful home, a beautiful second home, a FlexJet card, do whatever you want with whomever you want pretty much all of the time. You can just have an extraordinary life. The difference between $100 million and $1 billion, there's no marginal increase in the quality of your life. There isn't. As a matter of fact, there'll be some increase. You can buy a football team. You can have more influence over politics. But there's also a downside. People start taking pictures of your kids. People start running stories about you in TMZ. There is a downside. So if there's no incremental gain in happiness and so many people would benefit from the types of donations that Mackenzie Scott and Melinda French Gates are making, why on earth wouldn't you enjoy that happiness and not hoard wealth and help people?

Kara Swisher: You know what? This is a very good explanation. I still think the others are shameful and these women are ballers. That's my feeling. Good for them. The word giving is overused and they have earned the right. They own the right to say that they are giving. What these other folks are doing is consumption. It's PR. A lot of it's virtue signaling, I'm going to give all my money away after I'm dead. Who the fuck cares what happens to my money after I'm dead? That's not doing anything. Also, let me be a bit of a capitalist here. I also think it's really wonderful and good for the world to spend it. Spend a shit ton of money. Put it back into the economy. Enjoy it. The world offers amazing things that you can spend money on. I think it's great when people spend a ton of money.

Scott Galloway: Scott, I feel like this should be your next book. Spend. Spend, bitches, spend.

Kara Swisher: The new novel from The Chosen Juan.

Scott Galloway: See, this is why I love this show. You have shifted my thoughts in a very good way, in a very helpful way.

Kara Swisher: Okay, Scott, let's pivot to a listener question. This question comes from an anonymous listener. Let's hear what she has to say.

[Audio clip plays] Anonymous Listener: Scott and Kara, I have a quick question for you. On a recent show, you both expounded on your distaste for Siri, which was a shocker to me. As an iPhone owner, it's kind of the only option I have. Is there any other tech phenomenon that you both eschew? Love the show. Love you both. Have a great day. [Audio clip ends]

Kara Swisher: We don't like Siri because it sucks, anonymous listener who is probably Melinda French Gates. Let me just tell you, it sucks. It's terrible and it's an embarrassment. Apple's biggest embarrassment is Siri.

Scott Galloway: Thank you.

Kara Swisher: Apple Maps is probably right up there, right?

Scott Galloway: No, it's gotten better. I've been using it.

Kara Swisher: It's gotten better. Make Siri better, Apple, or whatever. Sky, whatever the fuck you're going to make with AI. Make it better. What other technology do we not like?

Scott Galloway: Oh, there's a lot I don't like.

Kara Swisher: Well, they won.

Scott Galloway: Oh, well, Vision Pro for Scott, obviously. The headset. By the way, when do I get a victory lap that this thing was fucking DOA?

Kara Swisher: You take it all the time.

Scott Galloway: There's a bunch of them. 3D printing. That was just ridiculously stupid. Wearables. Made no fucking sense. The only wearable is your iPhone. I would argue the Apple Watch isn't a wearable. It's a second screen for your iPhone.

Kara Swisher: Okay. All right. The most overhyped technology in the short term is AI.

Scott Galloway: Agreed. It spawned a $3 trillion increase in market cap or 150 times revenue. It is overvalued. I'm not saying it's not going to be amazing for the world, important, that we shouldn't have regulation. But right now it is overhyped. The most underhyped technology, which is what I'm more fond of talking about, is GLP-1. The actual real economy, whether it's kidney dialysis, hip replacement, alcoholism, gambling addiction, going to McDonald's twice a day instead of four times a day, I think GLP-1 is already having more impact on the real economy in terms of actual consumer behavior and consumer spending. But there's all this bullshit hand waving around different types of technologies.

Kara Swisher: Okay, hold on. NFTs?

Scott Galloway: NFTs?

Kara Swisher: You're going to do them all? Do I get to do one? But go ahead. I'm sorry. Go ahead. NFTs. Go ahead. Finish with your NFTs.

Scott Galloway: Well, I will finish. The first thing that Chris Wallace said to me when I walked in, he's like, Scott, I need to say this. I talked to Kara, and I'm going to ask you a question, and I need you to answer and then stop talking. I've heard you give a lot of lectures. I felt like I walked in, and I'm like, Jesus Christ, she's literally haunting me wherever I go. She warned Chris Wallace that I am too verbose. I said, I appreciate that. I'll keep my answers short.

Kara Swisher: Terse.

Scott Galloway: Terse.

Kara Swisher: Okay. Are you done? NFTs.

Scott Galloway: All right. Okay. I have very few. I don't buy the things I don't like. I'll tell you what I love is I love my AirPod Maxes, for example. But then I just got a Sonos just sent me their new thing, which is beautiful. I think it's called Ace. Gorgeous. I love those over-the-ear things, even though it seems like an old technology. I think they're wonderful. It's one of my favorite things to use as a technology. That's something I don't eschew. I use it quite a bit. I love it and I buy it for people because I think it's a really good phenomenon. I'm trying to think, when do I eschew? Gosh, I don't know. I'm trying to think. All the things Scott mentioned.

Kara Swisher: Scooters. I love scooters. What are you talking about? Do you still ride a scooter?

Scott Galloway: Of course I do all the time. I do all the time.

Kara Swisher: I think they're such urban blight. I love scooters and I love city bikes in New York. City bikes are great. I love them. I like scooters. I like all those things. I'm trying to give something up. Hey, let me give you one. Space tourism. How about that one?

Scott Galloway: Oh, yes. Space tourism. Thank you. Yes. I'll never do that. Never will I do that.

Kara Swisher: Well, and no one is. No one is doing space tourism. Space tourism. By the way, another SPAC.

Scott Galloway: Mm-hmm. Yeah, exactly. That's right. I think Chamath was involved in that. I was actually with him when they did that in New York at the Stock Exchange. I think it was the Stock Exchange. I remember. Because they showed off the uniforms and Richard Branson was there. It was such bullshit. That was nothing but a transfer of wealth from retail investors to prop up Richard Branson's cruise ships and travel empire, which was going bankrupt during COVID. We called that early. Virgin Galactic stock reached a high of $56 because, you know, Chamath and Richard Branson, he's cool. He's a great promoter. Chamath's a very articulate promoter. Today it's at 87 cents. 87 cents. That's right. Well done, Shema. Well done.

Kara Swisher: I eschew certain people like that. That's what I eschew. And then also the humane pin, all those AI pins and things like that. It's often around voice. I've been very disappointed by voice stuff. That's what I would say. It hasn't gotten in the way. Same thing with the Amazon Echo or the Google one. They've never delivered in terms of real efficacy for me. Others like them, but I do not.

Scott Galloway: All right. That's a good list. That's a great list.

Kara Swisher: Thank you for all this, Scott. Again, very smart. If you've got a question of your own that you'd like answered, send it our way. Go to nymag.com slash pivot to send a question for the show or call 855-51-PIVOT. All right, Scott, one more quick break. We'll be back for your prediction.

[Ad break]

Kara Swisher: In test after test, OCI customers report lower latency and higher bandwidth versus other clouds. This is the cloud built for AI and all your biggest workloads. Right now with zero commitment, try OCI for free. Head to oracle.com slash Vox. That's oracle.com slash Vox.

[Ad break]

Kara Swisher: The pumpkin spice latte is back at Starbucks. Crafted with our signature espresso and real pumpkin sauce. Then topped with whipped cream, cinnamon, and nutmeg. The PSL. Get it while it's hot or iced. Only at Starbucks.

[Ad break]

Kara Swisher: Okay, Scott, give us a good prediction. You've been very strong lately, I would say, on the predictions.

Scott Galloway: No, look, I just want to highlight again that I think that Melinda French Gates — and I'll pose this as a prediction — and Mackenzie Scott are going to kick off a wave of what it really means to give. You're not looking for anything back. You're pushing the money out. And I would like to see, and I'm hoping that we begin to inspire that some people who have been blessed — being born in America, worked hard, but got very lucky, had great alignment with a spouse or a partner, attracted really talented people, and have managed to create such extraordinary wealth that they can live a really nice, really nice life — that we're going to start a movement against hoarding.

I just don't think it's going to make you any happier. It creates imbalance in terms of power. There's just no getting around it. When you have six people who are worth more than the bottom half of America, we've hit a breaking point here, folks. And I do think there's going to be a movement away from hoarding. And that we're going to start shaming people. We're just going to say, why do you need to have more than a billion dollars? What is it going to get you?

Kara Swisher: Right. And I hope that—

Scott Galloway: Dinner with Trump.

Kara Swisher: Sorry. There you go.

Scott Galloway: I believe in private property, but I also believe in a progressive tax structure. I do believe taxes are going to go up dramatically because here's the thing: no one loses. No one loses when you start taxing people above a billion dollars in wealth. Now, they could move, but I hope that it gets started on a personal level where people say, you know what? I'm good. I have a few hundred million bucks. I'm good. And I can be happier by spending more money and or giving more money away.

Kara Swisher: May I ask you a question? Do you think it's a coincidence that these are women?

Scott Galloway: Well, didn't I say that?

Kara Swisher: Yeah, but do you think — why do you think that is?

Scott Galloway: I think that — well, again, you're not a sexist when you elevate women above men, but you're not allowed to have an open conversation around some of the things that men are good at. I think that women are more maternal. I think women from day one are there. They have a certain hormone and a certain predisposition to protecting others because they at some point believe that they're going to be responsible for someone else. And so they are more caring and they are less ego driven.

Now, some of that ego that men have results in incredible things. I think many times men make better entrepreneurs — and that's going to get me a ton of hate mail. But I think men are more aggressive and more focused on people outside of their immediate family and think very big things, and that can be wonderful. But at the same time, they become more disconnected from the people around them, and they're less caring. So I think it manifests in good and bad ways across the genders.

Kara Swisher: I don't disagree with you. Yesterday, I was watching — we were at this house, and there were those little pebbles people have on paths. Literally, Saul was throwing them at a tree with every bit of strength he had, pointlessly throwing things just out of throwing. And Clara was carefully piling them. It was so — and I literally was like, gender. You need both. You need hunters and gatherers.

Scott Galloway: I was like, gender. Like, I know there's different groups, but it literally was like — reminded me of — he was just aggressive. The reason we got here is that men, or mostly men, would see something moving in the bushes a couple hundred meters away. And immediately, without even thinking, grabbed a spear and began running towards something with a bloodlust to kill the thing and feed the tribe. At the same time, there were a group of people who tended to be women who would pick up fruit and look at it very carefully and go, this is rancid. We can't eat this. You need both those skills in a household. You need both those skills in an economy.

But unfortunately, I believe sometimes we're not allowed to have an open and honest conversation around the difference in the genders, because if you say anything that isn't other than, "Oh, women make better managers" or "women make better leaders," you get shit.

Kara Swisher: No, I get that. I think it's because people are different. Because I think I'm a different kind of woman than others. I'm more aggressive, right? So I think it's just — it doesn't have to fully apply. And I think what happens on the right is they have to fully apply it, right? And on the left, they say there's no such thing. And so that's the problem, right? It's difficult to have a robust, open conversation for fear that you say something inarticulate and you lose your job.

Scott Galloway: And we should just be a little bit more open. One, I do think we have to acknowledge there are certain behaviors that are more indicative or more prone or more likely to cluster around people born as a male or a female, which isn't to say that a lot of people born as women don't have wonderful masculine attributes. And a lot of — I've said this. I'm drawn to men that are more feminine, that are more caring.

Kara Swisher: Yeah, Scott cries. Scott, between us, Scott's the crier.

Scott Galloway: I cried yesterday on Chris Wallace. I was so fucking embarrassed. I'm fucking Chris Wallace. Yeah, I got upset. They started asking me about male role models, and I talked about all the men in my life. If you do that, your voice gets all crumbly.

Kara Swisher: Yeah, I'm doing it too much lately.

Scott Galloway: I think it's jet lag.

Kara Swisher: You have been. I've noticed that. I've noticed that. I like it. I think it's a good quality. Anyway, good prediction. Scott, that's the show. A quick reminder of what you can hear on our other pods. We are dating other people. We are Polly. Prof G Markets talks to analyst Lynn Alden with a strong case for Bitcoin. And next week, comedian Ilana Glazer joins on with Kara Swisher to talk about her new movie, Babes. And by the way, my Bill Maher interview is up, if you want to listen to it. It's quite—

Scott Galloway: Just so you know, he said no to me. He said yes to you.

Kara Swisher: Really?

Scott Galloway: I asked him to come on my pod, and I got this bullshit thing back from his publicist saying, "Bill really wanted to do this, but he's done with media and he's tired." And I'm like, well, he wasn't tired enough to go on—

Kara Swisher: Well, I went to his house. But in any case, he talks about being bullied in high school, in school. It was interesting. I had not heard that.

Scott Galloway: Yeah, so he had a little moment, too, even though a lot of people don't like him. It was really interesting.

Kara Swisher: Anyway, we'll be back on Tuesday with more Pivot. Scott, read us out.

Scott Galloway: Today's show was produced by Lara Neyman, Zoe Marcus, Travis Larchuk, and Taylor Griffin. Ernie Intertot engineered this episode. Thanks also to Drew Burrows and Miel Severio. Nishat Kurwa is Vox Media's executive producer of audio. Make sure you subscribe to the show wherever you listen to podcasts. Thanks for listening to Pivot from New York Magazine and Vox Media. You can subscribe to the magazine at nymag.com slash pod. We'll be back next week for another breakdown of all things tech and business.

What is uniquely wonderful about America? We have good people who create billions of dollars in value and then decide they're going to give it away. They're going to help others. See above.

Kara Swisher: Give.