Innovation and Growth Hacking –
Innovation and Growth Hacking Lessons from Leading Double Digit Growth at 1000+ StartUps with CEO of American Angels Dr Pano Churchill
Nathaniel Schooler 0:15
So today, I would like to introduce you to Dr. Pano Kroko Churchill. And he is, in fact is Winston Churchill’s Grandson. We are discussing Innovation and Growth Hacking.
Proven Leader, US Senate Candidate, Keynote Speaker, Angel Investor, Tech Innovator, Successful CEO, Creator of the 3P, ESG Disruptor, Activist Investor, Launched multiple ESG Funds & Companies with double digit annual returns, more than a Thousand StartUps, & created hundreds of Thousands of Jobs through the powerful lever of Innovation, Angel Investing, Finance, Science & Technology, open sourcing the StartUp Weekend, & the Wi-Fi.
CEO of AMERICAN ANGELS (INVESTORS, ENTREPRENEURS & VISIONARY LEADERS) in ESG & Angel Capital Funds, Crowdfunding, 3XESG, VC, Early Stage Technology & Science, Life Sciences, Medicine, Telecoms, FinTech, Internet & Mobile App StartUps for Internet & New Media.
His goal to create Thousands of Great New Tech Startups, and Millions of New Jobs through Open Sourcing the Startup Entrepreneurship of Science, & Technology Innovation through DOT.
So this is a very interesting episode, we just talked about innovation and creative thinking, growth hacking and funding which is also crucial.
Don’t forget to review us wherever you listen and share with your friends.
So let’s get into the show.
It’s lovely to speak view again Pano.
Dr Pano Churchill 1:38
And putting a name with a face you know how important that is?
Because all of our communications today being digital, seldom do we get a chance to see such a lovely smiley face as yours. Hahaha!
Nathaniel Schooler 1:48
Thank you that well, your family resemblance is phenomenal.
It’s a real honour to speak with you actually. And yeah, I’m very excited to hear what you got to say. So….
Dr Pano Churchill 2:11
Let’s get started.
Nathaniel Schooler 2:11
Hello over to you, Dr. Churchill.
And yeah, I’m very excited to hear what you got to say.
So please, please carry on 🙂
Dr Pano Churchill 2:15
Well, thank you my good friend. I was invited here today to speak on this Podcast about innovation and the startup economy.
I think I will safely say that I’m one of the people on this earth who knows more about that subject than anybody else. Because simply I’ve been doing it since my very earliest days, during my educational years, building innovative products via technology, software, communications, into the early stages of the mobile telephony.
The very first company that was created in Seattle, Washington when I was going to college, that was Cellular One and that company created the first mosaic of global communications that later evolved into at AT&T Mobile, etc.
So from those days that I was able to have my knowledge of radio communications instituted into the building of the first cell phones and the first towers and the first antennas and the first, you know, complex. So network communications, we are wireless.
Today we are staying on the forefront of innovation in this organization called American Angels. And what that is, is an organization of innovators, entrepreneurs, early stage risk taking investors into which they act as business angels to all the good concepts that you consider that are steeped in good science and technology; in order to bring about useful products.
The key word here again, is innovation. So innovation is is obviously something that’s born out of the necessity to solve visible and rise-able problems in our world.
Innovation exists in all facets of life especially is the best sin in the way of progressive thinking from the enlightenment forward, but if you look back even to the days of yore, into which the basic innovation we had was. God was allowable, and it was innovation have very many variable speeds, but it was allowable within society.
We can see that once we became unfettered and passed the enlightenment years that they became free. Very much like the ancient Greeks during the Golden Age.
We have to admit that we allowed ourselves to progress.
Human civilization is the testimony of the innovators that came before us, and then they continue to exist today and of course within the context of human civilization.
We have the intellectual property arena into which within our capitalist system. We are given a certain number of years, between 15 to 20 years or so to profit from our innovations in exchange for sharing our knowledge and through the patent become becoming public, then other people can step up on that existing knowledge and build the next phase of innovation that allows people you know, to continue upgrading and up solving the problems that we face.
It is a fair exchange and as you’ve seen, you know, through the rise of Western civilization, this has been a very good way to bolster the innovators to the method of rewarding them; so they can share their invention with the rest of us. And eventually these always up-cycles the ideas and we all build upon the shoulders of giants, you know, the great innovator and we create the new innovations on the future.
So I will go as far as to say that the best place for that decade of pioneering and you know innovative thinking used to be England. Yet the Old Blighty after the Industrial Revolution forgot a little bit the necessity for continued innovation. And they somehow created an environment that wasn’t as open as before and then you’ve seen the rise of the innovators came to be, to the United States of America.
Especially after the independence into which the free English people; as one can easily describe Americans chose to continue on that path of creating great innovations and whether it was the Jean machine you know the cotton Jean that allowed us to have you know, plenty full you easy harvesting of cotton and production.
Anything else that you’ve seen today, there’s always been the case of building a better mousetrap as a way of equalizing the opportunities in the market in favour of the newest and most useful product.
So whether it is bio-engineering bio-medical by bio-technological or space, era innovations. They are all hedging on the profit motive to provide a better product at a better price. And with a better usefulness on every generation of improvement in anything that we have to deal with in life.
And this is what the examined life is all about in today’s world. That we examine the existing state of affairs in our industry and we try to disrupt them constantly, almost 90% of the companies that are today on the big basket of Dow Jones 100 industrials or 500 or 1000, they could not exist there in the past longer than two decades.
So all the new great companies, you know, Apple and Microsoft, and obviously, you know, Google and Facebook and everybody else who’s on the digital era, they have all been guided to that level through this length of innovation.
So if the largest companies in the world, they claim the origin in the process of startup innovation, all of them having started in some type of auto-mobile garage in the area, San Mateo, Silicon Valley or somewhere around the Bay of San Francisco. There is a reason why that happens in such a tight geographic niche.
And we also have a lot of it where I mostly spend my time because I do spend my time between Silicon Valley and the Silicon Forest being the Pacific Northwest Seattle, which is a great forested area. Very much a microclimate of a rain forest northern rain forest.
And maybe because of the weather conditions, people tend to work a lot harder than in more temperate climates. And we have tremendous production of great companies like Amazon and Boeing and Starbucks, and all have them and thousands, literally thousands upon thousands of others.
They’ve all started through a soul entrepreneur, who had a vision and he could ask the question, why don’t we do things differently than how we’ve experienced them so far?
Usually the one person that has a strong vision, the founder usually can find other likely co-founders to support the same vision and presto, within a few months, you have a new product that defines a new company.
These are the companies that American Angels choose to support.
Nathaniel Schooler 10:02
Okay, so so in in the beginning, innovation really is growth thinking like there’s no difference between growth thinking and innovation is there?
Growth thinking is thinking like, you know, you want something to grow is kind of the same isn’t it? As innovation or am I getting confused?
Dr Pano Churchill 10:23
I would say that are some important differences here. Your, your take is obvious and valid.
However, the different thinking that is required by an entrepreneur it is not the need for growth first and foremost. First and foremost is we innovate in order to innovate and it sounds self serving. But yet again, it is only the people who are unfettered of the mind.
Free people who are able to think differently and they’re the ones who asked the question:-
Let’s talk about innovation is growth hacking once the innovation exists in the mind of the entrepreneurs.
So first we have to think of a different way of doing a certain process. Innovating along the existing lines. Somewhere between the existing state of affairs and invention.
Innovation is in the middle because it improves upon the existing processes, products and industrial habits, but it is not so far removed to make the existing clientele lost.
Nathaniel Schooler 11:45
Dr Pano Churchill 11:47
So innovation, the kind of leadership that has to be near enough. To the state of existing affairs in order to maintain the same consumers to come along and enjoy it.
Nathaniel Schooler 12:00
Dr Pano Churchill 12:04
The growth comes once you are able to have this particular innovation being accepted. Then you have to iterate massively in order to gain the market share. From the incumbent companies and to move the market set on to the new landscape of innovation.
Nathaniel Schooler 12:27
Dr Pano Churchill 12:28
So they have to go together innovation and growth hacking.
You cannot have one without the other. Because unless the new thing captures the market share requisite, language, and of course, the hearts and minds of the consumers it’s a fail.
I wanted to bring here you know, the issue of supersonic travel. The Concord I travelled a few times with it, and it was famously faster, exciting and a joyous occasion. But we know that this innovation is more than 50 years ago since the maiden voyage.
And we don’t have it today because it failed to capture market share. Although it completely captured the hearts and the minds of the public.
More than 2 million people travelled with a supersonic Concord during its lifetime.
But the confluence of events, most of them being outside of the scope of the innovators, the engineers, the designers, the architects of these fantastic air-plane
Nobody could have foreseen the oil crisis of 73 that made it rather expensive to fly on the Concorde. That was just starting at that moment, having first being flight cases around 67 or so.
And the accident that happened in Paris that was, of course, not foreseeable. But it was resolved later with better deeper of aviation fuel within the wings, migrating bladders, flexible bladders to protect it from another accident like that.
And mind you the accident was not certainly the fault of the air-plane it was metal pieces that had broken from an earlier air-plane that had taken off and they punctured the tires of these Concord and then the fuselage where where the aviation gas was located, and cause these tremendous fire that took the spirit out of the people who wanted to travel and immediately after you had the 911 which killed all of the airlines.
So all these unfortunate events conspired to kill the greatest innovation in travel since the invention of the air-planes to begin with.
So I would say that without growth hacking in a way that you can get enough markets, innovation can be lost.
So 50 years later, I believe, is the anniversary that we have to reconsider.
Was that innovation necessary?
Or was it one of those things that are only available for the uber wealthy, or the super rich, the famous?
Yeah, and that’s a question that the marketplace gets to answer. It cannot be answered by anybody else.
Nathaniel Schooler 15:39
Right. Of course. So. So design thinking then, and problem solving are linked together to innovation.
Like that’s another part of innovation, isn’t it?
Dr Pano Churchill 15:53
Yes, yes. If you consider design thinking to be the structured way of productization, then innovation absolutely can be married to that logical way.
But if we consider design thinking sort of the Marxist Leninist approach of some designers into which, they try to have a formulaic approach to how to build products and services. Then that in and of itself, it has a very limited lifespan, because the moment that particular fashion goes out, then all of your particular product and design goes out the window.
So I would have to caution the students, the C level executives, the consultants, and certainly the product engineers, and certainly the design as well, that design thinking has to be divorced from political thinking.
Design thinking, cannot have too many Fathers, it has to have one emphasis that the only parent of this design thinking is the product usefulness. And of course, the usefulness is good, will allow the product to find adequate market survey know, to survive in a marketplace, where you have a lot of things available, and a lot of competition. So that is what I have to say about design thinking. Because in our day and age, we’ve seen a lot of people who are under the guise of design thinking, they try to get through the door, a lot of ideology that is not serving the cause of enterprise, but it’s other serving the personal causes of the various young designers who want to fulfil; well often times, romantic goals to their own designs. But those goals do not find any resonance with the bottom line of the organization and the product price.
So that is what I have to say.
Nathaniel Schooler 18:19
Because it needs to solve a problem, doesn’t it? Like everything that’s out there has to solve a problem or it’s not going to last the time is it?
Dr Pano Churchill 18:27
Exactly and it has to solve a problem for a certain audience. It cannot be that the problem that the for example, you know, the socialists or the communists. It has to be applicable to everybody, all the masses of the that unknowable proletariat throughout the world, whether it be 7 billion people, or maybe less or maybe more, that is not possible a product has to be finite in its timeliness, and in its usefulness. So it has to be targeted.
So I would bring you another example, because I’m a lot involved in aviation. Is being Seattle, which is the capital of aviation, business and space business throughout the world.
The other product is that F-35 the jet that’s had to fulfil the mission of being able to be used by everybody and their Mother, whether it be the Navy, Coast Guard, the Marines, the Air Force of the military, US Army, or even the American Air Force, and many others.
And because all the requirements came in from everyone, it became such a bloated thing that it could hardly fly, it was supposed to be enabled for fighter It was supposed to do all these other things landing and taking off, you know, in any which way even for aircraft carriers and other sports.
At the end, it became a non flying turkey, and having spent almost $12 billion in that non flying air-plane, they had to scratch it all and go back and redesign the whole thing to make it applicable for the old job which goes to be able to participate in manoeuvrers India, in dog fights and other simple things as that.
So I think that is what I’m trying to say that if you try to please everybody, you end up pleasing nobody and of course up with a failure. So the design thinking has to be re-orientated, to be laser focused to a very small percentage of the market. And that market is the people who are already using the competing products that you are trying to displace. Nobody else.
Once you succeed in that mission, and you disrupt the previous incubator, previous company, and you become a place that people seek to find within, you know, the existing market, then you can enlarge your views and to engage in the growth hacking, you know, to scale your innovation.
But let’s never put the cart before the horse. But always remember that the halls the driving force, but what we are building things is a specific customer orientated public; who has already spent money for a similar product that’s already out there in the marketplace.
Nathaniel Schooler 21:20
Yeah, it makes sense a product could be a human that you could be disrupting, though, right?
Dr Pano Churchill 21:27
Hmm. Well, we don’t tend to see humans as products.
But since the great emancipator, Abraham Lincoln decided that you can have no longer slavery. Yes, I understand what you’re saying, but I hope you appreciate my awful humour.
Nathaniel Schooler 21:44
But I think what we want though, you know, when when we started the Industrial Revolution. They promised us, you know, less hours, more money and a happier life right.
And, you know, I’m fascinated by by the very topic, I was just talking to someone today about it. And, you know, we need some serious ethics and guidelines around AI and around jobs. I mean, just look forwards 30 years.
Dr Pano Churchill 22:14
Nathaniel Schooler 22:15
And imagine if there were no people working or 50% of the workforce, we’re not working, what are we going to do with those people, how we get to sustain their lives is a is a big worry for me. But that’s a conversation, I think we should have another time to be honest.
Dr Pano Churchill 22:33
It’s a very good conversation to be heard. Even at this moment, because what notice is that with the advent of greater resources, with the advent of a far greater number of competing products.
With the advent of a lot more work available, we end up being more in demand as humans than before. So unemployment can be easily solved by utilizing the old method of creating the demand to the absorption of product. So on the political economy, let’s call it the micro economics, we have to allow for sufficient resources to reach the consumer and you have to be very populistic about it.
We have the money to the people in order for them to buy the products more and more, and the services that are required to employ the very same people.
But that is what we fail to do!
Nathaniel Schooler 23:38
But you see, no one actually says that right. You and I share the same view because if if consumerization dies.
Dr Pano Churchill 23:49
Nathaniel Schooler 23:50
The world economy will die.
Dr Pano Churchill 23:53
Nathaniel Schooler 23:54
So, it is the responsibility of the companies who are reducing the staff and creating huge amounts of revenue, it’s their responsibility to pay, because otherwise, they’re going to die, too.
Dr Pano Churchill 24:14
Of course, and we do notice that companies are aware of that. And the talented people today, they have far more options to change companies, even careers, even locations, geographic locations, even country of where they actually apply their skills.
Many times while they’re working lifetime. We estimate that the day most of the highly sought after professionals, they change not just jobs, but professional tax more than seven times within the working lifetime.
Nathaniel Schooler 24:52
Dr Pano Churchill 24:53
I think that’s extraordinary because if you contrast that to what we had in the Middle Ages the guild’s that they were more generational effort. And keeping the same job today, you see people who are in their 20s or they already changed their career tracks twice.
And then they are looking forward to keep on changing not because they try to find the sweet spot into which you know, they would be best fit. But because opportunity abounds, there is far too much opportunity on the big employment market. And I’m talking about the western coast of the United States, for example, a place that I know intimately; China as well the east coast of China, Shanghai, Canton etc. and old England as well, you know.
We have these three places that I just mentioned, in addition to that, Israel, they have a booming economy of innovation, because they simply attract the most talented people who are turning the wheels of innovation and startups.
It is not the bureaucrats, who create the jobs today. It is not the Washington DC government, or establishment or the Whitehall or, you know, the Beijing, the Forbidden City of the bureaucrats that create the jobs. It is absolutely not, it is individuals throughout the globe, who happen to have the fresh ideas. Individuals who think freely, and that’s why, you know, it’s a key parameter here to be able to think freely, and then they create innovation. And it takes a lot of other to build that innovation into useful products and services.
And that is where you have the usefulness of me and others like me, who are recognizing, because we are innovators ourselves the trend of the innovator and they have the prophetic flow to support finance and guide and build those companies that will be the next Google and the next enterprise software, you know, as a SAS or anything else that we see as being the most useful.
And I fail to see that anybody will say that opportunity is the same throughout the world. It is not, absolutely not, why do you have the best innovators of India, China and Europe and everywhere else, flocking to the western coast of the United States, specifically Silicon Valley, and the Silicon Forest.
It’s because there is other factors that we need to speak about today. And those other factors are the climate of innovation, it is being nurtured better in certain geographic locations, although brains, human capacity and the sharp eye of the innovator exist, while the world the opportunities to create that innovation in practical terms, and to advance it into the marketplace only exist in very few places.
Nathaniel Schooler 27:51
So about the about the startup finance trajectory to achieve scale, what do people need to know about that to, you know, get it, get it working for them?
Dr Pano Churchill 28:06
So we spoke before that it is always the risk takers who support this environment, and it is not the government and they’d bureaucracy.
I can liken this example to the European, at least the European Union method. Versus the Anglo Saxon method that we see more in England and in the United States.
Government cannot innovate. If anything, government is an impediment to the innovation processes. Because government has one goal and one goal alone. And that is to support the status quo to keep things the same to try to maintain what is already known. Knowable and taxable and to that end, all these efforts that they make. And I must say, you know, that all these governments who have this agenda of startup innovation on support, they end up through the process of bureaucratic measurements, they end up supporting the opposite of the innovators.
And it happens with such a regularity and such a lack of clarity of purpose that I must say that the default position of any wise government upon this earth should be to allow the innovators to do their thing, without any involvement from any government body.
So by removing the obstacles in the way of the risk takers, both in technology, science and in finance is the only way that you can support the creation of new jobs here in America.
Almost 79 to 80%. And sometimes during the difficult years, it was up to 91% of all the new jobs are created by startup companies at least start up of the last two years. This is an extraordinary number, when you understand that we need the new jobs.
And today that we have a good employment perspective we can go back and look since the crisis of 207 that all the new jobs were created by young companies like the ones I create, and not by the industrial behemoths of the old days, right.
So that industrial investment is what we have to focus on. We have to support the angel investors because they are the ones who are interfacing with entrepreneurs and the innovators and the scientists. And once you allow those to have the same tax treatment as the venture capitalists and the other people who are actually having beneficial treatment because they handle larger capital base from pension funds and others.
Then I think we equalise these delphinian playing field so the competition will result in the best claim to innovation and entrepreneurship. And that’s where I come onto the side that by doing this, we create more jobs, yes, in an indirect way, which is the best way and of course, you know, it is not the government who can take the credit for the job creation.
But it is certainly the country and the government that benefits from that. And you can have innovation on the political landscape as well. And you have to be mindful of that.
So my answer to your question is exactly this innovation needs to be unfettered from government interference. And from all these other interferences that cause less innovation rather than more.
Nathaniel Schooler 31:49
Dr Pano Churchill 31:50
And that’s got a new jobs that are highly paying and highly desirable. And the jobs that make people travel from the answer of the of the F, literally to the few places that are the beacons of progress, and they get very well paying jobs there.
Nathaniel Schooler 32:09
Right. But I think also it stems from the sort of archaic mentality of individuals within society and within family culture; within culture itself, that they don’t, first of all, they don’t want to see you go through pain because they know how painful it is if you fail, or if you are if you don’t actually succeed in with your idea. And they don’t want you to suffer. So they will try to talk you out of becoming an entrepreneur creating a business.
I come from, from a long line of entrepreneurs that on my Father’s side, my Dad would went to MIT, his Dad went to MIT, his Dad started a business in New York State. He patented a few things is to make partition walling and stuff like that.
But he actually made some boxes for IBM back in the war, which was interesting for the first computers, they asked him to make some sort of stainless steel boxes to house these computers.
So IBM is probably one of the only exceptions out of the companies that you that you talk about. You talked about earlier, who have actually been around that long. I mean, I don’t work for IBM, they’ve just got me as an influencer in the in the futuristic kind of program. But they have done a great job of partnering with startups a fantastic job.
I have a friend who, who actually runs a neuromarketing business, and they’ve got some artificial intelligence. And they’ve bolted that on to this brand wording sort of tool kit that she has. And it analyses wording around brand messaging, and then it will tell you what words you’re using are not working with your audience. And then what words you should use.
IBM have got a fantastic way of working with startups. And I think there needs to be also kind of more help from the bigger companies to work with startups, even if they get a have to buy them out eventually, because that’s generally the kind of routine, isn’t it?
Dr Pano Churchill 34:26
You nailed it. That is exactly the point that I shared with you as well. IBM is the exception that proves the rule. IBM is a company that from the earliest stage and from the get go, they decided to institutionalize innovation within the company. And they have the famous model from watch on if it’s not founded within IBM, well, by jolly, we are going to buy it and we’re going to bring it into the IBM.
So not only they, they created labs equivalent, if not better than the famous Bell Laboratories. But they also showed to look around to the consulting arm of IBM and to acquire any innovative company that they wanted to add to the portfolio.
Whether they wanted to buy it because the people they had such beautiful brains or whether the product was important. But they looked at the mosaic of innovation in the world. And they invested in all the aspects whether we talked about brain technology, you know, IBM sponsors, one of the other places in do with several of my companies have showed up, you know, and and participated out at the Trinity University in Ireland, in Dublin.
And so many other places into which, even when I had shared my knowledge with the IBM brass and the executives at the sea level, how innovation gets created on the earliest stages outside of academia, they came and they partnered with us; because they understand that it is far more important to embrace the innovators than to keep on milking the old cash cow that was created 10, 20, 30 years ago.
So IBM, yes, it is a company that found this balance between the old and the new and they are the only ones in my mind in today’s world that they have been able to solve what we call the innovators dilemma.
Innovators dilemma is a pivotal thought by a Professor Mr. Christensen, who actually defined that old industrial companies, they die and they get replaced by new. Because they cannot divorce themselves from the cash cow that made them great in order to foster the competition that will kill their own product.
So it is a bit of self negating that IBM because it compartmentalised itself so much that they created internal competition between the various pillars of the company, that they have succeeded in that.
But IBM in and of itself is a wonderful case study, that we can talk about it, you know, for a whole day, perhaps you should get together a seminar inside IBM. So you can see what a multi faceted smart company with a great deal of longevity they have had; and my hat is off to them. I mean, they are one of a kind, and God bless them. They keep on doing it.
Nathaniel Schooler 37:33
Dr Pano Churchill 37:34
So I’m very much learning every day by observing them. And every day, they buy companies and some of those companies that have been born to the American Angels, and I’m grateful, you know, for the few dollars and cents, or they give that way.
Thanks to IBM.
We can put the kids through expensive, you know, private school.
Nathaniel Schooler 37:55
Well, I might have an idea to talk to you about actually, yeah, I’ve got I’ve got quite a few, you know.
Oh, yeah, I come up with ideas all the time, you know.
Dr Pano Churchill 38:07
Let’s bring them to market.
Nathaniel Schooler 38:09
I don’t see why not. I have, I have some people who are interested in making them work as well in the machine learning space.
Dr Pano Churchill 38:17
Machine learning spaces are very hot space right now. Yeah, couple with artificial intelligence.
And it is a Seattle is actually the bedrock of that particular space. Because we have here, the data warehouses, let’s say, and all the artificial intelligence of all the biggest companies in the world.
Nathaniel Schooler 38:36
Dr Pano Churchill 38:36
That are also housing you know, the data of governments and I’m talking about the Amazon Web Services, AWS, Microsoft Web Services – Azure and the Google Web Services.
So all of them, they are concentrated in this specific rain forest, the Pacific Northwest ecosystem of intelligence and we have probably about 400 companies locally, that are dealing with the subject of machine learning, artificial intelligence.
And its implementation in everything from self driving vehicles, to self driving air-planes to drones and giving us natural language interpretation, and on and on and on.
I suspect it’s such a huge field that will be the next great frontier to develop.
The frontier we are also looking a lot is is how do you couple this with Blockchain technology that will allow us to be cost accounting for everything in our lives. And to maintain the smart contracts in all of our interactions. So, yeah, there is tremendous green landscape opportunity for those subjects. So I would be very much welcoming the discussion with you.
Nathaniel Schooler 39:54
I think also over and above that, there is so much out there now, with these new containers, these Kubernetes or however you pronounce it. Like the new the new way of building and scaling is just, it is fascinating.
And then when you combine it all and you think, right, okay, so we’ve got Blockchain, we’ve got AI, and now we’ve got a Supercomputer, that can actually do things in what do things 10,000 times quicker than before. If you add all those things together, like we’re in a place now, where in within two years, three years, it will be unrecognisable, it already is becoming like that.
Dr Pano Churchill 40:40
Well. I do support this exuberant, an optimistic thinking about how we manage to build companies that other people will buy the early stage. However, I must caution you that human nature being what it is, yeah, it’s interesting and to change.
So although everybody praises change, change, change, actually, nobody really wants it. And you have many more forces meditating and agitating and activating against change. And I gave you an example now of a 50 year old technology that you can no longer enjoy ourselves the supersonic air-plane the Concorde. Can you fly the Concord today? I suspect not. Neither can I.
But, you know, you could fly it for two years ago, up until 2000 and what 2001 or so.
So I am not optimistic that we will be living like the Jetsons in the next few years. You know I much more likely to me that you to human error, or often times human stupidity. And certainly some of our faulty ideas. And I blame a lot of that on the less educated younger people, we might end up to be like the Flintstones back in the Stone Age.
So I’m not sure which way we’re going to go my friend. But if we can manage to avoid, you know, nuclear war and to go to live like the Flintstones, whomever survives, of course, well, maybe we have a chance to get to the Jetsons in 100 years, or 200 or who knows when, but nothing’s going to happen in the next decade. Let me assure you, you can still have a nice thatched roofed home in the Cotswolds and have a good time there.
That’s my perspective.
Nathaniel Schooler 42:44
Well, I think there’s a lot of hype around AI! Everyone’s talking about it. And, you know, the guys that I’ve been talking to, they get approached by these top CEOs.
And they say:-“We want AI!”
Well, okay, you’re going to need a team. And what do you actually want to use it for? They are like, well, I don’t know, I just want AI you know what I mean. To me it’s a ridiculous concept of just….
Dr Pano Churchill 43:07
It’s very fashionable today. You know, you can show up at your local chippy shop, and say :- “You know, with my fish and chips, and like some AI”
But that’s about how most people understand you today, because they ain’t got a clue! You know what AI means, and then you have scaremongering for my other friends, like a friend of mine, you might have heard his name Elon Musk. He smokes, the evil lettuce, you know.
And then he goes out and he says, you know:- The robots are going to take over, you know, take out our eyes and make us slaves.
So, yeah, you can’t touch that stuff, you know. So he is a stoner and he has a few brilliant moments, but those are not those moments.
Nathaniel Schooler 43:51
Dr Pano Churchill 43:52
I’m not afraid of little, you know, robots from Star Wars, you know, taking over my life. Yeah, certainly don’t ask them, you know, that they would be able to even please my ex wife, let alone my current girlfriend.
I’m okay with that. We are really happy.
Nathaniel Schooler 44:11
I agree. I mean, I think the risk the risk is quite low. Really, if you if you think about all the containers and how all of these processes are being, you know, created by people who just want to make a call go round one race track, right?
They’re not they don’t want to make a car. Talk to another car that talks to a spaceship that sends a missile, they just want to segment it into useful things right. It’s simple.
Dr Pano Churchill 44:41
We do a lot of useful things out in space is basically one of my startup companies if you weeks ago was the first one to manage to capture a piece of space junk by using an old fashioned javelin hook you know.
Which is pretty advanced to be able to do that remotely on an unmanned vehicle to do it successfully so we can do a lot of things but again as I said I’m not interested in AI and robots passing the Turing test and passing the girlfriend test it would fail for sure.
Actually the wag test! Wives and girlfriends, so once the robots get to that point then I will give them the job gladly. Because you know sometimes we get tired too much from them talking.
So with a little bit of humour I think you understand that this Podcast will go farther. I’m thinking about your own marketing as well Dr. Churchill’s awful plug.
Humour you know black matter sprinkled on top. You know hey people will buy it and then we’ll wrap it up but you know that’s helping you out here you know to make it more interesting than just talking about the dreams that emanate from smoking the legalized now weed you know over here in America.
Especially the stuff that very important stuff that you know Elon Musk smokes. You know some of that stuff is just as long as crack and Meth then all these horrible things.
It’s no longer marijuana. It’s like this strength of Heroine. Yes, people smoke it. So they get this awful dreams and they think that the robots are chasing them you know,
somehow, you know besides the zombie apocalypse I don’t see that happening.
Nathaniel Schooler 46:29
Well, it’s been it’s been a real joy to have you on the show.
Dr Pano Churchill 46:37
Likewise. I hope I did not make it too funny for your respectable audience. But you know.
Nathaniel Schooler 46:42
Dr Pano Churchill 46:43
Thousands of years in England we have not been able to produce the path to the pyramids, but we’ve been working on our awful humour you know quite well that’s a claim to civilization. So without further ado, I bid you adieu and all the best and I’m looking forward to connecting the soonest.
Nathaniel Schooler 47:02
Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and wherever you prefer, share with your friends. And if you enjoyed the show, drop us a review on iTunes or wherever you listen.