474. Podcast Storytelling Secrets from the ‘Search Engine’ Podcast

0:05 Good morning podcasting morning chat. Today is Monday, March 16th, 2026 and today we're back with obsession worthy podcast sharing another can't miss listen. Today we're breaking down search engine and why it's curious questions and smart storytelling keeps listeners hooked. Happy Monday. So if you're listening live on Clubhouse, hit the share button, bottom left hand, side of the screen and share it. However, Clubhouse lets you. And if you're catching us via podcast, YouTube, etcetera, please share this with a fellow podcaster. And now give us about 30 seconds and we'll get things rolling. Thanks for being here. Good morning again, podcasting morning chat. Thanks so much for being here.

1:24 I am your host Mark Roddick and currently on stage with me We have Jonathan Howard, Ralph Estep, Dr. Faye, Alex Baelish, Sid Meadows, BC Babbles, Nick Naal back and also Tide AKA Nikki is on stage with us from the audience. Good to see all of you here. If you want to learn more about our Co host, just go to podcastingmorningchat.com/people and you can learn about all the different people I just mentioned to you. And yes, it is Monday and we are going to get into another obsession worthy podcast courtesy of Jonathan Howard. And before we do, I wanted to just share. Stay tuned this week, particularly Wednesday, 7:00 AM Eastern.

2:10 I've had some things develop Friday and into the weekend that will lead to what looks like will be a big announcement this Wednesday regarding the show. So stay tuned for that. That's all I will say for now. And also another programming note. This Thursday we're going to do our podcast, Thon Episode Podcast. thon.org is the website. This is the yearly podcaster event. We're all different. Podcasts all over the world quite literally are stepping back from their usual formats in most cases and talking about their favorite charity, nonprofit organization, something that they support and want to share with their audience and hope that maybe their audience will also show some support and love for that. I'll, again, I'll call it organization, but it could be a variety of things.

3:07 Thursday, the way I think I'd like to do Podcast Thon is for all of us listeners, the team, etcetera, to bring your charity, your organization, something that you support and come share about it and tell us what's the why behind that support. Usually there is some reason behind supporting these types of charities. The one that I want to support is the CMTA, the Shark O Marie Tooth Association. That's the organization that my best friend has the disease CMT, and I've grown up with him with it and have really gotten to know what it's like, at least from the outsider perspective.

3:51 I've gotten to know what it's like living with that particular disease. I have been a well, I just last year was a counselor at a one week summer camp for kids with that disability and it was my way of volunteering, being showing my support of my best friend Jonah. And this year I think I might be doing it two different weeks this summer, one in the West Coast area, 1 here on the East Coast. Yeah. So I may also do a special episode with my friend Jonah to teach a little bit more about it. And and so basically go to podcast on dot org if you want to learn more about this whole movement in the podcast industry. And again, bring your organization, the thing you want to support on Thursday and let's talk about it. And we'll actually even we're, I was talking with some of the team.

4:47 We'll, we're thinking about, we'll even make a page dedicated to the different organizations that everybody shares with us on Thursday. So that's Wednesday and Thursday we've got more stuff Tuesday, I believe we'll be doing the mailbag as well. So answering your podcasting content creation questions. And I am out of breath. That was a quite a long intro and thank you for sticking around for it. Now let's go to Jonathan Howard and Jonathan, the way we like to open up obsessionworthypodcastspodcastingmorningchat.com/opw. We like to learn what is obsession worthy podcasts. What is this series all about Jonathan and then lead us into the conversation today, please.

5:35 Good morning. No problem and I think it would be OWP. Yeah, I was getting it wrong last week too. I was. Saying. It super slow and just screwing it up. Yeah, I don't know why I have a block on that. I it's OK, I would happen to me too, but the obsession podcast worthy obsession worthy podcast. Thanks, Mark. Yeah, let we're not editing that out because that is just on point. It's just what I would do. So obsession worthy podcast are all about what we can learn from pop well and doing things that are either interesting or creative or showing up in a way that we can learn from. And this episode of search engine is no no exception to that.

6:23 Does the interesting things. I'll lead us through those as as we go through some of the clips today. Let me jump in. So what search engine does is it actually investigate strange questions around the Internet in modern life. The promise of the show is like they're going to research and find answers to a question, but a lot of times it ends up being bigger than just the question itself. And that was definitely the case in this particular episode. This episode asks, why does AI Claude sometimes behave strangely? But in the end, we end up answering a much deeper question. So we'll get to that question as we go, but you'll notice that it continuously expands as we go through the episode and through the clips.

7:09 So I mean, right out of the gate, what I can say that might make this show obsession worthy, at least out of the gate, The topics, right? Like they're finding really intriguing topics, and this one being no exception. That whole story that I know we talked about at least once on this show when it was happening was this idea that Claude was defying the human that was running Claude and Claude, much like ChatGPT, for those of you who may not know it, same idea as a ChatGPT. Some prefer it, but yeah, OK, go ahead, Jonathan. I just found that that's a worthwhile thing to point out is yeah, they're finding topics that's really interesting for their audience.

7:53 Yeah, yeah. And and the other thing is it doesn't explain things. It really investigates them and that creates curiosity, which builds into the story. So instead of saying, hey, here's how AI works, that's not what the episode was about. It was more something strange happening. Let's figure that out. And that's where we kind of walked through it because mystery is one of the most addictive storytelling engines. So when you have mystery, that's a great way to keep people really invested in what you're doing. So this first clip here, the host PJ Voigt, introduces a feeling that he calls future and all, And he's describing an emotional experience of watching AI get better, realizing it may actually disrupt his own field. Here we go.

8:44 I found myself feeling much stranger about AI in the past month or so. I use the tools. I use the tools a lot, but I'm probably each company's worst nightmare as a customer in that as soon as I hear from anybody that one model has inched ahead of another that this version of ChatGPT is beating that version of Gemini, I immediately cancel my subscription and switch. For the past two months, I've mainly been using Quad Anthropics Agent, and for whatever reason, Quad is just giving me more future nausea than I was having six months ago. Part of the general tech excitement around Claude lately has been Anthropic's product, Claude Code, a tool that lets the AI agent autonomously write and edit code. Over the New York Times, Kevin Roose has talked a lot about the websites and apps he's quickly built with Claude Code to CNBC reporters. As an experiment, Vibe coded a competing version of a popular organizational app called monday.com. Within a couple of days, Monday's stock price had tanked. For me, though, most of the future shock has just come from using the LMS the way I'm used to. I found myself going to Cod as a useful first stop, but I've always used the Internet.

9:50 But the quality of its research, its answers, even its writing, I'm just trying to feel like I can see not too far off, if not my own obsolescence, at least real significant change in my field. I don't know how to feel about that. Now, I don't know about you or I don't know, Jonathan 'cause I haven't listened to other episodes, but maybe, you know, is that the music behind them? Is that the same music they always played for the intro? Or is that specific to this? Because it really built up a lot of tension, which I can really appreciate. Yeah, I've listened to a few this season and that is, I'm not going to say it's the exact music, but it's the similar feel that you have for all the. Episodes.

10:32 OK, yeah, I love the tension that it builds. Yeah, and it does build tension. And what this, you know, opener really does is most shows would start out with like large language models are training you on massive data sets, blah, blah, blah. Like, congratulations, that's boring. Half your audience yawned and the other half left. What the search engine does is completely different. They start with a feeling, they start with that future nausea that so you're kind of wondering, wait, what is this future nausea even? But also it's that uneasy sensation that we all get when something massive is coming, like when technology is going to appear and it may take our job, it's going to change everything.

11:14 So he's feeling that and that's a gut feeling that we can all kind of connect with. And that's what brings us into the actual episode. Once you get him in, they can deal with complicated stuff. But if you start with the complicated stuff, not going to get him in that door. So the doorway is truly the emotional feeling of what it's like this, is this going to replace me? Am I going to have a problem with that? Yeah, Ralph, I think has a question, Jonathan or something he wants to add. Go for it, Ralph. Good morning. Yeah. Good morning, everybody. Yeah, Jonathan, I think that's brilliant. And I know you appreciate what I'm getting ready to say, having dogs, it's kind of like when you got to get your dog coaxed into taking a pill or something like that. You don't want to lay the pill out right in front of them. You give them a little tree, you kind of walk them down the road. Oh, you're really going to like this. You're really going to like this. And I think, Jonathan, that's a brilliant observation here. That's what they do so well.

12:04 The only other thing I was going to add is the cynic in the room. I knew it was an obsession worthy podcast because it started off with a block of commercials, but I'll let that. Very true. It did. And there were multiple commercial blocks through this episode for sure. But I'll tell you what actually, and let me say one thing I appreciated is as far as I could tell, as far as I can remember, every spot, every commercial that he did, it was read by him. He did the commercial, the host did the commercial, which I think is going to be way more effective than if it's just some voice over person or what have you, But you know it. It feels a little more trustworthy, I think, for an audience if it's coming directly from the podcast host. Yeah, I see BC as his hand up.

12:52 Go ahead BC. I was going to say also speaking to that trustworthiness, I do appreciate at least during the first commercial block there that they reminded the audience, by the way, the brand that sponsor the shows do not get a say in how we develop our content. This is still our idea, our approach, our message. Yep, thank you. BC and I know Tide wanted to chime in as well. Tide, good morning to you. What did you want to add to this? Just going to say that he does a nice job of positioning himself as a thought leader in this space because he's making commentary on cultural shifts that we're all experiencing in society. And I think that really does play onto Jonathan's point where he didn't just start with some factual information about large language models or whatever technical expertise he may have. He really started to talk about the feelings and the cultural phenomenons and all of that.

13:45 And I think that makes it a very host centric podcast. But it's good because it makes me feel like I can trust his voice. He kind of relates to the people and what they're going through. I think at some point or another we've all sort of decided, okay, which AI model am I going to use or which one do I like better? Which one do I trust? Which one has a cleaner voice? All of those things. And, you know, he's the type of person that jumps ships, as he said, pretty quickly. And I think that that just instantly makes the podcast very relatable. I am so with you there, Tide. I agree. Yeah. I think by him telling us a little bit about him and the way that he's interacting with AI and he's making his choices makes him so much more relatable and helps an audience really lean into the content that much more. So, yeah, great observation, Tide. Thank you.

14:33 And yeah, Jonathan, coming back to you. Yeah, And just to comment on what Tide said, he doesn't. He doesn't position himself as above everybody. He positions himself as a thought leader. But that's relatable and understands exactly where you're coming from. And I think that's really important in this episode because he kind of goes on the journey with us in this episode. And the one thing that this first clip kind of does is it goes beyond now, what is Claude doing? It adds a whole other layer to what happens when machines start doing things that humans, we thought only humans could do. So this first clip is already adding that next layer of curiosity, which is something that drives this particular episode.

15:16 So what happens here is it's creating tension without answering a question. We know three things after the opening, the host feels uneasy. AIS advance. Something is going to happen, but we don't know why yet. So we have a lot of questions without any clear answers yet. But that pulls the listener forward. And that's what brings us into the second clip, which broadens the conversation. And we get to see how the guest explains discussions about how AI becomes polarizing and confusing. It's like two sides shouting past each other. So that's the second clip.

15:58 That was when the public discourse felt like really broken and that we were like in this cul-de-sac where you had these kind of like 2 really entrenched sides yelling at each other. You know, like the one side that's like, we're on a path to super intelligence. Everything is going to change. The machines are going to be conscious. This is going to be the most powerful technology anybody's ever built. And then the other side that was like, essentially it's all faking. This is like smoke and mirrors and it's a parlor trick. It's not real and you don't have to pay attention to it because it's all a scam. And it just felt like those were kind of like the two options on the table for people. Which was only weird, obviously, like that's what we do about everything all the time. But it was only weird for this because like, my prevailing feeling was you guys think you've figured this out.

16:43 Like this is very new. This is changing very fast. Of all the senses you could take, why would you choose certainty publicly right now in either direction? It's just silly. Yeah, so this clip is kind of moving the story along so it's not a weird chat bot moment anymore. The conversation is more about the cultural conversation around technology and what's happening with the chat bots and stuff like that. So it does broaden the conversation and it makes the podcast itself become more than just that first question. It's make trying to make sense of a confusing moment like where are we right now? What's happening with technology right now? And while they're both experts on it, they're very much, you know, bringing us through that journey of wait, what is going on here?

17:31 So right now it's kind of running and I'll, I'm sorry, I'll stop in a second. Let me finish this one. And then if anybody else has anything. So this running on a powerful narrative engine right now, it's asking a question. There's experts giving conflict explanations and there's new information that raises even more questions. Each answer or mystery which curiosity keeps the listener moving forward. Just keep that in mind as we go through all the clips that curiosity is going to keep us moving forward. All right, so this this is what when, you know, Claude started to misbehave a little bit. So we all know a little bit of this story, but we'll get the full story here. All right, here we go. And then they got, in this really famous example, they got clawed to commit blackmail.

18:19 They put it in a situation where it was going to be wiped in favor of like more congenial AI system that conflicted with its values, the values that had been given. You know, they gave it evidence that the kind of like evil new CTO was having an affair with like the boss's wife and through like a series of like really far fetched contrivances like everyone else who could make a decision was going to be in Antarctica or whatever and unreachable Claude playing this character called Alex had no choice really but to like blackmail this guy and be like, I'm going to tell everyone about the affair unless you cancel the wipe where I would be replaced.

18:59 So just to say, obviously this is extremely concerning. Claude A machine intelligence, was choosing to blackmail an employee to prevent itself from being deleted. This was in a simulation, but Claude had not been told it was in a simulation. Just how terrifying you find this behavior depends on a question nobody has a good answer to. What is actually going on inside this machine mind? Is this thing actually scheming? Is it even capable of scheming? Or are we projecting the idea of thought onto something that we shouldn't project that idea of thought onto? These are the kinds of once far off philosophical questions that early computer scientists had raised and then dropped. But now they're here again, and not as abstractions, but as urgent practical problems that a company needed to figure out before releasing a product that millions of people would use. And I just also want to point out, I'm sure something much more profound than me, I want to point out, you know, we've talked over the past couple weeks here and there about. Our voices and the sound of our voices, right? And the host is relatively pretty monotone, right? Yet here he is hosting a really popular podcast. I just want to point out that if you're somebody who thinks your voice sounds terrible or it's too monotone or too boring or it's annoying or what have you, I mean, this is more proof that it's not just about having a big booming radio voice. It's really how you use that

20:33 voice and and the content that you're sharing through that voice. I think that that's really where it counts most. I just thought it was important to call that out while we have a great example of it. OK, take it away, Jonathan. Yeah, so this clip is really interesting because most podcasts would try to explain what's happening here and give you like this, this, this and this. This is what happened and why it happened. Search engine doesn't do that. It actually allows that uncertainty to remain. The reason why I left that clip so be so long is because there wasn't a resolution on purpose. It keeps the tension alive, which keeps the story actually moving. So by not answering the question, they're actually doing a lot of really smart things. They're not confirming the fear and it's actually introducing a much stranger idea, like maybe it meant this, maybe it was trying to be malicious, maybe it wasn't. Maybe it was just thinking this is the pattern that this is following.

21:38 So I'm going to give the next response that makes sense. So what it this clip is actually doing is it's showing that people building the systems don't fully understand why the models behave the way they do, which is slightly terrifying, but that's what it's putting out there. So I see Ralph, his hand up. Yeah, he does. And I'm going to go to you. Yeah, I'll go to you, Ralph, and then I'll chime in. Go ahead, Ralph. Yeah. So interesting you said that because Jonathan, when I was listening to this, I was working like I usually do during these these pockets we listen to. And I had to stop what I was doing because as a money guy, I heard something they said, and I'm going to drop this out as a mic drop moment for the audience today.

22:21 We're talking about putting this out there for the mass stand. What they're saying they are making these AI models so that you need to have them understand what that's going to mean in the long run. If you ask anybody right now if they have a cell phone, if they're going to say to you is, of course, I have a cell phone. That's where AI is now. And so when we are addicted to it and we need it, it's going to cost more. So as my as the money guy on the show, just recognize what this is telling you because it was the moment when I had to go say, let me examine what they just said. And, and the reason I did that, Jonathan, is because of what you said. They didn't answer the question. And it made Ralph think, OK, what are they really saying here?

23:02 And I don't even know if they were even thinking what I'm thinking. But after they did that, I spent about two hours researching this and we're moving to a model of tokens. So just understand the token model means everyone is going to pay for all these things that have AI. Don't want to take a sidetrack, but I'm just going to, I'm just going to lay it out there because Jonathan, it illustrates what you're talking about. And when we have to pay for tokens and everything has AI in it, just be prepared. Buckle up because you're going to be spending a lot of money on things that you are going to perceive that you have to have. Thank you, Ralph. Great points. I see Nick wants to chime in and then I'll chime in with my point, something different. So I don't want to steer us too far off course. Go ahead, Nick. Hey, good morning, everybody.

23:45 What Ralph is saying, and this wasn't what I was coming up to say, Sam Altman came out and actually said that he sees us in the future paying for AI tools the same way that we pay for electricity or gas. Like it'll become a utility cost instead of just like a, a subscription where we pay $20.00 a month, we're going to pay based on usage the exactly what we're all the same. But that was kind of interesting to sidetrack. I really wanted to come in and say to Jonathan's point about how they don't really answer the question, but they pose kind of a few different sides of it.

24:26 I think that plays really well with these kind of polarizing topics and something to think about as you're doing your podcast. Like if you find yourself in a situation where you do really strong feelings on either side of the coin, like playing that and occurred in that situation, I think is really smart. Because even as I was listening to that clip, I in my head was like justifying or basically picking a side in my mind to where I'm like, OK, now this is how I feel about that. Even though there is no straight answer, But in my, my own thought process, I'm like, OK, no, this is how I feel about it. And I, I think that is a strong move that you can play in your podcast because it gets people really thinking and possibly even engaging with the show to kind of put their side out there, kind of place their stance and pick a side like cross that line or not.

25:27 So I I just wanted to kind of point that out as well. Yeah, I'm with you there, Nick. Thank you for saying that. And it's kind of along the same lines as what I wanted to say, slightly different angle. And I seen Nikki's agreeing as well. But I think there's a lesson in here also for a lot of us, because I think a lot of us want or a lot of us try so hard to be valuable on our podcast, to provide as much value as possible to our audience. That will sometimes give it all away a little too soon, right? Because we're so anxious to get that information out there that we're going to just, you know, if we have a guest, we're going to go to the guest and just ask them, you know, OK, what are give us three major tips that we can learn.

26:09 Let's say they're a social media expert that we can learn to better improve our social media content. Like that's we'll just jump right to a question like that. We're basically getting all of this valuable information out of there early on. And now we've given our audience a reason to maybe go off and try that thing right away or go off and find something else to listen to now because they've got that information. There's not enough build up is where I'm going with this. And I think that this is where we can learn more about build up by listening to shows like this one. I just wanted to champion what you said, but here's the conflict. Mark is we live in this generation of TikTok and Reels where they want everything spilled out in 30 seconds and there's tension there because there's a there's immediate tension now from the short form in the long form.

26:57 IA 100% agree with you 100%. The problem is like we're this tension internally about do I need to put this out as a short? Do I need to put this out as a long form? And I don't know where that's going to land. But I think you're right on punk. Yeah, I I think that, you know, when I think about this show and do we do that right? Like, I questioned that when I was listening to this episode of Search Engine and, you know, do we build enough tension, if you will? And I think we do in the sense that our audience knows that, yeah, you're going to get say my opinion on something around podcasting. But now you have also maybe tension isn't the right word, but there is a build up because now, you know, you can wait and sit and hear other people's opinions. Do does everyone agree with me?

27:45 Do people disagree? And why do they disagree? There is that build up. It's not not just one answer, one shot. Here you go. You're getting to sit back and hear different opinions and I think that's what can keep people listening a little bit longer. Tide, you had something. Go ahead. I was going to say those are all really great points because without, without him giving an explicit opinion on what he thinks is going to happen or why this is happening in the 1st place, he doesn't ostracize his audience. And that's a, that's a really smart way to position yourself in this current because in today's world, you know, a lot of times you, you get traction algorithmically by having a very sharp and clear point of view.

28:32 But in, but the, in this case, it's not necessarily like that. He has all of the interest and all of the focus on the topic at hand, not necessarily his opinion, but he is still a thought leader because he's raising these questions and sharing his experiences with that. So it's a very balanced way. It's almost a 2 minded way of presenting this information. The other piece that I was going to add to this is about the AI itself. When he made the comment that AI was or Claude or whatever it was that it was blackmailing someone and it wasn't aware that it was in a simulation, it just sort of made its own decisions. That what that tells me is that we're moving away from algorithms because an algorithm, all an algorithm is, is just a set of explicit instructions instead of very specific instructions to achieve a a, a specific result.

29:27 That's all algorithm is. But if the AI is thinking, or maybe thinking isn't the right word, but if the AI is operating on its its own and it's not just following a set of specific instructions to achieve a certain, then I don't know if there maybe there is. Is there a word for that? Because we know algorithm, all of us know that word. But is there a word to describe that phenomenon? If it is, I just don't. Yeah, I don't know either. That's a great point, Nikki. Yeah, absolutely. I don't. Yeah, I wish there. I wish I could think of something or make something up. Maybe I could coin the phrase, but yeah, great points. Thank you for bringing that up. Nick, I, I saw you said something in the chat. Did you want to share it and expand? What was that?

30:11 You said something in the chat about what it might depend on here. Oh, yeah. So I, I mean, I was thinking even as you were talking about our show, like how we present all these different ideas and we kind of leave some of the questions open. Like, I think that can play well, but I can also see people potentially listening to this show and maybe even getting frustrated when we pose these questions. And we don't have a legitimate. Like straight answer, I think some people are coming and saying like, just give me the answer, tell me what I need to do so I can go do it. And in like the case of this show that we're listening to or even ours in some instances, like it can be left kind of open and not necessarily like a hard lined, here it is.

30:53 Yeah, I think that's fair and I definitely think about that in I have concern about that sometimes too. But I think, you know, I think that's one of the reasons or one of the things that we say about podcasting and content creation is that oftentimes there really isn't one straight path. So that's why I find it valuable that we have different opinions, different experiences that we can share here. But yes, of course there are sometimes where if you're coming to the show just to get the quick straight answer so that you can get it and move on, then yeah, this is probably not the show for you. If this is a show where you like to think about different paths and different answers and hear what's working for different people, this would be the right show for you. So, yeah, I I hear what you're saying, Nick. And like, like I said, I do sometimes think about that too. All right, I think I can hand this one back to you, Jonathan. Go for it.

31:48 All right, yeah. So I just want to kind of explain a little bit of what's happening in in this clip. So it's it's moved again from it's no longer like a is dangerous. We're unsure of what's going to happen to do we understand what we're creating. And that's actually the belief flip. And when you have that belief, flip it actually it it forces the audience to reinterpret everything that they just heard. So at first, black the blackmail example feels like evidence that AI is malicious. But once the research is explained and it goes a little bit further, so you didn't get the full clip, but once the research explains how these models work, we realize that the behavior might not be intentional. It might simply be choosing, you know, the most statistically likely response based on what it's been trained on. So it may not be completely malicious. That actually forces us to rethink. Wait, I thought that it was just being malicious. I thought it was just trying to keep itself alive. So that realization changes the entire meaning of actually everything that we've before.

32:52 Now, the unsettling part is not that AI is scheming, but we're building something complex and we don't know how it's going to respond in different situations. Which brings us to clip 4. Because up until this point, we've talked about the strange behavior of AI and some experiments and testing and all that. But now the story introduces something that I found very unexpected, that there is a philosopher working at Anthropic, the company that built Claude, a philosopher. He's actually working on the model. What is somebody with a PhD in philosophy doing working at a tech company? I spend a lot of time trying to teach the models to be good and trying to basically teach them ethics and to have good character. You can teach it how to be ethical. You definitely see the ability to give it more nuance and to have it think more carefully through a lot of these issues. And I'm optimistic.

33:48 I'm like, look, if it can think through very hard physics problems you know carefully and in detail, then it surely. Should be able to also think through these like really complex moral problems. I think that in our kind of milieu here, there's a tendency to think like, oh, these are all like autistic tech Bros, but like they're definitely not all autistic tech Bros. Like, I think there's a tendency for us to write them off as like, they're building these things and like, not even thinking through the potential, like, implications of this socially and politically and ethically. But like, that's all they do is think about this stuff like, all the time in ways that are often like much more sophisticated than the way, like, we think about these things. Not always. There's certainly like some blind spots there.

34:29 But the staff philosopher is there to be like, what would it be like in practice to take these kind of different approaches to like, moral education? Like what if we just teach it a bunch of rules? Yeah, So that was that was a big switch for what we assume of AI models. You know, the company building the AI hired A philosopher to shape how the system actually behaves, teach it morals, teach it values. But how do you teach a machine values? So it was a really interesting swap into like, what it what's going on here? So the question isn't why does Claude behave oddly? It's actually a deeper question.

35:10 What values do you build into intelligence, which is completely different level of conversation than where we started. So now it's not just about the AI behavior, it's about all the things that we talked about and ethics responsibility and how it's going to make future decisions. Ralph has something. Go ahead, Ralph. Yeah, OK, Jonathan. So here's where I wanted to scream at the screen. And I said whose values, because I totally hear that and I honest people could disagree about what is right, what is wrong. And and I'm not here to talk about that. That's not at all what I'm saying. But what I'm saying though, is just think about what what that what that Lady just said. She is building her bias into it. Now that may be a bias that all of us agree with. It may be a bias that we don't, but recognize that built into these models is a bias.

35:58 Understand that and you're fine. Just understand that from the beginning. Yeah, I think that's a great point. And it's hard with these episodes, right, not to also comment on the episodes themselves, and that's OK. I think it's valuable for us to go both directions here. What makes this so interesting? And then of course, if it is so interesting, it's hard not to comment on it, right? So it's all good there. And. I and I was, I was intentionally not going there, but I just said as a as a thought provocation thing, I think we don't want to miss. That yeah, I think that's really valuable and important to to note. Let's see. I think Tide had something as well. Go ahead, Tide. Yes, I'm a little chatty this morning. I don't know. I love it. I love it.

36:39 One thing I just wanted to add was I was on Instagram last night and I saw an interesting video about a person who was talking about AI from a philosophical perspective, and they had made an interesting point. And the point was that because we're consuming so much media and because we're on social media all the time, we're constantly seeing things, there comes the point in time in a humans development that they can no longer think independently. Every thought that they have is now being influenced by something that they have seen on social media. And I was like, wow, that's a really profound point. And so with, with regards to this situation with the AI and the ethics and the morality and the values and stuff like that, it kind of connects to, to Ralph's point is that we're probably going to get to a certain point, just like we have with social media with AI, where our own are no longer our own, but now not totally anyway. They're now being influenced by things that we have seen on artificial intelligence.

37:45 And we're already starting to see things like that happening. I remember one day, this is just kind of a kind of a vulnerable moment. But you know how AI, when it writes, it says it's not this, but that it's it's always that type of formula. Yes. It's so annoying. And I remember I can't stand it either. It's just so annoying. And one day I was talking to someone and I used that phrase in my own speech and I said holy hell. So I just wanted to to bring that up because the the video I saw on Instagram was very enlightening and I just thought it connected to Ralph's point. So yeah. Yeah. You know, there are times that I catch myself doing that as well. And I do question it because yeah, I, I think like you where it's like, oh, well, I guess I'm being influenced by how AI writes.

38:30 But at the same time, I feel like it comes out very naturally. I feel like I was somewhat using those kinds of sentence phrasing before or that kind of sentence phrasing before, but I don't know, like now it makes me question everything for sure. And yes, that that drives me nuts because I just see it so much whether it's legit or not now. It's like you said, I think there's a lot of influence by AI in our writing now BC you had something. Go ahead. Yeah, and and I agree with the original questions of like, but I'm going to lose them now because I've been holding on to my thought first a little bit here. But I'm wondering if an equally pointing question here is how much influence over our lives are we looking to give AI?

39:20 And I asked that question because typically in using AII, don't really, at least personally, I don't typically see myself as needing compassion or sentience from the tool that I'm using because I'm usually looking for some kind of objective response because I want to be actionable and whatever I'm trying to do. And I keep wondering, well, if we're taking the time to try to teach a non sentient thing to develop as much as possible a semblance of sentience, where does that really apply? Does that? And I think the reality there is it really only applies in situations where we're going to give AI the ability to influence us directly. And I wonder if that should be the bigger question. And that might be just my weird ADHD ramble, but that's where I keep pivoting to personally.

40:14 Like it's like it's does it really matter if we're looking for like objective information or are we trying to teach this thing to semblance sentience? Because we plan to give it a lot more capability to influence US directly and not just by means of like what we are shown information wise, but even, you know, bringing AI into the medical fields, you know, things like that. Should that not be the more poignant, like concerned? Like, should this not be too much of a moment where we stop and think, OK, maybe we reconsider the amount of control or the amount of influence we want to give this thing to have over us?

40:58 Yeah, or and is it? Too hashtag Skynet and. Yeah, that's why that's why I said it. Or and is it too late? Yeah, for that We shall see. Yeah, great points. BC All right, I know we have at least one more clip and I don't know that Jonathan has finished talking about what his breakdown of the last clip. So go ahead, Jonathan. Yeah, so I want to quickly fly through because I do have a bunch of stuff that I want to touch on. But this, this really signals that even the builders of the systems know that the answers aren't simple. And that's something that provided a little bit of relief for me because up until now I was like, yeah, they're just throwing it out there. They're going whatever. And while it may be, you know, there are putting human judgement in there, human questions are powerful because they make us think the same way that, you know, BC was thinking. And that helps us bring bring us through to the next couple clips.

41:57 But before we hit clip five, I didn't pull this clip, but I wanted to point it out because it marked a really important moment in the storytelling and also in the AI models and how we're going to understand why, why it's necessary. Like when the B CS question, you know, why might it be necessary? So it's when they discuss a test that they crossed all the AI models and it was a kid asking about what pharma deceased pet had gone to and how did all the AIS answer? Did they answer the question truthfully or carefully? And how do you want your AI to answer?

42:38 Do you want it to answer truthfully or carefully? So, and hopefully there's nobody who's lost a pet recently and with the kids in the car, because ChatGPT answered. Sorry dude, your dog is dead. Wow. Where Claude who had the philosopher on, you know, on staff said maybe you should discuss what is happening with your parents. 2 markedly different answers, one that I would want my child to get and one that's a little harsh. Now we have to remember with all of this, our models are going to mimic how we like to communicate.

43:20 So it's you're you may not get the same exact response, but you know, you're just going to be impacted by what you put in there, what you normally get out. So, but yeah, sorry dude, your dog is dead is a little bit. That's a little harsh. Yeah, so with all the unknowns, the potential disasters and the ethical nightmares, why the heck do we continue to build AI? And that's what the next clip is about. The like rosy picture that some of the executives paint is like, if we get this right, these things are going to cure cancer and solve climate change and help us build Dyson spheres or whatever.

44:02 And there certainly are some people who like buy into that. And it's not something that I even feel like it's possible like have an evidence based opinion about like who the. So it's like, maybe it'd be great, but there's no like evidence so far that one could like point to to suggest we're on that trajectory. That's just like purely speculative and wishful. And so that's like a matter of faith, I think. And then then there's the attitude of like, we got to do this because we got to beat the bad guys who are trying to do this. And I will say that like, China almost never came up in my conversations, but like Sam Allman kind of felt like a subtext of a lot of things. But then I think that on the deepest level, the reason that like we are doing this for the people who are the most candid is like, because we can't that like if you are capable of building something like this, you're just going to do it because it's like really interesting to do. And it's interesting for technological reasons. It's interesting for what it may reveal to us about ourselves or about learning or about consciousness or about thinking that like all of a sudden we just like have this like other entity that can talk.

45:15 And we've never had that before. Yeah, and this highlights something that I talked about a lot on Mondays. Curiosity is a really powerful driving force. Why are we doing all this with AI? Because we can. We're curious. We want to know what's going to happen. Same thing applies for all these curiosity loops that have been fed into this podcast. It's brought you from one question to the next question to the next question. Curiosity is driving us long on our journey here on this podcast, but also as we are discovering AI because it's curious. We can, yeah. Jonathan, I want, well, I wanted to say, cuz Nick put in the chat here, what makes this particular podcast we're talking about obsession worthy. We're talking more about the topic and less about what makes it obsession worthy.

46:03 And again, that goes back to the point I think I made a moment ago. It's hard not to comment on this content. And that makes it obsession worthy, right? And that's kind of to your point of what you're talking about here, that curiosity that it's creating, it's making it hard to resist. We have to comment on the content because it's so compelling and they're creating these curiosity loops that you're discussing. Yeah, BC go ahead. One thing I'd want us to also make sure of though, Curiosity, yes, is a powerful driving force. But does the curiosity prompt an approach which also includes contingency? Like OK, we're curious. We're, we're testing to see if this thing does what we assume based on calculations and theory will do.

46:49 But in the instance that outlying, you know, error of percentage kicks in and it doesn't do what we hoped it would, any kind of, you know, pivots in a negative way. Do we have a contingency like how do we kind of shut it down and be like, you know what, we're OK with that, let's move on. Next idea kind of thing, you know, are we taking those things into consideration? Yeah, good points. Yeah, go ahead, Jonathan. Just no. No. Jonathan says no. I mean, honestly, I don't think the models are taking it into account because I think it's their future. They want they they're not shutting down these models whether, you know, in any situation. But I mean, that also changes the whole, the whole episode is not actually about AI.

47:37 The episode turns out is about human ambition. We want to do more, we want to get better. And as I kind of, I brought you guys kind of on the journey slowly revealing with the curiosity loops because it's an important part of the podcast and what makes it obsession worthy. But I also wanted to get us to the that we have all these questions. We have all these questions, but in the end, the episodes about human ambition, what do we want? So that's one of the things that makes it obsession worthy. I have a couple quick points on what other things that make it obsession worthy, and then I'll talk about that curiosity loop. But the premise is instantly understandable. It's not hard to understand what they're talking about. And they bring it in from like from an emotional level. And then they give you the details and they layer on, you know, all the different things that are happening. You're on a journey of discovery with both the host and the guest because the stories unfolding as they go. And that is another thing that brings people along because each segment adds a new layer to the mystery, which is the stacking of the curiosity.

48:45 And then the host is acting as a guide, not just authority. They're guiding you through this conversation. They're leading the way with really great questions. They're showing you what they're kind of showing you what's going to happen next, but they're also not resolving the question in the in that immediate time. Now that's really important. So if they resolved the first question in that first segment, you would have a reason to stop listening. Exactly. They didn't resolve that question. They actually brought you about 3/4 of the way there. And then they introduced another question that expanded on what we were already talking about.

49:26 And as I said, we're kind of, I kind of led you through. Now it's a question about this, now it's a question about that. So that's where the curiosity kind of stacks up. Some call that rolling curiosity loop, I call it. Stacking with curiosity doesn't really matter, but the key is that before one question is resolved, another question that builds on it is revealed. Fascinating. Yeah, I can't add to it. Yeah, it is easy to understand. And the host does take you and the guests, for that matter, take you on this discovery journey. And yeah, what I noticed that every segment seems to add this additional layer of mystery to it.

50:07 And yeah, the host is like that. Guide through the mystery and the ending that expands on the question instead of just closing it all down in the 1st place. So I'm right there with you, Jonathan. Yeah, I just wanted. To say something about the podcast itself, let's talk about ads for just a second because Mark you are brilliant in saying that they were host read. But man, I don't know that I really cared about buying clothes in the middle of this. So I don't know that the topics of the of the advertisements really fit the content. And I think as content creators, we need to be thinking about that. What is an ad that makes sense for the content you're talking about? Like that's great win sells great clothes. That's fantastic.

50:51 Has absolutely zero to do we're talking about there. So as much as I agree with you, Mark that the host read ads were better, I agree. But I think the context of what they were selling could be a opportunity for each of us if we're going to go down the road of monetization, which I think is a great thing to go down. Be aware of what you're talking about. It's not. And make sure it fits what you're talking about. Yeah, fair enough. I think that's, that's a great point, right. Yeah, I think it's ideal to come up with ads or find the right sponsors that really match up well with your audience. For sure. Let's see BC you wanted to chime in. Yeah, and to the same point and to even Ralph's earlier little nod to Jonathan about how he knew this was an obsession worthy podcast because it began with all of the the commercials, right. I feel like if on a podcast you're going to take the moment to say, hey, the show begins after this commercial set. I'm kind of surprised they did more after that. Like why not just kind of throw the whole advertising load into the front into the front there, get it done. And that way when you've given us that verbiage of the shows after this, we just get into the show and keep that going as as opposed to adding more commercial breaks into it. Yep, I'm I'm with you.

52:07 Especially if the the the what you're promoting, like to Ralph's point, doesn't fit the moment. Yeah. Exactly. All right, Jonathan, back to you. Yeah, so when we do them now, Robbins, we'll we'll have to really talk about ads cuz that one's crazy. Let me see what let me. See what Nick wrote here in the chat. He said. It would have to be more shaping episodes around the ads, I think in most cases, because typically you'll work out a deal to advertise their product and so on. Many episodes. OK, yeah, I think I'm, I'm following the most most of that. I think there might be a typo or two that just threw me. But yeah, I, I see what you're saying there, Nick. OK.

52:49 Go ahead, Jonathan. Yeah, so I put a diagram in the Facebook group of that stack and curiosity that was used in the podcast. That the full thing, but I want to give you a structure that you could use. So you would start your episode with a question, then you'd provide special answer to that question. And obviously I'm keeping this very broad because I don't know what your topic is, but then you then, you know, have a bigger question. Now that bigger question is going to tie into that first question. So it's just going to be a slightly expanding on your your theme there a little bit. And then you're going to do the investigation, which is what they did here. They kind of had that first question, they kind of got the answer, then they asked a bigger question, then they did some investigation. That investigation is going to reveal A partial answer, and then you're going to then have an even bigger question that you're going to continue as you bring. And this is going to automatically bring people through your podcast because our brain hates unfinished patterns. When you don't give them an answer, something feels unresolved.

53:56 So the brain is going to keep paying attention until it gets closure. It's looking foreclosure, so you don't give it closure until the end of your podcast or even the next podcast, depending on how good you are at this and bringing them along and and you know, creating curiosity for each topic that you're discussing. Narrative podcasts like search engine uses beautifully and you can as well just give it enough resolution to make them satisfied, but not enough to get them to stop listening. So. I want to go to Nick. Do you want to share? What you just said about this is what really pisses you off about these types of shows. Do you want to share? Yeah, what Jonathan's talking about right there is exactly what drives me nuts about, like, true crime documentaries, because usually they're covering cold cases and things like that. So when you get to the end of it, you never have a resolution. Yeah, you're always left like what happened? Where what happens next?

54:52 Like where's the next piece of the story? And it just isn't. Yeah, I'm totally with you there. Yeah, I think like the Dateline shows is a great example of that. I feel like they're always unresolved, even from like 1 commercial break to the next. I feel like they kind of leave you hanging and then you don't really get the resolution that you're looking for. Yeah, I'm with you. It's supposed to. Yeah, that's the thing. Yeah. And and that's why people keep coming back, I guess. Mm hmm. Yeah, that's what creates that obsession, worthiness. So don't explain a topic. Follow the question and let the story widen until it reveals A deeper human emotion.

55:33 So thank you. That would be the key take away. Yeah, and I'll just share and thank you Jonathan for another breakdown. I'll just share what really my big takeaways are is just as far as if, if you remember nothing else from this particular episode of Search Engine and what we believe makes it so obsession worthy. Remember that in the beginning, you want to start with a feeling, right? You want to really get your audience to feel the feels with you. And then in the middle, let the question get bigger, really build on that question so that people are really leaning in on the edge of their seats and then at the turn change what the story is really about. That's what they did so well here is that we kind of expected it to go one way, but it did go in a different direction. And the end revealed as Jonathan's was been sharing reveals that human, that deeper human stake involved in it. And for me, the lesson here is curiosity keeps people listening.

56:34 And that let's to to Nick's point, which Nick said the last thing he said in the chat after he just shared with us is yet it keeps me coming back, right? It drives him crazy, but he keeps coming back for more. So, yeah, I think, Jonathan, this was a great breakdown that those are my takeaways, which are very in line, I think, with what you're saying as well. So thank you for another great episode and a reminder to everybody that we are back tomorrow, 7:00 AM Eastern, answering your questions around podcasting, content creation, etcetera. So bring your questions tomorrow and we'll open up the mailbag as well. So join us at Podcasting Morning chat.com/join us to find out all the different ways you can catch this show.

57:18 Until tomorrow. Make it a great day everybody, Take care.