WonderTour

Welcome to Lead Wisely by Wondertour.

We are back talking about Oppenheimer.

We've got a special guest on today, but
first off, Brian, we don't do intros here

on Wondertour.

So I'm gonna start off with a tough
question for you from the movie.

So I'm gonna start off with a tough
question for you from the movie.

What do you do after you change the world?

Or in Oppenheimer terms, what happens
after the bomb drops?

I love this question.

Thanks, Drew.

The relevant quote from the movie is the,
it's not a new weapon, it's a new world.

And I love this idea that there are some
kinds of inventions, some categories of

things that you can create that may seem
impossible until they aren't anymore.

And then after they aren't impossible
anymore, after they're real things in the

world, really only then can you start to
grapple with how is the world going to

behave in the new way.

How are we gonna incorporate this into our
thinking, into our planning, into our

lives, or into our trying to survive?

So this movie, this example is like the,
one of these biggest and most dramatic

ones possible.

But it happens all the time, right?

It's very different job to create a new
thing than it is to design how everybody,

all the stakeholders are gonna interact
with the new thing.

And the people who understand the
technology the best, the people who

propelled it into the world.

may or may not have had the best of
intentions, may or may not have had an

idea of how it was going to be used, but
almost invariably they're not the right

people to make all the decisions about
what happens next.

Right?

They have a very, if you are hyper
specialized in something by definition,

you don't have a very broad viewpoint of
how you're going to impact society.

So this is a really fun, the way that this
movie is framed of on the one hand, the

challenge of creating the bomb and
building the team.

And we'll talk about that maybe more in
the next episode.

But inverting it on the other hand, once
it exists, whose responsibility is it or

whose authority is it or how do you work
together to try to sort out the

implications of that?

And is that inherently, it's inherently
disruptive.

It's inherently gonna be involving quite a
bit of conflict, quite a bit of

disagreement, quite a bit of discomfort.

And so we see that playing out in this
movie with Oppenheimer and his angst over

what he's done and his...

efforts to become a, you know, somebody
who had a real strong influence on the

next steps.

And many other people, including Strauss's
efforts to discredit him and get him out

of the conversation because there were
different people that wanted to have a say

in how things went.

So I really love that element of this.

And the, what do you do after the change
of the world is, you know, there's maybe

not going to be a simple answer.

It'll be fun to talk about it today, but
it's not going to be you personally get to

decide, right?

It's almost invariably.

Who do you talk to?

How do you behave?

How do you cooperate after the world has
changed so that you can incorporate that

into the new reality?

So that's going to be a fun conversation,
guys.

Yeah, and I would almost say that the
question, maybe we need to reframe it, and

it should be more about, how are you going
to deal with it?

Because it's not really what are you going
to do, like you said, because you almost

lose creative control of your invention at
some point, once it is let loose into the

culture, into a system, and it becomes for
the users of that system, for the people

of the world, or against them, but one or
the other there, or both in this case.

At that point, you lose creative control.

But I think one opportunity we have is to
understand that and to know when we're

inventing things, when we're building
things, when we're leading others to do so

or encouraging others to do so, that we
need to prepare for the inevitability that

this isn't about us.

As we say here on Wondrator, often back
from Dr.

Strange, it's not about you.

So trying to maintain control of that all
the way from end to end, from cradle to

grave.

It's just a pipe dream.

And instead we should look at, you know,
what mindsets do we want to have?

What tactics do we want to have to either
be a part of the process along the way or

encourage others to be able to continue on
with the principles that and the values

that we had when we developed that
solution.

And even to go into it with the mindset
of, this is Wondertour, this is a

leadership podcast.

If you are involved in creating something
new in the world, which is I think gonna

be a significant portion of our audience,
especially if you're in a leadership role

of trying to push that thing out into the
world, to just to have awareness upfront

that there are some parts of that planning
you simply can't do, but it still has to

be done once it gets out.

Once you've figured out how the thing is
gonna work.

then the really hard work begins, right?

It's almost, that's almost the more
complex, fuzzier, more challenging piece

of introducing a technology or introducing
a change in the world.

So I'm looking forward to that
conversation today.

I think we'll go ahead and get started
here, right?

All right, welcome to episode 107.

All right, welcome to episode 107.

I am Brian Nutwell.

and I'm Drew Paroz.

I'm David Beltran del Rio.

And we are on a journey to become better
leaders by touring fantastic worlds and

inspiring lore by going on this wonder
tour.

we connect leadership concepts to story
context because it sticks to our brains

better.

You can find out more at wond All right,
he's been sitting here for the whole part

It's time to introduce our Christopher
Nolan, our nuclear buff expert, and also a

good friend of the podcast, Dave Beltran
Del Rio.

Dave, do you wanna give us a short
background?

What are you all about?

Thanks, thanks Drew and Brian for having
me on.

I'm a big fan as you know, we've worked
together starting what, almost 10 years

ago now, we've known each other for a long
time and we never hesitate to talk about

movies, especially Christopher Nolan
movies, which we all love.

And I love that approach of what ideas can
we take from the structure of these

stories to help us become better leaders.

All the conversations that we've had about
that

have always stuck with me and help me
quite a bit in my own uh...

challenges to uh...

to become a better leader uh...

i was particularly interested in this one
because i am certainly a christopher nolan

superfans we've discussed a bunch but it
i'm also uh...

nuclear history uh...

super fan of sorts uh...

it's a strange thing maybe to be a fan of
uh...

it's a it's a fascinating story that uh...

resonates with me for reasons that maybe
some I understand and some I don't, but a

lot of it is the you know the scope that
the scale of these of the effort to create

this weapon and the characters involved
who still seem You know like otherworldly

giants intellectual giants who achieved
this remarkable thing and

then they achieved it and it was horrible.

And they kind of knew that that's where
things were going, but then faced with the

reality of it, it's interesting to see the
directions that these guys want, or anyone

who was involved in the project, but the
people we talk about most are these, sort

of these heroic scientists that we know
well, and Oppenheimer being sort of

central to it.

So I just sort of can't get enough of
thinking about what it must have been like

as well as the processes that they were
going through.

First of all, just to get the work done,
which is in itself remarkable, mostly

because they were inventing the basic
physics while they were going, which is

usually there's, you come up with an idea,
you develop it in a lab.

Maybe you built some experiments and it
being scaled up into an industrial process

is something that happens with a whole
different set of people over maybe

decades, but they did this all in just a
few short years working at Los Alamos.

And so then beyond that, then all of a
sudden they've done it and now what?

And I think that's part of what we're
planning to talk about today.

Yeah, to pick up from where we left off in
section one with our big question, where

we were asking ourselves, what do you do
after you change the world?

I think we all have a lesson to learn
here.

And I want to kick it back to you, Dave,
talking about the turning point and the

deployment period, because most of us have
built something in our lives.

And there's this implementation period
where you make the thing, you test it out,

you hand it out to people or, you know,
the intended users or whatever.

And then suddenly it gets adopted.

And then now it's not really yours
anymore.

And it's societies or it's your user bases
or your stakeholders.

And all of that work, that blood, sweat
and tears that you put into that thing,

for whatever reason you did, whether it
was an app that you made, a book that you

wrote, a play that you put on, whatever it
is, now it's in the hands of the users.

And at that point, everything can change.

It doesn't matter what your testing said.

It doesn't matter.

you know, how you intended for it to be
used, it can be used in whatever way the

users have in mind.

And so I just want to take this quote here
and maybe kick it back to you with this.

Making the tool is not making the system.

So once you reach that turning point and
you start to get into the deployment

period, now the system is changing.

The world in terms of Oppenheimer has seen
the power of the bomb and they have to

change the global systems

the political systems, economic systems,
whatever it might be in response to that

thing.

So Dave, talk to us a little bit about it
from the perspective of Oppenheimer with

all that knowledge that you have.

uh...

yeah no i was thinking about this one when
brian was introducing i was i was pretty

sure that and uh...

so i'll jump in now but uh...

the thing that gets me about this
particular story is that you know it at

least in my life when i'm building a uh...

you know machine learning model to try and
sell more cars or understand customer

behavior uh...

first of all the consequences are not that
significant uh...

second of all uh...

that we all basically agree that this is
something that is relatively harmless and

also it's something that's well understood
and that's that that's the part i want to

talk about which is that these guys uh...

were building something that wasn't
understood uh...

and because they themselves didn't know if
they were going to succeed or not even at

trinity uh...

so but they were also the only people on
the planet who

had some insight into what it would mean
if they did succeed.

I think that there was a lot of thinking
about it of the few people in, say, the

military or the government who knew what
was going on, that this would just be, you

know, it's just like a regular bomb, it's
just bigger.

But the atomic scientists, you know, one
thing that characterizes the struggle that

they had was that they didn't know.

That they, that they, that they, that
they, well, they knew

the scale of these weapons and how they
could be world-changing.

They also expected that they would have
some ownership of it after the fact.

So I think that one of the things that was
done really well in the movie was when

they're done succeeding, suddenly it's out
of their hands.

And they were surprised by this,
especially because I think they correctly

believed that they were some of the few
people on earth who actually had put some

thought into what the implications were.

uh...

and entity almost completely cut out of
the process after the test uh...

was uh...

shocking and very disappointing to them

Yeah, that was a piece of the story that I
think certainly I didn't know from even

having some military history buff in my
background too was that the extent to

which they were cut out immediately, that
the fact that they learned about the

Hiroshima and Nagasaki Boppings at the
same time as everybody else in the world

did on the news because nobody told them
what the plan was or how it was going to

be involved or asked their advice for
anything.

They just packed stuff up in a crate and
took it away and a couple of weeks later

you hear that something's happened.

I'm sure that was shocking to them.

The extent to which we talked about this,
the new system has to come into existence

as only after the new thing appears and
everybody's struggling to deal with it.

But the new system is never a blank slate.

Like it's the politicians that are in
place, it's the military that's in place,

it's the world that's in place, it's the
people's habits that are in place.

is your starting point for the new system.

And it's in, of course, going to really
struggle to adapt to this new thing, but

you don't get to just like, okay, now
we're going to ask the scientists how to

design a society and a set of political
rules that work with nuclear bombs.

Like that's, that's not how it ever goes.

It's like, oh yeah.

of them might have expected a little bit
of that and that's not how it went.

I think some of the scientists did, but I
don't think anybody outside of the Los

Alamos even occurred to them that they
were just going to put Oppenheimer in

charge of political policy.

They did have quite a bit of influence and
made some public statements.

There's some very interesting articles
written by many of them, Oppenheimer

especially, about their vision for how to
live safely in this new world that they

had created.

They had their seat at the table, but
ultimately they weren't the ones that got

to decide.

There's that wonderful and somewhat
chilling scene with Truman in the movie

where...

we find out sort of the mentality there
and often times in a sort of his eyes are

open to the reality of it and i think that
was more characteristic of what happened

later uh...

unless of course is a scientist you were
willing to go along with the powers that

be which were typically uh...

government leadership uh...

and military in uh...

you know you sort of agreed with them if
you if you didn't uh...

you know you were just beside note and i
think that's what happened up

And I think we have to look at the other
side of it too, right?

That it's not necessarily the case that
the people that build the thing are the

people that understand the existing
systems in the world and cultures in the

world and stuff the best.

And so as much as it might feel like
you're right when you build the data

science model to tell your business or
your customers or whoever, how to use that

model, it's not always your right.

Because once you've built it and you've
put a thing out into the world,

It's up to those people now to be able to
handle it.

And there may be better people than me, or
better people than us, to be able to

figure out how to use that thing.

Not to say that we shouldn't have a plan
in place when we build something, when we

introduce new technology for how people
are going to use it, but to say that we

should be open to other's perspectives on
how to handle that, and even to expect

different perspectives to well up and to
expect opposition.

If you go and you implement a new system,

Let's say you change the way that your
company's operating system runs.

You're going to, you're going to change
the, you're going to change the, that's

not necessarily the values, but everything
on top of that, you're going to change the

way that you do your planning, your
projects, all that stuff.

Okay.

That's a pretty common thing that happens
here in the age of digital transformation.

Well, cool.

You could be the expert on that, but now
that you went to implement it, there are

people who are the expert on your
organization and they've been there for a

long time and rightfully.

They want a seat at the table to
understand how this new world order is

going to run.

So when that happens, it's okay.

And I think as leaders, we have to figure
out how to be a part, again, if we want to

And I think as leaders, we have to figure
out how to be a part, again, if we want to

be a part of both conversations, it can be
really helpful to have what we call

interlopers on Wonder Tour or people that
can kind of go in and invade this

different territory that is not
necessarily comfortable or well-known.

already has inhabitants in it, but yet do
it in a compassionate and caring way where

it might feel invasive, but we're trying
to move towards a solution together.

I think that the history of technology you
have, especially recently, a lot of cases

where the people who develop a technology
aren't very well placed to develop it

further, production lies it, market it,
sell it, right?

I think that it would be best if we could
all collaborate on those things better,

I think that it would be best if we could
all collaborate on those things better,

but in practice it hasn't always worked
out that way.

Well, I think that the personality
required to make a new thing, especially

Well, I think that the personality
required to make a new thing, especially

an unforeseeable or nearly impossible new
thing, even if it's not at the scale of an

atomic bomb, right?

Even like a Twitter or something, right?

That the personality that requires to
bring that into the world, you have to

have some degree of optimism.

I'm gonna try this crazy thing, and not
only am I gonna succeed and it's gonna

work, but then other people are gonna like
it and they're gonna use it.

Like those are both ridiculously
optimistic viewpoints.

Right.

And so you tend to imagine the best case
scenario, both of it working and of people

using it for the way you imagined, right?

Getting the benefit you imagined.

And it gets out of the world, and you're
not picturing cyber bullying.

You're not picturing the Arab Spring.

You're not picturing like all of the
different ways that this technology that

you created could potentially turn into
something else or facilitate bad behaviors

that people have been wanting to do for
centuries anyway, or millennia anyway,

right?

So that's.

was very typical of the early internet,
you know, this idea that once we could all

communicate with each other and knowledge
was available to everyone everywhere at

the same time, the world would improve.

Well, maybe not, but...

Yeah, we had a generation of internet tech
leaders who came out of the hippie

movements, who came out of the utopian
thinking, and that didn't pan out quite

that way.

And then we had a generation of leaders
that came out of the make money in any way

possible is good kind of thinking, and
that really didn't pan out very well

either.

It had side effects as well.

And so as these assumptions get
questioned, yeah.

the Zuckerbergs and Bezos of the world are
maybe the people that you would want

making social policy.

making social policy.

And I think this goes back to what we've
already talked about, Brian, in previous

episodes in this series on human machine
interaction, technology and tools on their

own don't really have a purpose.

You have to decide what is your purpose
with this thing.

And then society will decide what the
purpose is for this thing.

So to be very clear and principled in the
development and deployment of things is

absolutely critical.

the just overly optimistic viewpoint on
one side that things will just sort

themselves out and the pain is just a part
of the process when the pain is inequality

and, you know, all the things that come
with that when we release new technology

into the world without proper testing or
without the right moderation and

governance.

And obviously on the other side of that,
as Dave said earlier on, it'd be nice if

we could just know all of the bits and
pieces we were putting together into a

larger solution before we just started
strapping them together.

and throwing them out to the users to test
and say, ah, see if this works, does this

solve your problem?

But at the age that we're in, things move
quickly and things seem to be moving

faster and faster.

And while we can argue here on Wondrator,
is that right or is that wrong?

One thing that we can't do is get a lot of
control on that.

So I think that we now are in a much
closer state to what they were in before

where, sure, we're picking up known
theories and concepts and building blocks

and putting them together.

But a lot of times it's happening so fast
that it's not getting the level of rigor

that it maybe would have had 50 or 100
years ago before it just gets deployed out

to the population.

And that is definitely scary.

All right, so let's go ahead then, perfect
segue into the mountaintop.

Dave, can you talk to us about what our
mountaintop moment is in Oppenheimer for

episode 107?

Well, what we were discussing was the very
end.

Well, what we were discussing was the very
end.

You know, there's been this mystery set up
about what did Oppenheimer say to

Einstein?

Strauss is obsessed with this idea and
furious at Oppenheimer and exacts this

terrible revenge.

So at the end of the movie we finally get
some insight into what it was that

So at the end of the movie we finally get
some insight into what it was that

happened in that moment.

And it's not quite historical, but they
discuss the calculations for whether or

not the detonation of such a powerful
weapon would ignite the atmosphere and

burn the entire atmosphere and destroy the
planet.

This was true.

They did have to figure this out.

That if an energetic enough explosion
might burn the atmosphere.

They didn't know.

uh...

and they did end up computing with some
uh...

you know that it was highly unlikely uh...

you know that it was highly unlikely uh...

as of course one of the jokes in the movie
was it wasn't you know a hundred percent

as of course one of the jokes in the movie
was it wasn't you know a hundred percent

certain that they were going to destroy
the entire planet with the trinity test

so they when i was rewatching the movie
recently at this moment this moment really

so they when i was rewatching the movie
recently at this moment this moment really

struck me uh...

because often i was of course asking
himself you know is it possible that

that we did create a chain reaction that
will destroy the world, just not at the

time frame that he had in mind, that he
could foresee what became nuclear

proliferation and the Cold War and the
great risk that we would have enough of

these weapons to destroy the planet.

And they were also aware at the time that
the development of more powerful weapons,

the so-called super bomb, was possible.

So

we get this insight into Oppenheimer's
thinking that, and this was what a lot of

Optimistically, I thought that Bryant's
point of bringing up optimism was

Optimistically, I thought that Bryant's
point of bringing up optimism was

Optimistically, I thought that Bryant's
point of bringing up optimism was

interesting, because of course these guys
were working mostly out of fear that the

Nazis were developing these weapons.

But as they were doing it, the optimism
crept in a funny way, in that they started

convincing themselves, some of them
anyway, that

because these weapons were so powerful, it
would make future wars impossible.

That there would never be war again
because war would mean destruction of the

entire planet.

And that was, it's funny to think about
that because of course we did end up in

that situation.

The whole planet has not been destroyed,
but yet, you know, that's kind of the

The whole planet has not been destroyed,
but yet, you know, that's kind of the

The whole planet has not been destroyed,
but yet, you know, that's kind of the

concern.

And in that moment, Nolan, in a way that I
think was...

sort of uncharacteristically direct for
him is talking to us, the audience, and

saying, we're not out of the woods yet.

This is still a huge danger.

Those weapons are still in their silos and
with more than enough power to destroy the

Those weapons are still in their silos and
with more than enough power to destroy the

Those weapons are still in their silos and
with more than enough power to destroy the

world.

Well, and so there was kind of two
inflection points there, right?

Well, and so there was kind of two
inflection points there, right?

One was the, we now live with the sense
that we have the power to destroy our own

world.

That we actually do control our own fate
and destiny to a degree to which we never

did before.

So that was a real inflection point.

And when we talk in the pre-show, one of
the things you said was like, you know,

this had not happened before.

Nobody had, no small group of people had
ever come up with a new thing that didn't

exist before.

That was actually that potentially
influential over the fates of everyone

else.

It's hard to imagine what the world was
like before that.

I can't, because I grew up in the world
where...

So to think about what that trends is, I
think that's what the other thing that got

So to think about what that trends is, I
think that's what the other thing that got

me about the movie re-watching it was that
they went from a world where, yes, there

were wars and they were quite destructive
at that point, but it wasn't like everyone

was gonna die, to a world where actually
everyone might die.

was gonna die, to a world where actually
everyone might die.

was gonna die, to a world where actually
everyone might die.

Right, so that's a huge inflection point,
but then the other interesting thing that

Right, so that's a huge inflection point,
but then the other interesting thing that

you mentioned in the pre-show was that has
then inevitably become a metaphor that we

now use when thinking about new
technologies, right?

And we talk about social media, we talk
about AI in the same way as, oh, are we

about to do it again?

Are we about to create another existential
threat?

Are we about to alter the fabric of our
decision-making in some fundamental way?

And that's been really interesting to
watch.

Like, is it...

Are these things the same?

But as a leader, when we already saw it
happen once, we already saw the bomb be

created, we already saw nuclear
nonproliferation, we already saw live

through the drills and the fear.

Are we doing it again?

Could we possibly do it differently?

Could we possibly not invent AI?

It doesn't look like it.

It doesn't look like anybody would be
willing to not invent the AI on the off

chance that it destroys us all.

That appears to be not a thing.

these stories, right?

Because we know the risk and we do it
anyway.

Because we kind of have to.

I mean, I think that's the thing that when
I first became fascinated with these

stories, reading them was, I think I had
in mind this notion that, well, you know,

at some point along the way, why didn't
they just decide not to do it or to not to

drop the bomb on Hiroshima or not to
develop these arsenals?

And you look at the story and it reads
like a Greek tragedy.

They really didn't have choices.

you know they had to develop the weapon
because if the nazis did well we can all

imagine what that world would have been
like uh...

and we do this shows about it right uh...

but you know beyond

Sorry.

So then the best case scenario is as a
leader, you aspire to be Oppenheimer,

right?

You aspire to do the thing and then to
fight against the thing expanding.

So Drew, what do you think about this?

Like who's your role model in this movie?

Yeah, it's really tough to find a role
model in this movie.

It's almost real life, you know, that's
what biopics are.

So that's the challenge.

But what stuck out to me while you guys
were talking here is that while maybe we

don't have a choice of if we're going to
continue working towards artificial

general intelligence, we people are going
to keep marching towards the profits that

that's going to drive the efficiency
that's going to drive the whatever that's

going to drive at the cost of who knows
what.

because the cycles basically already
started in the same way that as soon as it

was possible and people believed that they
could build a nuclear bomb, it seemed like

it had to happen basically just due to
World War II and the buildup that was

happening there.

But I do think that's where we as leaders
have a choice and have meaningful

consequences of our choice.

And it's to be purpose-driven, to continue
to drive values, to continue to mentor

others, to teach people.

how to properly make decisions.

And obviously more than that, to learn how
to make proper decisions ourselves,

because it is very challenging as a human
every day to have to wake up and be put in

front of me, decisions of, you know, it's
not necessarily like big decisions of life

or death, but it is the small chipping
away decisions of life or death that

determine, you know, what type of world
are we building?

And the way that we do that,

is by building up our own character.

And that's why I'm wonder tour.

We say character is destiny because it's
not the only thing that we're doing, but

building up a character of service,
building up a character that is

magnanimous where we are focused on
serving other people, not serving

ourselves.

That is one way that no matter what
technology, no matter what tools come out

of it, it doesn't matter if something
comes that ends up destroying large parts

of the population, because guess what?

As much as that would be an absolute
tragedy.

the purpose lives on, the mission lives
on, humans continue to care for each

other, to serve each other over
themselves.

And that is really the only thing that
seems to be able to move past all of the

doomsday clocks and everything else.

As we look at all of the terrible things
that have happened over the course of

human society, the only thing that sticks
out to me that works, and I think this is

what Oppenheimer, this is kind of what he
learns, is, oh crap.

Maybe in all of this, it was a little bit
of a...

Maybe in all of this, it was a little bit
of a...

Maybe in all of this, it was a little bit
of a...

selfish pursuit in addition to trying to
serve the world.

And really, I'm gonna have to dedicate the
rest of my life to trying to serve the

world now because of the decisions that
I've made.

And don't we all need to wake up every day
with that reminder that my job is to serve

the people that I come in contact with
today.

Yeah, no big challenge, right?

Yeah, no big challenge, right?

No, just something a little like that.

That's what I'm known for.

I'm sorry.

I have to come in with that because that
is the way that my mind works.

It just, I have to see the bigger picture
and then realize the cost, not a cost that

is a, it is a dreadful cost almost.

is a, it is a dreadful cost almost.

It is a cost that is hard to even stomach
that I will have to wake up and give up

myself every single day if I want the
world to be better around me, but that

there's still joy in doing that.

That I can find joy in giving life to
other people.

and that in turn will be recursive and it
will give life back to me, not as an

objective, not as a direct result, but as
an indirect result.

And that's why that's kind of the magic of
magnanimous, that when I give to somebody

else without expecting anything in return,
that's compassion as we talked about in

the compassion series, huh.

Somehow, yeah.

it's not a sacrifice if it is the thing
that you were uniquely suited to do,

right?

If it is the thing that you are uniquely
engaged in doing.

So yeah, so how do you carry this around
every day, Dave?

Obviously not just the looming threat
behind us, but the leadership challenge of

like, I'm making new things and I'm also
trying to build a team and an organization

and a structure that contributes.

Well, part of it is the fascination with
these stories is because they are such a

great example to all of us.

Even the darkest ones, you find optimism,
you find hope for the future, and you find

lessons learned.

I think that's exactly right, through what
you were saying, that a lot of these guys

I think that's exactly right, through what
you were saying, that a lot of these guys

I think that's exactly right, through what
you were saying, that a lot of these guys

after this remarkable thing that they took
part in became...

leaders of a sort that they almost
certainly wouldn't have been otherwise.

leaders of a sort that they almost
certainly wouldn't have been otherwise.

In most cases, that was a good thing.

So I think that's part of my fascination
with this story and, for instance, other

similar ones like, say, the space race.

You know, you had something very similar
happen.

And I think the development of the atomic
bomb was a model for these sorts of

things, where you bring together
government, industry, and, you know, the

people sort of as a whole to achieve this
remarkable thing.

people sort of as a whole to achieve this
remarkable thing.

Everything I do is of course on a much
smaller scale, but you know all of us are

part of these bigger systems and I mean I
don't think it's unusual at all to find

inspiration in the way that these projects
were carried out.

One of the things that it's been funny to
me, I've been revisiting these stories

One of the things that it's been funny to
me, I've been revisiting these stories

just in this past year which coincides
with the time that I've

and realizing how hard that is and how
hard it is to keep things moving and then

looking at someone like Groves in the
movie and thinking, these people were just

remarkable, just the force that they
brought to these things and their

organizational skills.

I don't know if this is the right time to
bring up that Robbie quote, but I'll

Isidore Robbie is Oppenheimer's friend
who...

Isidore Robbie is Oppenheimer's friend
who...

who consults him and he has an infamous
quote about uh...

leslie groves a general who uh...

was in charge of the project overall
played by matt damon in the movie and

gross is quite a character he had built
the pentagon and wanted to go serve

actually in theater combat and uh...

was told no you have to work on the
special secret project which then he found

out about and groves one of his first jobs
is deciding

who should be the leader of the project,
the scientific leader at Los Alamos.

And Robbie had a quote that Groves wasn't
largely considered to be a genius, but

that his selection of Oppenheimer was a
genius, was a stroke of genius.

that his selection of Oppenheimer was a
genius, was a stroke of genius.

And I always thought this quote was a
little bit unfair, because I suspect

Robbie was using as his model for genius,
one of these physicist mathematician

geniuses, that he knew so well he was one
himself.

and didn't think that applied to Groz, but
Groz is an organizational genius.

I can't imagine the mindset, the
relentlessness that it would take to

I can't imagine the mindset, the
relentlessness that it would take to

wrangle all those resources together to
see that project through.

So for me, it's a bit of just an
inspiration, something to live up to every

day, for my own much smaller challenges.

I love that.

And I totally agree.

I think when I, you know, thinking about
this story with a very minimal knowledge,

right, you think about Einstein's theories
and you think about Oppenheimer and all

the scientists kind of solving the hard
technical problems.

And that's, you know, as an engineer,
that's admirable.

As an engineer, that's like, yeah, this is
amazing, like, you know, inventing new

physics on the fly and, you know,
discovering how the world works and

beating the Nazis to the bomb.

Like, it's all really cool stuff.

But watching the movie and thinking about
the story as a

as a leader, as a mental model that's
useful for me to think about how to

conduct my life or conduct challenges, I
love the pivots.

I love the Groves wanted to go fight in
the South Pacific, but they put him in

charge of this ridiculous program with
physics that may or may not have actually

existed with people that were all some
degree of savants and some degree of

idiots socially.

And he just jumped right into it and took
hold of that.

who did the thing that he was probably
felt like he was put on the earth for the

thing that he was the most uniquely so did
in the world to do is create this bomb.

And then if not seamlessly, very
intentionally with a lot of willpower

pivoted to my job is to now be a public
figure and a voice of reason.

And the one person who has the gravitas to
try to get the public to think deeply

about what it is we're doing here and how
it should, you know, how we should behave

in the future.

And that pivot is.

Both of those pivots are really
inspirational.

Like even if you don't feel like it's your
core skill set, even if it's not the thing

that you thought you signed up for,
sometimes the challenge presents itself

that you are actually the only person that
can solve and, and running really hard at

that and taking it seriously and putting
out the energy into the world.

Like Drew was saying about, it's not about
me and I've got to get all of these people

around me to be able to do what's
necessary.

That's really cool.

That's the, that's a wonderful lesson that
I'm going to hold on to for sure.

And because it's Wander Tour, I've got to
bring in the through line that Nolan lays

out.

For those of you who've been along for the
ride or are just Nolan buffs, you'll know

that Christopher Nolan generally starts
his movies by telling you just about

everything you need to know about the film
in that opening scene.

And in Oppenheimer, we get this opening
scene where we have Oppie putting a

poisoned apple on his professor's desk.

and then going back and trying to remove
the poisoned apple before his professor

eats it.

And so we obviously have in the world
culture, this idea of the apple as the

choice, back from the story of Adam and
Eve in the garden, the choice that humans

can make of, are you going to take wisdom
on your own hands, like in your own eyes,

basically?

Are you going to make the decision for the
world or for the universe or whatever of

what you think?

is right, or are you going to do the right
thing, the altruistic thing, whatever it

is, and basically put it down and trust.

And it's so brilliant because he just sets
it up with this where Oppenheimer has to

choose, you know, are you going to take
wisdom in your own hands?

Are you going to go build this thing and
just let it loose on the world?

And then at the end, he bookends it with
what we had talked about with the

mountaintop with Einstein with a
reflection on.

of what happens now, did we let loose a
evil into the world that will never be put

back into a cage basically?

And doesn't that then tie back to the idea
of just considering our decisions,

considering like you said with Groves, who
is he going to put in charge?

How is he going to design his organization
as we'll talk about in episode 108, our

next episode on Oppenheimer?

I mean, those are huge.

decisions that change the world and to
really for each one of us to recognize

that we may not Make decisions today or in
our lives Have the gravity of the

decisions that some of these figures in
this movie made But we have the our

decisions have the gravity to change our
local communities Our decisions have the

gravity to change our families to change
our workplaces, whatever it might be and

they can absolutely

improve the lives of the people around us,
bringing life, or demean people, create

inequality, whatever it might be.

Just because we made decisions in our past
that lead us one direction and that

created a negative impact or negative
feedback on us or on the world doesn't

mean that we can't, as Brian said, like
Appy did, the next day decide to make a

decision.

You get to choose each day what your
decision is.

So you can pick.

For us, just because we took the apple
doesn't mean that we need to continue and

continue and continue to take the apple
every single day like it's Groundhog Day.

One day you can decide not to.

Just put the apple away.

You can't un-poison the apple, but you can
spend the rest of your life trying to keep

people from eating it.

Alright, let's hit some key takeaways.

Let's do it.

I think you just hit one of our key
takeaways, Brian.

You can't poison the apple, but you can
spend the rest of your life trying to keep

people from eating it, right?

So that's what we just talked about in the
last segment.

But I mean, you can't change what you've
done in the past, but you do get to choose

and make new decisions each day.

Just like Oppenheimer did, we each get to
choose each day who we're going to be, and

humans are capable of changing.

That's one of the most incredible things
about us.

Number two.

We talked about kind of that this really
reads like a tragedy and that's because

it's very realistic and it's the world
that we live in today.

So sometimes we live in the tragedy and
the answer is not to reframe it as a

comedy or to reframe it as a drama or to
re, you know, reframe it as a hero's

journey or something like that.

It's not that easy because life has, you
know, disasters, life has challenges, life

has things that we let out of the cage
that.

seemingly can't be put back into the cage.

And so for us, we talked about with our
big question, what do you do after you

change the world and is irreversibly
changed?

Well, I think part of that is, you know,
taking part in the solution, even if you

don't get to lead it, if you're going to
be like Appy, choosing to continue to make

the right decisions, to be willing to be
vulnerable about the decisions you made in

the past, even going back on them or
being, you know, admitting you're wrong

when you're wrong.

That's something that's hard for a lot of
us that

It's hard for me, but I try to do it, go
back and admit when I'm wrong.

We also talked about how leaders have to
navigate the installation, the turning

point in the deployment periods, and how
just because you're this great technical

leader, or you got to lead the technical
people who developed a solution, doesn't

mean you control that solution.

So prepare with that in mind, that at some
point that solution goes back to the

world.

goes back to your users, whoever it might
be, and it's their opportunity to use it,

to iterate on it, to change the world.

So how are you gonna instill values?

And really, again, what do we do on
WondrTour?

Why do we do any of this?

Because we believe that we want to be
magnanimous leaders and we want more

magnanimous leaders in the world, which
leads us to another key takeaway.

We may not have a choice in the new tech
that's getting introduced.

Each of us right now probably...

has different and some of the same fears
about generative AI, artificial general

intelligence, that basically the
singularity, all of the scary and exciting

and hopeful and potentially disastrous
things that are going to happen over the

next handful of years, we may not, we
don't control that.

We can't put the animal back in the box.

But what we can do is we can choose each
day who we're going to be, and we can

choose to fight for other people.

We can choose to

Sacrifice our time to be able to teach
people what we know we can we can read we

can learn we can have Conversations with
people and most importantly we can serve

other people around us because no matter
who you are You don't have to be

Oppenheimer to make an impact What did I
miss guys?

Yeah, the only thing, the only other thing
I had, which I think you, you really, you

Yeah, the only thing, the only other thing
I had, which I think you, you really, you

got into with the leadership behaviors was
really just the being open to the pivot,

being open to the idea that there might be
a thing in the world that you are uniquely

qualified to do that isn't the thing you
thought you were going to do, you know,

that you might see something open up that
just needs to be done.

And you're the person standing there and
being open to that pivot as a leader to

like, go run at it and then bring as many
people into that world as you can with

you, you know, be as collaborative as you
can about.

crafting the solution, but being aware
that you might have an undesired

leadership role thrust upon you, which is
exactly what happened to both Groves and

Oppenheimer in this movie.

Brilliant.

asking questions along the way is one
thing, and I think that's exactly sort of

why the three of us are here talking about
it, that maybe in certain large ways you

can't change the outcomes or where these
things are going, but all of us need to be

more thoughtful about the things we build
and the things we do.

And I think that asking those questions
and sort of thinking about those things

during the development

And thinking about stories like these
during the development of something new

can only help us do these things more
consciously and more compassionately,

which I hope is the goal.

Yeah, absolutely.

Good questions.

Awesome.

Well, Brian, why don't you wrap us up?

All right, well, thanks everyone for
joining us.

This has been a really fun discussion.

Thank you so much, Dave, for joining us
and providing all your insights and your

background in this space.

We're gonna keep the conversation going
with episode 108.

We're gonna keep talking about
Oppenheimer.

We're gonna talk, we're gonna do things
backwards, which is not unusual for us.

We talked high level and what happens
after the bomb.

So now we're gonna go back and talk about
how would you design an organization for a

very specific purpose.

So really looking forward to having you
all join us for that one.

Thanks so much for spending time with us.

And...

Until next time, just remember, as always,
character is destiny.