What's up, everybody? It's Tom Bilyeu here: Want my help starting a business? Join me here inside Zero To Founder Sign up for my AI Masterclass: AI Masterclass FOLLOW TOM: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/tombilyeu/ Tik Tok: https://www.tiktok.com/@tombilyeu?lang=en Twitter: https://twitter.com/tombilyeu YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@TomBilyeu Tailor Brands: Check out Tailor Brands to get started with your business today: https://bit.ly/TailorBrandsSept Quince: Free shipping and 365-day returns at https://quince.com/impactpod ElevenLabs: Book your demo at https://elevenlabs.io/impactpod Incogni: Take your personal data back with Incogni! Use code IMPACT at the link below and get 60% off an annual plan: https://incogni.com/impact Ketone IQ: Visit https://ketone.com/IMPACT for 30% OFF your subscription order. Horizon.ai: Go to https://horizon3.ai/IMPACTTHEORY and request your free NodeZero demo. No commitment required. Results in hours, not weeks. Butcherbox: Go to https://ButcherBox.com/IMPACT to get $20 off your first box, plus your choice of free ribeye, new york strip, or filet mignon in every box for a year — with free shipping always Quo: Try for free PLUS get 20% off your first 6 months at https://quo.com/impact The team digs into a strange and revealing controversy at the frontier of AI: a potential mathematics breakthrough where humans and AI are now fighting over who deserves the credit. For about a year, NYU mathematician Tristan Buckmaster and a researcher at Anthropic had been working on an obscure approach to one of the famous Clay Institute "millennium prize" problems (with $1 million on the line)—running their drafts through private OpenAI Codex sessions hosted on OpenAI's servers. When a step forward emerged (a result related to "blow-up" in the Euler equations of fluid dynamics), accusations flew that OpenAI's model had essentially "copied their homework"—learning from their private work and then producing the result itself. The host uses it to open up what he thinks is the defining debate of the era: when you collaborate with an AI, and it helps you reach an insight you genuinely pushed it toward, who owns the result? He walks through the emerging solutions—Alex Karp of Palantir's "put something in the middle" approach, versus self-hosting an open-source model behind your own servers with your own tuned "weights" so your inputs stay proprietary even as the world uses your outputs. He's candid that he's genuinely torn: as someone building his own project (Kaizen), he admits feeling the impulse to keep some paths secret for a six-month lead, while also arguing that since AI was trained on all of humanity, there's an obligation to keep letting it aggregate humanity's breakthroughs—especially in a field like medicine, where he shares a personal story about a family member's cancer and how siloed, firewalled medical data made coordination nearly impossible. His most provocative point is psychological: that the reason people aren't celebrating even a real (if modest) step forward is a raw human fear of being made to feel irrelevant—that "I can't let it be the AI that did this." He closes on his recurring throughline: rather than running to the government to regulate AI (which he thinks would hurt the open-source models that are the real check on Big AI), the open market and open source should be allowed to solve this—letting young upstarts protect their proprietary "weights" and compete, so a handful of giant companies can't hoard the breakthroughs. The team breaks down a sharp escalation in the Iran conflict and maps how it connects to a much bigger global picture. The immediate news: an intensifying tanker war in the Strait of Hormuz, with the IRGC claiming its largest attack of the war (striking multiple vessels and claiming hits on US destroyers), the US reportedly sinking eight Iranian oil tankers over four days, and Iran launching 20 ballistic missiles at a US base in Jordan—of which Jordan says 18 were intercepted and two hit empty desert, with no casualties reported. The host stresses a key caveat: with the IRGC claiming major damage and the Pentagon denying it, the truth is genuinely murky, and neither side's account should be taken at face value. He reads the "2-for-1" retaliation pattern and Rubio's "shoot at our ships and you lose tankers" posture as a deliberate US strategy of disproportionate response—while flagging the real risk that Iran is trying to bait the US into depleting munitions it may need for two other potential fights: a cornered, economically flailing Germany squaring off with a declining Russia, and the looming US-China collision. From there he lays out his central framework: that the US and China are two "wounded animals," both the largest economies, both feeling a narrow window, both pressing—China racing to divorce from the dollar (he floats his own contested theory that they may back the yuan with gold), reshore chip-making, and potentially move on Taiwan by 2027, because the deeper prize underneath everything is AI, and AI runs on chips. He argues energy undergirds the entire board, which is why the Strait, the Houthi attacks on Saudi oil infrastructure, OPEC fracturing, and the Venezuela play all matter, and offers his read on why the US actually entered Iran (securing GCC capital for the AI bet, under the banner of non-proliferation). He's candid about which parts are his interpretation, flags his gold-backed-yuan idea as highly contested, and lands on his recurring throughline: a multipolar world is coming, and the real question is what kind of "overlord" order the world ends up choosing—one you can vote out, or one you can't. The team connects a series of escalating global stories that the host argues are increasingly becoming one convergent conflict. First, Iran: the Revolutionary Guard reportedly fired hypersonic ballistic missiles at a US aircraft carrier and a guided-missile destroyer in the Strait of Hormuz—a dramatic escalation from base and drone attacks—with both ships evading and no Americans hurt, after which US forces struck and reportedly sank Iranian oil tankers. The host frames a country as most dangerous when it's weakest, and notes Bessent's argument that Iran is running out of the pre-purchased Chinese oil money keeping it afloat, meaning the coming months could get more dangerous before any off-ramp. Second, Europe: reports that Germany is moving toward direct conflict with Russia (closing Russian consulates, restricting entry after a drone incident), which could trigger NATO and pull in the US—complicated by the rise of Germany's AfD party (now reportedly the second-largest, around 23% to the leading party's ~30%), which has floated exiting the EU. Third, diplomacy: Witkoff and Kushner arriving to broker talks, with a reported 72-hour agreement between Putin and Zelensky not to strike each other's capitals (though front-line fighting continues and a broader ceasefire was rejected)—the host cautiously optimistic given their Abraham Accords track record, while noting their recent results have been thinner. Fourth, the US-Venezuela deal versus China, which claims its own competing, "internationally protected" interest there—prompting the host's blunt aside that "international law" is really just a function of who holds the most power. And finally, the bigger economic picture: a Nordic country reportedly selling ~$80B in US Treasuries, central banks buying gold in historic amounts (with gold reportedly overtaking US debt as the top reserve asset), and the resurfaced Ray Dalio warning about what happens when an empire has to start buying its own debt. The host's throughline: the US has a real opportunity—if it rebuilds a genuine moral center, restores fiscal discipline, and competes with China by being genuinely better for partner nations (Venezuela being the key test)—but the window is closing, and a multipolar world can deliver either the benefits of real competition or the dangers of everyone violently choosing sides. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
