How do I sound?

>> You sound perfect.

>> great.

>> I look?

>> Yeah, you sound great. Better than you

look.

>> You got that face made for radio.

>> You [laughter] don't look as tired as

you have in recent weeks.

>> That's true. Yeah.

>> Yeah.

>> Somebody was slagging me for the bags

under my eyes. I mean, this audience is

brutal. [music]

>> They're brutal. They're brutal.

>> It's a good thing I'm rich.

>> [laughter]

[music]

>> You let your winners ride.

Rain Man David Sacks

>> [music]

>> We open sourced it to the fans and

they've just gone crazy [music] with it.

>> All right, everybody. Welcome back to

the number one podcast in the world.

It's the All-In podcast. With us today

Chamath Palihapitiya, David Sacks, and

our fifth bestie, Mr. Brad Gerstner is

here. I think David Friedberg is

suffering from some

socialist-related flu.

>> He's very sick of reading about

>> socialists, but he'll be back next week

with two incredible, incredible

interviews.

>> You guys see those Spencer Pratt ads?

>> Wow.

>> It's one of the best political ads I've

ever ever seen.

>> Oh, there's like three or four of them.

>> There are multiples.

>> Yeah.

>> Whoever that social media team is is on

fire.

>> If you get a good social media team and

you get a good ad production team, I

think it's next gen cuz these things go

crazy. And Spencer Pratt, if he wins

this election, which I think he's going

to in Los Angeles, the reason is what

Brad said. Those ads are incredible.

>> Well, he's also quite a good debater.

Did you see clips from this debate?

>> Absolutely. He's so funny. He's so

chill.

>> Yeah, well, he's up against Karen Bass,

who's the mayor, who is basically

extremely left-wing. And then there's

someone who's a city councilwoman, who's

even further to the left of Karen Bass.

I mean, she's

>> Yeah, yeah.

>> often like Fidel Castro territory.

>> She's an Indian Fidel Castro.

>> Raman. So, she was basically, I guess,

criticizing the mayor for the

homelessness problem.

And then Pratt pointed out that this

councilwoman is actually in charge of

all these homeless programs already.

>> [laughter]

>> He eviscerated her.

>> He eviscerated her. And he basically

made the key point, which is, "Look, the

problem here is not lack of housing,

it's an addiction issue, and it's a

mental illness issue." And he said,

"Look, if you

>> said

he said if she went to the street, she'd

get stabbed in the neck.

>> Yeah.

>> [laughter]

>> Which is pretty accurate if you've been

to Skid Row. I mean, you would not want

to walk through there.

It was like the Spider-Man photo.

>> got the clip. Play the clip, Nick.

>> Oh, god.

>> This clip is brutal.

>> a different clip, but this one super

viral. It reminded me of Trump a little

bit.

>> Let's see.

>> I'm not sure how to respond to that

vision of Los Angeles. This is a MAGA

Republican's idea of what Los Angeles

looks like. This is This is really not

>> [laughter]

>> Unbelievable.

>> For those of you listening, he put his

hands up and wiggled his head like, "Oh

my god."

>> [laughter]

>> Hey, hey, Sachs. You know, Stephen Pratt

wins mayor,

>> Spencer Pratt.

>> Spencer

>> the you know, the ballot initiative, the

retirement protection and savings act,

right? It's going to pass. It's going to

pass with big numbers. This is the, you

know, referendum that effectively is

going to knock out the wealth tax. Can

you imagine if California effectively

passes a constitutional amendment

protecting retirement savings and

personal assets and banning the wealth

tax and Pratt gets elected, the message

that would send to the country? That's

That's a very non-consensus view that

I'm becoming increasingly optimistic

about.

>> Well, from your lips to God's ears.

But until that message actually is sent,

I think I'm going to be uh

>> in Texas.

>> In Texas.

>> [laughter]

>> Well, I mean, this is also in the face

of I don't know, just a follow-up story

here, but Mondami did like an attack

video on Ken Griffin's house. We talked

about it on the pod a couple weeks ago.

And like, literally stood in front of

his house, pointed at it. and this is in

the face of like a CEO getting shot for

ideological reasons, Sam Altman's house

being targeted. This is like a really

dangerous thing for Mondami to do.

And Ken Griffin came out today in or

yesterday in an interview and said,

"Hey, listen, I'm out. We're going to be

putting our efforts into

Florida." And this is the same thing

that happened to Chicago, and he

basically said like I really felt

offended, and I was, you know, nervous

about this

because of my personal safety. And he

called him out. Mondami came out with

like

a mealy-mouthed response that didn't

even apologize for what he did,

just doubled down on it essentially. All

right, let's get to the I don't know if

you guys saw it or not, but who cares?

And New York is becoming a flyover city.

>> It's an interesting way to put it. Don't

disagree.

>> All right, first story. Elon just leased

all of Colossus 1.

>> New data center?

>> He did?

>> Nostro What? What?

>> Yes, shocking to Dario and Anthropic

Chamath on this week's pod. Go ahead and

give yourself a pat on the back. You

said Elon and Dario should do a deal

tomorrow. It didn't happen. The next day

it happened 5 days later, so you came

close, Chamath, but no cigar because of

Anthropic's obvious compute constraints.

Anthropic just added over 220,000 Nvidia

GPUs, over 300 megawatts of energy.

The deal is already having an impact as

we've discussed here. Claude users have

been experiencing rate limits. Well,

Claude has now doubled the Claude code

rate limits, removed peak usage caps for

paid users, and increased API volumes

for Opus models. XAI is now trading

their models at Colossus 2. So, they

have more than enough compute. Elon made

a great bet

on compute and built up those data

centers really fast, and that is now

paying off. We had the cursor deal we

talked about last week. Let's talk about

the emergence of Elon Web Services, EWS,

Chamath. He is now in the hyperscaler

competing against Google Cloud, Amazon

Web Services, and Azure. And uh I don't

know if you had inside information or

just a brilliant uh epiphany, but uh

take us behind the call and what do you

think about the deal itself?

>> I think the deal is fantastic. I'll say

maybe three quick things.

The first is, as I mentioned a couple

weeks ago,

Anthropic

and OpenAI's revenue performance has

nothing to do with demand. Zero.

It is entirely to do with the supply

constraints that exist in data centers

and specifically in power.

If they had infinite power, I think that

their revenues would probably be even

more parabolic.

And so all the breathlessness about

either exceeding or underperforming a

forecast, in my opinion, mean nothing.

I think the five-year view

for those two companies

is quite robust.

The thing that they really need is more

compute and more power. That's the first

thing.

The second thing is, while they need

that, we have a very big problem,

which is we unfortunately have very poor

leadership

at the head

of most of these AI firms.

I think they are coming off as

untrustworthy or too self-interested.

The political reaction now

is starting to turn negative.

The community reaction is negative.

You have about 9 gigawatts that are

supposed to come online this year.

Almost 50% of it now is being protested.

More than likely, if if history holds,

most of that will get turned off. So

they will get even more supply

constrained. So that's the setup.

So what's the opportunity? I think for

Elon, if you look inside of how people

try to nitpick the SpaceX valuation

case, or let's not even let's give them

sorry, let's be more generous.

When people try to paint the bear case,

or they try to red team the valuation,

the biggest element is the on the come

value around the orbital data centers.

And by actually landing a bunch of

terrestrial capacity,

I think you start to blunt that. Because

you can now start to say that even if

the orbital data centers get delayed by

a few months or a few quarters, even if

the technological

de-risking of it takes longer,

he now has a structural core business

that will effectively subsidize

his ability to train Grok, which I think

is a really important and underreported

theme.

So, you have all this infrastructure,

he somehow saw the tea leaves

before most people, he built to a level

of scale and secured power

before most people. It is now become the

critical asset. Now, he's

kind of king-making.

And I think that that's a really

interesting valuation

reinforcement as SpaceX goes through

testing the waters in the in the road

show. Brad, your take.

>> Yeah, no, I think it's well said. I

mean, first we we know that there's

nobody better on planet Earth than Elon

at converting electrons to tokens. It's

a critically important evolution to the

story. You know, I think our friend

Shawn Maguire, he he he sent out a tweet

that summed it up well, and he said

SpaceX has this five-layer cake, launch,

connectivity, compute hyperscaler, space

data centers, and then applications and

models, and then other bets, right? The

question on the road show has been, "But

x.ai doesn't on the revenue trajectory

of OpenAI and and Anthropic, and yet

there are huge commitments. And now we

see the ace card that Elon's playing."

He said he was building AWS all along or

EWS all along. And so I estimate that

this is going to generate in this year

an incremental 45 billion dollars of

revenue on top of what I have seen

analyst estimates in the mid-20s. That's

a material amount of incremental revenue

to offset the cost of the investments

that he's made here. And that will

subsidize to Chamath's point all that

he's investing to build the next

generation of growth. Remember too that

he has three facilities. Colossus, macro

hard and macro harder. 1.2 gigawatts in

macro hard and macro harder in

Blackwell. So he's given the one that's

kind of less connected H100s great for

inference to Anthropic. He's monetizing

it in a big way. It's terrific for

Anthropic. And it solves what I think

was the biggest question in the

valuation story, which is what if he

spends ahead of x.ai's revenue. It takes

the pressure Chamath off x.ai delivering

immediate revenue. Now he becomes

an immediate competitor in the

hyperscale. I don't think this is the

last announcement. I think he's going to

make a lot more,

you know, moves in this direction. I

think it will be a material part of

their story and their revenue

projections

as they come together. And I would just

say finally, you know, again, everybody

has talked about how we don't have

enough power, how we don't have enough

compute, how the revenues would not show

up in this year. You know, but the chaos

that is American capitalism somehow

finds a way, okay? And there's

tremendous demand for Anthropic and we

find a way. I was so happy to see kind

of the detente and the kind exchange

between the team at Anthropic and Elon

because we need all of this in order to

produce American frontier models to stay

at the frontier.

And then finally I just say, you know,

Chamath, you referenced these activists

that are protesting delaying these data

centers

in in these localities. One thing I want

to dispel this myth. These This is not

like organic hyper local protests by

people in a community that aren't being

spurred on.

This is highly organized activists that

are moving across the country to stir up

trouble in the exact same way they did

to stop all fission reactors being built

30 years ago in America. Now we have no

nuclear reactors being built. China's

got a hundred of them. Who was funding

those activists? I think we need to

really look into who's funding the

activists now. I'm not saying that there

aren't any concerns, but the

misinformation about water, the

misinformation about electricity bills

electricity bills are going up in the

places that are not building data

centers. New York and California because

they haven't built any supply on the

grid. In Texas, where you're building

the most data centers in the country,

electricity costs are going down. So, um

I'm I I I think that's a boogeyman that

we got to take on.

>> Sacks, sure that's

>> Well, look, the deal is highly

complimentary as Chamath and Brad

pointed out. SpaceX has a profitable, I

think very profitable,

space and telecommunications Starlink

business, the satellite business, but

the xAI business had huge losses. The

reason's pretty straightforward. You

need these super large training

clusters, but they cost a lot of money.

And until you have a model that's

capable of competing at the frontier,

you're not making any revenue. And that

problem was compounded by the fact that

right now all the revenue is in

enterprise, which is to say coding. We

know that xAI just did that deal with

Cursor to try and catch up, but they

don't have a coding product yet. So,

they're not participating in the

revenue, but they're participating in

all of the cost. So, this deal fixes

that problem.

Elon's now able to have a frontier model

company, but he's able to now not have

these massive unpaid for CapEx

commitments, right? Because he's able to

kind of lease that capacity. So, I think

it solves a major problem for them and

their balance sheet. And then you have

to say that for Anthropic, this is a

really great thing because they were

compute constrained.

And just to build on that point, I mean,

I guess let me be the first to

congratulate Dario on winning the AI

race.

>> And you've been Let's be honest, Sachs.

You have been

on this podcast, you've been moderately

critical of that company and Dario

himself for being um you know, a little

P-doomer 110. And on your X account,

you've been even a little spicier. So,

now that there's peace in the Middle

East of

of the AI business, what's your take

here?

>> My take is, look, let's just honestly

and accurately assess where the state of

this AI market is at right now and

Anthropic's place within it. So, for the

last 3 years, Anthropic has been growing

at a rate of 10x a year.

I think going into this year,

probably the conventional wisdom was

that there'd be no way to sustain that

kind of rate of growth at this level of

scale. And what happened in the first 4

months of the year? First, we find out

that from January 1st to March 31st,

they grew from roughly 10 billion of ARR

to 30 billion. So, it tripled. And then

in April, if anything, the rate of

increase seemed to accelerate. They went

from 30 to 44 billion of ARR. Nobody in

Silicon Valley has ever seen anything

like it. Forget about the rest of the

country. I mean, all we do in Silicon

Valley is deal with exponentials, and

still people have never seen that kind

of growth at that level of scale.

The only thing holding them back in the

future was compute. Now they've made

this deal. They've made other deals as

well to get that compute. I think it's

pretty much a foregone conclusion that

they will hit that forecast of 10x this

year, exiting the year at call it

roughly 100 billion of ARR. And now the

only question is whether they hit a

trillion

in 2027.

And we can debate whether that's

>> on board.

>> No, we can't we can debate whether

that's true or not. But look, if they do

that,

I think they'll easily be the most

valuable tech company in history. In

fact, they might even be more valuable

than the rest of the Mag 7 put together.

Just to give people some basis for

comparison here. You know, the biggest

tech companies Apple,

>> Nvidia,

>> Nvidia, Google. I think they they kind

of do around 4 to 500 billion a year

right now

of of revenue. I mean, I guess Nvidia's

a little bit of a different category,

but you look at you look at Google.

>> the three

>> The hyperscalers, yeah. I mean, Google

is doing what? Like 120 billion a

quarter? Something like that. 100

billion a quarter.

>> Correct.

>> But growing at what? 20% year over year?

Not 100% and certainly not 1,000%.

So, the fact that Anthropic could be on

track, in fact, let me correct that.

>> them going to the Mag 8? It'll be a Mag

8.

>> I'm saying something else, which is that

unless something about their current

trajectory

changes,

Anthropic will be the most powerful

monopoly ever created in human history.

>> Go.

>> Again, it will be, you know, a trillion

dollars of ARR growing at some

exponential

>> Interesting.

>> Dario calls it AGI. I call it the

biggest monopoly in human history.

>> Interesting to hear that word monopoly,

Sacks. Very interesting placement.

Chamath, go ahead and then I'll move on.

>> Apple in 2025 was 420 billion.

Microsoft was 300 billion. Alphabet was

390 billion. Amazon 700 billion. Nvidia

190 billion. Meta 185 billion. Tesla 110

billion. Total

about 2.3 to 2.35 trillion. So, if Sacks

is right

and Anthropic,

you know, can tack on a trillion, it

won't be the Mag 7, it'll be the Mag 1.

>> Just to put it in perspective though,

Dario and Dwarkesh said he thought the

combined AI revenue

of the market leaders would be about a

trillion in 2029. I love what you're

saying, Zach. I think there is unlimited

TAM. We may be over our skis a little

bit in terms of, you know, the forecast.

If you back your way from compute,

right? They're They expect to have 5

gigs by the end of this year, 10 gigs by

the end of next year. It's kind of hard

to get to those numbers for a single

company, but I do believe that you know,

the trajectory that they're on, I

totally agree with you, is on an

exponential that not many people

believed in 4 months ago.

>> Right. So then the question is, okay, I

think we all agree they're on an

exponential curve and that the TAM is

big enough to support that. Just one

data point on TAM. My understanding of

the total market size just on coding

is 1 trillion, meaning that a trillion

dollars a year roughly is spent on

software developers and all things

related to the creation of software.

Now, I'm not saying that they eat that

entire market, but I can easily see the

market for software doubling.

>> Well, hold on. It's doubling from a

trillion to 2 trillion given that

coding tokens basically 10 X's or 100

X's the value of that market and the

ability to generate code. So, I think we

all agree that the TAM here is large

enough to support a trillion dollars of

revenue. Brad, I think you bring up a

couple of really important constraints.

First, there may not be enough compute

and there's not enough energy. I'd say

the second big one is, what's the

competitive reaction going to be?

Because I would say at the beginning of

this year all these frontier labs were

playing around with a lot of different

things. I mean,

Anthropic was the porcupine. They

believed in one thing. All these other

companies were kind of acting like the

fox who thinks they're good at a lot of

different things. They were doing nano

banana, they were doing Sora, they were

doing, you know, they were doing image

generation, they were doing fantasy

character chatbots. In hindsight, they

were doing a lot of things that appeared

to be kind of a waste of time. The whole

market appears now to be coding and the

things that we built on coding tokens

like co-work, like agents. And so there

is going to be a competitive response

here where all the other guys realize,

"Oh, wait a second. We were misfocused."

They're going to get focused. I just

don't know how much share they're going

to be able to take. It does look like

OpenAI has already made the pivot. We

hear very good things about Codex now

based on GPT 5.5. 5.5 is based on a new

base model called Spud. I think they're

very optimistic about continuing

improvements. Their rate of growth

appears to be accelerating now because

of 5.5.

So, look, there's reason to believe that

OpenAI can take some share here. I'm

sure that Google won't be asleep at the

wheel. They're very, very good at

coding. They've got a really good team.

And Elon just tied up with Cursor. So,

there is going to be more competition.

But still, what you have to say,

and I think all of us know this from

Silicon Valley, is you always want to be

the company in the lead that's on that

trajectory where all you have to do is

maintain inertia, whereas the other

people have to change something in order

to put themselves back in the race. So,

this is when when I say somewhat sort of

facetiously, "Congratulations, Dario, on

winning the AI race." I don't mean that

he's won it, but he is winning it right

now.

>> Well, here's the the brilliance of what

Elon's doing. If you look at the

existing business, which is Starlink and

basically the launch services at SpaceX,

incredible business, obviously.

20 billion this year, I think is the

estimate. But if you look at the

footprint of Amazon Web Services, Azure,

and GCP, you're looking at, you know,

300 billion dollars in revenue

and a market cap of combined 5 trillion,

4 trillion if these were independent

companies. And if you look at what is

Elon's core competency at Tesla, it's

building factories. And if you look at

the footprint of these factories,

they're huge. What are data centers?

They're basically big giant factories.

And then if you look at energy, what

else is Elon extremely good at? This is

the battery deployment and he's also got

solar deployment from the SolarCity

often criticized acquisition he did

years ago. So you put this all together,

if this is 5 billion as I think you

referenced Brad, if it's $5 billion in

incremental

Elon web services business and he's a

neo cloud,

what could he build on planet Earth?

What could he build inside of Tesla's in

terms of extra compute? What could he

build inside the power wall? What if the

power walls had his new fabs in them and

you built a distributed system from home

to home? The power wall has compute in

it, the cars have compute in it and of

course

the ultimate manifestation of this where

nobody can complain is you go right out

into space. And that's what he's going

to do and the the sneaky small part of

this announcement from Elon and from

Anthropic and Dario was they're also

interested in space. So look for the

race to go from factories and data

centers to homes, the power wall with

compute in it. It's already online,

right? And Starlink also gives him the

ability to do distributed compute to

people's homes. Again, you could be

paying people to put power walls with

computer in it. That's going to be the

next shoe to drop, I believe.

>> Did you guys see the deal that was

announced

yesterday

between Pulte Homes, which is a huge

builder,

>> Yes. They're doing it as well.

>> and Span?

>> Yes.

>> Nick, just throw this up here. It's

super cool. What's happening is that

these guys

are putting

many data centers with Nvidia GPU

clusters

beside every home and then allowing

people to actually run those things and

that's just incredible. I thought that

was so cool.

>> It's a great pivot. What this company

did originally Chamath was they did the

power panel. They made smart power

panels. So you know when you flip your

breakers,

all those breakers are in an app. I

looked at it for my house, but I guess

they pivoted to add this and I think

Base Power Brad urine industrial unit

they're going to do the same thing.

>> Yep, Zach Dell's doing that. One of the

things I just would say in response

Jason to what you just said about Elon,

right? This is why the SpaceX IPO is

going to trade at 40 to 50 times

revenue. Okay, so next year if they do

40 to 50 billion, and this thing goes

out at 2 trillion, right? That they're

going to trade at a really high revenue

multiple compared to the Mag 5 that are

trading at like 25 times earnings. And

there's only one person on the planet

who has a future pipeline of innovation

and the largest TAM in the world because

he's playing in all these different

spaces that can command that multiple,

and it's Elon, and it's deserved, and

it's great for the country.

>> same Tesla's has that same Elon

variable in it as well, which is people

value his companies at I would say two

times market, three times market, four

times market because of the future

pipeline. You guys And they devalue

Apple because they don't have somebody

like Elon or Steve Jobs there who is

giving them the future.

>> I don't think it's devalued. I think

>> Or properly valued if you don't have an

Elon and you have somebody like I think

that's exactly what it is. We talked

about this last week, but explain why

you think it's different.

>> all of these companies are actually very

fairly valued, and then

Elon world gets a premium.

>> Totally.

>> And that premium is because of what you

guys said. That I agree with. The big

message that I take away from this,

which the markets

and retail are telling you is

you guys have stopped innovating.

There's a lot of incrementalism,

and we as a society aren't benefiting

broadly the way that you told us we

would be.

And so maybe this is the best way for

them to get this message, which is to

whack their valuation. And by the way,

I'll just say it again, when Tesla and

SpaceX merge and we have all things Elon

in Elon Corp, okay, which will happen

probably by at end of the year, maybe

it'll happen the middle of next year.

It's going to then break everybody's

brains again because you'll have this

one asset, as you guys said, that will

trade at a valuation premium. And some

people will say it's unexplainable. And

I think it's logically explainable,

which is everybody else has stopped

innovating. People know how to draw more

blood from the stone, how to target

better ads.

That does nothing for society anymore.

>> Yeah. That's it. Literally.

>> In fact, it does the opposite. It There

is no good left.

>> That was literally the exact point I was

making when you cut me off. If you look,

Tim Cook's greatest innovation

Tim Cook's greatest innovation, before

you cut me off, was Apple TV. Not even

the hardware product. It was just

spending money and making a Netflix

knockoff. There's been no other product

>> Hold on. Let me finish again before you

interrupt me making my point.

>> that? You don't like being interrupted?

>> Oh, no. Oh, yeah. Well, okay. Okay.

>> Interesting.

>> Pot meet kettle.

If you look at their track record, and I

think this is why we had a change there

is they have not done anything

innovative. And in fact, the things they

were doing that were innovating in AI or

self-driving cars, they shut down. They

won't take any swing for the bat. So,

they are getting penalized in their

valuation.

>> They're just not getting a premium.

They're not getting penalized.

>> I think they're getting penalized.

>> metric, they're trading at incredible

valuations. Just look at them.

>> Oh, no. I don't I I mean, if you compare

the two valuations, I think they're

being penalized. Anyway, let's Anybody

else want to get in on this before we

move on to the next one? Yeah.

>> There is no world in which Google and

Meta and Apple and Amazon could be

viewed as being penalized in valuation.

There is very clearly a world where Elon

gets a massive premium because he's

innovating.

>> You're saying the same things. You're

saying the same things.

>> we're saying the same thing. It's not

the same thing.

>> We're I think we're we're debating

semantics here. I'm not letting you off

the hook, Saxby poo.

When Sax is very deliberate in how he

speaks, they said he's the captain of

the debate club in his 20,000 word

article this week and that he's a master

debater. He's a masturbator. And

you slipped in you slipped it in.

Are you saying that the FTC or whoever

should be going in and looking at

Anthropic? Oh, Brad's book is getting

attacked headwinds. You said they're a

monopoly or they're heading to monopoly

tactics Sacks is are that what you're

saying?

>> Well, look, I mean we know that tech

markets have a history of consolidating

down and turning into either monopolies

or duopolies. And if you just look at

the revenue right now, there's only two

companies making substantial revenue on

AI. It's Anthropic and Open AI. We know

that Open AI is growing at three to four

X, which is incredible at the level of

scale they're at. Anthropic though we

said is growing at an exponential 10 X a

year. And if they just do that for 18

more months, they'll be by far the most

valuable company in human history and

they'll have unprecedented control over

the most important technology of our

time. So, I don't know what you call

that,

but it is something to think about. And

I guess I do have a thought experiment

for you guys,

which is

I just want you to think for a second

about the case of of John D.

Rockefeller, who I think is known as

probably

the most successful greatest most

ruthless monopolist in in American

history. But he wasn't very good at PR.

He was terrible at PR. Everyone sort of

recognized how ruthless he is. We see

movies like There Will Be Blood, which

is basically about him. In any event,

imagine if John D. Rockefeller was way

better at public relations. And instead

of calling his company Standard Oil, he

called it Safe Oil. Okay, let's just

let's just play this thought experiment.

>> Clean beautiful coal. Yes.

>> Safe oil. He called it safe oil because

as we know kerosene is dangerous. Their

first big product was kerosene. And

kerosene can light your house or it can

burn it down.

And in the wrong hands, it can torch a

city or you can use it to make a bomb.

So, John D

let's say should have called for the

creation of a new government agency to

regulate the safety of his product. And

they could have done rigorous testing,

licensing, common sense regulation.

There would have been a very intense

debate over safety standards.

You know, what should the proper wick

thickness be? And should we allow all

those

dangerous independent refiners, right?

And I think people would have gotten so

wrapped up in this debate over what

constituted safe oil or safe kerosene

that they would have missed what was

really going on, which is that

Rockefeller was building the richest,

most powerful monopoly of all time. In

fact, people might even have called

Rockefeller an effective altruist

because of course he was so concerned

about the safety

of his product.

>> it. Shout out to David Sacks and

writers. Great, great, great [laughter]

writers.

>> Newman? Newman wrote this?

>> No, I wrote it.

>> Well, Emmy award for best writing in a

dramatic monologue goes to Newman. Wow,

Sacks.

>> No, that's my writing.

>> You landed it. Very good, Sacks.

>> I thought after the Elon Anthropic

detente where Elon said, you know,

complimented Anthropic that and David

started off with a bit of a compliment,

I thought we maybe were past this.

First, it's ridiculous to think of this

as a monopoly. You know, we're talking

about annual run rate revenues, David,

but on a GAAP basis, they're doing about

the same revenue as OpenAI in the month

of March. Okay? So, we're way ahead of

ourselves. By the way, 5 months ago,

everybody thought OpenAI was going to

run away with this. Google's revenues

are very substantial in AI. And by the

way, Google, Amazon, etc., these

companies are producing $100 of free

cash flow to justify their incremental

investment. At the same time, you have

these two startups that are still

fledgling, that are still fragile in the

scheme of things,

you of all people should know we've got

the best competition in AI on the

planet, which is why we're at the

frontier and kicking the tail of

everybody else on the planet. So, I just

want to see these companies compete. I

want to see DC stay out of the way. The

last thing I want to be doing is is is,

you know, seeing people talk about this

and throwing roadblocks into the way of

the competition.

>> Um I think Anthropic is

>> Well, let me let me hold on. Let me

>> Translate Brad for you. Don't with

my paper is what he's saying. He's

[laughter] got bets on these. So, Sax,

Washington, D.C., don't with Brad's

paper. Sax, uh you want to get into the

uh regulation stuff right now as a segue

or

>> Let me respond to Brad and also

translate what I'm saying satirically,

okay?

>> Satirically.

>> First of all, nobody wants to see these

companies compete vigorously more than

me. That was the whole premise

of the action plan that we worked on

last year is we want to bring out the

best in everyone. This is how America's

going to win the AI race. We have five

major labs vigorously competing.

And as long as that competition is

taking place, that I think that's a good

thing. Doesn't mean we can't have

guardrails and the rest of it, but

basically, competition should be our

North Star.

All of that being said, okay, what I am

pointing out and I I think it's

historically true

that people in Washington have woken up

to monopolies

on the late side, not early, right?

Because I mean, once a company has won

80% of the market, that's when they wake

up and say, "Oh, we have a monopoly

here."

And I'm not saying that they have a

monopoly yet, but if the trajectory

continues for just 18 more months,

then I think it will be in this

unpresently powerful position.

>> I mean I mean

>> And and hold on. And I don't think

people should be distracted from that

fact

by this rhetoric around safety because

someone like Rockefeller could have used

it, too.

And I do think let me just like one one

last point on this. I do think that if

you actually look

at what a lot of the the safetyist

policies are calling for,

they're basically calling for a form of

regulatory capture and they're calling

for things that would create a stronger

moat around this monopoly or duopoly

that's in the process of being created

and it would get in the way of

competition. So again, I think that

people

might not have such a terrible view

of all of this safety rhetoric if they

understood

that what was being created here is the

biggest monopoly in human history.

And I think we should just be a little

bit more skeptical about some of these

altruistic claims. I can't believe that

David is like you know, talking

monopolies when we haven't even left the

starting gate

of AI. I I I I think this is a uh

to me

>> There's only two companies with revenue.

>> thing I want is DC trying to

preemptively preemptively, which would

be like a disastrous consequence, get in

the game of picking winners and losers

at the starting line of AI. That would

be a disaster.

>> Brad, did you just put another soapbox

on top of the soapbox you were standing

on?

>> [laughter]

>> Look Brad, like I said, my North Star is

competition. As long as there's

competition going on, I support it.

Hold on. Hold on. We know that

monopolists want to stop competition and

they use regulatory capture to do it.

And furthermore, they do things like ban

their competitors from using their

product. What conceivable reason

did Anthropic have for banning open claw

using its models? That is

anti-competitive. Is it not?

>> I I I would double click on it. I would

double click on it. I might not, you

know, file, but I would double click.

Okay, listen. Chamath, the girls are

fighting. Let's keep moving through the

docket. We're going to be here all day

with these two and one thing that you're

going to need to act on very quickly is

the All-In Summit. It's selling out

fast. Don't miss it. Speakers are top

tier again. Freeberg busy working on

some amazing speakers. Sachs will be

there. He's flying in and out every day

for 4 hours and then

>> [laughter]

>> we're

we're going to have a lot of networking

stuff going down. We're building some

networking software. So, when you come

to our events, you get to meet people.

That's what we always say. My playbook

for events, if you learn something from

the speakers every day, one or two

things, if you meet somebody new and you

eat some great food and have some fun,

you get two or three of those things,

man, even if you get one, you're going

to come back to the event. You're going

to get all three all day long.

allin.com/events Los Angeles September

13th, 14th, and 15th. Apologies to

everybody asking, but liquidity is sold

out and we've shut down the waitlist.

There's just no more room. All right,

the White House allegedly possibly is

considering, according to reports,

an FDA for AI. That would vet You heard

that correct, folks. That would vet new

models for safety. The thing we've been

talking about not doing here. The thing

David Sacks has spent the last year on.

The White House is considering. New York

Times reported Trump is considering an

executive order to create an quote AI

working group. This group would include

tech execs and government officials who

would quote examine potential oversight

procedures

including quote a review process for new

AI models. Oy. According to the report,

the catalyst was wait for it,

Anthropic's model,

which reportedly scared, spooked, made

people really nervous at the White

House. Quote, the White House wants to

avoid any political repercussions if a

devastating AI-enabled cyberattack were

to occur. They want to see why A,

according to the New York Times. Kevin

Hassett, that guy, the director of the

National Economic Council confirmed the

report on Fox Business. Here's your

15-second clip.

>> We're studying possibly an executive

order to give a clear roadmap to

everybody about how this is going to go

and how future AIs that also potentially

create vulnerabilities should go through

a process so that, you know, they're

released into the wild after they've

been proven safe, just like an FDA drug.

>> Additionally,

friend of the pod,

Scott Bessent, had something to say.

>> had in the past month was a step change

in the power of one large language

model, but we're going to see it from

the other

AI companies. What we are determined to

do is work with our AI companies to

allow them to continue innovate, but our

charge of the US government is

maintaining safety, and there there is a

very important calculus here between

innovation and safety, and at the the US

government, we're going to make sure

that things stay safe.

>> There you go. Kevin Hassett and

Bessent.

Slightly different positions here, Brad.

What do you think?

>> Actually, I don't think they're slightly

different positions, but I I I would

agree that Kevin bringing up the FDA

kind of muddied the waters. I talked to

Kevin last night after that clip ran.

You know, and I asked him. I I just

said, "Do you think FDA is the right

analog here?" And he said, "You know, I

was I was only bringing it up to say

that they we want them to show us the

models so that we can coordinate them.

Obviously, our job is to make sure that

the government is prepared, that we

harden our systems, that our

intelligence agencies are up to speed,

but he does not think and I can't find

anybody

on the right

you know, that believes that we're going

to move to an approval regime, right?

The approval regime, this idea that

you're going to have to share every

model with an FDA in Washington, and

they're going to have to pre-approve the

model is a disaster. Sachs has been

effectively fighting against this

correctly over the course of the last

year. It would just it would lead to

three bad things. Number one, we do not

want to put the Washington in in the

position of picking winners and losers

when it comes to these models. We're

winning. We're on the winning horse in

America. We're out in front of the rest

of the world. There's no reason to

change horses and regimes at this point.

And we don't want to burden this with

more democracy. But at the same time,

obviously, I call these pre-AGI or AGI

models, Mistral, Spud, etc. I see a lot

of coordination going on between the

industry and government. I think we can

do an even better job of a evolving that

framework so that everybody in

government is on the same page. We need

to build more capacity in government to

quickly be able to do the cyber review

on these models. Right now, it takes too

long when the coordination does occur.

So, we need to have a finite amount of

time that they give government feedback,

etc.

But the last thing that we want is an

FDA of models sitting in Washington.

Kevin understands that. Scott Bessent

understands that. So, I expect that we

will continue down the path that we've

been on. Chamath, obviously, I think we

all agree we don't need an FDA for AI,

but

there are things that a reasonably

people would want to have guardrails

around AI. I'm sure you would agree. It

shouldn't be a total free-for-all. So,

what's your take on this? Is it just

somebody gave a bad analogy here? Or

maybe some people were weaseling their

way into the White House to try to shift

things when Sachs was back at home or

something? What what's going on here?

Give us the uh Cuz that's what I That's

what people say. They say the last

person to talk to Trump kind of has his

ear and that things can bend a certain

way.

>> I don't think it's that. I think that

there's a pretty profound vibe shift

with respect to tech tech oligarchs,

Silicon Valley, and particularly the AI.

That vibe shift has already happened on

Main Street.

And I think that that's starting to seep

into Washington. I think that

regulations are coming.

I think they'll be worse under a

democratic regime,

but I think that some form of oversight

is going to exist under a Republican

regime.

The question that I think is worth

asking is why.

And if you listen to everybody's tone,

it's all around the negatives of AI.

So, I think we suffer from two things.

Number one is we have horrible

messaging.

Nobody spends the time

and the money to articulate the positive

upside case

so that there's broad-based support. And

two,

the idea that there's going to be a

Sachs said earlier,

a few winners and many, many, many

potential losers,

I think is really disconcerting to

everybody.

And the response from the tech

community,

again, should be the leadership of the

tech world

coming together

and actually reinvesting in America writ

large. They're not doing that in enough

of a scale that blunts this. So, what

you're seeing is the build-up of

antibodies.

Is it avoidable? Yes.

Are we doing a good job of avoiding it?

Absolutely not. We're doing a horrible

job. I'd give the community, the tech

leaders, a D- minus

trending to an F.

The response is what we're seeing. So, I

think the question, Jason, isn't

regulation, no regulation, it's why did

we get here?

And I think we got here because the

other version, the glass half full

version, the demonstrated investment,

the broad-based uplifting of American

society hasn't happened. And if it has,

it's been very poorly communicated. And

so, the response is,

"Hey, hold on. We're going to give three

guys trillion-dollar net worths, and

we're going to allow them to control the

keys?"

That's why this is happening.

>> Exactly correct. And it's very easy,

Sachs, to imagine all the bad things

that That happen. Our minds are

constructed to do that. We're vigilant.

We look out for the tiger or, you know,

the tornado to keep ourselves safe.

Humans have a bias towards safety and

they're going to think about, you know,

deep fakes. They're going to think about

robotics. They're going to think about

self-driving cars taking people's jobs.

They're going to think about, you know,

all the dark things that could happen,

bio weapons, etc. And we don't have

anybody out there really talking about

all the positives that could happen.

What's your take on

the palace intrigue we all have here?

What's going on in the palace, in the

47th administration, around this debate?

Who's leading Trump down the path of

regulation and creating this AI FDA? We

know you're part of the camp that wants

to keep this train moving and not

overregulated, not have regulatory

capture. Who are the people trying to

slow this down?

>> Well, look, I I think there's several

things going on here. The first one is

there's a lot of fake news. This whole

idea of an FDA for AI, I don't think any

senior official supports it, just like

Brad was saying.

I spoke to Hassabis well. That's not

where his head is at. So, I don't think

anybody in the administration is saying

they want an FDA for AI. Certainly, I

don't think that's the way the president

thinks about these issues. He's the most

pro-innovation president we've ever had.

And the White House Chief of Staff,

Susie Wiles, just put out a statement

last night that I think pretty much

shoots this down. So, I think there's a

big fake news component. Remember, it

was not really the White House who was

saying it was the New York Times.

>> Mhm.

>> And really, I think actually Andrew Ross

Sorkin,

now I'm not criticizing him, but he's a

commentator and he's the one who said

this first and then somehow that spin or

that gloss

somehow took on a life of its own. And I

think

Silicon Valley reacted accordingly.

There's a very visceral negative

reaction here because we know how

damaging that would be to innovation.

But, look, I think the good news is that

that was fake news. Second,

I think that there's another thing going

on, which is a straw manning of what

the Trump administration did on AI in

its first year.

And in the same way that they want to

spin this FDA for AI, they're also

trying to spin what we did as this

completely laissez-faire attitude where

there'd be no regulations whatsoever, no

guardrails. It's a way of criticizing

what we did. They're trying to portray

it as unsafe. In fact, if you look on

March 20th, White House released

a national AI regulatory framework that

I worked on,

in which we put out a four-page bulleted

list of legislation that we would

support if Congress wants to pass it.

So, we have not been against every

conceivable regulation or every

conceivable law. We just believe that

there should be specific solutions to

specific problems, as opposed to a giant

power grab by Washington that would

squash innovation. So, I think that's

point number two.

Point number three is, there is a

legitimate thing happening here with

let's call it Mythos or cyber. Okay, we

know that it's not just Mythos,

OpenAI now has a model that's just as

cyber capable as Mythos, and within

three to six months all the major

frontier labs, and including Chinese

models, will have cyber capabilities.

In response to that, we do need there to

be a hardening of systems, and we do

need there to be a scanning of codebases

to find these vulnerabilities and patch

them before the hackers do it, because

the hackers will have these capabilities

in a matter of months. That's a

certainty. Because the same capabilities

you use for cyber defense can also be

used for cyber offense. It's the same

tool set. And the open source models

will have these capabilities anyway.

>> have it to a certain extent, let's be

honest. They have 80% of it, 90% of it.

>> it's simply the case that AI will be

good at cyber. And so, we do need a

response to that. Now, my view on what

should that response be should be first

of all, we should want the government

and the private sector to work

cooperatively, and I think they are. We

have a giant cybersecurity industry in

the United States whose sole job it is

to protect systems and protect against

breaches.

>> We have the best companies in the world

at doing that. We have CrowdStrike, we

have Palo Alto Networks, we talked about

that before. We have the best defense.

>> Right, exactly. And so, what we should

be doing, I think, is getting these

tools, Methos and then the OpenAI model

and and others like it in the hands of

our cybersecurity industry. And by the

way, not just the public companies like

Palo Alto Networks and CrowdStrike, all

those certainly. They're two of the most

noteworthy, but there's also some

incredibly strong startups on the way

out.

>> a long tail of hundreds of companies

that are doing Yes.

>> AI-powered pen testing and all the rest

of it. We need to get these tools into

their hands as quickly as possible

because they're a force multiplier. For

all the companies out there that aren't

that good at cybersecurity or maybe

they've got IT departments, they can use

these companies as vendors. So, I think

that there is a role for us to play.

>> Yeah. Do you think that the models

should

have a KYC wrapper going forward?

>> KYC for the audience is know your

customer.

>> Yeah.

>> Yeah, so what really what it would mean

is that before you can use

Methos, you have to identify yourself so

that we can try to know that you're not

a

state-sponsored actor or, you know, a

bad guy.

>> I think that's the type of thing that we

should be thinking about. So, first of

all, I want to say that both Anthropic

and OpenAI acted responsibly here. No

one was trying to release these super

powerful models. So, in a way, all the

people who are saying that we need

pre-release approvals for models,

they're trying to solve a problem that

didn't exist. Anthropic wasn't

>> which

is the ideal situation.

>> trying to release this. They all

understood the power and they were all

acting responsibly.

>> They understood the ramifications,

because they would have been sued. So,

there is a self-policing going on here,

which is the ultimate way to do this.

>> Yes. And but to your point, Chamath,

yeah, look, I think that before giving

your API for a super powerful model, you

should not give that to a company or an

actor you don't know who they are. So,

yeah, some basic KYC makes sense. They

should know who they're giving these

tools to. And I guess my view on the

Mythos preview and whatever the

equivalent is of what Open AI is doing

is that we very rapidly need to get

these tools into the hands of more good

guys. You need to know who those good

guys are. You need to know who they are.

So, yeah, KYC is like a predicate for

that, right? You got to know who they

are.

>> Just to be clear, we'd all agree that if

you did have identity for those frontier

models, which they're probably doing

anyway right now, and you logged what

people were doing with them to look for

security breaches, that wouldn't

necessarily happen when you released it

to the public because of privacy issues.

Here's your Polymarket

for Trump ordering a federal review of

AI models by May 31st, 21% chance. I

think

to our partner at Polymarket, man, I I

got to get in here. I don't Do I have

inside information here being

the world's greatest moderator on this

podcast or I can Can I collect this

money, Chamath? What am I going to do

here?

>> I would not Do not Do not place a bet, J

Cal.

>> Don't place a bet.

>> Don't place a bet. But

to Chamath's point, I mean, look, I

think we're kind of work shopping this

in real time.

>> We are. We should say

>> I think that I think that for the

preview period, we should definitely

have KYC.

Maybe

>> logging? What about logging?

>> Well, look, once you're past the preview

period and it's in general release,

I'm not sure if the KYC matters as much

because so many people are going to have

it. But during the preview period, there

should be KYC.

>> Let me Let me just say one thing. All

the labs are already tracking API use,

okay? And anything suspicious, because

they they're they're there are major

anti-distillation efforts going on by

all the labs. There's a ton of

coordination going on with the

government. There's way more happening,

I think, in terms of our API and API

use. Um and anything suspicious is being

flagged

and being shared with the government.

So, the idea that we have no idea who's

doing it, I think, is not the case. And

in fact, in some cases, we may want to

allow people to use it so that we can

see exactly the types of things that

they are extracting. So, I would just I

would say we're already down that path,

but better coordination

may may may, in fact, be called for.

>> Yeah. And just one last point in this

whole thing is I just want to build on

my point that pre-release approvals are

solving a problem that didn't really

exist because, again, Anthropic and

OpenAI weren't trying to release these

models yet is that there is a

substantial faction of, let's say, AI

ideologues or doomers who

are basically employing the classic

never let a crisis go to waste strategy,

right? That, yes, we do have this cyber

issue that is real. You know, everyone

needs to harden their systems now over

the next three to six months. That is a

real issue.

But that is a problem that we will solve

over the next six months. We have to.

But what they're trying to do is use

that issue to try and create a permanent

new infrastructure in Washington. Again,

I don't think the That's not the

administration's intention. That's not

the administration's agenda. But you saw

a lot of people

on social media, a lot of the think

tanks, and even Bernie Sanders weighed

in. And he said, "For the first time, I

like something that

>> This is great.

The administration understands the 1% of

the 1% tax, and everybody understand

that this is out of control. The AI is

going to take the jobs. They're going to

take my summer home. It's going to be

terrible."

>> So, there are people who have this

agenda. Look, Bernie Sanders just wants

to stop the progress. I mean, he's

>> Of course, I do.

>> He wants to ban data centers. He's put

out a bunch of things.

>> He He basically has bought into the

whole doomer narrative. So, look, that's

why he likes the FDA

idea is because it would put the kibosh

on innovation.

>> already. Let's give Let's have a go back

to paper and pen. It was a better

society, Sachs.

>> Jason, what do you think?

>> I think there's two really interesting

things I want to build on here. The

first is your point, Chamath,

around how do we turn around the sort of

bad vibes around AI? I think we have to

have two strategies here. One is giving

what you've been working on, Brad, with

your project. We should see more people

giving. There's no reason why Nvidia,

SpaceX when they go public,

Anthropic when they go public, OpenAI if

and when they go public or if they

become stay as nonprofit, there's no

reason those folks in an IPO couldn't

give a portion of the IPO to every

American citizen. So, IPOK, IPO for

kids, they all take, you know, whatever

it is, 5%, 1%, whatever they choose, and

they put it into the Invest America

accounts. And we should see some major

giving from the people who are becoming

trillionaires, hundred billionaires,

whatever it happens to be. There's no

reason not to. But those people haven't

been doing that. We had this giving

pledge, which was a little bit of virtue

signaling, and it wasn't real. It was

just, you know, at the end of your life

you promised to give away half your

money. So, let's have something real.

Let's have something where, you know,

people say I'm going to give away 1% of

my stock over the next 20 years of my

life. Every year 1% will go into Invest

America, whatever it is. It won't cost

anybody anything. You can't spend this

money, whether it's Bezos or whatever.

Second,

and that same thing in terms of giving

back, we have not talked about how

massive this could be for health and

extending people's life and reducing

suffering. We need to work on that.

That's where contributions to basic

science could come in, and obviously

education and lowering the cost of

education. And if you look at what

Americans on the bottom have, you were

talking about the, you know, cup half

empty. There's really two or three

things they really feel anxiety about.

One of it is income, and the second is

health care.

And on the margins, housing and their

kids, you know, their kids' education

and the cost of those things.

We should really take a look deeply at,

and I know this is very unpopular

amongst capitalists, including myself.

We should really look at the minimum

wage and study what happened in New

Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland,

Australia when they raised it. What

actually happened when they raised it

and there was a lot of hand-wringing

about it. But when they slowly raised it

what they found was those consumers

don't save money, they spend it. They're

always behind the eight ball in terms of

their spending. We should opt in to

trying to raise the minimum wage company

by company by company and just give

people who are at the end of the

spectrum that understanding that, "Hey,

year over year, whether it's Amazon or

Target, etc., restaurants, we're all

collectively going to add a little bit

to that minimum wage and try to lift the

bottom third of society." That's the

stuff we're not talking about. We don't

talk about it here on this podcast, we

don't talk about universal health care,

we don't talk about the minimum wage,

but that's what capitalists should be

talking about. And if we did that, if we

increased the minimum wage, and I'm not

a socialist, I'm a capitalist who thinks

this is good for capitalism. If we

increased the minimum wage just modestly

each year

and we opted into doing that and we

figured out a way to give universal

health care, companies wouldn't have to

deal with universal health care and we

would have customers, and we're a

customer driven economy. Like 60, 70,

80% of what happens in this country is

driven by the consumer. We need consumer

spending. It's great for companies if we

had more people being able to buy

Netflix or order on Amazon. Anyway,

that's my that's my TED Talk. Thanks for

coming. How do we get from AI to the

minimum wage? I'm still a little bit

confused. I don't know. No, the black

eye we have in this country with

polarization of wealth and people scared

of losing their jobs. We We should look

at why are they scared, David? And I've

talked to you privately and you said to

to privately, you can strike this if you

want, But, you said to me privately, you

wouldn't be against necessarily figuring

out a way to you do universal health

care if there was a way to do it. You

want to see every human have health

care, yes?

>> Sure. I mean, the issue is not the

desirability of it, it's the cost. I

mean

>> So, you're the real entrepreneur of our

time. How would you do it? Have you

given any cycle to it?

>> I haven't studied that issue, so I don't

know. I just know that

countries

I remember what P.J. O'Rourke once said,

which is if you think health care is

expensive now, just wait until you make

it free.

>> [laughter]

>> And

uh so, you take away all the incentives,

and you have a even bigger problem.

>> Well, what do you think of minimum wage?

Yeah, go ahead.

>> Well, let me just Can we just get back

to AI? Listen, you guys are right about

the unpopularity of AI. We've all seen

those polls, but I want to just put up

this additional poll that came out about

the salience of this issue, which is how

important do people think it is.

And AI ranked 29 out of 39. So, although

AI is not very popular, it is certainly

not top of mind for voters. It's not in

the top 10 issues. It's not in the top

20 issues. What is top of mind for

voters? Number one, cost of living.

Number two, the economy. And we know

that AI is deflationary. It helps with

the cost of living, and it's creating an

economic boom right now, okay? It's 75%

of GDP growth in Q1. By the way, that

that economic growth is not just limited

to startups in Silicon Valley. We're

seeing a construction boom. We're seeing

a blue collar boom. We're seeing 25 to

30% wage increases for uh construction

workers.

>> And so on down the line. So,

>> And Brad, if you if you look at that

chart, there's health care in there,

too.

>> So, look, my point is that AI may not be

popular, but the effects of it actually

are popular if the media would honestly

report what was happening, which is AI

is creating an economic boom right now.

>> It couldn't be better said, David. You

know, Bernie Sanders calling for a

moratorium, shutting down all data data

centers. We'd have negative GDP growth

this year. The stock market would be

down 15 to 20%. Unemployment would be on

the rise. You know, there is a

consequence to the government

controlling through command and control

the economy. In 1929, we had 4%

unemployment. 3 years later, it was

unemployment was 23%

because government got involved in

regulating everything and shutting down,

you know, what was working. That is the

greatest threat we have here. AI is

delivering huge net benefits today in

terms of unemployment rate, in terms of

economic growth and productivity growth.

We need to tell the story. But, to

Chamath's earlier point, we also need to

deliver net benefits. Jason, thanks for

the shout-out. Yes, every American

having an investment account that

compounds with the upside of AI, we're

going to do that. Going to deliver that,

and that's going to be massive. But, I

also think ideas like, if we're going to

put a data center in Abilene, Texas,

let's make electricity in Abilene free

for the households in Abilene, Texas,

right? There are ideas that can deliver

net benefits. We got to deliver those. I

think we're Optimism will be on the

march. I think we're in the trough right

now.

>> What's your take on minimum wage and,

you know, how do you think about it as a

capitalist, as an innovator, and in the

face of AI, which could have a dramatic

impact on these issues? You know, like

Zach's, I I you know, to me I haven't

spent a ton of time thinking about those

except that as a society, we're $38

trillion in debt. We haven't been able

to afford to deliver those things. I

generally think the market works out

those

You know, like Zach's, I I you know, to

me I haven't spent a ton of time

thinking about those except that as a

society, we're $38 trillion in debt. We

haven't been able to afford to deliver

those things. I generally think the

market works out those

issues better than the government

top-down trying to, you know, the

government gets more and more involved

in healthcare, and the only thing that

happens it gets more expensive. So,

we've all seen the charts of the most

expensive categories where we've had

inflation, education, healthcare, etc.

It's where the government's involved. I

actually think if you just let the

markets work, we're entering into an age

of abundance. A lot of these problems

are going to be solved. People are going

to have a lot of AI coaches in

healthcare and education, etc. Let the

market work. Government stay at bay,

keep things safe. We're on a good march.

>> I think this

proves my point perfectly. If you talk

to any founder, they're not thinking

about housing, they're not thinking

about higher education costs, they're

not thinking about minimum wage, you

know, and they're not thinking about

healthcare all that often. Some Some do

though, there's some innovation there.

And it's because it's so regulated that

entrepreneurs and VCs are just like

that's Kryptonite, the government has

poisoned the well, we can't participate

in that. And that's the roadblock and

that's where Americans are suffering and

that's where it would be great if

founders actually put their minds to it

and the government's got to get rid of

all that regulation and let us cook in

those specific verticals. All right, the

market is in hyperdrive. Hyperscaler

revenue has made the markets move up. We

hit on this briefly, but we didn't have

you here. Fifth best EB G cloud

computing on a tear. I referenced it

earlier, but AWS is now on a $150

billion run rate. Azure 108 billion, GCP

Google Cloud 80 billion. There's a

little bit of fun with numbers there,

Chris. Azure and Microsoft include some

of their software products in there and

Google Cloud includes things like Google

Office or Google Suite in there.

But the growth numbers are tremendous.

AWS, which is the more pure play of the

three, 28% growth on a very big number.

Azure 39%, Google Cloud stunning

everybody with 63%

growth. It is incredible what the ARR

numbers are. Google Cloud added 10, AWS

10, Azure 9.5. So basically 30 billion

collectively. Jamin Ball, who works for

you, I think put out some data on the

Twitter.

Brad, markets at all times high all time

highs.

Mag 7 cooking.

Uber blowing out growth, Disney blowing

out growth. The consumer seems absurdly

strong based on those two bellwethers.

Tech seems extremely strong based on the

cloud computing. What's your take on the

overall market and overall economy?

Obviously, inflation up a bit, people

hand-wringing about the never-ending war

and the cost of oil.

>> Let's just telescope way out. You know,

the level of criticism directed to this

administration, right? Tariffs were

going to cause hyperinflation, we're

going to destroy GDP,

uh conflicts in Venezuela and Iran were

going to do the same. You know, we've

heard all of the negative stories, but

what's happening? Accelerating GDP.

A 10-year that's sitting at 4.3,

inflation totally under control. AI, AI,

AI, compute, compute, compute. We're

leading the world. It's contributing

massively, right, to GDP growth in the

country. We see the S&P only up 8% this

year, right? So, we're not in the bubble

territory here. Meta's trading at 17

times fully taxed GAAP earnings, Nvidia

at 19 times, Microsoft at 20 times,

Google at 24 times. And then the memory

stocks that everybody's excited about,

we have 25% of our portfolio in SK

Hynix, five times fully taxed GAAP

earnings, Samsung six times, Micron

seven times, right? This is not the

stuff that bubbles are made of. You

know, David referenced it earlier, we

started the year Open AI and Anthropic

were doing combined about 30 billion in

revenue, now combined four months later,

80 billion in revenue. The the policies

of this administration on the economy

are working, they're working in in

spades. Our gap on the rest of the world

in AI is growing. And so from from my

perspective, you know, uh you know,

we've been all in on the market. I

talked about it earlier in the year,

we're heavily tilted

>> you make that switch to go all in on the

market? Cuz you were bearish.

>> Uh I'd say toward the toward the end of

last year, the market had run up a lot.

We had a lot of these questions. Listen,

entering this year, there was a huge

question hanging over the market. Would

the AI revenue show up?

If the Anthropic revenues hadn't shown

up and we didn't see this

re-acceleration out of the hyperscalers,

the market would be down 10 to 15%

because people would say there's no ROI

on all of this investment in

infrastructure. Exactly. When I saw the

numbers start showing up in December and

into January, we went from medium to

large in terms of our exposures and 80%

of our exposures or more have been in

compute, AI, memory, etc.

>> And this is why it's great to operate in

the private market and the public market

because you can see things in the

private markets that inform the public

markets. But, the question remains,

Brad, how much better would the economy

have been doing

you know, as much credit as you're

giving to the administration if they

didn't start a $100 billion war that we

did not need to go into, according to

all reports, and if we didn't do a bunch

of tariffs that wound up being

unconstitutional by the Supreme Court,

which Trump himself put in. We would

have been further ahead. That's uh my

take on it. We would be ripping even

more if we didn't have those uh silly

diversions.

>> It's It's hard to imagine, okay? Just to

set up again here.

It's hard to imagine a more Goldilocks

situation for the United States of

America. We have reset the table

geopolitically. The discount rate

globally is actually coming down, not

going up, evidenced by markets at

all-time high and the bond market in

control. And then, look at the private

markets. We have multiple

trillion-dollar companies that have been

created in the private markets that are

now coming public. SpaceX coming public

is going to be a multi-trillion dollar

you know OpenAI, Anthropic, like at some

point you just have to acknowledge USA

is winning. Of course, there are always

things that we could be doing better,

but there's not a country on the world

that wouldn't trade all of its fortune

for the United States fortune today.

>> 100% in agreement. American

exceptionalism as embodied by the great

companies in America, SpaceX, Google,

etc. All the ones we've been talking

here. That is the story and I give

infinite credit to this administration

for being business-friendly. I do think

they've made two critical mistakes. I

think the tariffs were poorly executed

and I think we shouldn't have gone to

this war

um and we should find a quick resolution

to it which the administration seems to

be desperately doing. Sachs, your take

on the economy.

>> Well, look, we have an AI boom going on

right now and I think that's thanks to