When AI Becomes Your Thinking Partner

AI becomes a thinking partner, not a replacement, as Dan Sullivan and Dean Jackson compare their distinct approaches to working with artificial intelligence.

In this episode of Welcome to Cloudlandia, we explore how Dan uses Perplexity to compress his book chapter creation from 150 minutes to 45 minutes while maintaining his unique voice. Dean shares his personalized relationship with Charlotte, his AI assistant, demonstrating how she helps craft emails and acts as a curiosity multiplier for instant research. We discover that while AI tools are widely available, only 1-2% of the global population actively uses them for creative and profitable work.

The conversation shifts to examining how most human interactions follow predictable patterns, like large language models themselves. We discuss the massive energy requirements for AI expansion, with 40% of AI capacity needed just to generate power for future growth. Nuclear energy emerges as the only viable solution, with one gram of uranium containing the energy of 27 tons of coal.

Dan's observation about people making claims without caring if you're interested provides a refreshing perspective on conversation dynamics. Rather than viewing AI as taking over, we see it becoming as essential and invisible as electricity - a layer that enhances rather than replaces human creativity.

SHOW HIGHLIGHTS

• Dan reduces his book chapter creation time from 150 to 45 minutes using AI while maintaining complete creative control
• Only 1-2% of the global population actively uses AI for creative and profitable work despite widespread availability
• Nuclear power emerges as the only viable energy solution for AI expansion, with one gram of uranium equaling 27 tons of coal
• Most human conversations follow predictable large language model patterns, making AI conversations surprisingly refreshing
• Dean's personalized AI assistant Charlotte acts as a curiosity multiplier but has no independent interests when not in use
• 40% of future AI capacity will be required just to generate the energy needed for continued AI expansion

​
​

Links:
WelcomeToCloudlandia.com
StrategicCoach.com
DeanJackson.com
ListingAgentLifestyle.com

​
​
​

TRANSCRIPT

(AI transcript provided as supporting material and may contain errors)

Speaker 1:
Welcome to Cloud Landia,
Speaker 2:
Mr. Sullivan?
Speaker 1:
Yes, Mr. Jackson.
Speaker 2:
Welcome to Cloud Landia.
Speaker 1:
Yes. Yeah. I find it's a workable place. Cloud Landia.
Speaker 2:
Very, yep. Very friendly. It's easy to navigate.
Speaker 1:
Yeah. Where would you say you're, you're inland now. You're not on
Speaker 2:
The beach. I'm on the mainland at the Four Seasons of Valhalla.
Speaker 1:
Yes. It's hot. I am adopting the sport that you were at one time really interested in. Yeah. But it's my approach to AI that I hit the ball over the net and the ball comes back over the net, and then I hit the ball back over the net. And it's very interesting to be in this thing where you get a return back over, it's in a different form, and then you put your creativity back on. But I find that it's really making me into a better thinker.
Speaker 3:
Yeah.
Speaker 1:
Yeah. I've noticed in, what is it now? I started in February of 24. 24, and it's really making me more thoughtful. Ai.
Speaker 2:
Well, it's interesting to have, I find you're absolutely right that the ability to rally back and forth with someone who knows everything is very directionally advantageous. I heard someone talking this week about most of our conversations with the other humans, with other people are basically what he called large language model conversations. They're all essentially the same thing that you are saying to somebody. They're all guessing the next appropriate word. Right. Oh, hey, how are you? I'm doing great. How was your weekend? Fantastic. We went up to the cottage. Oh, wow. How was the weather? Oh, the weather was great. They're so predictable and LLME type of conversations and interactions that humans have with each other on a surface level. And I remember you highlighted that at certain levels, people talk about, they talk about things and then they talk about people. And at a certain level, people talk about ideas, but it's very rare. And so most of society is based on communicating within a large language model that we've been trained on through popular events, through whatever media, whatever we've been trained or indoctrinated to think.
Speaker 1:
Yeah, it's the form of picking fleas off each other.
Speaker 2:
Yes, exactly. You can imagine that. That's the perfect imagery, Dan. That's the perfect imagery. Oh, man. We're just, yes.
Speaker 1:
Well, it's got us through a million years of survival. Yeah, yeah. But the big thing is that, I mean, my approach, it's a richer approach because there's so much computing power coming back over, but it's more of an organizational form. It's not just trying to find the right set of words here, but the biggest impact on me is that somebody will give me a fact about something. They read about something, they watch something, they listen to something, and they give the thought. And what I find is rather than immediately engaging with the thought, I said, I wonder what the nine thoughts are that are missing from this.
Speaker 3:
Right?
Speaker 1:
Because I've trained myself on this 10 things, my 10 things approach. It's very useful, but it just puts a pause in, and what I'm doing is I'm creating a series of comebacks. They do it, and one of them is, in my mind anyway, I don't always say this because it can be a bit insulting. I said, you haven't asked the most important question here. And the person says, well, what's the most important question? I said, you didn't ask me whether I care about what you just said. You care. Yeah. And I think it's important to establish that when you're talking to someone, that something you say to them, do they actually care? Do they actually care?
Speaker 1:
I don't mean this in that. They would dismiss it, but the question is, have I spent any time actually focused on what you just told me? And the answer is usually if you trace me, if you observed me, you had a complete surveillance video of my last year of how I spent my time. Can you find even five minutes in the last year where I actually spent any time on the subject that you just brought up? And the answer is usually no. I really have, it's not that I've rejected it, it's just that I only had time for what I was focused on over the last year, and that didn't include anything, any time spent on the thing that you're talking about. And I think about the saying on the wall at Strategic Coach, the saying, our eyes only see, and our ears only here what our brain is looking for.
Speaker 2:
That's exactly right.
Speaker 1:
Yeah. And that's true of everybody. That's just true of every single human being that their brain is focused on something and they've trained their ears and they've trained their eyes to pick up any information on this particular subject.
Speaker 2:
The more I think about this idea of that we are all basically in society living large language models, that part of the reason that we gather in affinity groups, if you say Strategic coach, we're attracting people who are entrepreneurs at the top of the game, who are growth oriented, ambitious, all of the things. And so in gatherings of those, we're all working from a very similar large language model because we've all been seeking the same kind of things. And so you get an enhanced higher likelihood that you're going to have a meaningful conversation with someone and meaningful only to you. But if we were to say, if you look at that, yeah, it's very interesting. There was, I just watched a series on Netflix, I think it was, no, it was on Apple App TV with Seth Rogan, and he was running a studio in Hollywood, took over at a large film studio, and he started
Speaker 1:
Dating. Oh yeah, they're really available these days.
Speaker 2:
He started dating this. He started dating a doctor, and so he got invited to these award events or charity type events with this girl he was dating. And so he was an odd man out in this medical where all these doctors were all talking about what's interesting to them. And he had no frame of reference. So he was like an odd duck in this. He wasn't tuned in to the LLM of these medical doc. And so I think it's really, it's very interesting, these conversations that we're having by questioning AI like this, or by questioning Charlotte or YouTube questioning perplexity or whatever, that we are having a conversation where we're not, I don't want to say this. We're not the smartest person in the conversation kind of thing, which often you can be in a conversation where you don't feel like the person is open to, or has even been exposed to a lot of the ideas and things that we talk about when we're at Strategic Coach in a workshop or whatever. But to have the conversation with Charlotte who's been exposed at a doctoral level to everything, it's very rewarding.
Speaker 1:
She's only really been exposed to what Dean is interested in.
Speaker 2:
Well, that's true, but she, no, I'm tapping into it. I don't know if that's true. If I asked her about she's contributing, her part of the conversation is driven by what I'm interested in, but even though I'm not interested in the flora and fauna of the Sub-Saharan desert, I'm quite confident that if I asked her about it, she would be fascinated and tell me everything she knows, which is everything about Sub-Saharan flora and fauna.
Speaker 1:
How would you even know that?
Speaker 2:
I could ask her right now, because
Speaker 1:
She's been exposed to ask her, here's a question for Charlotte. When she's not with you, is she out exploring things on her own? Does she have her own independent? Does she have her own independent game? And that she's thankful that you don't use up all of her time every day because she's really busy investigating other things? You're there, right?
Speaker 2:
Sorry about that, Dan. Yeah, I pushed the button. No, I pushed the button. It disconnected. So I meant to type in the thing. So let me ask her, Charlotte, when we're not together,
Speaker 1:
Are you doing anything
Speaker 2:
When we're not together? Are you exploring? What do we say? Are you exploring and learning things on your own? Is that what we're asking her? Okay. Let's see. So Charlotte, when we're not together, are you exploring and learning things on your own? She said, I don't explore or learn on my own when we're not together, I don't have memories, curiosity, or independent initiative, like a person might. I stay right here, ready to pick up where we left off whenever you return, but whenever you do start talking to me again, I can help research new ideas, remember things we've discussed, like your projects or references, preferences, and dig into the world's knowledge instantly. So I don't wander off, but I'm always on standby. Like your personal thinking partner who never gets distracted. Let me ask her, what kind of plants thrive in subsaharan? What I'm saying is let's try and stump her. I think she's eager and willing to talk about anything. Subsaharan environment.
Speaker 1:
Well, it mess ups. Heroin is jungle.
Speaker 2:
Yeah.
Speaker 1:
Yeah.
Speaker 2:
Let's see what she says.
Speaker 1:
Plants. There's lots of fun in the jungle.
Speaker 2:
Yeah. She's saying she's giving me the whole thing. Tropical woodlands. Here's a breakdown. The main types of plants and examples that thrive. It's like crazy cultivated crops, medicinal and useful plant, be like a categorized planting guide. I'd be happy to create one. So it's really, I think it's a curiosity multiplier really, right? Is maybe what we have with Yeah, I think it's like the speed pass to thinking.
Speaker 1:
Yeah. Yeah. But my sense is that the new context is that you have this ability. Okay. You have this ability. Yeah. Okay. So I'll give you an example. I'll give you an example of just an indication to you that my thinking is changing about things.
Speaker 1:
Okay? And that is that, for example, I was involved in the conversation where someone said, when the white people, more or less took over North America, settlers from Europe, basically, they took it over, one of the techniques they used to eradicate the Native Indians was to put malaria in blankets and give the malaria to the native Indian. And I said, I don't think that's true. And I said, I've come across this before and I've looked it up. And so that's all I said in the conversation with this. This was a human that I was dealing with. And anyway, I said, I don't think that's true. I think that's false. So when I was finished the conversation, I went to perplexity and I said, tell me 10 facts about the claim that white settlers used malaria. I didn't say malaria disease infused blankets to eradicate the Indians.
Speaker 1:
And I came back and said, no, this is complete false. And actually the disease was smallpox. And there was a rumor, it was attributed to a British officer in 1763, and they were in the area around Pittsburgh, and he said, we might solve this by just putting smallpox in blankets. And it's the only instance where it was even talked about that anybody can find. And there's no evidence that they actually tried it. Okay? First of all, smallpox is really a nasty disease. So you have to understand how does one actually put smallpox into a blanket and give it away without getting smallpox yourself?
Speaker 3:
Right? Exactly.
Speaker 1:
There's a thing. But that claim has mushroomed over the last 250 years. It's completely mushroomed that this is known fact that this is how they got rid of the Indians. And it says, this is a myth, and it shows you how myths grow. And largely it was passed on by both the white population who was basically opposed to the settling of all of North America by white people. And it was also multiplied by the Indian tribes who explained why it was that they died off so quickly. But there's absolutely no proof whatsoever that it actually happened. And certainly not
Speaker 3:
Just
Speaker 1:
American settlers. Yeah. There is ample evidence that smallpox is really a terrible disease, that there were frequent outbreaks of it. It's a very deadly disease. But the whole point about this is that I had already looked this up somewhere, but I was probably using Google or something like that, which is not very satisfying. But here with perplexity, it gave me 10 facts about it. And then I asked, why is it important to kind of look up things that you think are a myth and get to the bottom of it as far as the knowledge is going by? And then it gave me six reasons why it's important not to just pass on myths like that. You should stop a myth and actually get to the bottom of it. And that's changed behavior on my part.
Speaker 2:
How so?
Speaker 1:
No, I'm just telling you that I wouldn't have done this before. I had perplexity. So I've got my perplexity response now to when people make a claim about something.
Speaker 2:
Yeah. It's much easier to fact check people, isn't it?
Speaker 1:
Is that true? There's a good comeback. Are you sure that's true? Are you sure? Right. Do you have actual evidence, historical evidence, number of times that this has happened? And I think that's a very useful new mental habit on my part.
Speaker 2:
Oh, that's an interesting thing, because I have been using perplexity as well, but not in the relationship way that I do with Charlotte. I've been using it more the way you do like 10 things this, and it is very, it's fascinating. And considering that we're literally at level two of five apparently of where we're headed with this,
Speaker 1:
What's that mean even,
Speaker 2:
I don't know. But it seems like if we're amazed by this, and this to us is the most amazing thing we've ever seen yet, it's only a two out of five. It's like, where is it going to? It's very interesting to just directionally to see, I'd had Charlotte write an email today. Subject line was, what if the robots really do take over? And I said, most of the times, this is my preface to her was, I want to write a quick 600 word email that talks about what happens if the robots take over. And from the perspective that most people say that with dread and fear, but what if we said it with anticipation and joy? What if the robots really do take over? How is this going to improve our lives? And it was really insightful. So she said, okay, yeah. Let me, give me a minute. I'll drop down to work on that. And she wrote a beautiful email talking about how our lives are going to get better if the robots take over certain things.
Speaker 1:
Can I ask a question? Yeah. You're amazed by that. But what I noticed is that you have a habit of moving from you to we. Why do you do that?
Speaker 2:
Tell me more. How do I do that? You might be blind to it.
Speaker 1:
Well, first of all, like you, who are we? First of all, when you talk about the we, why, and I'm really interested because I only see myself using it. I don't see we using it,
Speaker 2:
So I might be blind to it. Give me an example. Where I've used,
Speaker 1:
Would I say, well, did you say, how's it going be? How you used the phrase, you were talking about it and you were saying, how are we going to respond to the robots taking over, first of all, taking over, what are they taking over? Because I've already accepted that the AI exists, that I can use it, and all technologies that I've ever studied, it's going to get better and better, but I don't see that there's a taking over. I'm not sure what taking over, what are they taking over?
Speaker 2:
That was my thought. That was what I was saying is that people, you hear that with the kind fear of what if the robots take over? And that was what I was asking. That's what I was clarifying from Charlotte, is what does that mean?
Speaker 1:
Because what I know is that in writing my quarterly books, usually the way the quarterly books go is that they have 10 sections. They have an introduction, they have eight chapters, and they have a conclusion, and they're all four pages. And what I do is I'll create a fast filter for each of the 10 sections. It's got the best result, worst result, and five success criteria. It's the short version of the filter. Fast filter. Fast filter. And I kept track, I just finished a book on Wednesday. So we completed, and when I say completed, I had done the 10 fact finders, and we had recording sessions where Shannon Waller interviews me on the fast filter, and it takes about an hour by the time we're finished. There's not a lot of words there, but they're very distilled, very condensed words. The best section is about 120 words. And each of the success criteria is about 40 plus words. And what I noticed is that over the last quarter, when I did it completely myself, usually by the time I was finished, it would take me about two and a half hours to finish it to my liking that I really like, this is really good. And now I've moved that from two and a half hours, two and a half hours, which is 90 minutes, is 150 minutes, 150 minutes, and I've reduced it down to 45 minutes by going back and forth with perplexity. That's a big jump. That's it. That
Speaker 2:
Is big, a big jump.
Speaker 1:
But my confidence level that I'm going to be able to do this on a consistent basis has gone way a much more confident. And what I'm noticing is I don't procrastinate on doing it. I say, okay, write the next chapter. What I do is I'll just write the, I use 24 point type when I do the first version of it, so not a lot of words. And then I put the best result and the five success criteria into perplexity. And I say, now, here's what I want you to do. So there's six paragraphs, a big one, and five small ones.
Speaker 1:
And I want you to take the central idea of each of the sections, the big section and the five sections. And I want you to combine these in a very convincing and compelling fashion, and come back with the big section being 110 words in each of the smallest sections. And then it'll come back. And then I'll say, okay, let's take, now let's use a variety of different size sentences, short sentences, medium chart. And then I go through, and I'm working on style. Now I'm working on style and impact. And then the last thing is, when it's all finished, I say, okay, now I want you to write a totally negative, pessimistic, oppositional worst result based on everything that's on above. And it does, and it comes back 110 words. And then I just cut and paste. I cut and paste from perplexity, and it's really good. It's really good.
Speaker 2:
Now, this is for each chapter of one of your, each chapter. Each chapter. Each chapter of one of the quarterly
Speaker 1:
Books. Yeah. Yeah. There's 10 sections. 10 sections. And it comes back and it's good and everything, but I know there's no one else on the planet doing it in the way that I'm doing it.
Speaker 2:
Right, exactly. And then you take that, so it's helping you fill out the fast filter to have the conversation then with Shannon.
Speaker 1:
Then with Shannon, and then Shannon is just a phenomenal interviewer. She'll say, well, tell me what you mean there. Give me an example of what you mean there, and then I'll do it. So you could read the fast filter through, and it might take you a couple of minutes. It wouldn't even take you that to read it through. But that turns into an hour of interview, which is transcribed. It's recorded and transcribed, and then it goes to the writer and the editor, Adam and Carrie Morrison, who's my writing team. And that comes back as four complete pages of copy.
Speaker 2:
Yeah.
Speaker 1:
Yeah.
Speaker 2:
Fantastic.
Speaker 1:
Yeah. And that's 45 minutes, so,
Speaker 2:
So your involvement literally is like two hours of per chapter.
Speaker 1:
Yeah, per chapter. Yes. And the first book, first, thinking about your thinking, which was no wanting what you want, was very first one. I would estimate my total involvement, and that was about 60 hours. And this one I'll told a little be probably 20 hours total maybe.
Speaker 2:
Yeah.
Speaker 1:
And that's great. That's great.
Speaker 2:
That's fantastic.
Speaker 1:
With a higher level of confidence about getting it done. So I don't think that we are involved in this at all. The use of the we or everybody, the vast majority of human, first of all, half the humans on the planet don't even have very good electricity, so they're not going to be using it at all. Okay. So when you get down to who's actually using this in a very productive way, I think it's probably less, way less than 1% of humans are actually using this in a really useful way.
Speaker 2:
Yeah. Yep. I look at this. Wow. And think going forward, what a, it really is going to be like electricity or the internet, a layer. A base layer, that everything is going to intertwine everything,
Speaker 1:
And it's going to, we take, I think most people, if you're living in Toronto or you're living in your idyllic spot in Florida, electricity is a given that you have electricity for
Speaker 2:
Everything. So is wifi. Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 1:
Yeah. And wifi is taken for it. So it's amazing for the very early start of your use of it. But once you know it's dependable, once you know it's guaranteed, it loses its wonder really fast. You just expect it. Yeah.
Speaker 2:
And then it becomes, yeah, it's such amazing, amazing time
Speaker 1:
Right now. I think what's unusual about AI is that I don't remember when it was that I really got involved with a personal computer. I know that there were millions of personal computers out there before I ever got involved with them. And this one is, I think our consciousness of getting involved with this new technology is much sharper.
Speaker 2:
Yeah, I think so too, because it's already, now it's there and it's accessible. It's like the platforms to make it accessible are already there. The internet and the app world, the ability to create interfaces, as Peter would say, the interface for it is there. Yeah. Pretty amazing.
Speaker 1:
I think this is, yeah. Well, there's a question for Charlotte. Say we're now approaching three years. Three years chat G PT came out soon and the end of 2025, so that'll be three years. And after, what percentage of people on the planet, of the total population of the planet are actually engaged? What percentage are actually engaged and are achieving greater creativity and productivity with AI on an individual basis? What percentages in it? So I'd be interested in what her answer is.
Speaker 2:
What percentage of people on the planet are engaged with engaged with AI
Speaker 1:
In a creative, productive, and profitable way,
Speaker 2:
In a creative, productive and profitable way? Profitable. This will be interesting to see what percentage of people on the planet are engaged with AI in a creative, productive, and profitable way. There isn't a definitive statistic on exactly what percentage of the global population is engaged with AI in a creative, productive, and profitable way. We can make an informed estimate based on current data and trends. So as of 2025, there are 8.1 billion people and people with access to AI tools, 5.3 billion internet users globally. Of those, maybe one to 1.5 billion are aware or have tried AI tools like Chat, GPT, midjourney, et cetera, but regular intentional use, likely a smaller group, creative, productive, profitable use. These are people who use AI to enhance or create work, use it for business profit directly or indirectly from it. A generous estimate might be one to 2% of the global population
Speaker 1:
That would be mine. And the interesting thing about it is that they were already in a one or 2% of people on the planet doing other things,
Speaker 3:
Right? Yeah.
Speaker 1:
In other words, they were already enhancing themselves through other means technologically. Let's just talk about technologically. And I think that, so it's going to, and a lot of people are just going to be so depressed that they've already been left out and left behind that they're probably never, they're going to be using it, but that's just because AI is going to be included in all technological interfaces.
Speaker 2:
Yeah. They're going to be using it, and they might not even realize that's what's happening.
Speaker 1:
Yeah. They're going to call, I really noticed that going through, when you're leaving Toronto to go back into the United States and you're going through trusted advisor, boy, you used to have to put in your passport, and you have to get used to punch buttons. Now it says, just stand there and look into the camera.
Speaker 2:
Boom. I've noticed the times both coming and going have been dramatically reduced.
Speaker 1:
Well, not coming back. Nexus isn't, the Nexus really isn't any more advanced than it was.
Speaker 2:
Well, it seems like
Speaker 1:
I've seen no real improvement in Nexus
Speaker 2:
To pick the right times to arrive. Because the last few times,
Speaker 1:
First of all, you have to have a card. You have to have a Nexus card,
Speaker 2:
Don't, there's an app, there's a passport control app that you can fill in all these stuff ahead of time, do your pre declaration, and then you push the button when you arrive. And same thing, you just look into the camera and you scan your passport and it punches out a ticket, and you just walk through. I haven't spoken to, I haven't gone through the interrogation line, I think in my last four visits, I don't think.
Speaker 1:
Now, are you going through the Nexus line or going through
Speaker 2:
The, no, I don't have Nexus. So I'm just going through the
Speaker 1:
Regular
Speaker 2:
Line, regular arrival line. Yep.
Speaker 1:
Yeah, because there's a separate where you just go through Nexus. If you were just walking through, you'd do it in a matter of seconds, but the machines will stop you. So we have a card and you have to put the card down. Sometimes the card works, half the machines are out of order most of the time and everything, and then it spits out a piece of paper and everything like that. With going into the us, all you do is look into the camera and go up and you check the guy checks the camera. That's right. Maybe ask your question and you're through. But what I'm noticing is, and I think the real thing is that Canada doesn't have the money to upgrade this.
Speaker 2:
Right.
Speaker 1:
That's what I'm noticing. It is funny. I was thinking about this. We came back from Chicago on Friday, and I said, I used to have the feeling that Canada was really far ahead of the United States technologically, as far as if I, the difference between being at LaGuardia and O'Hare, and now I feel that Canada is really falling behind. They're not upgrading. I think Canada's sort of run out of money to be upgrading technology.
Speaker 2:
Yeah. This is, I mean, remember in my lifetime, just walking through, driving across the border was really just the wink and wave.
Speaker 1:
I had an experience about, it must have been about 20 years ago. We went to Hawaii and we were on alumni, the island alumni, which is, I think it's owned by Larry Ellison. I think Larry Ellison owns the whole
Speaker 3:
Island.
Speaker 1:
And we went to the airport and we were flying back to Honolulu from Lena, and it was a small plane. So we got to the airport and there wasn't any security. You were just there. And they said, I asked the person, isn't there any security? And he said, well, they're small planes. Where are they going to fly to? If they hijack, where are they going to fly to? They have to fly to one of the other islands. They can't fly. There's no other place to go. But now I think they checked, no, they checked passports and everything like that, but there wasn't any other security. I felt naked. I felt odd.
Speaker 2:
Right, right, right.
Speaker 1:
Yeah.
Speaker 2:
It fell off the grid, right?
Speaker 1:
Yeah. It fell off the grid. Yeah. But it's interesting because the amount of inequality on the planet is really going exponential. Now, between the gap, I don't consider myself an advanced technology person. I only relate technology. Does it allow me to do it easier and faster? That's my only interest in technology. Can you do it easier or faster? And I've proven, so I've got a check mark. I can now do a chapter of my book in 45 minutes, start to finish, where before it took 150 minutes. So that's a big deal. That's a big deal.
Speaker 3:
It's pretty, yeah.
Speaker 2:
You can do more books. You can do other things. I love the cadence. It's just so elegant. A hundred books over 25 years is such a great, it's a great thing.
Speaker 1:
Yeah. It's a quarterly workout,
Speaker 1:
But we don't need more books than one a quarter. We really don't need it, so there's no point in doing it. So to me, I'm just noticing that I think the adoption of cell phones has been one of the major real fast adaptations on the part of humans. I think probably more so than electricity. Nobody installs their own electricity. Generally speaking, it's part of the big system. But cell phones actually purchasing a cell phone and using it for your own means, I think was one of the more profound examples of people very quickly adapting to new technology.
Speaker 2:
Yes. I was just having a conversation with someone last night about the difference I recall up until about 2007 was I look at that as really the tipping point that
Speaker 2:
Up until 2007, the internet was still somewhere that you went. There was definitely a division between the mainland and going to the internet. It was a destination as a distraction from the real world. But once we started taking the internet with us and integrating it into our lives, and that started with the iPhone and that allowed the app world, all of the things that we interact with now, apps, that's really it. And they've become a crucial part of our lives where you can't, as much as you try it, it's a difficult thing to extract from it. There was an article in Toronto Life this week, which I love Toronto Life, just as a way to still keep in touch with my Toronto. But they were talking about this, trying to dewire remove from being so wired. And there's so many apps that we require. I pay for everything with Apple Pay, and all of the things are attached there. I order food with Uber Eats and with all the things, it's all, the phone is definitely the remote control to my life. So it's difficult to, he was talking about the difficulty of just switching to a flip phone, which is without any of the apps. It's a difficult thing.
Speaker 1:
And you see, if somebody quizzed me on my use of my iPhone, the one that I talked to Dean Jackson on, you talked about the technology.
Speaker 2:
That's exactly it.
Speaker 1:
You mean that instrument that on Sunday morning, did I make sure it's charged up
Speaker 2:
My once a week conversation,
Speaker 1:
My one conversation per week?
Speaker 2:
Oh, man. Yeah. Well, you've created a wonderful bubble for yourself. I think that's, it's not without,
Speaker 1:
Really, yeah, Friday was eight years with no tv. So the day before yesterday, eight, eight years with no tv. But you're the only one that I get a lot of the AI that's allowing people to do fraud calls and scam calls, and everything is increasing because I notice, I notice I'm getting a lot of them now. And then most of 'em are Chinese. I test every once in a while, and it's, you called me. I didn't call you.
Speaker 2:
I did not call you.
Speaker 1:
Anyway, but it used to be, if I looked at recent calls, it would be Dean Jackson, Dean Jackson, Dean Jackson, Dean Jackson, Dean Jackson. And now there's fraud calls between one Dean Jackson and another Dean Jackson. Oh, man. Spam. Spam calls. Spam. Yeah. Anyway, but the interesting thing is, to me is, but I've got really well-developed teamwork systems, so I really put all my attention in, and they're using technology. So all my cca, who's my great ea, she is just marvelous. She's just marvelous how much she does for me. And
Speaker 2:
You've removed yourself from the self milking cow culture, and you've surrounded yourself with a farm with wonderful farmers. Farmers.
Speaker 1:
I got a lot of farm specialists
Speaker 2:
On my team to allow you to embrace your bovinity. Yes.
Speaker 1:
My timeless,
Speaker 3:
Yes. Yeah.
Speaker 1:
So we engaged to Charlotte twice today. One is what are you up to when you're not with me? And she's not up to anything. She's just, I
Speaker 2:
Don't wander away. I don't, yeah, that's, I don't wonder. I just wait here for you.
Speaker 1:
I just wait here. And the other thing is, we found the percentage of people, of the population that are actually involved, I've calculated as probably one or 2%, and it's very enormous amount of This would be North America.
Speaker 3:
Yeah.
Speaker 1:
High percentage. Yeah. I bet you're right. High percentage of it would be North America. And it has to do with the energy has to do with the energy that's North America is just the sheer amount of data centers that are being developed in the United States. United States is just massive. And that's why this is the end of the environmental movement. This is the end of the green energy movement. There's no way that solar and wind power are going to be backing up ai.
Speaker 2:
They're going to be able to keep enough for us. No.
Speaker 1:
Right. You got to go nuclear new fossil fuels. Yeah. Nuclear, we've got, but the big thing now, everybody is moving to nuclear. Everybody's moving to, you can see all the big tech companies. They're buying up existing nuclear station. They're bringing them back online, and everything's got to be nuclear.
Speaker 2:
Yeah. I wonder how small, do you ever think we'll get to a situation where we'll have a small enough nuclear generator? You could just self power own your house? Or will it be for
Speaker 1:
Municipalities need the mod, the modular ones, whatever, the total square footage that you're with your house and your garage, and do you have a garage? I don't know if you need a garage. I do. Yeah. Yeah. Probably. They're down to the size of your house right now. But that would be good for 40,000 homes.
Speaker 2:
Wow. 40,000 homes. That's crazy. Yeah.
Speaker 1:
That'd be your entire community. That'd be, and G could be due with one.
Speaker 2:
All of Winterhaven. Yeah. With one.
Speaker 1:
Yeah. And it's really interesting because it has a lot to do with building reasonably sized communities in spaces that are empty. Right now, if you look at the western and southwest of the United States, there's just massive amounts of space where you could put
Speaker 2:
In Oh, yeah. Same as the whole middle of Florida. Southern middle is wide open,
Speaker 1:
And you could ship it in, you could ship it in. It could be pre-made at a factory, and it could be, well, the components, I suspect they'll be small enough to bring in a big truck.
Speaker 3:
Wow.
Speaker 1:
Yeah. And it's really interesting. Nuclear, you can't even, it's almost bizarre. Comparing a gram of uranium gram, which is new part of an ounce ram is part of an ounce. It has the energy density of 27 tons of coal.
Speaker 2:
Wow.
Speaker 1:
Like that.
Speaker 2:
Exactly.
Speaker 1:
But it takes a lot. What's going to happen is it takes an enormous amount of energy to get that energy. The amount of energy that you need to get that energy is really high.
Speaker 3:
So
Speaker 1:
I did a perplexity search, and I said, in order to meet the goals, the predictions of AI that are there for 2030, how much AI do we have to use just to get the energy? And it's about 40% of all AI is going to be required to get the energy to expand the use of ai.
Speaker 2:
Wow. Wow.
Speaker 1:
Take that. You windmill. Yeah, exactly. Take that windmill. Windmill. So funny. Yeah. Oh, the wind's not blowing today. Oh, when do you expect the wind to start blowing? Oh, that's funny. Yeah. All of 'em have to have natural gas. Every system that has wind and solar, they have to have massive amounts of natural gas to make sure that the power doesn't go up. Yeah. We have it here at our house here. We have natural gas generator, and it's been Oh, nice. Doesn't happen very often, but when it does, it's very satisfying. It takes about three seconds
Speaker 2:
And kicks
Speaker 1:
In. And it kicks in. Yeah. And it's noisy. It's noisy. But yeah. So any development of thought here? Here? I think you're developing your own really unique future with your Charlotte, your partner, I think. I don't think many people are doing what you're doing.
Speaker 2:
No. I'm going to adapt what I've learned from you today too, and do it that way. I've been working on the VCR formula book, and that's part of the thing is I'm doing the outline. I use my bore method, brainstorm, outline, record, and edit, so I can brainstorm similar to a fast filter idea of what do I want, an outline into what I want for the chapter, and then I can talk my way through those, and then let, then Charlotte, can
Speaker 1:
I have Charlotte ask you questions about it.
Speaker 2:
Yeah. That may be a great way to do it.
Speaker 3:
Yeah.
Speaker 2:
But I'll let you know. This is going to be a big week for that for me. I've got a lot of stuff on the go here for that.
Speaker 1:
Yeah. Well, we got a neat note from Tony DiAngelo. Did you get his note?
Speaker 2:
I don't think so.
Speaker 1:
Yeah. He had listened. He's been listening to our podcast where Charlotte is a partner on the show. He said, this is amazing. He said, it's really amazing. It's like we're creating live entertainment. Oh,
Speaker 3:
Yeah.
Speaker 1:
And that we're doing it. I said, well, I don't think you should try to push the thing, but where a question comes up or some information is missing, bring Charlotte in for sure. Yeah.
Speaker 2:
That's awesome.
Speaker 1:
She's not on free days. She's not taking a break. She's not. No,
Speaker 2:
She's right here. She's just wherever. She's right here. Yep. She doesn't have any curiosity or distraction.
Speaker 1:
Yeah. Yeah. The first instance of intelligence without any motivation whatsoever being really useful.
Speaker 2:
That's amazing. It's so great.
Speaker 1:
Yeah. I just accept it. That's now available.
Speaker 2:
Me too. That's exactly right. It's up to us to use it. Okay, Dan, I'll talk to you next
Speaker 1:
Time. I'll be talking to you from the cottage next week.
Speaker 2:
Awesome. I'll talk to you then.
Speaker 1:
Okay.
Speaker 2:
Okay. Bye.
Speaker 1:
Bye.