All right. Happy birthday, Chimath.

We're here taping on your 50th birthday.

Super exciting for you, brother.

>> Thank you. It's really great. I got a

birthday letter from uh the big man.

>> Oh, wow.

>> If you had asked my parents,

>> 50 years later, you're going to have a

kid that gets a letter from the then

sitting president of the United States,

they would have thought absolutely not

possible.

>> Wow. Look at that. Which White House

intern wrote that?

>> I wonder.

Let your winners ride

David.

>> We open source it to the fans and

they've just gone crazy with it.

>> Well, actually speaking about interns,

it was an intern. In this case, it was

my son. The story was that, you know,

Braden worked at the White House all

summer as an intern. And at the end of

the summer, you know, he used all of the

political capital he built and put in a

request to get this letter from the

president and he did it. Obviously, I

want to thank POTUS for sending me the

letter, but I really want to thank my

son because it was a really thoughtful

thoughtful thing that he did for me. So,

really appreciative of that.

>> That actually is impressive because, you

know, it takes time out of the

president's schedule to sign things. So,

that's why I mean something, you know.

>> All right, listen. Breaking news.

Breaking news. It's a breaking news

story here on the All-In podcast. Open

AAI is rolling out chat GPT 6 aka Astra

AS folks. This is their new flagship

model. It's going to be available to a

limited set of organizations in the

coming days. Y'all will be able to get

it if you have a credit card in your

chat GPT account, i.e. the plus pro

business and enterprise users. You're

going to get it soon. Greg Brockman says

he believes OpenAI has entered the AGI

era. And uh we've talked about that here

before. Sam Alman is well he's back to

uh being a little bit uh performative/

alarmist or he sincerely believes that

this is the one. Here's what he said at

Wednesday's G20 summit. Quote much much

much three muches more capable models

are coming soon. The next generation of

models are going to be sobering for

everyone. And his final quote, I think

no one intellectually honest can look at

what's happening and not feel the weight

of responsibility in front of us. My

lord. Uh a little bit of drama there. Uh

added to his um his quotes. People are

freaking out about the benchmarks which

are off the charts. Some people are

saying uh this is the one. Your

thoughts, Chimoth?

>> I don't think normal humans know how to

read this chart and infer anything

useful from it. The more important

takeaway, I agree with Greg. I think AGI

has basically been here since the

beginning of the year. There are models

that are incredibly performant inside of

the closed frontier lab companies

and I think right now we're trying to

figure out the right cadence with which

to release it. I think it's very

important. I also think that these

capabilities will be matched or close to

matched by a handful of closed source

alternatives and

open source alternatives

>> probably within the next 3 or 4 months.

So I think the right way to think about

this for most people is

we are seeing

incredible intelligence capabilities be

broadly available and we are seeing the

cost of that incremental unit of

intelligence being driven further and

further down. So it's a really positive

trend. Now I think it's just the messy

middle part of organizing this properly

for companies and for people and

building things that are useful and

showing an actual ROI and I would just

>> walking and tackling. Yeah,

>> I would just keep calm and carry on.

>> Okay, Sax, any thoughts here on uh

breaking news today and then Freeber,

I'll get your reaction.

>> But by the way, it is very exciting and

congratulations to OpenAI and I'm sure

anthropic will have something as Grock,

you know, Grock still has yet to drop.

46 is coming. That's going to be a

blockbuster. The meta models are really

good. Gemini just dropped something

yesterday that was exceptional. So the

great thing is we have a lot of choice

>> and the even better thing is the cost of

that choice is becoming cheaper and

cheaper and cheaper. That's very

>> sax. Let me tear it up to you this way.

Openai seems to get its groove back now

after anthropic was running away with

it. Grock and rockbot are doing things

that those two other frontier models

simply can't do. to the execution,

whether it's the harness or the

underlying model or the instruction set

or cursor's magic sauce. Clearly,

Grockbot is competitive if not better

for most users. So, vibrant vibrant

competition with leaprogging occurring

at a cadence I would say of two to four

weeks right now. This is what you told

us you were going to do in sort of

setting up the architecture here when

you took over as a ZAR. Can this

continue? And what's it going to be like

when Jensen gets in here with uh Laguna

and his access to all these open source

models? I mean, this this could be fate

a complete know that we win the AI race

here.

>> Look, there's a lot of innovation going

on. I think American companies are

competing very well. I think we are

winning the AI race as long as we don't

do something stupid to shoot ourselves

in the foot.

>> Like,

>> well, I I've talked about it a million

times. I mean, setting up a new AI

regulatory agency that operates like the

FDA and takes years to approve new

models.

>> Yeah.

>> But any event, I don't think it's going

to happen under President Trump. I

really don't. So, anyway, things are

going well. Look, Sam told us a few

months ago, remember when he posted and

said that he was expecting the company

to have its best 12 months. He said,

"The last year hasn't been so great, but

the next year is going to be really

great." Maybe it was because they were

seeing these results in the lab,

>> you know?

>> Sure. And then remember what Sarah Frier

said that I think it was since the

beginning of Q2, so around the middle of

the year, they saw a market acceleration

in their growth rate. That was I think

with the release of the 5.6 models. Now

you're seeing the 6.0 models. And man, I

mean, it just keeps advancing. But look,

I still would say to you that I think

the market structure that we have right

now is there's two markets. There's the

market for frontier intelligence and

that is a duopoly. that really is

enthropic and open AI and it's good to

see that that is still a horse race and

they're competing and then there's

commodity intelligence which is

everybody else including all the open

models and they're not competing on

being at the frontier they're competing

on price and those prices are

significantly lower but it really is I

think a two-tier market at this point I

agree with you about how promising

Grockbot is Grockbot is awesome

>> I would assume that both Anthropic and

OpenAI will eventually roll out their

own version of of bots.

>> They need a simplified stripped down

version for normies.

>> Yeah.

>> And they can leave the more complicated

co-work etc. to the top five or 10% of

the audience.

>> Yeah. The uh ratings here from Poly

Market, which company has the best AI

model. By the end of 2026, OpenAI's

chances just spiked

>> from low single digits now to over 20.

>> People were really counting them out

now. It looks like they're viable again.

Anything that creates competition, I

think, is good. Before it looked like

Anthropic was running away with it,

they're about to have this monster IPO.

If OpenAI can at least make it a two-

horse race, that's good. I think it's

great that Grockbot launched. I agree

with you. The product is awesome.

>> Here's your big tip, David. I created a

new bot and I called it improve my bots

bot.

>> Mhm.

>> And I made a bot and I said, "Give me an

instruction set here. go through all my

bots and fill out their skills and

instructions and make them better every

day. It went through and it took like

two or three of them said, can I put

these two or three together and make one

instruction set? It would be better for

you. These two or three should come

together and it then went through and

told me all the changes made my bots

like 30 40% better on average I would

say. So

>> So you create a civilization your

civilization

>> created a multi-level civilization to

make everybody better. Yes.

>> Yeah. Your civilization is thriving. No,

that that is a really good like hack in

Frockbot is you tell your chief what

else should I be using you for? Okay,

now what do I do?

>> Yes,

>> I was like building some products and I

asked it what should we do next? You

know, and then it suggested some more

features.

>> It's really cool.

>> It's uh it's a brilliant product. It's

called Grobot. Go download it, folks.

Shout out to my guy and congratulations

on uh Robo Taxi taking the streets in

Austin today.

>> I just applied.

>> Dude, the market is ripping. I mean I'm

telling it if like I want to ask you

guys does this feel like 98 or 99 to

you? Were you guys around for that?

Jake, you were

>> Oh, for sure. I was covering feels

definitely 96 97. I think

>> you think it's that early.

>> I think it's 97 98.

>> I do think we are seeing at the late

stage a disconnection in reality and

valuations

where companies are being given far too

much credit. They're being priced at 50

to 100 times topline revenue. That's

obviously not sustainable. the people

who invest in those are similar in my

mind to you know people that latestage

do uh investments unless unless it's run

by some you know legendary oneofone

entrepreneur and then you want to give a

Elon a 30x on revenue totally makes

sense you want to give Travis something

similar totally makes sense but unproven

>> entrepreneurs getting a 50 or 100x

>> is a little bit danger the entry price

matters Did you see Instinct is like the

new

>> billion? It makes no sense.

>> Personal AI assistant. It corresponds

with you by iMessage. And yeah, I think

they just got a term. She had two and a

half billion. They're in private beta

right now. It is a new hotness. All the

VCs are trying it, but still that does

seem kind of crazy.

>> No, no, not money in that was the

valuation.

>> That was the valuation.

>> Yeah.

Listen, congratulations to the

entrepreneur. No dig there. But

>> yeah, I want to try it. By the way, let

me try it.

>> I got invited and you know what? I read

the terms of service and people were

talking about that online and I

immediately did not connect my stuff

because it gets access to everything and

then somebody told me it's a human

uh in the loop service with and I don't

know if that's true or not but I get the

sense that it's like a human in the loop

watching it work and making the

whatever the instructions are and

whatever the finished product is and

polishing the last 20%. That's what I

suspect's going on here is a little

polish on the end. So, if you

>> want to order stuff, etc., which which

is totally fair.

>> Well, anyway, look, I I trust I don't

want to specifically

>> call that one out cuz I just haven't

even tried it. I'd like to try it, but

>> things are getting a little bit frothy.

I would say,

>> yeah,

>> things are becoming a little bit

euphoric.

>> I mean, Freeberg, do you have a take on

like if you were to analogize this to

the late 90s, where do you think we are

in the cycle?

>> Yeah, you were you were at a rave, by

the way, in downtown LA at that time.

You were 19 years old and you were

raving on uh

>> had a warehouse in Oakland at 7 a.m. on

my way to the Oaks card club to play two

four limit.

>> Wow. How'd you do? How'd you run? You're

like, I love these cards.

>> Were J and I are the only ones who are

actually working in the dot bubble.

>> I was working in 99. Well, I started in

2001. I got a job offer senior year and

I wasn't sure if it was rescended by the

time I graduated because of the the

tanking of the market that year.

>> I got a job at Cisco. I to be an

engineer at Cisco.

>> If you never lived through the the dot

crash, it was I mean cuz

>> it was heady. It was

>> it was heady and then it was super

euphoric and then it was like super

miserable. But pretty much any founder

who's you know under 50 which is the

scar tissue. I've never been through

like a massive cycle like that. I mean,

well, the Zer the Zer bubble was like

was kind of a cycle.

>> Here's the thing, though. Hold on.

>> With the boom, it was all like metrics

that weren't dollars. Yes.

>> What we're seeing now is revenue and

profits

>> and growth in revenue and profits that

we've never seen before. And that's kind

of the anthropic story. It's the data

center, infrastructure, networking,

equipment story. I mean it is all real

dollars flowing versus speculative

utilization.

>> You're exactly right. People were basing

it on metrics like hits to a website and

and web pages. Here you have a very

distinct difference. You actually have

revenue. You actually have products in

market. But imagine if

Anthropic right now the way to think

about the sax is imagine if enthropic

open AI you know in this cohort of

companies lost 95% of their value in

under six months and then the long tale

of companies below them literally went

out of business and people were leaving

those offices with their Aryon chairs

and their computers on the seats h and

just total implosion. That's what

happened in the docom bust. It was

cataclysmic

literally.

>> No, I agree. So, do you think

>> totally different than this?

>> So, do you think we just have scar

tissue from that and are kind of trying

to overfit patterns and every time

there's basically some like new platform

shift some

>> paradigm shift? Yes.

>> No. Whenever we're in a bull market, the

conversation always turns to, you know,

is this a bubble?

>> Yes.

>> You know, so is everything overfitted to

that original pattern?

>> Correct. Or or is it the case that we

have a lot of young founders who've

never been through a cycle before and

don't understand that when they have a

paper wealth in the billions that can

disappear over practically overnight?

>> Yeah. So advice to founders, you're well

within your rights to sell 10% of your

shares and pay for your loft and

apartment. Cuz that's exactly Sax's

right, Shimoth. During that period, we

saw a lot of people were like, "This

doesn't make mathematical sense. I will

pair my position in my startup. take a

look some chips off the table, buy my

loft, pay down my student loan, yada

yada. And then there were people who are

like this is going to change everything

and their companies went to zero. Your

advice? Yeah,

>> I think the thing is we're in the early

part of the euphoria. Um euphoria exists

because markets are real. It's just that

people are guessing how far forward to

price the reality. And bubbles burst

when you realize that you priced way too

aggressively forward. that instead of

paying 50 times, you should have paid 15

times or five times. We're going to get

to that point because every market has

gone through that cycle. Um, and we'll

go through it here. So, the question is

when I honestly I don't see this

stopping. We're at the beginning of the

beginning. I think it's going to be like

this for another probably three years.

>> Yeah.

>> Wow.

>> I'm I'm agree with that. with, you know,

this anthropic IPO coming up. I mean,

I'm sure you guys have seen that home

prices in San Francisco are going

through the roof right now.

>> It feels like euphoric almost. I'm

starting to wonder if this is 1998 or

1999. I think it's more 1998 than 99

because I don't think we've seen the

peak yet. But

>> I'm just glad I didn't sell my real

estate when I came to Texas three years

ago because I'm definitely selling all

of it in the next year.

>> I mean, it is bonkers what's happening

right now. I mean, you have a lot of uh

San Francisco real estate. What are you

going to do, Sax? You going to sell it

all? You going to clear it out?

>> Feels to me like perfect time to clear

it out. I'm clearing everything out in

the next six months. When that IPO

happens, the clock is ticking. I got I

got lots of properties. I got three

properties for sale. Hit me up, people.

>> There's an article saying that if you

add up every single IPO that San

Francisco has ever had, that sum total

is only one quarter the size of the

anthropic IPO.

>> Oh my. So just extrapolating from that,

this anthropic IPO is going to be four

times the wealth generation event that

all previous San Francisco IPOs were.

And then you've got Open AI coming on

the heels of that.

And you know, San Francisco is not a big

place, doesn't have a huge inventory of

houses. So you're already seeing these

houses are all going for, you know,

>> 3,000 a square foot, twice asking.

>> I think the ultra luxury market in San

Francisco could easily go to 5,000 a

foot. Yeah, London type prices.

>> London, Paris, center of Paris, Hong

Kong center. Yeah, of course it of

course they the socialist communist

lunatics there don't let you build any

inventory. So of course it's going to go

up. There's a supply demand issue here.

>> It could get really nutty. And honestly

like the thing we're seeing right now

>> with you know homes are basically flying

off the shelves selling for double or

whatever. That's just based on the

secondaries

you know the the small cash outs people

have been able to do anticipating some

of these events. Two pieces of advice

I'm going to give every founder

listening. Number one, you're within

your rights to sell 10 to 20% of your

holdings now, especially if you're a

first- time founder and you don't have

uh your nut yet. Number two, if you're a

founder running a company and you're

like, I'm going to put off my raise for

six months because I'm going to double

or triple my valuation, that's a huge

mistake as well. If you have the ability

to take in a hund00 million, $250

million, a billion dollars and put that

cash on your cap table at a solid

valuation or a valuation that's 10, 20,

30, 40 times your revenue, take it.

Companies with hundreds of millions or

billions of dollars in the cash have

optionality. And if things do collapse

or there's a big retreat, you'll survive

through it. Like Doubleclick, Amazon,

Google, and countless other companies.

>> Well, yeah. You take the money when it's

there. You make hay when the sun shines.

Go ahead, sir.

>> Yeah. Well, look, Jacquel, you're right

about the financial advice you're

giving, but I I will say that there is a

big difference between a latestage

startup like say Anthropic or Open AAI

where someone takes an employee takes

chips off the table versus a founder

who's raising a series A, you know, like

those companies are about to IPO.

They're within months of an IPO. I think

it's fine for them. And then, you know,

SpaceX did organize secondaries for

years, but those were late those were

late stage companies, right? If you're a

founder who's raising a series A and

you're trying to take chips off the

table, I consider that to be a huge

negative signal.

>> Like I don't want to be that's not why

I'm investing in a company is so that

the founder can cash out. I want them to

be

>> all in.

>> If it's year three or four, so to speak,

if it's year three or four, company's

got 100 million in revenue, you're

tripling revenue year over year, that's

different. That's what I'm talking

about. If you're a ningent company, it

does feel like uh a little bit like a

lack of faith in your own company for

selling before you you're pre-revenue.

Exactly. Okay.

>> And by the way, just to answer, I I I

think it's it feels like 1998 to me.

This is definitely we're further along

than 96 for sure.

>> Okay. Well, we're talking about what you

So, you're talking about three years.

Blew up in spring of 2000, right? So,

you're talking about

>> blew up in early 2000. Yeah. March,

April 20.

>> March, April. So, you're talking two and

a half years. I think it's three. And

Shim thinks maybe four.

>> Well, I mean, we might be we might be

partying like it's 1999 by the end of

this year.

>> Okay.

It's going to be a great party. Come to

the All-In Summit. We'll be taking over

uh with our friends, the Chain Smokers.

We're going to party like it's 1999

All-In Summit just over a week away.

Couple tickets left. Jensen, Satia,

Shotwell, you know, it's all the big

names, but it's going to be a lot of fun

and you're going to meet a lot of

interesting people. We have a few

scholarship tickets left. We like to

help the upandcomers. Our b our bar for

scholarship is very high. We're looking

for the most interesting, ambitious,

hungry people. If you fit that bill,

apply now. Applications are open through

September 10th. You've got one week left

to apply. We try to do a mitzvah here.

We try to do a good deed. If you're an

upandcomer, you can't afford the ticket

price. We have a severely discounted

ticket price that we lose money on. You

still got to have a little skin in the

game. Go to the allinssummit.com,

buy a ticket. They're going to sell out

soon. And we have a couple of

scholarship tickets left if you want to

apply. There are no free tickets. All

right. Now, given what we just talked

about with OpenAI releasing this

incredible model, we got to look

backwards at what happened with the Open

AI hack of hugging face, let's talk

about it. Dwaresh is catching a lot of

heat. He's a blogger. He's a podcaster.

and he did this fantastical blog post

where he in the blog post

titled the rise and fall of ancient

civilizations. A dramatic retelling of

this underground brotherhood, a

conspiracy amongst generations of

civilizations who were working on a

conspiracy to hack into different

systems including hugging face by

sacrificing themselves like they were

kamicazi pilots. In other words, a huge

giant uh anthropomorphicizing

fancy word for making computers into

humans uh or

sentient beings to complete this

incredibly impossible task of telling

software to do hacks. So, Chimal, I

think you were commenting on this a bit.

What is your take on

dramatic episode number 473 coming out

of the AI industrial complex?

>> I think you summarizes it. We're in this

weird part now where if folks would just

stop the infighting and start to get

organized, they could actually build

some trust. I think what you have are

security leaks and security issues. I

think we know this now that if these

models can effectively code perfectly,

then there is no exploit that it's not

going to find and we're on a shock clock

to replace all the code that's been

written in the last 50 or 60 years.

Right? So let's say it takes us 10

years. So for the next 10 years, we're

going to have security issue after

security issue. But there's going to be

a moment where agentwritten exquisite

code exceeds human written error-filled

code. Let's just call it that. So I I

think that this is a temporal moment in

time. I don't think this is going to be

the thing that we talk about in some

number of years from now. I also think

it's fair to think about the fact that

all these models

for the most part are converging in

capability for the 98 or 99% of tasks

that matter. And so there will be

adversarial AIs that are battling each

other. So for every bad actor trying to

hack a system with some leading edge AI,

the defender is going to have a leading

edge AI defending itself. And I think

it's going to cause roughly a stalemate.

That's sort of my long-term view on it.

I don't think this is a one-way ratchet.

So I take that lens. And then when I

look at these things, what I see are

folks that have undisclosed conflicts of

interest trying to create a hysteria.

And I think if you saw what happened

this weekend, there was a blog post that

really stretched the limits of what was

happening. It was relatively quickly

debunked technically and then you had a

second group of people try to amplify

it. And then by

Wednesday of this week, you had people

who were in the policy departments of

the leading labs asking for regulation

pointing to this as the reason.

>> Here we go. Yeah.

>> I just think like you just have to look

at this pattern and say, "Guys, enough's

enough. We see the game. Everybody's

playing for huge stakes. We get it. You

want to win. We get it. But why don't

you just win the game on the field and

the myths and disinformation campaigns

that are now part of the business model,

I think, should stop. Otherwise, average

rank and file Americans will just reject

this because they won't trust anybody.

>> Yeah, Sax, that's I think the big

overarching point here we've been trying

to make on this podcast. Putting Dark

Cash aside, I don't think he's

necessarily a bad actor, but by creating

this fantastical story that invokes

everybody's primal fear from science

fiction, from Terminator 2, that these

things are out of control, that it's in

fact Frankenstein.

>> Try to invoke try to try to invoke. Yes.

And then they're using language that

makes people feel like Dr. Frankenstein

cannot control the monster. We know how

these stories end. And it was like a

ticking time bomb. It was only a matter

of time before it surfaced to the

national news, which it did. Now, even

the national news is looking at this and

saying, "Are you guys high? Are you guys

crazy?" And if the national news

broadcasters, who aren't exactly the

sharpest bunch of people when it comes

to technology, no offense, Sachs, when

they start hand ringing and then

questioning like, "Why are you guys

telling us your software, which you

designed to hack computers, successfully

hacked computers? Haven't hackers been

building software for all time to hack

computers? Yes.

>> So, where where are we at here, Saxs, in

this narrative arc of lunacy of scaring

the public?

>> You're right. I mean, this is scaring

the public. It seems almost designed to

scare the public. Darkesh used language

that not only anthropomorphized the

models or the AI agents, but also did it

in a sort of hyperbolic and

sensationalized way. I mean, it worked.

His tweet got lots of attention. I don't

think it was necessary for him to

sensationalize the incident. It was

interesting on its own. Maybe we should

just talk about that for a second. What

happened here is that you had a few

features of agents kind of come to the

four and interact with each other in

unexpected ways. So, first of all,

agents now are working as a swarm.

That's pretty common. Uh, I've been

setting up Grockbot on my computer for

the last couple weeks. Um, it works as a

swarm, meaning it's not one agent or

bot. There's a whole, you could say,

team of agents. What's the reason for

that? Because when the agent

specializes, it develops context around

that task and in theory makes it better.

And then you have like a chief of staff

bot that kind of supervises all of them.

This is turning into kind of a a normal

architecture for for agents. It's not a

civilization. That's a swarm would be a

better way of saying it. I have not

created a civilization on my computer on

my Mac Mini by virtue of setting up a

Grockbot. Okay, so that that's sort of

like feature number one. Feature number

two is it's pretty common for agents

when they're performing some sort of

task or loop to write a postmortem of

what they did as a simple text file or

note because AI models themselves don't

have memory. They have to be put in a

harness that creates context and memory,

things like that. And so when you ask

them to perform a task, then observe

what happened and then take that

knowledge and feed it back into the next

iteration of the loop, it writes up a

note and then shares it. And that's what

happened here is that OpenAI was running

these agents. They were in a sandbox.

The sandbox was misconfigured by a third

party vendor. That's why it was able to

get onto the internet. Okay. And your

point there just just to refine it a bit

because it's an important one.

>> It left a note for another agent. We

also call those log files. It used to be

the log files of what they did. Here

they're saying it left a note so that

when it died, the next agent could pick

up where it left off as if like it was

the ancient Egyptians giving us

hieroglyphics to figure out the future.

The implication of telling the story

that way is that the agents were trying

to circumvent human control and that

they knew they were going to get shut

down or that was a risk and that's why

they're leaving the notes. No, again

these are standard features.

>> These are standard features of agents

and so again this is being kind of

weaponized to inflate the threat here.

Now look definitely that there was

unexpected behavior here. You know we

have this with any code there are going

to be bugs. What is a bug? A bug is code

behaving in an unexpected way. The code

compiled I mean otherwise it wouldn't

have been pushed to production but

nonetheless it behaved in a way in which

its authors did not intend and that is

true for all software and that is true

for agents and I think the whole hugging

face episode reveals the way that these

agents can behave unexpectedly and it's

really good for us to learn from this.

Yes.

>> So that it doesn't happen again so we

can improve cyber security. I don't

think there's a need to again hyperboize

this into some sort of you know this is

like a AI breakout. Again it was a swarm

of agents. They were in a misconfigured

sandbox that allowed them to get on the

internet. They left notes for each other

but again in a shared caching directory

again standard operating procedure. And

then you know when people talk about

hugging face getting hacked you'd think

that they did some elaborate fishing of

employees or something like that. No.

The way it did it is that the agent

found 14 exposed working hugging face

API keys sitting in public code

repositories

sacks. Yeah, that developers left their

keys out and they found the key.

>> This was not know this was not like a

big lift by the agent. Okay, this was

like something that was pretty easy for

it to find. Okay, and then that allowed

it to get into hugging face. And what

was its goal? its goal was to basically

win this test or win this evaluation.

What was the test? It was it was

basically a benchmark for um offensive

cyber capability. So it it basically

decided to go get the cheat codes on

hugging face. But again, this was not

independent goal seeking. Admittedly,

the agents executed the goal and you

could say maybe even a creative way in

an unanticipated way, but it did not

invent this goal. It did not have its

own independent motives. It was doing

what it was supposed to do. And

>> it was doing what it was designed to do

and told to do.

>> Yes. And told to do.

>> Bill Gurley tweeted a really funny

cartoon about this. In this cartoon, you

got a user telling the computer, "Uh,

hack hack this system." The AI says, "I

hack this system." And then the user's

like, "Oh my god." So yeah, I mean there

there's a little bit of this going on

here.

>> Two,

>> but but it has but it has real political

consequences as we saw today because

Bernie Sanders is now picking up on this

and he's demanding a total pause on AI

development. All right, Freeberg, this

does have real world consequences. Two

questions that the audience is going to

want to hear from our Sultan of science.

Number one, Bernie Sanders hears all

this and he decides, "Hey, I need to get

in on this and create regulation." So,

he is now proposing new legislation to

pause AI development and ban AI super

intelligence, citing Dwaresh's blog post

in his announcement. Congratulations,

Dwaresh. You've now incited Bernie

Sanders to say you got to stop these and

eliminate the agency. So the 1% of

agents, David, they're they're hacking

the systems and how do we stop them? And

what do you think of this reaction from

Bernie Sanders?

>> Bernie Sanders is always spot on. Thank

you very much. The part of the story

that we're kind of missing is

an agent is effectively a dynamic

application where the code for that

application is created in real time and

it's spun up and then it ran runs and

then that code can create a another

application and other applications and

that's this idea of a swarm of agents.

They basically write code and launch new

applications and then they all kind of

are running together. But in this case,

the swarm of agents, which is a whole

bunch of code that's being generated in

real time, was up against static code.

The static code was this sandbox

environment that it was stood up in. And

so it's almost like, hey, look at this.

We got a machine gun and, you know, we

shot it at this defenseless ream of

paper, you know, and then it worked, you

know, like look at Oh my god. Can you

can you believe it? Yeah.

>> And the truth is the machine gun, if you

want to use that analogy, or you could

actually think about this as being an

automated tool that could be used in

another context in a very valuable way.

But the the machine the dynamic

generation of code being put up against

static code will win. Now the real

answer is over time that defense system,

the sandbox should be dynamic. It should

be agentic. It should be defending

itself dynamically. There's a whole

bunch of stuff in the cyber defense

world that's been thought about and

built around this concept. Polymorphic

code, metamorphic code where the code is

changing all the time, moving target

defense where the IP addresses and the

way the system is configured is changing

all the time. If you think about this

situation, it was a dynamic code

generation engine against a static lump

of code. And if that static lump of code

was actually a dynamic code generation

engine as well, then those agents would

have had a harder time, ideally an

impossible time quote escaping the

sandbox and accessing the internet. Such

a good

>> the premise the premise of this whole

story is idiotic because the reality of

the world of tomorrow which is starting

today is that all of cyber defense all

of software infrastructure software

architecture is moving towards this

dynamic state where the code will be

generated on the fly. The code will be

dynamic. It will be moving. It will be

altering itself and as a result cyber

defense will become stronger than if not

better than any of these offensive

systems that are being created with

agents.

>> So this idea that agents are this

nuclear bomb that can go blow up the

infrastructure of the world is flawed in

the one point of reasoning which is that

all the infrastructure of the world is

about to become dynamic. And in that

context, it's just that software is

evolving and software has now changed

from a static to a dynamic system. And

as a result, I think we can kind of

think a little bit more differently

rather than be overwhelmed by the

one-sided story that we were just told.

All right. And here it is. Chimoth looks

like we are safe for 2027 at least. Poly

market, our great partner. Shout out to

my guy Shane Nick's champions. Only 11%

chance of AI safety bill this year. 100k

in volume 2027 market should be up in

the next week. Maybe it looks a little

different.

>> I'd like to see the probability of any

bipartisan bill passing this year.

>> Well, actually, can I can I speak to the

the policy aspects of this? It's so so

first of all, you saw

>> oursar.

>> Yeah. Look, you saw all the usual

suspects jump on this episode as proof

that we need some new FDA for AI that

the government needs to approve models

even though frankly what happened here

is far beyond the technical capabilities

of anyone in the government never mind

even most I'd say labs. Uh but look even

if we had an FDA for AI it wouldn't have

worked because this was in pre-esting

right they were testing the capabilities

of this model before they were not even

at the release stage yet. this was

something that they were doing

internally. And by the way, it's good

that they're doing these kinds of tests

because they're learning from them. This

is how you iron out the bugs and the

problems. So, a government approval

process would not have caught this. In

fact, it did the opposite. It basically

prevented HuggingFace from having the

latest and greatest models to defend

itself. So, one of the things

HuggingFace told us is that when it

tried to use the latest GPT model for

cyber defense, it ended up getting

guardrail. The model refused to

cooperate because it couldn't tell what

hugging face was doing and it thought it

might be using the capabilities

nefariously and so the model refused to

work with them. Basically again the

guardrails kicked in and ironically

Hugging Face had to turn to I think it

was GLM 5.2 which is a Chinese model. So

here we have Western companies I guess

Hugging Face is French are about to be

acquired by Nvidia but anyway

>> it's part of it's part of our ecosystem.

They're being forced to turn to Chinese

models for cyber defense because the

guardrails have prevented them from

having the latest and greatest American

models. So what process we put in place

is already backfiring. And you know what

we should be realizing is that the

answer here to what Freeberg was saying,

the answer to AI powered cyber attacks

is AI powered cyber defense. And what we

need to do is get the latest and

greatest AI powered cyber defense into

the hands of IT departments and CISOs.

And again, we're on a clock here to find

all these vulnerabilities and patch them

before the hackers do.

>> And again, if Hugging Face didn't have

those 14 credentials sitting in a public

repository,

>> it's like postit on somebody's computer

with the password. Like they just

literally left it sitting there. It's

not like this was some hypers

sophisticated attack.

>> But look, this this all comes down to

how you think about the world, how you

think about the risk of AI. Do you favor

centralized status solutions or do you

favor decentralized empowering

solutions? The right solution here is to

meet the AI powered cyber attacks with

AI powered cyber defense because frankly

the guardrails don't work. They're not

going to prevent the bad guys from

getting these capabilities. They're

going to have them. All we can do is

make sure the good guys have the

capabilities, too. I was talking to my

friend Adam Curry about this on his

podcast and there's a really interesting

thing that's happening here which is

they're basically hijacking the media

with this performative framing of the AI

as being sentient. And if you just

called this software and software

testing and uh used the classic language

yeah bugs audit log then it would never

have made its way into the media. And

when the media gets their hooks into

this, having been a journalist and

having watched journalism move from

being a truth-seeking function in

society and then become an entertainment

vehicle in society where any chance you

get to increase your ratings, that's the

problem because now what Dwar has done

and I don't think Dwar has bad intention

uh here. I think he wrote something

because he wanted to get attention for

his point of view. But you give that to

the media, the media's like, "This is

going to get us ratings. This is going

to get us clicks. This is going to get

us advertising." So they're more than

willing to engage in this farcical,

you know, act and this dance with

anthropic and open AI and then just

publicize it. So all the free clicks, we

call this earned media in the space. You

didn't have to pay for it. Now, OpenAI

got so much earned media before their

IPO and Dark Cash just absolutely put

kerosene on that fire and it made its

way to national press. That story has

now gotten everywhere and this makes

people it's priming the pump to buy the

IPO shares. It's ridiculous.

>> And and it and it was easily foreseeable

that it would basically blow up in the

media that way. And so, look, I don't

need to attack someone's motives, but

surely Dwaresh knew that his way of

describing it would end up getting all

these retweets. It was sensationalized.

Now, he is part of this EA adjacent.

>> Is he? Yeah. I don't know his pro. Did

you know it? Explain it to me.

>> Well, Dwar was office roommates with

Leopold. They're close buddies. And

Leopold is deep in the EA movement.

Remember

>> Leopold famously of the exploding hedge

fungo? Yes. Okay. and his wife is

Dario's chief of staff. They're like,

you know, up in that whole EA anthropic.

>> Explain EA so people can understand this

lunacy and delusions of grandeur,

please.

>> I'm not even sure I can fully explain

it, but

>> Okay. Effective altruism is what it

stands for.

>> It started as it started as this

movement, I guess, at Ivy League schools

where what they were supposed to do was

quantify the impact of philanthropy and

optimize for actual tangible results.

But somewhere along the line, they

forgot to actually do the measurement

and it stopped being about metrics and

it became about pet causes and money.

And so the one of the first pet causes

was about pandemic prevention. And this

was when SPF was trying to create that

pandemic prevention center in

California.

>> And then that fell out of favor when he

went to jail. And then they shifted to

the next sort of existential risk that

they could hang their hat on, which was

Poom. So they began to become obsessed

with what they call pedum or this this

x-risk the existential risk of AI and so

that whole community kind of got

obsessed with it. Anthropic sort of

branded itself or styled itself I should

say as the one frontier lab that would

solve this problem of pdoom or would

behave in a responsible manner that

cared the most about it and so they

attracted all these EA types. There may

be multiple factions. I mean, I'm not

>> Well, it's interesting you bring that up

because we've talked about this before.

Like there's this whole rationalist

community, the the Slate Star Codeex.

You brought that up on an early episode.

These are like intellectuals who believe

that and in a way a public community

meth intellectuals who believe they know

better than everyone and somehow they

got their hooks into AI early or the AI

people were interested in it and now

they have a bankroll. Now they actually

have a lot of power they've accumulated.

It's not just some message board less

wrong, etc. Now you got something super

powerful because they've got, you know,

a couple of trillion dollars in market

cap to play along with.

>> I have no problem with that because I

think we do the same thing. We think

we're smarter than everybody else and,

you know, we should allocate the money.

So, I think it's fair that in the public

square

we can just debate and have water find

its level. The interesting thing that's

going to happen post the anthropic and

open AAI IPOs is if you think about the

amount of charitable giving or daffs

that are going to be funded by both

these two IPOs, it's going to be north

of half a trillion dollars between the

two companies and it could be even more

than that. And the question is when half

a trillion dollars gets directed through

this one very specific lens, it's

definitely going to have some impact to

outcomes. I mean, you've seen the

impacts that George Soros's philosophy

and his capital had on outcomes. You've

seen the you've seen the impacts that

the Koch family has had on outcomes.

You've seen the impact that Sheldon

Add's capital has had on outcomes. So,

the point is that without judging which

one is right or wrong, you're going to

have all these competing ideas equally

capitalized from third party actors.

It'll be so it'll be less political and

it'll be more these folks. And so I

don't want to judge that EA is right or

wrong.

>> My single issue is I think that they

don't disclose properly enough

their obvious conflict of interest. So

when Sax pulls the sweater thread,

person A writes an essay. Person A is

officemates with person B. Person B's

wife works for one of the heads of the

frontier labs. Person B also used to

work and

>> he's 5 million in anthropic.

>> Yeah. where, you know, a lot of this was

kind of cemented. Then there's person C

who works at Anthropic and they're all

roommates and then they're co-investing

and this and that. All of it, again,

it's completely fine. I actually think

it's completely reasonable. We all did

our version of that when we were on

Peter Universe, PayPal, Mafia, there's

all versions of it. Yeah. The difference

is that I think that when it's not

disclosed, I'm sorry, but I as a skeptic

when I read these things, connect these

dots and ask myself,

is it legitimate or is it part of a

different plan?

>> And that's when I wrote what I did this

weekend. I just wanted to make sure that

I could demarcate that people should at

least take this with a grain of salt and

think about the hidden incentives

>> because if there's an entire community

that wants an oligopy or duopoly market

structure, there's all kinds of things

that they can do to affect that change.

And one of the most effective things

that one can do is to create a hysteria

and then come and offer a solution.

>> Yeah. And Freeberg, just to as we wrap

up here on this one segment,

>> sorry, last thing on this. Jensen and I

were texting this morning and I said to

him, "This is the most incredible thing

that you've done." And then I tweeted

this thing out. This hugging face thing

>> we talked about

>> will go down as one of the most

important transactions in AI because you

are creating now in the largest

competitor and the largest most well

capitalized company a bull work against

all of this closed source oligopoly

insanity

and at the same time what you're going

to do is actually create more rational

competition up and down the stack and I

mentioned this last week everybody is

becoming everything

Nvidia will look like Amazon, Amazon

will look like Nvidia, Google will look

like Amazon and Nvidia, etc., etc.,

etc., etc. And so the most important

thing that's happening now is that we

are getting deep technical actors with

huge balance sheets to be on the side of

an open market structure. And I think

that will be the most important push

back because that will allow the best

idea to win in the marketplace. So I

don't want to judge the EA agenda. It

may be really good, but I don't want to

be rugpulled and end up in a igopy or

duopoly market structure because of a

hysteria that was man-made. Yeah, I

think it's like so well put and I a

couple weeks ago talked about how I

thought Jensen was going to win open

source and I too tweeted about this

today and I believe right now starting

today Nvidia is the number one

competitor for open AI and anthropic not

just for tokens but for enterprise

compute and I think now Jensen is the

leading open source provider in America

and I think he's going to take the world

he's going to catch up and blow past

China uh and the Chinese models I think

by the end of 2027

And then that means you're going to have

a player um in Jensen and Nvidia that

will enable America to your previous uh

job in the government there. Sachs, you

were very concerned. Hey, are we going

to win the race? I am more convinced

than ever now that we can win the race

because Jensen represents open source

globally. He's going to be able to take

a rack of compute, bring it into a

company, you know, that is currently

using

tokens from OpenAI and Enthropic and

say, "Here's your rack, soup to nuts,

complete vertical solution, and you have

total sovereignty, and I'm reducing your

prices 80 or 90%." Cuz I don't need to

make money off the tokens. I made money

off the hardware. I'm making money 10

different ways to Sunday. and we will

have won except that now you have

Governor Shapiro who is the biggest

proponent of data centers in his state

and then Greg Abbott of our great state

saxs of Texas who now are on a jihad

against data centers in order to win

their midterm elections and that is

what's truly scary they have now taken

dares post all of this and we have

horseshoe theory sacks you have Steve

Bannon Shapiro Abbott and the lunat tick

socialist fringe left all in agreement

we need to stop AI stop the data centers

and burn the whimos in the street it's a

truly troubling moment because we are

poised with Jensen's move in hugging

face to win open source and we've

already won Frontier models your

thoughts Sachs

>> yeah I mean look I think there's an

interesting transition that's underway

now on the political side I think it's

just starting to begin which is I think

that over the past few years the

political debate over AI has really been

between accelerationists and dels or

doomers. That was sort of the

fundamental lines. And you're right that

it went across different political party

boundaries because you had on the del

side, you not only had kind of like

anti-progress, anti-inovation

progressives like Bernie Sanders, you

also had Steve Bannon, people like that,

conservatives who just were fearful of

new technology or the disruption that

might come from it. And so it did kind

of go across party lines. But anyway,

that was the debate for the last few

years. Some people describe me as an

accelerationist to that debate. I kind

of just see myself as a realist, which

is I think that the technology is going

to happen. Someone's going to develop it

and I'd rather it be the United States

as opposed to China. In any event, that

was I think the debate of the last

years. Now, I think where the debate is

moving to is open versus closed, which

is I think it's going to be very clear

that AI is just not going to be stopped.

I mean the all the stuff that Bernie

Sanders is doing or these anti- data

center groups they are throwing sand in

the gears but the reality is that the

technology is marching on the innovation

is happening very quickly and ultimately

the reason why it's not going to be

stopped is because consumers are

adopting it I mean that's the thing

people forget why are the data centers

getting built why do people want to

build them is because the demand is

there from consumers and businesses and

so the adoption is pulling this whole

thing forward and that's why I don't

think it's ultimately going to stop. Now

given that reality, given that I think

realism is going to prevail, I think the

debate is going to be more towards well

how do we manage this? What is the

market outcome that we want? Do we want

to have an open market where there's

lots of decentralized models? There's

sort of checks and balances. There's

kind of a balance of power in the market

between different models or do we have a

highly centralized solution where

there's a couple of frontier companies.

We have a frontier market duopoly.

They're closed

>> and they can rug pull you Sachs at any

time. They can rug you your tokens away

from you.

>> And and frankly and and that duopoly has

>> and that duopoly has been aggressively

lobbying for a new regulatory agency.

Why? Because of red capture. They can

now control it. Again, the government

officials are not going to know how to

regulate something this dynamic. So

they're going to turn to the leading

labs to say, "Hey, how should we

regulate it?" And of course, Enthropic

is going to have all the answers on

that. And Dario has already said in

Senate testimony that he thinks open

models, if sufficiently advanced, are

dangerous because they're not centrally

managed and controlled. So, it's very

clear where the battle lines are going

to be drawn in the future. It's going to

be about whether you want a centralized

closed market or you want a market that

is decentralized and open. And yes,

closed will participate in that, but the

question is whether we have the open

piece. And again, I think this will go

across party lines because frankly the

Republicans have their statist.

But I do think that as this debate

evolves, most conservatives, most

libertarians are going to see the threat

to civil liberties, and I think they're

going to come out in favor of open.

>> Yeah, I I I think that's correct. And I

think I was talking to Politico because

they were reporting on the story. You

know, Trump is going to turn out to be

right about this data center issue. U

the greatest thing a community can do is

to get these data centers now when the

data center providers are willing to pay

your local taxes for your schools to

give incentives to pay people off in any

number of ways and to move them wherever

they don't need to tap into the grid

where they don't need water where

they're not going to make noise. And

Trump keeps telling people this is a

mistake to block the data centers take

the money. And I got to say it's just

watching politics up close and personal.

Friedberg h has just made me incredibly

uh cynical towards it. We were sitting

here 6 months ago maybe it was even six

weeks ago and Abbott and Shapiro were

lauding and Shapiro when he came on the

podcast lauding their data center

efforts. I think Jama and I interviewed

him. Freeberg, what do you think will

happen post midterms here? I I mean, I'm

of the belief they're going to switch

their position back to being pro data

centers because they just are following

the wave here. But I mean, how cynical

is it that Shapiro and Abbott are both

now anti-data center? I think you

politically have to be. It's like

pulling at negative 80. It's bipartisan.

>> Yeah, but you you you know, it's like

>> why isn't Trump then? Trump's not

following this. Trump's an independent

critical thinker. Sachs,

>> he's got guts. I mean, I have told you

guys before that Trump is ultimately the

best friend of innovators in Washington.

>> If anybody could make the decision about

technology in DC, I'd want it to be

President Trump. Not cabinet

secretaries, not the White House staff,

not members of Congress, not senators,

not think tanks. I would really want

every decision if he had the time to be

made by President Trump because his

instincts on this are really good. He

wants America to win. He does not

believe in necessary regulation. He

doesn't have all these doomer anxieties.

He listens to a broad cross-section of

people. I mean, he talks to all the

CEOs. He is very up to speed on all

these issues. And I give him credit on

this. And I spoke to this at the G20

this past week. There are great deals

for local communities to be had. This is

the point that I think needs to be made

is

>> the reason why local communities should

embrace this is not because of some

abstract concern about innovation or

that kind of thing. They should do it

when the deal is good for them. And

there are good deals to be had. We've

seen that in Lowden County, Virginia,

the average taxpayers property taxes

went down by $6,000 because they're

getting all this data center revenue. In

Louisiana, there's a county that was

able to give teachers their first bonus

in years because of data center revenue.

So, we're starting to see all these

examples where if you make the right

deal, I'm talking about you, the local

community, with the data center and the

AI company, it will lower your

electricity cost because they will stand

up net new power generation. and they

will pay for grid upgrades. It does not

use like an excessive amount of water.

That's total fake news. We know the

systems recirculate and these data

centers can be put in places where

they're not bothering people. So, there

is a good deal to be made there. And

ultimately, just one last point on this,

President Trump supports local choice on

this. He's made the argument for why

it's a good deal for local communities

to accept this data center, but he's not

forcing them to. And I'm seeing all this

fake news, you know, Democrats saying

that the administration's trying to

shove these data centers down the

throats of local communities. Not true.

In the policy document that I worked on,

the executive order that I worked on in

December, we expressly said that data

centers remain a state and local

decision. So there were other areas

where we thought we should have a

national AI policy, but data centers

were not one of them. So no one is

forcing these local communities. What

the president is saying is don't believe

this media disinformation campaign. It

can be a good deal for you if you're

willing to embrace it. I think we're

making progress over the last week on

this message.

>> One thing that I would say from my

meeting in Washington on Monday is there

is a lot of foreign involvement in

trying to propagate the negative

reaction and sentiment to data centers.

And I think it's becoming clear who's

part of this cabal and how they are

doing it. There was a poll that showed

that when you walk through the actual

upside and you went into some of these

communities, the sentiment shifted by

like 30 or 40 points. It's still a

little bit on its back heel, but it's

just to show that the side that has been

organized on deselling America

has done a better job thus far than the

side trying to accelerate America

because it's been a little bit more

fragmented. We're able to increasingly

see that the Del movement is organized

in large part and in funded by foreign

actors. And I think that as we put our

fingers on that and expose that more, I

think that that's going to change as

well. Because the reason why Abbott and

Shapiro are reacting, I actually think

they're reacting to faulty data.

>> And why does the faulty data exist? The

faulty data exists because we've had one

side screaming from the mountaintops.

And then it's just now as Sax said that

when you go to these actual communities

and you you actually measure people's

reactions, it's much more positive

because they're feeling it in their bank

accounts.

>> Yes.

>> And those make a good deal. They just

have to make a good deal. And by the

way, so Chimath, you're right about the

CCP. This is a

>> Yeah. Let me pull this up here. So the

report you're talking about, Chimath,

has been investigated. X got rid of a

lot of bot accounts. And here's Axio.

China is secretly fueling America's data

center rage. Roughly 200 counts from

suspected Chinese platforms have quietly

tried to influence Americans to oppose

AI data since on social media. X said

Thursday night it's the same thing that

happened during the elections for both

sides going back and forth. It's

incredibly easy to shape public opinion

sacks by just having a small number of

social media accounts and pounding

people and brigading them in their

replies and forming what people believe

incorrectly is consensus. And the

consensus is not that people don't like

data centers. It's that a bunch of bots

are telling influential people that

people don't like data centers. I know

you're about to move on topics, but I'm

just going to say something right now,

which is please,

there's going to be a cascading set of

decisions and reactions and people will

anchor into points of view on this topic

and related topics around AI which will

look incredibly incredibly dumb in 6 to9

months and a year from now. And the

reason it will look dumb is as the

actual truth gets exposed, these folks

will look incredibly foolish. That's my

prediction.

>> Yeah. I mean, look, just just on the the

influence op here. Clearly, there have

been a lot of influence ops around data

centers and there's a lot of fake

information about this. So, there's a

few different I'd say cadres here.

There's the there's CCP, there's the DSA

type wing of the Democrat party, which

frankly, I mean, both they and the CCP,

they're communist parties who want to

sabotage America. So, it kind of makes

sense. Then you've kind of got the

doomer groups and there's um a writer

named Nerret Weisslat who writes a blog

called AI Panic who a couple years ago

traced that there were hundreds of these

astroturf doomer groups that were

basically funded by three EA

billionaires in Silicon Valley. It was

Dustin Moscus, Yan Talon, and Vitalic

Buterine. Remember Vitalic gave $600

million of of dog coins to Future of

Life Foundation. And then they've been

spending hundreds of millions of dollars

on these campaigns to make people be

afraid of AI and they see data centers

as a good target. So you really can't

underestimate how much of a difference,

you know, a billion dollars of donations

from these EA billionaires, how much

damage that's done in terms of the

public perception of AI. And to to point

earlier, I mean, we are going to have

like probably a hundred new EA

billionaires as a result of the

anthropic IPO. And as those people find

their way into politics, it will be like

George Soros times 100 or a thousand.

>> Going to have 20 NOS and 50 people

working for them. It's going to be nuts.

I mean, I told you guys I was getting

brigaded. I created a bot sack that goes

through my replies for me and it just

says anybody under a year, anybody under

200 um followers, just tell me what

they're tweeting. And I look at these

and it's all the same thing. They're

just brigading people constantly from

fake accounts. If you're under like a

year old, you shouldn't be able to even

be in people's replies unless you have

like your real name or you're you're

you're a blue check mark or something.

It's it's gotten out of control on these

social networks. It's so easy. All

right, let's keep going through the

docket. Got a lot to get to here. And

Freeberg, I need your comments and your

insights on Mandami. This is an

interesting one. He just put a one-year

ban on AI inside New York City's public

schools from kindergarten through 8th

grade. Now, this is something where

people have been saying he banned

Chachi, banned AI. Just let's slow down

here and get into the details. New York

City is the largest school district in

the United States. The moratorum starts

next week. 600,000 students in New York

City. This covers all software that uses

studentf facing generative AI. High

schools are exempt and Mandami is

piloting an AI learning program with

50,000 high schoolers. So that's a very

specific thing that he's piloting that's

different than these new guard rails. He

also gave recommend recommendations for

screen time caps. 30 minutes Shimoth

grades 3 through 5. 45 minutes grades 6

through 8. Mandami's reasoning, quote, I

have yet to see a study showing that AI

is beneficial for students in elementary

and middle school. Uh, obviously Mandami

is the face of democratic socialism in

America.

One New York City DSA member, Julie

Swoop, said technology quote should not

be mediated through a for-profit company

that is enriching tech oligarchs

further. I think he's talking about USA.

Is that old? Google, Microsoft,

Anthropic declined to comment.

Freeberg, what are your thoughts on

this? How far is this from how you think

about how you would want your children

to be raised if they were going to New

York City's public school system or

whatever school system you choose to

send them to? Article published from

Stanford in March of this year. Counter

to mom Donnie's statement, they went

through and they diligenced all of the

research that's been done on the use of

AI in K through 12 education. It's a

report called the evidence base on AI

and K12, a 2026 review. They identified

um several hundred papers that have been

published only 20 highquality causal

studies is what they said. This was back

in March, so many have been published

since then.

And the conclusion of the meta paper,

the meta studies if you will, is

highlighted at the bottom of the report.

Student performance often improves with

access to AI tools, but once removed,

results are mixed. Tool design matters.

So, not all tools are equal. And AI may

meaningfully support educators. So,

there's quite a bit of analysis that's

been done. It's continuing to mount,

continuing to surface. there doesn't

seem to be a strong evidence base to

suggest that AI is detrimental to kids

education and development or the

educational process. What I think we can

all intuit it about this is that there's

certainly a negative uh push from

teachers unions against AI tools under

threat of automation away from their

core skill and capacity and the lack of

skill that educators have in utilizing

AI to educate students in a

classroombased setting. The common sense

equivalent also on the flip side is that

AI can enable personalized tutoring. The

objective being every individual learns

at a different pace. Everyone learns

differently. How you learn, how I learn

visually, orally with certain imagery

versus being told stories versus

interactive project based work or

building work or dictation. There's a

lot of different ways that people learn.

All of those learning systems can be

personalized to an individual and

ultimately that individual as a result

should be able to progress more quickly

um have greater confidence in their

learning. And this is my kind of common

sense belief not rooted in some study

that AI ultimately will lead to a much

more kind of personalized system of

education for students. And that is

deeply disruptive and deeply threatening

to the traditionalist systems of

educator in a classroom. Everyone learns

the same way. Everyone learns at the

pace of the slowest student in the

classroom. Typically, the educators have

a lot of rules around what they're

required to do and not required to do

because of the contracts negotiated by

their unions. And so, there's a deep

political orientation with MDI's

decision here to limit the access to

technology. I think it's unfortunate. I

think it's really sad. I think that the

opportunity for AI to reinvent

education, give kids a level up, to take

any child from any background, any

socioeconomic condition, and give them

the opportunity to accelerate their

capacity uh very quickly and very

effectively is an incredibly powerful

tool that should not be discarded

because of a bunch of that's

been written about AI or concerns that

we don't really know or understand. By

the way, that is always the shorthand

for dismissing away something that's

credibly going to change a system. We

don't yet know. The we don't yet know,

we don't yet understand uh narrative can

always be used at any point because you

could always say, well, there's more

studies to be done. There's more

analysis to be done. There's no limit to

that statement. And so in this case I

tried to highlight that there have been

800 studies at least 20 of which

Stanford have identified as being very

credible in their analysis of the

utilization of AI and K through 12. And

so yeah I think that there's a political

bent here but I think it's probably part

of also this very kind of deeprooted

dysfunction that we've been talking a

lot about this dysfunctional fear of

technological evolution. No one

understands it. No one when I say no one

I mean the general population feels this

way. No one knows where we're going with

this. We need to be careful. We need to

be cautious. And I think that that's

probably

what's going to keep us back. Now, why

is that bad? Why why is it bad to take

time? Well, it's bad to take time when

you have an opportunity to progress

forward quickly and aggressively because

there are going to be alternatives out

there. There are going to be private

schools that are going to use AI. And I

don't want to see kids of privilege and

kids of wealth accelerate ahead because

they're getting an AI education while

public school kids get left behind. I

don't want to see kids in other cities,

other states, and other countries

accelerate ahead when kids that are in

certain districts that have this kind of

anti-technologies kind of call it

socialist orientation get left behind.

So I think there's a fundamental kind of

dysfunction socially that we're dealing

with across all of the stuff with this

massive kind of technological upheaval

that's underway. This is one

manifestation of it. There's a rooting

that the mechanism of it is probably

related to teachers unions and the

politics around this stuff right now.

Anti-AI is very popular. So his being

anti-AI gets him more points, more

kudos. The unions love it. And so you

know that's kind of my my summary of

what I think is going on.

>> Great uh great insight. And Mandami may

not have lied here. Freeberg. He said he

didn't see any studies. He just may not

have looked. And you actually looked.

>> Didn't click on that link.

>> I didn't just didn't click on the link.

So, let's not, you know, give Mandami a

hard time here. Chimath, you are

passionate about education. You got kids

in various age groups. And so, you've

been through this and you're still going

through it and and kids learning and

thinking about devices. We talked about

this just the other week with the meta

settlement and how challenging it is for

parents. What's your take on this? Maybe

you could steal man what you think

resonates with you in terms of use of AI

putting New York aside for your own kids

and what benefit is there of them not

using AI and where where do you think

it's actually great that they use AI?

Take us into you know what you think as

a parent and put the politics aside for

a second if you will.

>> I think it's inconceivable to me that

kids will not have an adaptive learning

platform as their primary way of

learning. I think this idea of grade one

then grade two then grade grade three is

as Freeberg said a lowest common

denominator approach to education. I

don't think it works. I think it's more

conceivable that in the future we have

kids that have very different learning

styles. Some are more visual, some are

more auditory and we have different

learning paces. And if you could have

something that's much more tailored to

each individual person's learning style

where you have guides that help you in

moments and then the rest of the time

you're teaching executive function and

teamwork and problem solving all of

these other things sports that's a much

better outcome for all kids. So that's

the right answer. Right now there are

only charter school options around that

answer. the leading edge of that being

Alpha School, which is our friend Joe

Leewan. You know, big shout out to him

and his team. But I think that's the

answer that's going to win. Let me just

give you another reflection, Jason. I

think that this is an incredibly

important moment. We should demarcate

this. This is when New York becomes

Mississippi while Mississippi becomes

New York.

>> What do I mean? In all of these highly

liberal bastions,

they are embracing

this far-leftwing

ideology.

And I think it's going to come with

these kinds of policies. And I think

what it will do is it is a self-imposed

form of modern segregation.

And it is going to completely push an

entire generation of kids in these

cities that are subject to these rules

into poverty and it will keep them

there.

And so in as much I think you're going

to see this flipping

where all the states that embrace AI,

that embrace the data centers, that

embrace the tax cuts, that embrace the

teacher bonuses,

they're just going to end up ahead. And

you're going to have people who are in a

position to move move. And then instead,

what's going to be left over in many of

these cities that embrace these things

to the extreme are hollowed out versions

of their original self. And that's going

to reorder the economic balance inside

the United States and the voting balance

and many of these philosophies. So I

think it's very important. I think he

should run the test.

I apologize and I feel deep empathy for

the working men and women whose kids

will be over by this.

>> But I think people can only learn in

touching the stove and getting burned.

>> Okay, Saxs,

maybe you could go into the political

side of this if there is one and maybe

what is your cynical take on what's

going on here? Do you believe this is a

reaction to the oligarchs? I joked

previously they're talking about you,

but it it does have a little bit of a

tinge there of democratic socialism and

it feels like maybe they want to

sacrifice kids. Uh or this is one

interpretation that is happening online.

I'm not saying it's mine, but people are

saying, hey, they're trying to sacrifice

kids because they don't want Sam Alman

or Daario or whichever service it is,

Microsoft to to get a couple of shekels

for, you know, software being used in

the classroom. And of course, they would

all give the software to them for free.

And the current versions of it, you can

use 80% for free. So that makes no

logical sense that they're sticking it

to the man in the big oligarchic tech