When it comes to market shaping, having a wide range of tools in your kit is critical. “You don’t want to be a hammer looking for a nail,” says today’s guest Oliver Sabot. Sabot has spent years shaping markets in various sectors including global health, education, and now climate. At the Clinton Healthcare Access Initiative (CHAI), he was a key leader in expanding access to life-saving treatments for children and families around the world. Since CHAI, he founded Kepler and Nova Pioneer, two ventures aimed at transforming education and training across Africa. Now, Sabot works as an executive coach to climate leaders and directs the climate division of the Kissick Family Foundation which backs promising innovations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change. On this episode, he joins host Inder Singh to chat about the tactical lessons he’s learned from his multi-sector career including, how to diagnose market failures, scale impact, and what it takes to be a successful “quarterback” in market shaping. The Market Shapers Podcast is a production of Inder Singh and is produced by University FM. This interview was recorded in May 2025.
When it comes to market shaping, having a wide range of tools in your kit is critical. “You don’t want to be a hammer looking for a nail,” says today’s guest Oliver Sabot.
Sabot has spent years shaping markets in various sectors including global health, education, and now climate. At the Clinton Healthcare Access Initiative (CHAI), he was a key leader in expanding access to life-saving treatments for children and families around the world. Since CHAI, he founded Kepler and Nova Pioneer, two ventures aimed at transforming education and training across Africa. Now, Sabot works as an executive coach to climate leaders and directs the climate division of the Kissick Family Foundation which backs promising innovations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change.
On this episode, he joins host Inder Singh to chat about the tactical lessons he’s learned from his multi-sector career including, how to diagnose market failures, scale impact, and what it takes to be a successful “quarterback” in market shaping.
The Market Shapers Podcast is a production of Inder Singh and is produced by University FM.
This interview was recorded in May 2025.
Why funding alone isn’t enough
17:14: I see it again and again that, as they move into new sectors, that's the last thing that the community thinks of, right? It will push hard on the funding, it will push hard on the, you know, advanced market commitments or new research and so forth, but it doesn't invest comparatively tiny amounts of money in the quarterback role because it's very unsexy, right? Like, you're not gonna do a press release on that, but it's immensely important.
The trap of one-tool thinking in market shaping
23:29: Different actors start to have strong perspectives on one aspect of the market shaping toolkit. So some people say advanced market commitments are great. I agree. I think advanced market commitments can be an amazing tool in some cases for some products, for some markets. But you don't want to be a hammer looking for a nail saying, like, the only thing that should ever be done is advanced market commitment, then you're only relevant to the 10% of the places where that's warranted.
On acting like a private company to save lives
05:18: So, essentially, what we did is, how can we, a group of social actors, how can we act like a drug company would, right? How can we actually work with suppliers of this, make it into attractive packaging, actually, sort of, launch it as a product and invest as a company would in the marketing and sales, down the chain through distributors and wholesalers. What are their incentives? What profit margins do they need to charge in order for this to be an attractive business for them down to the drug shops?
(Transcripts may contain a few typographical errors due to audio quality during the podcast recording.)
[00:00:00] Inder Singh: Welcome to Market Shapers, a podcast about harnessing capitalism for good. I'm Inder Singh. Over the years, I've had the privilege of working with incredible people, building products, forging deals, and shaping markets that have impacted millions of lives.
On this show, I sit down with the leaders, innovators, and behind-the-scenes deal makers who've changed the way markets work, often in ways most people never see. We'll unpack how they did it, what they learned, and how those lessons can help tackle the big challenges ahead.
Hey, everyone. This is Inder. In the next few episodes, we’re going to dive deep into the Clinton Health Access Initiative, or CHAI, playbook — how they massively reduce the price of important health products, from life-saving drugs to diagnostics and other products. This playbook works. It’s been hundreds of deals over 25 years, and today you'll find that nearly every major global health organization has a market shaping group. In fact, entire organizations like MedAccess were spawned from this work on market shaping. And it all goes back to CHAI and the work they did to transform the market for HIV/AIDS drugs and diagnostics by massively reducing their price, enabling poor people in poor countries to access them.
For background, I had the pleasure of leading this work for about five years at CHAI. And one of the fun parts about doing this podcast is that I get to talk to all of my former colleagues. One of the guests you heard from, Dai Ellis, actually hired me. I got to work very closely with two really impressive people, Oliver Sabot and Aaron Patillo. You'll hear from Oliver Sabot on this episode and Aaron Patillo on the next one. And finally, you've heard from Alan Staple already, but you'll hear from him again, and you'll hear from Hema Srinivasan.
These are two people who've been working in this area of global health market shaping for well over a decade. They've taken this work to the next level.
What was really fun and fascinating to hear from them was that the underlying principles of how they do these deals today are the same principles that we developed back in the early to mid-2000s. In looking at my colleagues' work over the past 15 years since I left it, I was always a little frustrated that we never documented it in a way that was teachable. We were all really good at doing the deals. We were never really good at documenting how they were done. And this podcast is intended to get toward a reproducible framework so that others can learn from it and do it in their own sectors.
I hope you enjoy the next several episodes. Let's dive in.
I'm thrilled to welcome a friend and former colleague to the podcast today, Oliver Sabot. Oliver and I worked together over a decade ago at the Clinton Health Access Initiative, where he was a key leader in expanding access to life-saving treatments for children and families around the world. Since CHAI, he founded Kepler and Nova Pioneer, two ventures aimed at transforming education and training across Africa. More recently, he's turned his talents to climate, working as an executive coach to climate leaders and leading funding initiatives to back promising climate innovations. Oliver's career is a masterclass in crossing sectors and scaling impact.
Oliver, welcome. Let's get into it.
[00:03:33] Oliver Sabot: Thank you. It's great to be here, Inder.
[00:03:35] Inder Singh: Let's go back to one of your early projects in global health that you conceived and led, and this is the effort to expand access to zinc in ORS that you took on while at CHAI. Can you walk us through the initiative and share any lessons that you think others working on market shaping could take away from it?
[00:03:51] Oliver Sabot: Yeah, this was an interesting one because a lot of the work that the Clinton Health Access Initiative, CHAI, has done over the years is what you might, sort of, broadly define as global market shaping. So, the early work was on antiretroviral AIDS drugs, saying, "How do we get the prices down for low-income countries?" And that moved into diagnostics, the work you did on malaria drugs, and bed nets, and so forth.
And when those prices were secured, or new drug formulations were developed, greater supply was secured, that then benefits a wide range of actors. That could benefit a whole series of countries over Africa, et cetera. So, it has a broad sweep, global market shaping.
What I became very interested in is what we termed local market shaping, right? So, this would be within a state of India or within Nigeria or within Uganda, how do the markets for a critical drug function there? So, a heartbreaking example, hundreds of thousands of children still die every year from diarrhea. You know, you're a parent. Your kid has probably had GI issues, right? It's a very simple thing to resolve. It's uncomfortable. But in most of the world, it's not life-threatening. But in low-income settings, hundreds of thousands of children die from simple diarrhea.
In the '70s, some great public health researchers developed a product that was suited to saving lives in low-income settings, just basically a mix of salt and sugar. What kills children from diarrhea is dehydration, right? The fluids leave their body and they die of dehydration. This salt-sugar mix, oral rehydration salts as they were termed, basically just keeps them hydrated until the diarrhea resolves.
We're talking about something that costs 30 to 50 cents. There was a big push from UNICEF and others to scale this up as a solution compared to sort of traditional medicines or more antibiotics and so forth, which don't address the cause of the issue.
On top of that, we then, research was done that showed if you then added a very simple compound, something, you know, we just use in our multivitamins, zinc, again, super cheap. If you add that onto the ORS, the death rates from our children plummet even further.
So, we're talking something well below a dollar can save hundreds of thousands of children's lives, and yet millions and millions and millions of mothers in India, Nigeria, Uganda, kid gets diarrhea, they just go to the local drug shop, way out in a rural area in their village, and they get some other drug. They get an antibiotic. They get something like Imodium essentially that might stop the diarrhea, but does not address the root issue, and will not save the child's life because there was no zinc and ORS there.
So, we asked, like, “What's breaking down here? This is clearly what this mother, this child needs, and it can be sold, it can make money for the drug shops. And the wholesaler, what's going on? Why is this market failing?”
We dug into that. We determined it was because it was so cheap, actually, that no one was making money off of it, right? If it had been a blockbuster drug, then some drug company at the top of the chain would say, "Okay, how do we... How are we using our sales agents to promote this?" And they promote it to the wholesalers and the distributors, who then use their networks to promote it to the drug shops. And then it's stocked everywhere and there's posters and ads and things, and then the mothers end up buying it. But this is very simple product. It was generic, right? There was no sort of IP around it. So, that wasn't happening.
So, essentially, what we did is, how can we, a group of social actors, so CHAI but a range of other great partner organizations, how can we act like a drug company would, right? How can we actually work with suppliers of this, make it into attractive packaging, actually, sort of, launch it as a product and invest as a company would in the marketing and sales, down the chain through distributors and wholesalers. What are their incentives? What profit margins do they need to charge in order for this to be an attractive business for them down to the drug shops?
And we just, sort of, ran it like they would if we were acting like a private company. The results were remarkable. You know, many times in my career, in global health and elsewhere, social impacts organizations would set big targets, and then you, kind of, inevitably knew that we would undershoot them, but still even the undershoot would be a great thing for the world and the people we serve. This was a rare case where they just completely defied my expectations about what would be achieved.
So, you may know that the state of Uttar Pradesh in India is huge. It's bigger than most countries in the world. It's somewhere upwards of 250 million people. They rolled out this approach across the entire state of Uttar Pradesh and then did a survey that was representative of that whole state of 250 million people, and they saw that the use of ORS and zinc skyrocketed from something like 3% upwards towards 40% in the time that they did the program.
Similar magnitude change in Nigeria and Uganda. Of course, we ultimately, all of us want to see it get upwards of 80, 80 to 100%, but this was... Compared to most social impact programs and public health programs, this was peanuts of money, right? Because there were no commodities being bought. There were no huge teams going out and delivering healthcare. This was just basically working within a structure that existed. All these private actors already had their staff and their resources. This was just adding on top of that. So, for peanuts of money, you reached hundreds and hundreds of thousands of kids.
[00:09:23] Inder Singh: Yeah, and thinking about the incentives of each of the actors in the supply chain on the supply side, while at the same time thinking about, like, what do we need to do to improve treatment on the demand side. Amazing results.
Oliver, what happened to that program thereafter? Did an organization or a funder take that on to scale it up further in a global context?
[00:09:45] Oliver Sabot: You know, it's a sad story. By this time, I had moved on and was working building some education companies. But I continued to catch up with the team. They took those incredible results back out to the funding community. And unfortunately, it was a real slog. There were funders, you know, would say, "This issue, diarrhea, is just not within our core funding priorities.” You know, The Global Fund funds AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. This is one of the challenges of social sector work in general. It was no one's top priority despite the incredible results.
So, they, as far as I understand, were not able to get funding to continue it or scale it up beyond that, right? Because you could... Every country in Africa, most low-income countries could have used something like this, and going beyond where they were able to reach.
Also, what you really hope for in market shaping is that once an intervention stops, that the impact is sticky because you've changed the market dynamics, right? So, what we would love to, most love to see now is if someone went and did a similar representative study across Uttar Pradesh or Nigeria and they saw, yes, we may not have gone above the 40% using ORS zinc, but it hasn't gone back down again because those suppliers are still supplying the product because they're making money, the distributors are making money, the drug shops are making money. The sort of demand among mothers, at least as far as it got to, has remained.
Another initiative we worked on and you and I worked on, which was for malaria drugs artemisinin therapies, there was a big push for a global subsidy of those drugs. So, in this case, it required more money because it required a subsidization of the better product and then a push down through the chain.
I was really heartened. CHAI later did work some years after that whole subsidy program was stopped because the money ran out, and again, funders weren't willing to continue it. And they did find that a lot of the use of the better drugs had remained sticky because both on the supply side and the demand side, behaviors had changed.
And that's what you hope, like, certainly what the U.S. government hopes for when it's subsidizing electric vehicles and so forth, is that, you know, it's not when you turn off the subsidy, then everyone just goes back and starts driving a gas guzzler. It's just the market has changed.
[00:11:55] Inder Singh: Great example of kickstarting a market or thinking like the private sector and harnessing those principles of capitalism to have a social impact.
[00:12:03] Oliver Sabot: That's also the tremendous potential of market shaping from a, sort of, net present value calculation, right? So, a lot of social sector interventions from a government or an aid donor is, it requires, sort of, continual funding supply, right?
So, if we could say we could provide some healthcare, it's great, it saves lives, but it will require us to continue to provide funding for the next 20 years. Versus, you could provide the same level or even a little more funding for three years, and then you can shut off the funding, and then for the next 17 years, the impact will continue because the market has just taken it forward.
The cost-benefit of that is extraordinarily higher because your outflows are only in the early years. A lot of times, opportunities for market shaping, it isn't... It won't work that simply. But when it can, the cost benefit compared to most social interventions is much, much higher.
[00:12:54] Inder Singh: And this feels like a really perfect segue into climate because it feels like there's a lot of work that's going on to say, "How do we match buyers' needs with supply technologies?"
The way that I might think about this is crossing the chasm to those minimum volumes that will create a market, that will enable a market to start functioning, where there's a high enough return on investment to the people who invented the technology and are delivering it, and yet there's a high enough return on investment to the buyers who are buying the technology for specific purposes.
You and Dai wrote an amazing piece in a Stanford journal that is talking about applying these approaches in market shaping to climate. What's different? What's the same? Did I capture that right about early matching work that's going on in climate?
[00:13:42] Oliver Sabot: Yeah, I think, part of what's different in climate is it's massive. It's a whole global economy problem, therefore it is a whole global economy set of solutions.
You take anything we do right now in the world, and it needs to be decarbonized, right? Everything in your home, everything related to work and transportation and food and so forth, like every part of it is just way too greenhouse gas emission intensive right now, and we need to be rolling out much cleaner versions of it. The good news is, across many of them, we already have or are close to much cleaner versions. The challenge is the market dynamics are in the way, right?
So, take an example. You're in Oakland right now. If your cooling system breaks this summer, you're going to very quickly be like, "It's 100 degrees outside," like, "I need a new cooling system." And you start researching, and someone says, "Hey, there's this heat pump that's electric, and it has a much lower carbon footprint." You're going to quickly do the cost-benefit. Right now, the great cleaner electric heat pumps are substantially more expensive upfront. And there's a ton of friction for you installing it, right?
We've experienced this a lot, even for people who work full-time in the climate sector. They're saying, "You know, I know I should use a heat pump. I'm trying to replace my old furnace with a heat pump. But man, it's taking me weeks and months, and I'm trying to figure out, like, how I get the right supplier, and I can't get a contractor who can do this right." This is all just a ton of friction even before the basic economics of for more middle or low-income families, right? Every $100 is going to matter. And if this thing is a couple thousand dollars more expensive, you're going to install the legacy fossil fuel device.
And of course, when you're talking about big machinery like this, like if your furnace breaks this summer, you're probably only going to replace it again in another 15 or 20 years. This is not a decision like going to the drugstore every couple of months, right? These are big, lumpy decisions.
So, what we need to do is we need to find ways to dramatically lower that friction. And so, there are great organizations working on this. There's an organization called Rewiring America that's working with CHAI and others to say, "How do we represent demand to the manufacturers of heat pumps, get the price that they offer substantially lower? How do we work with contractors and other actors locally to just make a very simple experience for the buyer?"
We need to do that across most aspects of, sort of, our lives as citizens and consumers, but then you scale it up to how people are buying steel and ammonia and, you know, all these other big aspects of the economy.
[00:16:24] Inder Singh: So, let's talk about that for a second. Anytime you're making any product, especially a physical good, you're talking about when volumes go up, you achieve economies of scale. It becomes less expensive for you to make the product, and therefore, you could charge a lower price.
You also have learning effects, which is you'd learn how to make products more efficiently. And so, if we can just scale up, there's an opportunity for prices to come down in a significant way where people are buying heat pumps because there's lower friction, they're lower cost potentially than the alternative that you would buy today, and they've got a massive improvement for the climate.
In your experience, Oliver, when funders of these opportunities or governments, who are sometimes involved in funding these kinds of initiatives, make or try to launch something that might be categorized as market shaping, what do they get right? What do they get wrong?
[00:17:20] Oliver Sabot: I think the biggest one is that the social sector often equates impact opportunity with funding. And so, whenever there's a need or an opportunity here, people often jump to, "And therefore we need big dollars for X." And so, when we start talking about market shaping, aspects of the relevant, sort of, social sector field will say, "Great, therefore we need to go ask donors or the government for hundreds of millions of dollars to fund this in some form." Right?
And you see that a lot in climate. There's, “We just need to advocate for billions and billions of dollars of government funding on this.” And that's not wrong. That type of intervention in the market is what we call push funding, right? That we need to just push money into the space.
But in many cases, it can be necessary or at least helpful, but not sufficient. And so, the thing that is often left out is what Dai and I were, sort of, loosely calling quarterbacks. So, these are, you know, if we go back to global health, you had a case where the push funding had increased dramatically.
The U.S. government, and then the multilateral organization, you know, The Global Fund, had started to secure billions of dollars to fund these things, and yet still you weren't seeing the markets shift immediately because there were all these information gap problems.
And so, the role that CHAI played, and others are now playing in other sectors, and as I was saying, Rewiring America is playing in electrification in the U.S., is this intermediary to try to clear these information gaps in a kind of shuttle diplomacy. So, you fly to the manufacturers and say, "Look, we've done this modeling. This is how much demand you can expect." And they say, "Yeah, okay. That helps, but we still could use certainty around this."
And then you fly back, and you talk to the donors, you talk to the purchasers, and really just forming this connective tissue. I see it again and again, that, as they move into new sectors, that's the last thing that the community thinks of, right? It will push hard on the funding, it will push hard on the, you know, advanced market commitments or new research and so forth, but it doesn't invest in comparatively tiny amounts of money in the quarterback role because it's very unsexy, right? It's very clear and exciting to fund a big research program. It's very announceable, saying, "Yeah, we funded, you know, a small amount of money for this team to just run around and have a lot of meetings and do some Excel spreadsheets and things." Like, you're not going to do a press release on that, but it's immensely important.
[00:19:50] Inder Singh: Well, let's talk about that more because I think this is a really important point. Lots of focus on funding, less focus on information and making sure the information is correctly and accurately flowing from the demand to the supply side of the market. The quarterback's role is to really understand what's going on. And I might argue to understand what the incentives of various actors are, to elicit the incentives of various actors to change their behaviors or their decisions, right? Without that activity, you're not really connecting the dots. There's a lot of mistrust on information. Are there attributes of quarterback organizations that make them more successful or make them more likely to be successful?
[00:20:32] Oliver Sabot: So, yes, I agree on the informational dynamics. You made a great point there around understanding the incentives.
Plenty of times, when I was a smart hotshot running around the world, I thought I knew what was going on and I read a lot and we'd done some fancy analyses, but I didn't really understand what those wholesalers in Dar es Salaam cared about in distributing their medicines or what really was driving the behaviors of those purchases by those hospitals or those mothers or whatever.
And a key role of the quarterback is like deeply understanding the actors in the chain. And I was really heartened recently in reconnecting with some of the team that now drives this work at CHAI, and this is something they emphasize constantly, is that people will come to them and say, "Oh, we want to do market shaping for this, and we're excited and we think there's this real opportunity." And one of the first things they always say is, "Okay, but first we need to go and really deeply understand the dynamics of this specific product or this specific market, because every product and every market can be different, all the actors are different, and if we don't like really deeply understand it from a place of humility, we can get it wrong. And if we get it wrong, at best, we just, kind of, waste money and time, and at worst, we can actually distort markets."
And that comes to your question about, like, what's needed to get it right. I think there's a mindset or an approach or an experience, as I was alluding to earlier with the zinc, ORS example, of really approaching it like a private actor. Because we are trying to understand private actors on the demand and the supply side, you need to think like them and act like them. And where this has often gone wrong is when you have UN organizations where it is, sort of, deeply organized antithetically to private markets.
And so, when you have the UN and the deep restrictions it has around transparency and so forth, trying to engage in a private market, not through ill intention, but it has gotten it wrong consistently and sometimes led to... There's famous examples of UNICEF leading to vaccines manufacturers shutting down because they were trying to shape the market, and they just didn't understand, like, how these businesses worked and how people thought, right?
And then the other thing can happen is, then, based then on that lesson, then they became super conservative and said, "Well, now we just... We have to make sure no one's shut down." And then there were cases when they were just paying way higher prices than was necessary because they weren't being, sort of, creative and ambitious enough in negotiating with these suppliers. Again, partly because their hands were tied based on UN rules. But ideally, for a quarterback, you want flexibility, private sector orientation and thinking, of course, combined with deep mission commitment.
You know, one of the first fears people have when I start saying, "Oh, this is, you want private sector orientation." "Oh, they're just going to then, like, pad the profits of these actors." No, you want the people there that are in it for the climate. They're in it for poor people suffering from malaria. They're just using the toolkit of sharp private business to achieve that.
[00:23:39] Inder Singh: Are you in a position, or would you be willing to volunteer some thoughts on when or how, or even specific initiatives that haven't met the bar on-market shaping?
[00:23:50] Oliver Sabot: Certainly. Like, let me just give a quick example from malaria, right? Like, we spent a bunch of time thinking like, well, there... Another really important product in that space was malaria rapid diagnostic tests. We've market-shaped on HIV rapid diagnostics, and we've market shaped on malaria drugs, so surely there must be something to market shape on malaria rapid diagnostic tests.
We spent a lot of time with smart people in a room, working on things, ended up doing a couple of projects, and one of the funders in this space did a project on this. I don't mean not in terms of the actual programs on the ground, but from a market shaping perspective, there was no impact there, you know. It just… In fact, over time it became... They were too cheap, right? No one was making enough money off of them, and there really should've been consolidation in this space. But because we were so certain that we could just, sort of, repeat the playbook from other products, we wasted a lot of time and energy there. And so, it's that emphasis on humility and before diving in and spending a lot of effort, making sure you understand the dynamics of a specific product.
[00:24:59] Inder Singh: Oliver, I'd love to just ask the general question, are there any other key lessons from your experience working across sectors, in global health, education, and now climate, that you want to communicate to decision-makers or the tacticians who are trying to implement this about how they should go about thinking about market shaping or implementing it?
[00:25:17] Oliver Sabot: I think another one is the uniqueness of every situation, and the broader the toolkit, the more likely you are to be successful. There's a bit of different actors start to have strong perspectives on one aspect of the market shaping toolkit. So, some people say advanced market commitments are great. I agree. I think advanced market commitments can be an amazing tool in some cases for some products, for some market. But you don't want to be a hammer looking for a nail, saying, like, the only thing that should ever be done is advanced market commitment, then you're only relevant to the 10% of the places where that's warranted. Or volume guarantees are the answer. Great. Volume guarantee is the answer some of the time.
And so, if you are an actor who really cares about a given sector, the more you come into it and say, "We have a toolkit of 10, 15 interventions, and we're going to go bottoms up," as I was saying, deeply understand the dynamics, the incentives, and then we'll pull whatever tool is sometimes it's going to be a hammer, sometimes it's going to be a wrench, sometimes it's going to be a screwdriver.
[00:26:16] Inder Singh: And I think this emphasizes the point that you need a quarterback to really understand and dissect the problems that are going and then apply the tools, right? And we're not talking about a huge number of people, at least in your and my experience at CHAI. We're talking about a team of three to five people who have the attributes to be successful, who are diving deep to understand the incentives, the positions of the actors on the demand side and on the supply side, and then determining which tool is appropriate.
[00:26:45] Oliver Sabot: Per product, right? If I suddenly came into an immense amount of wealth, caring about the climate as I do, I would go around and set up quarterbacks for 20, 30, 40, 50 different climate product areas, right? Because, like, you know, there could be this one thing that will reduce methane emissions of cows in this way that could use its own quarterback, right? As could just heat pumps alone, you know, et cetera. But we need a lot more quarterbacks. We need a lot more quarterbacks in climate. I think global health benefited from more quarterbacks, but there are plenty of other social sector areas that could use them.
[00:27:23] Inder Singh: And it sounds like you believe the climate is one of the biggest opportunities for market shaping. But outside of climate and global health, what would you be most excited about the potential for market shaping to unlock transformational change?
[00:27:36] Oliver Sabot: Agriculture. You know, more broadly, outside of the climate, agriculture plays is going to be a huge part of the future, particularly in low-income areas. My sense is there's a lot of opportunity there.
And this is a broad one, but the coming tidal wave of AGI. What is going to be done to shape that in a socially optimal direction, particularly for low-income countries, right? It's market shaping in a different way, but I think there's going to be a lot of market shaping needed there.
[00:28:05] Inder Singh: Yeah, there's a lot of discussion about how AGI or artificial general intelligence is going to have massive social positive impacts in the world, but it's not clear that there's an effort dedicated to ensuring that in and of itself as yet.
[00:28:18] Oliver Sabot: And even in the very best case scenario, massive social costs. Tens of millions of people are going to start losing jobs very soon, among other, sort of, disruptions from this. And that can still lead to net benefits, but you ideally want quarterbacks who are both maximizing the transition to the beneficial side and helping to minimize the downsides.
[00:28:38] Inder Singh: Oliver, it's been wonderful to catch up, man. Thanks for the time. I appreciate you joining Market Shapers.
[00:28:44] Oliver Sabot: This has been great. Thanks so much, Inder.
[00:28:48] Inder Singh: Thanks for listening to the Market Shapers Podcast. I'm Inder Singh. If you enjoyed the show, please like it or leave us a review and subscribe in your favorite app so you don't miss the next episode.
Market Shapers is produced by me with help from University FM. Special thanks to Renaissance Philanthropy, Griffin Catalyst, and the Digital Harbor Foundation for their support.