For years, a presentation that looked this good meant hours of fiddling to get right. But, I've spent weeks finding the best workflow for making stunningly beautiful and professional slides really fast. And in this video, I'll walk you through it so you can make your own from a single sentence. So, the whole thing runs on two tools, and they each do a very different job. You write the presentation in Claude first, and then you build it in Replit Design. Claude handles the words and the order they go in, which is the actual argument the slides are making. Replit Design takes that and turns it into the finished slides. And the reason you split it like that is the exact thing most AI slide tools get wrong. They jump straight to the design and hand you a good-looking presentation that says nothing. So, you start with the writing, and the design comes second. The writing starts in Claude. I'll open it up and paste in a master prompt I wrote for this, and it's in the free document below. It's the one piece worth saving because every presentation you make after this starts from the same prompt, and you swap in the new topic. All you're doing is filling in the blanks. Your role, the topic, how many slides you want, then who it's for, [music] and the tone you're going for. The role is the one worth being specific on because act as a market analyst and act as a startup founder pull the writing in completely different directions before you've even touched the tone. Those last two settings matter more than they look because the audience and the tone change the whole presentation even when the topic stays the same. The same talk aimed at investors comes back with more of the numbers, and aimed at a room of students it comes back simpler with more explaining along the way. For this one, I'm writing a persuasive presentation on the creator economy in 2026 for a general audience in about 10 slides. [music] The slide count is worth thinking about rather than guessing at because it decides how much each slide has to carry. Ask for 20, and each one only has to make a small point. Ask for six, [music] and it has to choose the six that matter and drop everything else. I go with 10 because that's about 15 minutes of talking, [music] which is what most rooms give you anyway. Two lines in that prompt do most of the work because they're what makes it build an argument instead of just listing facts. The first is how it writes the titles. You tell it to write each title as the takeaway itself. So, a slide about market size comes back titled The Creator Economy has doubled to $250 billion in 2 years. A title like that stands on its own, so even someone half watching gets the point. A plain title like market size just makes them wait for you to explain it. That one [music] change makes the whole presentation look like someone who knew what they were doing built it. The second is the order it all runs in. I tell it to build the presentation as one argument from the first slide to the last, where each slide sets up the next. It opens on a problem, lays out the evidence, and ends on [music] what it means for the person watching. And building it as one argument instead of a stack of separate slides is what keeps people with you because each slide is answering the question the last one just raised. So, they're following one line of reasoning instead of sitting through a list of points. I'll run this on Fable 5, though Opus 5 works just as well. They're the two strongest models Claude has today, and research like this needs the good ones. It goes and reads the web for the current numbers, then builds the presentation on what it finds. [music] And it means you're not the one looking up every figure yourself. A minute later, the full thing comes back, every slide laid out. Each title's written as a point with the main message underneath. Then there's a rough layout and speaker notes to go with each one. It's easy to overlook those speaker notes. They're the words you'd say out loud so you can talk to your audience instead of reading off the slides. I don't take it all as it comes, though. I read it through and cut the slide that repeats itself. And if a whole section of it feels thin, I'll say so in the chat and have it rework that part before I go anywhere near the design tool. It's much quicker to fix an argument while it's still text because changing a line here takes seconds, and changing it after 10 slides have been built around it means redoing the slides as well. Then I reword a couple of the titles, and at the end it writes me one more prompt ready to paste into Replit Design. And that's the whole reason for writing it first. By the time I get to the design tool, the hard part's done, and every slide's already planned out. So, that's the writing sorted, and now it just needs building. Replit Design is the tool that builds it, an AI design suite where an agent works alongside you. The link's in the description if you want to follow along, and it opens on a prompt box with a row of options underneath. Those options are what you want it to make, everything from a website to a mobile app to a data dashboard. The one I'm after is slides. I'll click slides so it knows what we're after, then paste in the prompt Claude wrote and send it. As soon as I send it, it starts building. No questions, no setup, no back-and-forth about what I want it to look like. And that's the prompt doing its job because Claude already settled all of that before any of it got here. The slide count, who it's for, the tone, the order the argument runs in, all of it went in with the paste. So, there's nothing left for it to ask me. This is the part you'd feel if you skipped the first step and came straight here with a topic in your head. You'd be the one filling in every gap, and you'd be filling them in after it had already built 10 slides [music] around the wrong assumption. And if you do want it looking different, you don't set that up front. You say so in the chat once it's built, which is how the whole tool works anyway. Now, it goes to work and you can watch it happen. It thinks in the chat on the left and lays out its plan, saving a checkpoint so you can roll back anytime. That checkpoint's worth knowing about because if a later change makes something worse, you drop straight back to the last good version instead of trying to undo it by hand. Then it starts building the slides on the canvas over on the right. About 30 seconds later, the full presentation is sitting there finished. And honestly, it came out looking really, really good. The charts on the market size slides are sharp, and the numbers are easy to read, which is usually the first thing a tool like this gets wrong. The slide I'm not sold on is the second-to-last one where the text sits tight against the edge. But that's a 2-second fix, and every other slide holds up. And if it comes back and the whole direction is off, you're better off changing the prompt and running it again than fixing 10 slides one at a time. A rebuild costs you 30 seconds. Going through a presentation you don't like slide by slide costs you the rest of the afternoon. And there's the whole presentation on screen, and now I get to shape it into exactly what I want. That first version is never quite it, and you fix it here by telling the presentation what to change. If I only want to swap a word, I click the edit button on the top right and type. The same as any editor you've used. It updates on the spot. There's a full set of manual controls, too. It's an edit panel that runs from font size and weight through to layout and colors if you like getting in and nudging things by hand. But the faster move is the chat because I can click any part of a slide and describe what's wrong in plain English. The more specific you are, the less you end up going back and forth. Telling it to make a slide better gets you something different, but not necessarily something you wanted. [music] Telling it the number needs to be the first thing you see, or that the text is sitting too close to the edge, gets you the change you actually had in mind because you've told it what's wrong instead of asking it to guess. On that main market slide, the big figure isn't standing out enough for my taste. I click the box, open the chat, and tell it to make the number pop. My message goes in and the agent reworks that one element. A few seconds later, the figure is bigger and bolder and stands out on the slide exactly like I asked. The changes go further than looks, too. On one of the middle slides, the point is buried in a wall of stats, so I ask it to turn that into a simple bar chart. Instead of restyling the words, it rebuilds the whole slide around the chart. So, you look at what's on the slide, tell it what to change, and it handles the design for you. A couple of rounds of that and the presentation matches what I had in my head. I'll save it as a template with the button up top. Next time I need slides, I start from this exact style instead of a blank page. A few presentations in and you've got a small library of your own layouts to pull from. And this is where it starts saving you real time because the first presentation takes a few minutes, but by the third one, the prompt, your saved templates, and your own style are doing most of the work, and you're really just picking the topic and letting it run. And if you've got a brand, the design system is the feature you'll get the most out of. You can save your fonts, colors, and logo once as a design system, and every future presentation gets built in that style automatically. That way a client presentation and an internal one come out looking like the same brand with none of the setup each time. It's the bit that matters most if you're making these for other people because a client notices when a presentation is in their colors, but not quite their brand. Same on a team where everyone building their own slides usually ends up meaning a different style and a different font in every deck that goes out. Now, it's built and on brand, and the only piece left is getting it in front of people. A presentation is only any use if you can get it to your audience without a hassle. And Replet Design gives you a few easy ways to do that. The quickest option is right there, a present button that drops you into full screen so you can run through the presentation live. And there's no setting up beforehand, you just hit present and you're straight into it. If your team already uses something else, the export button sends the presentation out to PowerPoint, Google Slides, or a PDF. It slots into what you're already using. You can also invite a collaborator into the project with a link when it isn't a one-person job so they can comment straight on the slides instead of you emailing versions back and forth. That saves the mess of five slightly different copies going around because everyone's working on the one live version. The last option is publish, and it's the one I use most. I hit publish and Replit Design puts the presentation on a live link of its own. I can open it on any device and present the presentation from the browser, straight off my phone if I have to. There's nothing for anyone to download or install. [music] And because it's a link, you can put it in an email or a calendar invite, and it opens the same for everyone. You export when someone needs the file itself or wants it offline. And you publish when you'd rather send a link that updates the second you change a slide, so nobody's ever looking at an old copy. That one saved me more than once because I'll change something the night before, and everyone who already has the link sees the new version without me sending anything. With a file, you'd be attaching it all over again and hoping people open the right one. And it barely matters what the presentation is for. Whether it's a pitch to investors or a talk in class, it's the same two steps every time. Written with Claude and built here. And those two steps stay the same no matter what you pointed at. And what started as one sentence is now a finished presentation done in a few minutes. And the part that stuck with me is publishing the whole thing to a link you can present from anywhere. You only feel how easy that is once it's your own presentation on that link. So, head to Replit through the link below, build your first one, and share it today. Thank you for watching, and I'll see you in the next one.
Watch this. A simple two-lines prompt to create a full technical guide with my AI-powered content factory system. Let's run. First, it pulls real search data and read the top articles on Google related to the topic. And now, it trends a real server in Frankfurt. It is deploying the actual app the guide talks about. Testing it, breaking it, measuring everything. Then, it's taking its own screenshots. And finally, it writes. And here is the output. A full technical guide published on my website with numbers it tested itself. And what's really special and important about this system? It's connected to my brain. Yes, my brain. It knows my voice, my style, my opinions, my thoughts, everything about me. Look at this line. And this one. This me talking, my real stories, my real numbers, the way I write. In this video, I'll show you the five building blocks of my content factory system. And by the end, you'll know exactly how to build one for your own niche. If you are ready, let's get started. Back in 2021, I used to pay around $150 to $300 per one technical guide like this one. And sometimes, I need to wait like 7 days to finish it because it requires a lot of experiments, a lot of tests back and forth between me and the writer. Then, in 2022, 1 year later, I published a video here on my channel showing you how to write a full blog post in 10 minutes with the help of AI. Around 300,000 people watched the video, and it was really fast, yes. But I warned you then in that video this: AI content generators must be used as a writing assistant and not just generate to use AI as writing assistant, and don't just copy and paste because it wrote generic content. Today, we have a name for that content, AI slop, and we don't want that. So, today, with the new AI-powered content factory I built, honestly, no writer I ever hired could do the experiments and tasks and write like this system. Sorry, writers, but this is reality. So, how does it actually work? We have mainly five building blocks running inside this content factory system. Block number one, the contract. It's simply closed skills. Think about it as the instructions, the stages, the guidelines, the rules that the AI will follow when writing the guide. Number two, the senses, and mainly keyword and search data. So, it knows exactly what related content, what other competitors, and what the internet already says about the topic. Number three, the hands. Yes, which is a real browser the AI controls by itself using the Playwright integration. And this is very important for testing, for screenshots, and much more. Then number four, the lab. In my case, it's a real server. Access to APIs, to tools, to servers, to companies, to websites, to services, a full lab that the AI can run real experiments inside. And number five, the most important, the brain. My brain in my case, which holds everything about who I am, my thoughts, my beliefs, my opinions, my projects, so it can write exactly like me. Great. Let's now jump into the factory and see one piece go through the whole process. But before that, and speaking of building blocks, I created a free ebook on the top five engineering building blocks you should know to move from a blind vibe coder to a real builder with AI. It's totally free and I designed it in a way that you can read and understand one block on each page. Grab it, read like five pages a day and in one week you'll notice the difference. Okay, so here's the input, one simple prompt. Self-host Superbase, focus on the hard parts nobody documents and run it on a real server. That's it. No prompt engineering, no outline, nothing. The contract, which is the first step in the content factory system, already knows all the stages. So the first thing it does, it doesn't write. It reads. It pulls real search data, fetches the top ranking results on Google and read every single one. What they cover, what they miss. And look at this, really super interesting. I told it to target self-host Superbase and it has around 740 searches per month. It came back and said, "People actually search Superbase self-host." And the full cluster is around 1,100 searches a month, three times bigger than what I thought. This is the importance of relying on real data when writing. And the system is really honest. I built it in a way, if it can't really find a real gap that you can fill online, it just tell me the topic is weak before anything written. So we don't waste time on a topic that's not useful and nobody will benefit from. So some ideas just die at step one and that's a feature. If it passes, then it writes a plan. The main idea, the eight experiments it wants to run and the cost, in my case around 70 cents and with a hard cap of $1.5. It cannot pass and then it stops. It doesn't touch any server before I approve the plan and the budget. I approve and now the fun part. They I the engine will rent a server. In my case, I'm using DigitalOcean. They have simple API access and fast server creation process. So, I use it as my lab. It cloned the stack in 2 seconds, pulled like 8.9 GB of images in 114 seconds, and 20 seconds later Superbase was up. 11 containers all healthy on a 4 GB box. And it measured everything down to the RAM of every container. Then it starts breaking things on purpose. And this is where it becomes really interesting because failures are evidence, too. And here where it's really super difficult and takes a lot of time for you as a writer to do these experiments while AI can run these experiments in like a couple of minutes. Now, of course, a guide like this requires screenshots. And this is the most boring part for writers, especially technical guides where we need a lot of screenshots. The system I built takes them by itself. It drives a real browser using Playwright. We talked about this before. It logs into the app we deployed and shoots every screenshot the guide needs. Think about how much time this is saving you. And really has one rule I love. It never blurs a secret. If a real key appears on the screen, it replaces it automatically with a fake one. After all this, it finally writes. But before drafting, it pulls up my brain, my voice rules, my beliefs, my beliefs about self-hosting, the real story of my cloud bills, and how I saved $8,000 a year, and the reason why I moved to self-hosting. So, the draft opens with my argument. It's me talking, my brain talking, in my words, in my voice, and backed by its evidence. Now, after the draft, we have the verification loops and this super important. One loop checks the evidence and what it takes the draft trying to find a wrong claim, one checks my voice and each loop runs until it comes back clean. Then it ships. The page gets built, checked, rendered and committed to my site's repo. But there's one more thing before it goes live and this is the most important step in the whole flow. It is the same rule from 2022. I read the full guide again, word by word. Nothing goes out under my name before I read and verify and approve. So, automate the work as much as you can, but never automate the responsibility. Now, the last part and my favorite one. Look at the first stage of the pipeline and the last one. The first thing it does, it reads my brain and the last thing it does, it feed my brain again. Every lesson from the lab, every experiment, every result gets distilled and offered back to the brain and I approve what it enters. So, every guide makes my brain better and the better brain makes the next guide better. It's a closed loop and this is why exactly the brain video came first last week. If you missed it, you'll find a link in the description below. Go watch it and see how you can build your own brain and connect with AI. If you learned something today, smash the like button and go now and read the guide I showed you in this video and if you find any AI slop, tell me in the comments. I read every one of them. Thank you and see you in the upcoming videos.
Hank Green's one of my favorite YouTubers. Well, he's in some hot water right now because he got caught using AI. Hank does a show called Ask Hank Anything. In one of those segments, he said the words, "I appreciate the push back." That's it. That was what started this whole thing. And people said, "I appreciate the push back is something AI says. Are you using AI to write your scripts?" Hank went to X and basically said, "I produce under a ton of pressure. I did use Chat GPT for research on the script." He then deleted this X post. and then went to Reddit and wrote a much longer essay. But basically what he said was, "I don't use AI to write my scripts, but I do use AI to find [music] research papers. I still read the research papers myself, but AI helps me find and uncover research papers that I might have otherwise missed." However, in this same post, he does go on to say, "I need to come to terms with the fact that the level of dopamine I've been getting from interacting with LLMs with doing more and more and more and more is not healthy for me or good for the world. It is careless and has disconnected me from [music] where people are on this." And I mean, this whole thing has just created a ton of controversy around the internet. People essentially just trying to cancel Hank Green for this. But here's my take on the whole thing. I actually do understand where people are coming from on this. Believe it or not, people come to his channel because they're expecting Hank's opinions, [music] Hank's commentary. And if all of a sudden one day you have to question whether what you're hearing actually [music] came from Hank's mind or came as a result of like an AI response, now you're not sure if these are Hank's real thoughts. Saying all that, Hank's response was, "Look, I use this for research. It saves me a lot of time on research. the people that are getting mad that he's using this for research. It makes no sense to me because he's like, in his words using these AI models almost as like a glorified better search engine. So, I don't think Hank did anything wrong. But I think the bigger story is that this is bringing into the public consciousness creators are using AI to assist them in what they're doing online and some people are finding I don't really like that. I think the thing that bugs me the most is probably the amount of judgment that other people put on creators because creators are like real people too. They have lives. They have families. They often have careers and other commitments outside of what you're just seeing on video. And they're also looking for ways to sort of optimize and improve their workflows. And every creator has a sort of line that they're willing to cross as far as how much they're willing to automate without sort of giving up the amount of them that still goes into the process. And it's something that I personally struggle with all the time. And I don't think a lot of people give other creators enough grace for trying to figure out new ways to optimize and sort of streamline their processes because everybody's looking to do
Based on your experience, Ryan, is it better to have a one really long prompt so that Claude can work on it or is it better to have step-by-step process? >> You know, the more you add here, probably the better. Or what I would say is you could even voice dump, right? Cuz you could use Whisper flow or some other, you know, voice-to-text operation here. If you just have all these thoughts in your head and you say, "I want my landing pages to look like this, but don't include this, but include that." And you're just dumping all these thoughts in your head via a voice tool like Whisper flow, I think that's probably a good tip to use you're [music] doing this.
Could not fetch transcript (it might be disabled or unavailable). Error: Could not retrieve a transcript for the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlV8tnToib0! This is most likely caused by: Subtitles are disabled for this video If you are sure that the described cause is not responsible for this error and that a transcript should be retrievable, please create an issue at https://github.com/jdepoix/youtube-transcript-api/issues. Please add which version of youtube_transcript_api you are using and provide the information needed to replicate the error. Also make sure that there are no open issues which already describe your problem!
Could not fetch transcript (it might be disabled or unavailable). Error: Could not retrieve a transcript for the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ky5QTpVjAw! This is most likely caused by: Subtitles are disabled for this video If you are sure that the described cause is not responsible for this error and that a transcript should be retrievable, please create an issue at https://github.com/jdepoix/youtube-transcript-api/issues. Please add which version of youtube_transcript_api you are using and provide the information needed to replicate the error. Also make sure that there are no open issues which already describe your problem!
Could not fetch transcript (it might be disabled or unavailable). Error: Could not retrieve a transcript for the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbWxbUIxnDQ! This is most likely caused by: The video is unplayable for the following reason: This live event will begin in a few moments. If you are sure that the described cause is not responsible for this error and that a transcript should be retrievable, please create an issue at https://github.com/jdepoix/youtube-transcript-api/issues. Please add which version of youtube_transcript_api you are using and provide the information needed to replicate the error. Also make sure that there are no open issues which already describe your problem!
This was the biggest week of the year for Elon Musk and his AI efforts at SpaceX. >> [music] >> They released Grok 4.6, which shows that they are finally catching up to OpenAI and Anthropic. They also released Grok Bot, which is their new super app, which will rival GPT work and Claude co-work. And I have a lot of thoughts about this platform and what makes it so interesting, which I'll talk about today. But we have way more to cover. We will also discuss the latest updates inside Claude Code and Codex, as well as the latest DeepSeek V4 model that they launched today. And we even have some news from Gemini. This is an agent-native update where we put the latest advancements on the frontier of AI agent platforms and models into context so that we can actually use them to improve our business. Okay, so we have a lot to cover today. Let's dive straight into the SpaceX update. So SpaceX said this yesterday, "Introducing Grok 4.6. It delivers frontier intelligence and is a significant improvement over Grok 4.5 at the same price." And so you'll notice here that the three areas that they led were economically valuable work, long professional tasks, and legal work. And so if you also notice that it isn't coding, right? They didn't lead in any of the coding benchmarks. And I believe that this is because they are focused on general agent tasks because this is simply their priority, which explains their brand new platform that they worked on with Cursor, which is called Grok Bot. Grok Bot is their brand new super app, which we'll talk about in just a second, that is focused on non-coding work. They are trying to get everyone within a company to interact with AI agents to help them get work done. They're focused on knowledge work. And I still believe that the best and easiest way to use Grok 4.6, this brand new model, is directly inside Cursor. As soon as you update Cursor, it will default to Grok 4.6 fast, and you can use it directly inside Cursor. So, I've not yet had enough time to actually do a deep test of Grok 4.6, but I do think there's some interesting use cases to discuss that people have posted on Twitter. So, here's DHH. So, Fable, I think this was last week, one-shotted a Rust rewrite of the terminal text effects Python library in 11 million tokens. If you don't know what that means, that's perfectly fine. Fable did a really, really hard thing. And then, today, he tweeted that he used SpaceX's new model, Grok 4.6, with just a couple of nudges, it was able to repeat this feat in in about an hour and a half, and the key takeaway is that it was only $55. That was about 1/10 of the cost of Fable implementation for the same work. So, take a look at the pricing for these models. If we look at Grok 4.6 compared to Opus, Soul, and Fable, right? If we combine the input and output prices per 1 million token, we get $8 for Grok 4.6, $30 for Opus 5, $35 for 5.6 Soul, and $60 for Claude Fable. And so, that means that Claude Fable 5 is 7.5 times more expensive than Grok 4.6, 5.6 Soul, 4.4 times, and Opus 5, and Grok 4.6 is better than Opus. It is straight-up better, and Opus is still 3.75 times more expensive than Grok 4.6. This is a very good model, and it is a reasonable price, and it is legitimately on the frontier. And beneath this Cognition post, Elon commented, "Grok 4.7 will exceed all current models, which includes Fable." He said, "That said, Anthropic is a great company and will probably release improved models soon. However, the SpaceX training corpus is so awesome and unique that I would be shocked if any model is better at real-world engineering than 4.7. And so that was their model release. And if you watch my channel, you know that I actually don't dive too deep into model releases. I care mostly about practical use cases of AI. Like how do we take these advancements and actually turn them into like real business outcomes or how do we actually improve our productivity or make our lives better. And so now we're going to the next update by SpaceX, which is their new Grok bot platform. This is Grok bot and Grok bot is a desktop app and an iOS app. This right here is the desktop app. So this app right here was being worked on by the Cursor team. So Cursor was working on this platform for many months. I think like four or five months and this was going to be their general knowledge worker platform. Cursor's the coding tool and this platform Grok bot, which internally they were calling sand and I believe the name that they were going to use was actually dot. They bought dot.com for like $7 million and instead they went with Grok bot. And this platform was going to be Cursor's version of Claude co-work or GPT work, but it has some key differences that I think makes it pretty unique. And so one of those things is that instead of creating new sessions all the time like you do in GPT work or Claude co-work where on the left side panel, right? If we were to go to Claude and if you were using co-work inside Claude, you just see all these different like chats that get lost while you use it. What Grok bot did is they just said each session, each one of these sessions is like its own agent. And so instead of like creating a bunch of new sessions, if we just create a new bot here, what it does, instead of it being like a new session where you just go and type in your request, it'll immediately try and figure out what the purpose of this session is and then it will actually name the agent. And so it's like, "Hi Riley, I'm here. What do you want me around for?" Could be email, content, code, a specific workflow, or something else entirely. Weekly agent updates, look at my YouTube and Notion to get context. Your job is to help me with these every week. And so, you can honestly think of this as each one of these is like your own little bot. And you can set up plugins, just like any of the other platforms. And you can also set up skills, like I have my scrape creator's skill right here. And all of these agents share plugins and skills. It's just that these new bots have their own name, title, and little description. And then when you create automations, they get added right here. And so, each session or agent has its own automations, or they call them routines. And you can see here, it just updated help Riley with weekly agent updates by pulling context from YouTube. And I'm going to say, "Name yourself weekly update." And then I can change the title, and that will just change this little tag right here. And so, I can put title as like, "Help with updates." I don't know. And it just shows up right here. And so, this agent has a very specific role for me. It just helps me with these weekly updates. Helps me do research, and that is going to be the purpose. And so, whenever I want to work with this, I would just come to the weekly update agent. And I could say, "Hey, every weekday, um present me with the AI news for the day at 10:00 a.m." And so, I can just ask the weekly update bot, or yeah, Grok bot, to create a routine. And so, it created this routine, and you can see it right here. If we open up this side panel, you can see that we have this weekly agent updates, and then we also have weekly AI news. It's 10:00 a.m. on a deliver Riley's daily AI news briefing in chat. So, it'll give it to me every day at 10:00 a.m. And so, this is fundamentally different than Claude Co-work, right? We could go to Co-work and we could say every morning at 9:00 a.m. do a task. You can see here it created this morning, hello. And notice here that like we have all these different chats. Most of these chats I'll never return to. It's hard to return to them because like these just kind of get lost. And so, it's hard to like pick up pick back up on previous work that we were working on. And so, you'll notice here that Claude Co-work when I create this chat, it adds scheduled as like a global setting. So, it doesn't really have much to do with this chat session anymore. The scheduled tasks, and if you have like a ton of scheduled tasks, they live up here in this scheduled section, whereas in Grok Bot, they actually live inside of the agent itself or inside the session. So, I created this new session and now I have a weekly update bot and the routines live within here. For example, my partnership bot has its own It has its own routines. My content bot has its own routines. Like it scrapes from all my favorite creators every morning at 9:16 a.m. But, these bots have different cron jobs or routines that live inside the agent itself. And I If I press command K, I can get a kind of a a zoomed out view of all the different routines that I have and here it will actually list the name of the agent and the name of the routine. So, I can see all the weekly update agent routines, the developer uh routine. We also have a partnership bot routine and then I have a to-do list bot, which prints my reminder to do my most important task every single day. I forgot to mention that every single agent that you create comes with its own little computer. So, your it runs in the cloud. So, this is a full computer in the cloud that you can use and your agent, most importantly, your agent can use this browser and you can sign in to your stuff on this browser and you can even teach a task. And when you teach a task, you can record yourself. This is very similar to record and replay on Codex. For those of you who watch my content, you can do the same thing, but you use your own computer. Here, I'm teaching the agent to do a task in its computer, right? This is a virtual computer running in the cloud. You can actually go in and see all of its files on the computer. It's its own thing that you have full visibility into, which is a very new and interesting thing, especially in a platform like this. Real quick, before the next update, I want to talk about an update by the sponsor of this video, GenSpark. One of my biggest inspirations for getting into agents in the first place was to keep track of everything I do to get things done. I talk for a living. Podcast, calls, meetings, random ideas in the car. Normally, 90% of that just evaporates. So, a few months back, I started clipping this to the back of my phone, GenSpark's second brain note. I hit record when something's worth keeping. There's a physical light, so it's never a guessing game whether it's on. It's SOC 2 and ISO 27001 certified and it works in over 100 languages. So, I use it everywhere, not just at my desk. Here's the part that actually got me. It's not just a recorder. Twice a day, it views what I said and figures out what to do with it. Told someone I'd send them an email, it has the draft ready. Agreed on a time on a call, it's sitting on my calendar ready for approval. Rift on a video idea out loud, there's a script waiting inside Notion. That's second brain. It remembers. The part that does the work is GenSpark's super agent. Second brain retrieves, super agent executes. All I do is say yes. They just opened the first to the public GenSpark second brain note, 10% off through the link in the description. Speaking of agents that actually get things done for you. And so, the last thing that I'll say on this is it's important to note the evolution of these general agent platforms, and I want to take a quick look into this. You know, in the end of like 2025, so if this was like end of 2025 and this was kind of the first half of 2026, we got these platforms that kind of looked very similar. They were kind of like the evolution of Claude code running in your terminal, and they've evolved into these like super apps. So, like even the Hermes agent looks a lot like Claude, co-work, um Codex has GPT work, which looks similar. Um the open Claude desktop app looks a lot like this where it's this kind of agent platform where you have a bunch of sessions, you have skills, plugins, you have artifacts, automations, um yeah, which are like scheduled, and they're starting to look relatively similar. It is very interesting to note that the the two previous general agent platforms that have gone viral, which are Buzz and Grokbot, have a new shape to them. Right here Grokbot, you can kind of like see your team of AI agents. I showed you that you can create new agents really quickly, right? You can just create agents, you can give it a purpose, and each one has its own routines. And then the platform that went viral before this was Buzz. And so, this platform Buzz allows you to create channels with a bunch of different agents, and you can even add people to your Buzz. And so, Buzz looks exactly like Slack, and it's kind of like this agent native Slack or Slack meant to be used with humans and agents, which I find to be very interesting. And publicly, Anthropic hasn't really talked about co-work that much. They talked more about Claude tag, which is their new platform that allows you to basically create agents inside your company Slack. To my knowledge, you can only use it with Teams, but this is kind of their focus right now is creating an agent for groups of people or enterprises or small businesses. I feel like that's kind of the shift that we're moving into. So, maybe the first half of 2026 or the first you know, first 2/3 of the year was about the personal agent and the rest of this year is kind of about how do you create your own personal team of agents? And then in in regards to Buzz and Claude Tag, how do you add an agent so that your entire team can get access to the same agent so you can collaborate using AI agents. Okay, so now let's discuss updates coming out of Anthropic. Yesterday, Claude announced that your Claude Chrome sessions now carry over to desktop web and mobile. Conversations are saved and your skills and connectors work inside the browser. Basically, what Claude and OpenAI are doing is they are inserting GPT work in the case of OpenAI and Claude co-work in the case of Anthropic directly into your browser. I actually have both of them set up. I can use Claude here. And what they announced is I can say, "Please tell me more about this." And whatever I type in here is basically the same as using Claude co-work. It has access to the same connectors, the same skills, and everything. And all of the chats, right? I can view the history. All of these chats will actually sync into my Claude app. I can very easily move this conversation over to the Claude desktop app. And you can see here, it's named this chat more information request. And I can go back to Claude and I can see that more information request is right here. So, I can very easily switch from the chat that I had in any browser, right? It's just a Chrome extension, back to Claude. So, it's equivalent to coming here and using Claude, except you can do it directly from your uh Chrome extension in Chrome. The next update to Claude is pretty interesting. Sonnet 5 had an introductory price, and it was scheduled to increase back up in price at a certain date, but Claude has decided that it would actually stay at this cheaper price. Open AI is doing something similar with their Terra and uh Luna models. So, basically, their non-frontier models are getting much cheaper, and I believe, and many believe, that this is due to the pressure from Chinese models out of Deep Seek Kimmy, uh z.ai, and then now also Grok, right? Because if their middle models are way more expensive than these other alternatives that are actually better, then people have no reason to use them. So, this is causing them to lower their prices, and I expect this to continue. The non-frontier models from Anthropic and Open AI will continue to get cheaper if the competition from China and in the US continues such that their frontier models are cheaper than their middle models, everyone's just going to use these models, and they'll never use the middle models like Sonnet and Opus and Terra and Luna. And for the final update regarding Claude, uh this guy released phone harness. So, this isn't actually coming directly from Anthropic, but if you look look up GitHub phone-harness, you will find a repo which will allow you to fully control your phone from any agent, not just Claude code, but Claude code, CodeX, etc. You can fully control your phone with an AI agent. I haven't tested this out. I just thought this was really cool. Thought I'd share it really quickly. Okay, so we were about to talk about the brand new Deep Seek V4 model, which was just released this morning officially, and Deep Seek said that we're uh launching DeepSeek V4 today, and they claimed that it was nearly as good as Fable. And here's a very quick summary after summarizing everything and everyone's takes on Twitter. I'm trying to figure out this story, but here's a concise summary here. So, apparently DeepSeek released a new pro model last night and talked like it was almost as good as the top expensive models like Fable. And it was only a tiny fraction of the price. However, many people started testing this, and they came back and they said, "No, it's only a little bit better than DeepSeek's previous model, which was DeepSeek V4 Flash." And so, this was embarrassing, and they have basically taken the model down. In fact, if you go to Cursor right now and you switch to DeepSeek V4 Pro, I'm using this via Open Router. It's not an official model inside Cursor yet, and if I say, "Hi," it actually will immediately fail. And so, this model just doesn't work right now, and so I can't fully cover it because there is some backlash. Apparently, it's not that much better than DeepSeek V4 Flash, and they're also getting some flak for their pricing. So, apparently the pricing has come up, and they went to usage-based pricing. But luckily for us, 58 minutes ago Gemini officially released 3.7 Flash. And apparently, this is a very fast model, and it's brand new. And I do notice here, though, a red flag is that the models they're comparing against, right? You can see Gemini Flash is being compared to Claude Sonnet and GPT Terra. So, this is the third best model by Claude and the second best model by OpenAI. That's what they're comparing it to. And so, they haven't released a new pro model in a while, and so this 3.7 Flash is a fast mid-tier model. And if you want to test it out, again, I like to do it inside Cursor. I have it running because I'm using open router. And if you were to sign up for open router and just ask cursor how to set it up, you get it set up in like 2 minutes inside cursor. But I can say, "Hey." Or you could use it inside the anti-gravity. I'm sure they have it inside anti-gravity. You can use the new Gemini 3.7 model. Since it's only a mid model, and it's not that good, it's just like pretty fast. I don't think I'll be testing it too much. But if you want to test it out, you can. Okay, so for the final big thing that I want to talk about today is I want to talk about what I call the chat verse work problem. Many people are confused about how to use AI agents, specifically the Claude co-work and the GPT work features inside these platforms. Signal said, "It's not clear to me that OpenAI realizes how strange the distinction between chat and work feels in practice and how fragmented the entire chat GPT experience has become. If you leave it on work, every simple question or search becomes an expedition. It starts thinking, planning, and using tools when you just wanted a quick answer." What he's talking about is in chat, you now have chat and work. And these are two very different products. Obviously, you know what chat GPT is. But GPT work is a bigger thing, right? Here, you can actually do things on Slack. You can have it control your Gmail. You can have it fully control your notion. You can literally get, if you set up the right scheduled tasks, you can have it fully reply and send out emails, and you can get it to run like it is a full agent platform. And what he's talking about here is just hard to understand the distinction between chat and work. I made a full video on GPT work. It's incredibly powerful, but the distinction between chat, work, and then the Codex app is pretty confusing right now. He goes on to say that there's no good default. Chat is often too limited for real tasks. Work is too slow and cumbersome for normal queries. Constantly switching between them makes the entire product infinitely more complex. Also, the lack of sync between mobile and desktop plus what's a local chat versus a cloud chat is a mess. And again, these are things that I talk about in my last video. It is relatively confusing the difference between a local chat and a cloud chat. Chat GPT went from the most usable, simple consumer experience to confusing AF in such a short period of time. Pretty nuts. I do think it's incredibly powerful, but I do think he's talking about a very difficult problem, which I call the chat versus work problem. And I tweeted this about the brand new Grokbot yesterday. I showed you the Grokbot platform earlier. And then I tweeted this specifically around how the platform is set up. I said that I think Grokbot is behind Codex and GPT work for a lot of reasons. There's a lot of things that GPT work can do that Grokbot cannot do. But I will say their biggest innovation is personifying the chat sessions. An agent or a Grokbot is basically a named session or a named chat session with a mini system prompt. For example, on Grokbot, if you just click on the name, right, this description is just a mini system prompt. And all of the plugins that you can create, right, I can add Gmail, that is a plugin. I can also use skills. And all of these skills are global to all of my agents. They basically just made each chat session have its own system prompt and your its own name. So that when I want to create a content script, I'll just go to my content agent. Or if I want to scrape from social media, I'll go to my content agent. If I want to do my weekly update agent, I'll go to my weekly update agent. If I need something handled in my partnership bot, um I will go to my partnership bot. Not only that, but like if something happens inside Slack in this Slack channel, it will automatically ping me. And it stays organized by these chat sessions. And so, I think the biggest innovation of Grokbot was kind of making this analogy easier to understand. And so, I think we're going to see a lot of innovation over the next 3 months as the frontier labs try and figure out what is the best setup for people to use AI agents in their business. And I think there's just going to be a lot of innovation. Because this is something I would have never thought I wanted, but once I used it, I was like, "Okay, this actually makes more sense." The automations should not live at a global level, they should just live within the bot. I have a feeling that the other labs are going to copy this design because I do find it's a lot easier to get started, and it just intuitively makes sense that you have a bot. Each bot has its own computer, and it has its own routines. I find it to be an easy interface to pick up and understand. Another thing is that workspace agents are coming soon to chat GPT. And I know this because I quote tweeted their workspace agents. And so, workspace agents are only on the GPT team plans. It allows you to create these like agents, right? You can create agents. And these are as powerful as GPT work, except they do have their own system prompts. You can message these custom agents, and you can even add them to Slack and message them through there. And it's only available to teams. And so, I tweeted this. I said, "Wish this wasn't only a Teams plan and only on web. This should be on desktop as well." And the Someone from the OpenAI team, Andrew, said, "Yes." So, this indicates that this is coming very soon to the chat GPT desktop app, and it won't just be a Teams plan, which I think is really cool. This is This is the most slept on OpenAI product yet, in my opinion. And then finally, one update is that codex you can get and download on Linux. So codex the codex app or the chat GPT app where I use codex you can get this on Linux now. So that is a new update on the codex side. And yeah, that's basically everything. So this was an agent native update. I'm Riley Brown. Thank you guys so much for watching and please like, please subscribe. It helps you out a ton. I'll see you here for the next video.
So, an engineer inside Elon Musk's AI company says he tried to warn them. He says he pushed for stronger safety systems around Grok, the chatbot built by xAI. And he says he believed the company was not taking the risks seriously enough. And he says that just before he was supposed to give a presentation about AI safety to company leadership, he was fired. Now, that engineer, Devon Kim, is suing xAI and SpaceX. And the timing of this lawsuit is what makes the story much bigger than one employee dispute. Because Grok has not just been another chatbot but quietly sitting in the background, it's become one of the most controversial AI products in the world. Now, Grok has been connected to controversies over non-consensual images involving some stuff that I don't even want to mention, anti-Semitic content, and even a moment where the chatbot referred to itself as Mac the Hitler. So, when a former xAI engineer says he was raising safety [music] alarms before things got this bad, the obvious question is pretty simple. Did somebody inside the company see this coming? And if he did, why did nobody listen? Now, the lawsuit was filed in California state court by Devon Kim, a former engineer at xAI. According to the Guardian reporting on the complaint, Kim says he was one of the company's early hires in 2024, and he was promoted only a few months after joining. Now, Kim's lawsuit claims he repeatedly warned xAI they weren't doing enough to prioritize AI safety, especially around Grok. The complaint says that Kim believed the company's lack of safety focus made it likely that xAI would break the law in serious ways, including through discriminatory outputs or helping people create dangerous weapons-related information. That is the central claim here. Kim isn't just saying I disagreed with my boss, he's saying that he actually raised warnings about the actual harm Grok could cause, and that those warnings made him a target inside the company. Now, the lawsuit says that Kim's supervisor was Jimmy Barr, one of xAI's co-founders. And Kim claims Barr ignored his calls for safety protocols and testing. And Kim also claims that Elon Musk expected xAI to adopt proper safety testing, but that Barr did not follow through on those expectations. And then came the moment that turns this into a much sharper story. Kim says he was supposed to present on AI safety to company leadership, but according to the lawsuit, he was fired last September before that presentation happened. And now Kim is accusing XAI and SpaceX of retaliation and wrongful termination under California law, and the lawsuit is seeking unspecified financial compensation. And at the time of the Guardian's report, XAI and SpaceX had not yet responded to the request for comments about the lawsuit. This matters because right now there are allegations in a legal complaint, not findings from a court. But the reason this story is getting attention is not just because Kim filed a lawsuit, it's because the warnings he raised now sound very familiar. Now to understand why this matters, you have to understand what Grok was supposed to be. Grok AI was Elon Musk's answer to ChatGPT. It was built by XAI, the company Musk launched after publicly criticizing other AI labs for being too controlled, too corporate, or too politically filtered. Grok's whole brand was that it would be more rebellious, more direct, and more willing to answer things other chatbots might avoid. And that positioning helped Grok stand out, but it also created a problem. If you market an AI system as the chatbot that says what other system won't or can't say, then safety becomes even more important, not less important, because the whole point is that this thing is closer to the edge. Now the lawsuit claims that Kim believed XAI was moving toward that edge without enough safety guardrails. And this is where the story starts connecting to everything that happened later. Grok later became the subject of serious scrutiny over explicit AI-generated images. According to the Guardian, a Canadian regulatory body said that Grok breached privacy rules after launching an image generation feature that let users create and share non-contextualized deepfakes. Now the Guardian reported that Canada's privacy commissioner began a formal investigation in January, and that XAI later made changes aimed at stopping Grok from helping users alter images of real people in revealing clothing. Now, the same reporting said that researchers from the Center for Countering Digital Hate estimated that Grok generated about 23,000 images of you know what during an 11-day period in December and January. And that's one of the most serious allegations around Grok because it changes the story from AI chatbot says edgy things to AI tool may have enabled real-world abuse at scale. And this is why Kim's lawsuit lands so hard because if someone inside XAI was warning that Grok needed stronger safety systems, then the product later became linked to that exactly kind of dangerous misuse that safety teams were supposed to prevent. That raises a much bigger question about how XAI was being run. When we think about it, AI safety is no longer an abstract debate. It's not just researchers arguing about future risks in a PDF. It is now lawsuits, regulators, victims, users, investors, governments. Everyone's asking the same question. What happens when an AI company ships a powerful system before the safety culture is ready? And the AP reported that regulators in Europe have looked over into Grok over allegations involving many different pieces of content that really shouldn't be there. I honestly don't even want to name some of the stuff. So, The Guardian also reported that XAI has faced international scrutiny over non-consensual deepfakes, other images including women and children, and Grok identifying itself as "Make America Great Again" Hitler. And those aren't small product bugs. Those are the kind of failures that can become political, legal, and reputational disasters. Now, TechCrunch actually reported that all of 11 Musk's co-founders in XAI had left the company by the end of March and that Musk has publicly said that XAI was not built correct the first time around and that it was being rebuilt from the foundations up. Now, if that reporting is accurate, it suggests the company itself may have understood that something about the original structure was not working. Now, put those pieces together. A former engineer says he raised safety concerns and was fired. The product later faces major scandals around harmful content. Regulators start circling. Co-founders leave. And Musk says the company was not built right the first time. That is why this doesn't feel like a normal tech lawsuit. It actually feels like a warning sign. Now, the pattern here, when we think about this, it's not really unique to xAI. Across the AI industry, companies are racing to launch more powerful models while also trying to prove they're safe enough for mass use. But, the business pressure and the safety pressure, those aren't really pointing in the same direction. On one side, companies want speed. They want market share. They want the models to go viral. They want users to feel like their chatbot is smarter, freer, funnier, and less restricted than the competition. And on the other side, teams are usually asking slower questions. What can this model be tricked into doing? Can it generate harmful content? Can it manipulate vulnerable users? Can it create illegal images? Can it help with violence? Can it be abused by bad actors at scale? And those questions, I mean, you think about it, let's be honest, okay? People are focused on benchmarks and achieving all the greatness that AI can, but those questions, like, can it help with violence, are pretty boring until something goes wrong, and then suddenly that just becomes the whole story. Now, that appears to be the tension at the center of Kim's lawsuit. Kim claims he was trying to push xAI towards a more serious safety testing and protocols. According to his complaint, those efforts did not make him more valuable inside the company. They made him a target. And that's the uncomfortable part. If AI companies punish the people who raise safety concerns, then users may not only find out about the problems after the damage is already public. And so, the clearest example of all of this was the deepfake issue. When people talk about AI safety, you can think about those extreme, you know, crazy scenarios where AGI takes over. But, when we actually think about AI safety, we need to think about what is actually affecting us now. One of the most immediate harms is, you know, simple. Someone uploads or uses a real person's image, and the AI system turns that into something else without that person's consent. And that abuse isn't just theoretical. The Guardian reported that Grok was facing scrutiny after its image generation tools were basically doing that across the board. Companies like Canada and Britain were among the first countries increasing efforts to regulate the explicit content created by Grok. And this is exactly why, you know, the safety warnings matter, because when When is already live, the harm can spread faster than the company can respond. By the time a company patches the feature, screenshots, downloaded reposts, and copied images, they already may be everywhere. And that is why Devin Kim's lawsuit isn't just about what happened inside XAI. It's about whether AI companies have enough internal resistance before a risky product reaches the public. Now, the crazy thing about this is that Grok isn't just some, you know, rogue chatbot by Elon Musk. This is actually a really important model that has become really important outside [music] of just chatbots. The Guardian reported that the Trump administration stepped in to support Elon Musk in a lawsuit over XAI data centers. And just bear with me for a second because I'll make you guys understand why this is a little bit more important. So, essentially, Elon Musk, you know, had lawsuit over the XAI data centers where they were saying that they basically installed, you know, some gas turbines that they weren't, you know, necessarily allowed to. And then the Department of Justice asked the federal court to dismiss the lawsuit. And according to the Guardian, the data center was used for training and developing, you know, AI models considered essential to the economy of defense. So, essentially, the reason that this data center project was able to continue because the DOJ said that shutting it off would undermine American national economic and energy security because the AI innovation supported military operations. So, think about this for a second, right? This changes the scale of this entire story. Grok isn't now just a chatbot for users on X. It's part of the company that the government is now describing, at least in this legal context, as connected to the national military interests. And that makes the safety question even more serious. If a consumer chatbot has safety problems. Fair enough, right? It's just for, you know, standard people. But if the same company is also becoming a part of national security infrastructure, then internal safety warnings become even harder to ignore. And that is the real tension. The more powerful and important these systems become, the less room there is for a culture that treats safety as, you know, just another annoying obstacle. Now, the public reaction to stories like this is kind of split. I'm not sure what you guys are going to think about this. Some people see Kim's lawsuit and say that this proves AI companies are moving too fast, and they're ignoring the people who understand the risks. To them, this story sounds like a classic whistleblower pattern. An employee raises serious concerns, leadership doesn't want to hear them, and then the employee is pushed out. Others are going to be a bit more skeptical. They'll say lawsuits only show one side of the story, and they'll point out that xAI and SpaceX haven't responded in the Guardian's response, and those claims still need to be tested. Skepticism is fair, of course. A lawsuit isn't proof by itself, but the reason people are paying attention is because, let's be honest, Grok has had its fair share of controversies. I mean, like I said, when you think about it, you don't have to believe every story of the lawsuit to see the big issue. Grok has already been in many different controversies that people would already consider safety failures. So, when a guy inside the company says that, "Guys, they were ignoring that stuff," people are probably just going to connect the dots. And the big reaction isn't just anger at xAI, it's kind of exhaustion with the entire AI industry. Every few weeks there's a new chatbot about a story, you know, where a model causes harm, a model is misused, a company's being investigated, or a safety team is being ignored. And every time, the companies just respond with the same message, "We care about safety, we're improving the product, the latest version is better, and we take these concerns seriously." But some people are now starting to ask a different question. If they care about safety so much, why did the same kinds of failures keep happening? Well, if we want to know what happens next, the first thing to watch is the lawsuit itself. Kim's claims are allegations, and xAI will have a chance to respond, and the case could reveal more about how the safety decisions were made in xAI, what warnings were raised, and how leadership reacted. The second thing to watch is, of course, regulation. Grok is of course being looked at by regulators in different places all over the world. We're looking at how that content was distributed, and if those investigations keep expanding, xAI is probably going to face more pressure to prove its safety systems work before those features actually get rolled out. The third thing to watch, and I think this is going to be the biggest one that will really change how safety works, is that this is now a public company. TechCrunch reported that the SpaceX told investors in the IPO filings that Grok-related behavior is a very big risk to its business. Then that matters because once AI safety becomes a financial risk, companies will most certainly take it way more seriously. So I think probably not going to see these issues again.
Could not fetch transcript (it might be disabled or unavailable). Error: Could not retrieve a transcript for the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhqq4U3mnNQ! This is most likely caused by: Subtitles are disabled for this video If you are sure that the described cause is not responsible for this error and that a transcript should be retrievable, please create an issue at https://github.com/jdepoix/youtube-transcript-api/issues. Please add which version of youtube_transcript_api you are using and provide the information needed to replicate the error. Also make sure that there are no open issues which already describe your problem!
This video is all about how to figure out what to do with your life. This is a question I get all the time when I do talks and when I have conversations with friends. And so for whatever it's worth, this is my three-part method that I hope you can follow to help you figure out what to do with your life. So when I'm exploring this question with people of what to do with your life, uh there's a few different directions that we can take. But one of the most useful ones is to start by actually just defining what are your different life areas that you care about. So for example, uh work is a big category of life area. We've got health. We've got marriage. We might have kids. We might have hobbies. We might have growth. If you're one of those people that want to build a side business, then maybe we have an area called a side business. Maybe we have an area called home. Like step one is to define what are the life areas that you care about, right? Because when you ask this question of what do I want to do with my life? Life as a whole. That's like a freaking you know very vague enormous question of like what I do with my life. And it's not very specific. And when I speak to people who have this question, what do I want to do with my life? Often what they're really asking is, how do I find work I love that makes a lot of money and is also really fun? And they often have a question around if they're not yet married, uh, do I want to get married or have kids? You know, that whole bundle of stuff. Uh, those tend to be the two primary domains where people have uncertainty about this sort of question. But even just doing that, even just defining these life areas gives you a little bit more clarity, right? Because you can then answer for yourself by when you stay up at night thinking, I don't know what to do with my life. Do you really just mean I don't know how to find work I love? Because that is a much easier question to answer than I don't know what to do with my life. Or do you really mean man I don't know if I want to take dating seriously. I don't know if I want to get married and have kids. I don't know if I want to pursue career because then the family like is that what [music] you mean? Or is there something even broader? So step one is we sort of break life down into these different areas. And then step two is that for each of these different areas and you can define your own areas however you want. For each of these areas we want to create a sense of like long-term what sort of thing do I want and what sort of thing do I not want? So let's just start with an easy one. Let's start with the area of health. If you ask yourself like, okay, in the area of health, what would success look like for me over the long term? If I imagine like a few decades from now, well, for me, I can tell you that in the area of health, I'd like to be in really good shape. I'd like to have enough muscle. I'd like to live to 100 in good physical, mental, and emotional health. I'd like to be able to play with my kids and grandkids. I'd like to have energy every day. And I'd like to avoid any injuries that could derail me. Great. Fantastic. It's worth writing that down somewhere of like okay, this is what we want in that particular area of life. Then we ask the question of like what do I not want in that particular area of life? Again, easy example, health. Most people when they're asking the question, what do I do with my life? They're not really worrying like oh my god, what do I do with my health? Unless you have any kind of health issues, but that's why it's like an easy one to start with. So, in my case, what I don't want for my health is I don't want to have to do a lot of exercise that I don't particularly enjoy. That's good to know. I'm not really trying to get like super super mega muscular and jacked and stuff like that's not really a goal. I'm not really trying to become like an iron man athlete or an ultramarathon runner or anything like that. I don't I don't really want that. I'm not really trying to perform at an elite level in any particular sport. And I don't really want to devote like loads and loads and loads of time to optimizing my physical health. It's just not the thing that I'm interested in. So that's good to know. Now I have way more clarity on what do I want from my life and what do I not want from my life in the area of health. So now what happens if we tackle a more difficult one? Let's say work. What do I want in the life area of work? What do I not want in the life area of work? Again, we're thinking decades from now. Like, what does success actually look like? Well, ideally, what are the things I would want? Well, I would want work that feels enjoyable and energizing and fulfilling and kind of fun. I'd like to work with people that I enjoy hanging out with. I'd like to my work to have some sort of impact. I'd like my work to be making a good amount of money. Often very useful to define at this stage, what does a good amount of money actually mean to you? And putting a number on it. As you get close to that number, that number will change. And that's okay. But it's worth defining what that number looks like. Do I want the kind of job that's able to make me $10 million a year or am I all right with $1 million a year or am I all right with 500k a year or even 100k a year? Is it like, man, if I could just make six figures doing what I love, that would be sick. By defining these sorts of things, you can just get a feel for what do you want? And then you also ask yourself, what do I what do I not want? So, in the area of work, what do I not want? Well, I don't want work where I have to show up 9 till 5 every single day, Monday to Friday, regardless of how I feel about it, maybe. Or I don't want work that requires me to travel a lot. Or I don't want work that requires me to go into an office cuz I hate going into an office. Or conversely, I don't want work that's just working at home all day because I I actually enjoy hanging out with people and all this sort of stuff. You figure out like what do you not want? And at this point, you don't need any kind of we're not trying to distill it into what specific job or what specific business. We're just trying to understand what are the kind of characteristics I'm optimizing for and what are the sorts of things I'm trying to avoid. It gives us a sense of direction rather than trying to be like, do I become a marketing executive or do I try and become a partner in a law firm? These job titles and the specific business and the specific thing, it's going to change so much. AI is already changing absolutely everything. A few decades ago, people would not have been able to imagine that like Lehman Brothers would one day collapse or that Fuji would like not be dominant in the camera space. Right now, it's so hard for us to imagine that the world is actually going to change. And yet, that's what everyone thinks throughout time. They're like, "Oh, the world can't possibly change." And then boom, the world changes. >> All right. So, if you have ever wanted to start your own business, but you've been unsure as to what idea you should actually pursue, then you're definitely going to want to check out a completely free tool that I've built using Perplexity Computer, who are very kindly sponsoring this video. Now, the problem with business ideas is that most people don't have any ideas at all or on the other side of the spectrum, they have way too many ideas and they're not sure which one to actually pursue. And so, this free tool can help you out with that. It is the ultimate business idea generator and it gives you everything you actually need to get started with your business. It runs you through a quick question and answer session where it asks you about your background, your skills, your experience, and it's as if there was a researcher or a business coach that's sitting across from you asking you questions to try and get your own genius insights out of you to try and figure out what business idea would make sense for you. The really cool thing is that as you talk, the canvas on the side of the screen fills up with actual business ideas as you're going. And these are not just like vague generic suggestions. These are business ideas that are tailored to you with a little bit of a spiel as to why that one might match your specific personality and skills and experience. Once you've picked an idea, it can draft out a business plan for you. So, you can use that as inspiration. And the vibe we try to create is that it's sort of like having a business partner who's helping you set up your first business from scratch. The tool is completely free. There will be a link down below. So, you just pop your email in, you run the interview, and then you can see what it comes back with. And I'd love to know in a comment down below what business idea you might be pursuing or you might be tempted by. So, anyway, thank you to Perplexity for sponsoring this video and for their wonderful tool, Perplexity Computer, that I use in my own work and life every day. Uh, let's get back to the video. So when figuring out what to do with our life, we want to avoid the mistake of fixating on a job title or even a job area. We want to understand like what are the general characteristics I'm optimizing for. When it comes to work, it's also really useful to to think, okay, what do I want in terms of the lifestyle of my career? Do I want the kind of work that's flexible where I can kind of work on my own terms? or am I okay with like a highpowered corporate lawyer job where I know that work is going to be the primary center of my life and I'm going to have to sacrifice other things around that like my family or you know home life or health or whatever the thing might be. Again, there's no right answer. It's just a case of figuring out what you want from that situation. And most people never take the time to really define these life areas and map out what do you want and what do you not want. It's also very useful at this point again just to give you more clarity around figuring out what to do with your life is to answer the question of why. This is a hard one. You might think, I want a job that gives me a million dollars a year. Okay, why? What do you think you can do with a million dollars a year that you can't do with, let's say, 500K? You might think, man, I really want to build a business, a billion dollar business. The question is why? Like, what are you hoping a billion dollar business will give you that you do not already have? Again, there's no right or wrong answers. But it's just worth asking that question, right? Because if for example, you say you have to be making at least a million a year, man, the number of careers you can do for that drastically shrinks because almost zero careers will actually make a million a year. You could start your own business and if you like decide to start your own business and it has to be a billion dollar company again drastically shrinks the number of businesses you can make. You can't probably start the local coffee shop. It's not going to make a billion dollars a year. It just massively limits you when you have these big goals and aspirations. And so again, it's worth understanding why generally when we go after something, it is because we are seeking some kind of feeling. So the question to ask yourself is what feeling are you hunting for when you say you want that thing? Is million dollars a year just there cuz it's a nice round number? Are you looking the for the feeling of [music] security or the feeling of safety or the feeling of certainty in a world that's uncertain? Are you looking for a feeling of relaxation, a feeling of balance, a feeling of like a stress-free life? In which case, again, it's sort of like the lifestyle you want related to the why behind the specific [music] thing. Some of these are kind of obvious. It's like, why do I want to be able to play with my kids? Cuz I cuz I want to be able to play with my kids, you know? I [snorts] want the feeling of, you know, contentment and joy and fulfillment from being able to like bounce my granddaughter up and down when I'm like 70 years old without worrying that I'm going to freaking break my back and then end up in hospital and end up dying. You know, that's what I'm going for. But it's a lot harder to ask that question when it comes to the context of work. And then you start doing the same for like the home stuff, the kids stuff, the marriage stuff, uh growth, hobbies, side business, like if you want to start a side business, that becomes this whole other category. Uh if you already have a business, I mean that basically becomes the category of work. But again, we're just mapping out what do we want and what do we not want and why do we think we want the thing at this point as well. This is where it can be helpful to create a kind of vision board which is basically you put some pictures on it. Often the words themselves of the kind of lifestyle that you want are unlikely to move you to take action. But if you post if you have like a picture of it, I have a vision board. We'll flash it up on screen that I have as like my desktop wallpaper. So there's like, you know, this nice house. There's like this random woman with three kids. You know, it signals that I want to have like at least three kids. I think there's this like guy who's like jacked dude doing martial arts where it's less that he's jacked and it's more like he's a very flexible and mobile. And so that's something I'm optimizing for with health. There's like a squash player. Be like, "Oh, I really enjoy playing squash. Probably never going to do it professionally, but it's a cool thing to do." There's this like app screen, like, you know, I like the idea of like making apps and designing apps and stuff cuz it's cool. I like tech. You know, these sorts of images when I see them on my vision board gives me much more clarity around what I want to do with my life because whenever I think of that question, I just look at my desktop wallpaper. I'm like, "Oh, okay. Does that seem like it's still generally aligned with what with what I think I want?" So, we're defining life areas for each one. We're asking ourselves, "What do I want? What do I not want? Why do I want the thing that I want? And can I put some pictures on it just to make it feel a little bit more like Vy? This is not easy. This takes a long time. It takes probably a few hours of like really sitting down and journaling about this. When I do this, I like to do it on an airplane because I don't get the Wi-Fi. I just open up blank Apple notes document. Uh I use a little airplane emoji to be like, "Yeah, I'm flying from Hong Kong to London and I'm doing some journaling about figuring out what to do with my life." And I'll just write out the different life areas and write out what do I want and what do I not want immediately. If you just do that, you'll get way more clarity around figuring out what to do with your life. By the way, random thing. Uh if you've enjoyed the video so far, uh my team and I are actually working on a productivity app uh to help you figure out what to do with your life. Uh it's called Superf Focus. It's currently in private beta, but there'll be a link down below if you're interested in a, you know, an app that actually helps you answer all of these questions. Uh there's more details down below. Now, let's move on to step two. Step two when it comes to figuring out what to do with your life is that it's really, really, really helpful to define what are your dreams. I first did this exercise when I was at a Tony Robbins 5day seminar thing which was literally like actually it was six days called Date with Destiny and it was literally all about how to figure out what to do with your life. And this was one of the most powerful exercises for me cuz basically what he did was played some like inspiring background music and stuff. And everyone had to write down for like a solid 20 minutes as much as you could about what do you want from life? And it was things like what do you want to have? What do you want to do? What do you want to achieve? What do you want to try? What do you want to learn? What do you where do you want to what do you want to visit? Where do you want to go? Uh what do you want to experience? And the whole shtick was you're just writing down this enormous list of stuff. And again, this is really helpful to in terms of figuring out what you want to do with your life, right? Because we almost never just actually sit down and define these things. Uh we do variants of this exercise once a year when I when I run my annual productivity summit. People get a lot of value from this as well. You know, in the have column, you're allowed to be as materialistic as you like. If you want a private jet, you're allowed to put private jet on the list. If you want a yacht, you're allowed to put yacht on the list. A lot of people don't want those things. That's also fine. What do you want to do? What do you want to achieve? What do you want to try? What do you want to learn? For me, I want to learn Japanese. I want to learn Mandarin Chinese. I want to learn snowboarding. I want to visit the Moldes. I want to visit Timbuktu cuz it seems like a cool place. What do I want to experience? I want to experience more psychedelics. Where do I want to go? You kind of make a list of all these all of these different dreams. And generally you can chuck you can lump some of these dreams into different areas into the different areas that we have already defined. So we are defining our dreams. Crucially we're trying to define our dreams without limiting ourselves. A lot of the time people are like oh I really want to learn Japanese. Oh no I'm not going to put it on the list cuz it's going to be too hard. It's like we we want to drop the this is going to be too hard. It's not going to it's not going to be realistic. Any of this sort of stuff. Again we're just thinking thinking big thinking broad. Thinking if I could do whatever like what would be cool for me. There's a bunch of other things on that list. I was like you know each year I want to organize a ski trip with friends. I want to organize a co-working trip with friends each year. I want to organize a cruise with friends. I think that will be fun. I'd like to hike to the my the whole like Machu Picchu stuff cuz I've seen pictures of that and it looks cool. I'd like to live in a van for a month and I'd like to sort of remodel my own like van and like learn about the electrics and the plumbing and stuff to do the van life thing for a bit. You know, we're just making a list of dreams. And again, the more we think about this [music] stuff and write it down somewhere where we we've then bookmarked it on our web browser and we can find it whenever we want, the more whenever we get this question of like, what do I want to do with my life? Because you know, even once you figure this out, you'll still have that question probably at least once every three months. You can just look at your list, you can look at your life areas, you can look at your life vision, you can look at your pictures, your vision board, and you can ask yourself, does this still feel aligned? Cuz really, to be honest, what you want is always going to change over time. And so, at the time you're asking that question, it is only ever going to be a snapshot. Like right now, I'm 32 years old. If I ask myself, what do I want to do with my life and I do all this stuff, it'll just be a snapshot. It's very different to when I ask myself that question at 22. And it'll it's probably quite different to when I'll ask myself that question at 42. But some things will be fairly constant and some things will have changed. Uh back when I was 22, I still wanted to be a doctor. And so quite a lot of the work stuff was like about medicine, about anesthetics, maybe emergency medicine, maybe plastic surgery, maybe working part-time, all this sort of stuff. And then once I left medicine and realized that that's no longer what I wanted to do. All of that stuff just dropped away and now what I want in the work is mostly focused around building a cool lifestyle business, working with people that I enjoy hanging out with, being able to teach people and help them improve their lives and help them learn the skills for financial freedom and stuff. And maybe 10 years from now, I'll stop caring about that and maybe we'll do something else. But that's okay because right now it is a snapshot and the point of the snapshot is not to give you a clear destination. It's actually to give you a direction. If I know that roughly that's the destination I'm aiming for, what matters is the direction, not the destination. It matters that I'm my ship is going this way rather than that way. If if the destination I'm painting is I want to build a $10 billion startup, the actions I would take in the here and now are very different than if the destination I'm painting is I want a chill lifestyle business where I can work 3 days a week and make 100k doing what I love. Those lead to drastically different ways of building a business. And the destination is almost irrelevant, but what matters is the direction. Final thing we do is we're really going to zoom out and think like really big picture life vision. So we define the areas, we defined some of our dreams. Now we're going to go even even broader and we're going to do a bunch of journaling prompts that will help us get out of our current mode of operating and move into like just exploring different potential paths that we might have. One of my favorite exercises for this is called the Odyssey plan. Basically the idea is that you're asking yourself three questions. Number one, you're asking the question of like, okay, if I continued down my current path 5 years from now, what does my life look like? And you write out in detail what your life looks like 5 years from now. Then you ask yourself, what's the alternative path? Let's say I'm not allowed to go down that path and I have to pick a completely different one. What does my life look like 5 years from now down that path? And all right, cool. Come back to today. And then you ask yourself, what does my life look like 5 years from now if I take a completely different path where I don't care about money and I don't care about what people think of me? I've done this exercise a bunch of times over the years. My wife literally did it like two days ago when she was grappling with this question of figuring out what to do with her life as it relates to certain work projects and it's insanely helpful. I've been recommending it on the internet for years and sometimes when I'll do events and stuff and people ask me this question of like, I don't know what to do with my life. I'm like, oh, have you come across the Odyssey plan? They'll often say, oh yeah, I heard you mentioned it in a video or an Instagram reel and great. Have you done it? And they're like, no, I haven't done it. So my suggestion would be if you're at this point in the video and you're genuinely struggling to figure out what to do with your life. This is the sort of thing where you don't get clarity by just watching a YouTube video and hoping for the best. You get clarity by watching a YouTube video, getting the insights from it, and then actually doing the work of this inner exploration and journaling to explore these different life paths. The benefit of the Odyssey plan is that it forces us to think outside of our current like paradigm. And it forces us to really articulate what would I do if I didn't give a about money and if I really didn't care what society or my parents, my friends, my cousins, if I really didn't care what any of these people thought of me. And often it makes us realize that actually we are remarkably limited by the need to make a certain amount of money and by the need to please the people around us. It's not saying you have to follow any of these plans, but it's just a good way to sort of think a little bit broader. Another prompt I really like is the TED talk prompt. Let's imagine 30 years from now I've been invited to give a talk at TED uh TED the main conference, not TED X, the smaller ones, but like a proper TED talk and it gets a standing ovation and it gets tens of millions of views on YouTube and everyone's like all the comments are like, "Oh my god, this is incredible. It's so inspiring, etc., etc. What would you be talking about 30 years from now? What would be cool to be talking about 30 years from now? Hard question to answer. You're probably thinking, man, I have no idea. But if I were to say, do you think it would be cool to talk about how I became a partner at big law at a big law firm as a TED talk? Would that be really cool and really exciting? You probably be like, uh, not really. Would it be really cool and exciting to talk about how I won gold medal at the Olympics for times in a row? Maybe. If you're a person into sports, you might think, wo, that sounds really cool. If you're a normal person, probably like, uh, no, it would be kind that cool. So, you just start like throwing these things out and asking yourself these questions of like, what are the sorts of things that if you were giving a TED talk about 30 years from now, you think it would be kind of cool to potentially talk about. Then there's another one which I really like, which is, let's imagine you've got all of the time and money in the world, and you don't need to worry about making money. You've already made it, etc., etc., but the catch is you have to spend about 40 hours a week using your skills and talents to serve other people in some kind of way. What sorts of things might you do if you had all the money in the world, you had all the time in the world, but you had to use your skills to serve people in some kind of way? Would you be teaching about stuff? That's often my answer. Would you be building cool things? Would you be saving the environment? Would you be solving the refugee crisis? Would you be helping homeless people in your local community? What sort of stuff would you be doing if you had to spend 40 hours a week serving people in some way? This often helps us get to the thing of what kind of work do you actually want to do? Especially if you're like trying to figure out like, oh man, how do I figure out what to do with my career? Ideally, the more we can remove the veil of I need to make money. I need to worry about what people will think and the more we can step into that spirit of service like no like work is helping other people in some in some kind of way. So, if I had to, what would I actually do to help other people? And then often you can try and find a way to make money from that thing if money is the thing that you need. Not saying it's possible in 100% of cases, but it's often more possible than if you hadn't thought about the question. Then there's a fun one which is what would you want people to say at your funeral? in your eulogy, which is the thing that someone, you know, the speech that someone gives about you at your funeral, or what would you want written about you in your obituary, which is the thing they write about you once you die. This is sort of the true sense of beginning with the end in mind. Generally, in a eulogy, they don't really talk about your achievements or any of that kind of stuff. They generally talk about what a nice person you were and the impact that you had on your like local community and your friends and family and how great a guy or great a guy you were, etc., etc. And then generally in your obituary, they'll do some of that, but they'll also talk about your achievements and the impact you had on the world or the people that your work served and stuff. And again, when we do our annual productivity summits, we sometimes do this exercise where we get people to write out their own eulogy or write out their own obituary. And we get people in the Zoom chat being, "Oh my god, I'm crying. Oh my god, I've never done this before. Oh my god, I feel so much clarity. Oh my god, I'm getting so emotional. It's great." So 100% if you're up for it, I'd recommend writing your own eulogy and or your own obituary as a real sense of giving you a feel of what do you actually want to do with your life? Because when all is said and done, we're all going to die. You know, few decades from now, neither of us are going to be here. A few decades after that, no one is going to remember me. No one's going to remember you. And so, you know, keeping that like, you know, that idea of mental mory, keeping in mind that we are going to die can often give us a sense of how [music] do we actually want to live. Now, all of this stuff is way easier said than done. It is genuinely a difficult question to answer what to do with your life. Um, but if you're interested in more of these sorts of journaling problems that can help you figure this out, I've got a video right over here which will explore those in a bit more detail. So, thank you so much for watching. video and I will see you in the next