How much founder mode did you do?

>> Are you saying that I popped an ALP? I

need an ALP right now. Hold on. You

don't need anything right now. Are you

chewing it? What are you doing?

>> No. You put this nicotine pouch, you

upper deck it, releases it, and then you

become a god.

>> Is that the app that Tucker sent you?

>> Yeah. Tucker and I are going to do a

crossover.

>> Wait, did you work out a side hustle

here?

>> I haven't presented it to the group for

a vote yet. You're pre-

>> Wait a second. Are you being paid for

this plug right now?

>> Yes.

>> I'm just saying if you use the promo

code JCL.

>> Wait a second. Promo code J 15.

>> Okay, he broke up, which is good.

>> Is he on drugs? Is he taking drugs?

>> He's on drugs.

>> No, I'm not on drugs.

>> And he's doing a deal with

>> This is like a PSA for not taking this

stuff. You're so out of control.

>> Did you take two of them? What are you

doing?

>> I thought this stuff relaxes you. What

the hell is going on? Your internet's on

the fritz, too.

>> I fixed it. I fixed it. I fixed it. That

was Putin. Putin's got my internet.

>> Putin's got my

>> Oh my god. What flavor are you eating or

using?

>> Oh, today's chilled mint. Today's

chilled mint.

>> You don't seem very chill. You seem

>> This is the first one.

>> Agitated and angry.

>> No, I'm trying to get us back to that

original all-in energy where we laughed

and we had fun and we enjoyed each

other's company.

>> No, but Jakeal, seriously, do you have a

side deal going on with Alp right now?

>> No, I don't have a deal yet. I don't

know if I have a deal. There's no deal.

I'm texting Tuck right now just to cut

you.

[Music]

Let your winners ride.

[Music]

>> We open sourced it to the fans and

they've just gone crazy with it. Love

you guys. Queen of

>> All right, everybody. Welcome back to

what Jensen from Nvidia has confirmed is

the number one podcast in the world.

Yes, the All-In podcast is here. We had

an amazing time in uh DC last week and

we'll get into that. But uh hey

Freeberg, you crushed it on all those

incredible speakers last week. 10 days

you had to pull off that event Freedberg

and you did it. Chimath and I just

parachuted in to DC last week for the AI

summit. Sax was busy working with pus to

get all those executive orders done.

Take us behind the scenes, Freeberg. all

of these incredible speakers. You got

Lisa from AMD. You had Lutnik, I liked

him. Bessent, I liked him. We had to say

no to a lot of tech company CEOs that

found out about the event and wanted to

speak on stage. So, there was a big kind

of cut off that we had to make around

making sure that we got our message

across. I think if you watch the

content, we talked briefly about it at

the beginning, but the focus was really

on trying to dispel the negative AI

narrative and myth that AI is just here

to destroy jobs because there's this big

economic boom that's happening both with

respect to new industries that are

emerging, which is why we showcased

Hadrian and others, but then also the

infrastructure needed to support the AI

race with data centers, chips, mining,

and energy. And so we highlighted each

of those four industries. And then the

cabinet people found out about it and

wanted to get involved. So we were

unfortunately squeezing people on and

off stage. It's kind of crazy to tell

the secretary of treasury he has to get

off the stage because he's passed his

20-minute allocation. But uh we had to

line everything up so that the president

could get his Secret Service detail to

clear the stage and get set up in time.

That's why we were rushing everyone. But

man, what a week. What a rush. It was

awesome. Thanks to David Saxs for the

leadership and pulling it all together,

bringing those folks to the table. And

Sax, congrats on getting your EO signed

and your action plan published. That was

pretty cool. Pretty awesome to meet the

president and meet all those cabinet

members and have all of this day come

together because of the work you've been

doing. How does it feel? Like, Sax, how

are you doing in the afterlow there? I

can see that you're in the afterlow. You

sent me a picture of the four besties

with our incredible 47th president. How

you feeling right now?

>> Are you going to put that on the screen?

>> I may have it. I don't I don't know if

that's allowed. Are we allowed to put

that on the screen? I don't know what

the protocol is.

>> Yeah, I think we can.

>> Yeah. I mean, I haven't gotten my

picture. Um I did notice that I was

unfortunately when they took the picture

of the four of us with the president,

somehow I got cropped out by accident. I

think maybe they weren't using a wide

lens.

>> Wait, Jason, what was it like for you to

meet the president? Cuz just for the

audience, we all stood in line and then

we took a photo with the president

backstage and then we did a photo with

the four of us. But Jason, when you had

your moment with the president, what did

you say? Did you ask him about

immigration?

>> Did you ask about I have your photo with

the president?

>> Oh, it's on my phone.

>> Did you Did you bring up solar panels

with him? Like what was your big moment

all about?

>> I didn't know we were taking a picture.

That was like sprung on me. So I

was like, "Oh, we're taking a picture."

So my brother Josh who runs security for

us was like they need you in the back to

take a picture with the president and I

was like yeah I'm good I I got to I got

to prepare for you know some

>> Oh you were going to pass.

>> Well I thought he was joking with me.

>> So I was like yeah I'm good. I'm good.

So he's like no no I'm serious.

>> They're they're taking pictures with the

president. I was like we are okay. So, I

ran back and uh they put us in line and

then I was like, I think I'm getting

punked here because they kept repeating

to me, okay, Jason, you're last. You're

last. And they, you know, and I know you

guys like to put in a joke or two. So,

I, you know, I just got in line last.

And it's obviously, you know, it's it's

a big deal to take a picture with the

president. So, I didn't want to um, you

know, use that time inappropriately or

anything. So, I just said it's a

pleasure to meet you.

>> Just say it already. You like it. Just

say it. Just let's get it over with.

Just get it. Get to the end. You like

him. You tried not to. You know, you're

all Mr. Big Shot, Mr. Big Talk, and then

you got in front of him and you like

him. Just say it.

>> Uh, what I will say is,

>> Jesus Christ.

>> Like him or dislike him.

>> What a joke. You're such a goon.

>> I I had a great time. I had a great

time. Predictable. You're a predictable

goon. You know,

>> you don't even know what goon is. Okay,

stop riz. Stop oraura farming. You don't

know what gooning is. Okay. I had a

great time meeting him. It was a great

event or farming. Obviously, he's trying

to get his RZ up to impress his kids.

But, um,

>> it was great. And I didn't know what to

do in the picture. So, he did.

>> We can move on.

>> I

What do you think of his speech, Jason?

>> After he gave you a shout out, Jason

after the president gave you a shout

out.

>> I don't know about love. He said, "Even

Jason." How many times have you listened

to that clip over and over? How many

times?

>> How many times? How many people have you

shared that with? How many? Play the

clip. Play the clip.

>> I want to also uh

>> Oh, no.

>> Say hello and thank to Jamath and his

wonderful wife Nat. Thank you very much

for being here. Thank you very much. It

was great seeing you again.

Great couple. David Friedberg and uh

even as we know Jason Gall.

>> I say even. Thank you, Jason.

[Applause]

appreciation. I appreciate that.

>> Yeah, he's a good person.

>> I mean, he's a good person.

>> He called you a good person.

>> He called you a good person. So, here we

are.

>> What president What president's ever

called you a good person this? Come on.

>> I mean, it's it's obviously like surreal

>> for all of us, I think, to be this close

to the administration and then for Sachs

to be part of it. What I will say is you

have to give a lot of credit to this

administration for the velocity they're

going, what they're accomplishing. even

if you disagree with certain items on

the margins and their ability to engage

with leaders doing important work. And

if we compare that to Biden and Kamla,

like they weren't even letting people

come to the White House.

>> Is it Is this like

>> I love this administration. I love the

administration. I I like Trump. This is

a cabinet of CEOs.

>> Let me just say this. I'm not in love

with Trump. I'm in like with Trump.

That's where I'm at. I'm not in love

with Trump. I'm in like with Trump. But

what better team has ever been put

together? It is a cabinet of CEOs. It is

a cabinet of managers. It is a cabinet

of people who know how to get done. And

every time I go there, I'm impressed by

this cabinet. I pull my hair out when I

meet.

>> You admit that you're proTrump finally

Friedberg. You've been splitting it.

You've been dancing around the issue.

Are you full 100% in support of Trump?

You want to sit here and put me on the

spot? I put you on the spot.

>> I support my president. I support the

president.

>> Okay. So, you voted for him and you love

Trump. You voted for him and you love

Trump.

I love what he's doing

>> and you voted for him

>> and I have issues with the spending and

that's not been resolved. So like I said

before,

>> okay, great. Here we are folks.

>> My fullthroated endorsement will come

around when Doge actions are taken

seriously andor the White House puts

pressure on Congress to take action on

spending the budget.

>> What is everybody's favorite moment?

Favorite other than Trump, you know,

being absolutely amazing, great speech.

He's he's hilarious. Whatever. We'll put

pus outside that because it's hard to

compete with the president of the United

States. Sax, did you have a couple of

favorite moments? Give us a couple

favorite moments.

>> First of all, I think we should talk

about the substance of the speech

>> because I think this was the first

speech that President Trump has given on

AI since the AI boom began. He's he's

spoken about it before, but this was a

full-length policy speech and he

declared that the United States was in

an AI race. It's a global competition.

I think the the language that he used

was reminiscent of how President John F.

Kennedy declared that America was in a

space race. And in a similar way,

President Trump declared that we have to

win the AI race. I think you can argue

that the AI race is more important than

the space race. It's going to reshape

the global economy. It's going to

determine who the superpowers are of the

21st century. And President Trump was

really clear that we had to win it and

that he was going to support a strategy

for winning it. And then he laid out

what some of those key pillars are.

Number one was was innovation. We have

to get the red tape out of the way and

let our geniuses cook and clearly was

very supportive to a lot of the CEOs and

entrepreneurs in the crowd. Number two

is infrastructure. He touted the

hundreds of billions of dollars of

investments in energy and power

generation and grid upgrades and data

centers that he's supporting. And then

he also supported AI exports. He said

that we have to make America's tech

stack the global standard. So I think

those were really important messages.

And then on top of that, I think there

was also some parts of the speech that

maybe have gotten less attention but are

also important where he said that it's

not only important that we win. He said

it's important how we win. And he sort

of mentioned three non-negotiables here.

Number one was that American workers

have to be at the center of the

prosperity that we create.

Number two is that the AI models that

the government procures and buys must be

free of ideological bias. So no woke AI.

And he also signed an executive order to

prohibit woke AI in the federal

government. We could talk about that in

a second. That probably was my favorite

moment.

>> That was your favorite moment.

>> That was my favorite moment.

>> The red meat moment. I thought that was

>> that was the red meat. Yeah.

>> That was the red meat for the base.

Yeah.

>> Yeah. The third thing is he he did say

that we do want to prevent our

technologies from being misused or

stolen by malicious actors. And look, we

we are going to monitor for emerging and

unforeseen risk. So, you know, we're not

going to disregard the risk. But he had

this really good line in the speech

about how even though AI, look, it's

it's a daunting technology because it's

so powerful and like any revolutionary

technology like that, it can be used for

bad as well as good. But the the

daunting nature of it is all the more

reason why we have to do it in the

United States. Why would the United

States has to be the pioneer and the

leader is cuz we don't want the power of

that technology being developed in other

parts of the world at least other parts

of the world are going to have it but we

want to be the ones on the cutting edge

who are defining it and leading it.

>> Fantastic. Okay.

>> So I think it was a it was a really

important speech. I think this idea of

an AI race that is similar to the space

race, I think is going to be the

dominant frame on AI policy for years to

come.

>> Well, it's pretty clear, you know, this

presidency, this term is going to be

earmarked, I think, by four key

initiatives. AI, crypto, immigration,

and tariffs. I think that feels like

what they're locking into as what's

important for the next three and a half

years. I think you would agree with

that. And it's just great that you're

spearheading and helping the president

with two of those four. And just I the

velocity to me is what's super

impressive. Any way you could take us

behind the the scenes of how this stuff

is getting done so quickly. It feels

like there's some operational

cadence here that we didn't see in his

first term. Certainly didn't see in the

Biden term, but there's a there's a

cadence here that's different. Yeah.

Startup speed. H how is that?

>> Well, yeah, we call it he's working at

tech speed. I just think that the

president's constantly working. I mean,

he's just so energetic. I mean, he

basically works like two full work days.

I think it's well known that he doesn't

need a lot of sleep and he's continues

to work late into the night. And I just

think his energy propels everything

forward. I also think that there's a

very cohesive team at the White House

>> under the chief of staff, Susie Wilds. I

think it's very important. I think she

runs a tight ship and then you've got

the deputy chief of staffs under her and

I think most of these people have been

working together for a long time and

it's a team that works well together and

I just feels very coherent and cohesive

to me.

>> So I think it's a very effective team.

>> It does feel like that. The pace is

great. It means you're going to get more

shots on goal and you'll be able to try

more things and and get more

accomplished just like we see in

startups. Chimamoth, outside of the

president's talk, we'll go around the

horn here. Top two or three moments from

the discussions, just lightning round

here, rapid fire. What do you got? Top

two or three moments for you, Chamath,

just in the discussions that were

enlightening to you, inspiring to you,

notable to you.

>> I came out of it very motivated. I think

that the combination of the speech, the

executive orders, and the clarity of the

big beautiful bill

now give those of us that are in these

markets a ton of runway to go and

execute. And so those things reinforced

by the various members of the cabinet I

think were very important. That was one.

And then the second thing were the

market commentary from both Lisa Sue and

Jensen I thought was really valuable.

>> And then the third was Chris Wright and

Doug Bergam talking about energy. And I

tweeted this yesterday, but we are sort

of back to basics almost in a sense

where in the absence of power, I think

AI is is not going to be the thing that

we think it can be. So that's going to

create an enormous amount of appetite by

the federal government to do deals and

get players on the field. That's to me

very exciting. So

>> yeah, I came away really

riskon, I guess, is best way to say it.

>> I love it. Freebridge, you have two or

three moments outside of the president's

speech. Obviously, that's the pinnacle

there. So, let's just go below the

pinnacle. What were the other two or

three moments for you that were salient,

inspiring, notable?

>> I thought Jensen did a great job. I

don't know what you guys thought, but he

is very compelling and has a incredible

uh vision and view on where AI is taking

us, where it's headed, and what the

challenges are. So, I really appreciated

him taking the time to come and join us.

last minute he rearranged his schedule

to come out for it and it was great. By

the way, on the point on energy, which I

still think is the biggest unsolved

issue right now in America besides the

uh the federal deficit and the debt

problem,

Chris Wright agreed to rearrange his

schedule to come and join us at the

all-in summit in September. Oh, great.

To continue the conversation. We didn't

get enough time to talk about it. So, we

are going to hear more from Chris

particularly with a particular focus,

which is what I wanted to spend time on.

didn't get a chance last week on nuclear

and where are we cuz he actually is very

passionate like he said at the thing

it's where he's spending most of his

time right now and I think it's very

good to hear the deep dive on where we

are in the cycle on trying to accelerate

nuclear energy deployment in the United

States same question to you after pus

you got two or three moments that stood

out

>> let's just talk about the executive

orders for a second because I think it's

pretty cool that the president of the

United States signed three executive

orders at the all-in summit that we just

hosted I And that was pretty amazing.

One of them was to promote AI exports

because we want the American tech stack

to become the global standard. The

second was around AI infrastructure to

make permitting easier so that we can

help solve those energy problems you're

talking about Freeberg. And then the

third one was on preventing woke AI in

the federal government. And that to me

is probably my personal favorite because

we spent a couple years on the show

talking about how when we're talking

about woke, you're really talking about

censorship, right? We were talking about

censoring people's views based on

ideological bias, ideological dogmas. We

saw what was happening

>> in social media before Elon bought X

that helped

>> bring things back. But we were on a

track, I think, before President Trump's

election to repeat that whole social

media censorship apparatus in the form

of AI bias or AI censorship. And we saw

this with the whole black George

Washington and where some AI models were

saying it was worse to misgender someone

than to have a global thermonuclear war.

>> Yeah. And this wasn't an accident

because if you go back to the Biden

executive order on AI, there was

something like 20 pages of language on

there encouraging DEI values to be

infused into AI models.

>> So again, we were on track to repeat all

the social media censorship, all the

trust and safety stuff in this new world

of AI, but it would have been even more

insidious because at least when someone

gets censored, you kind of find out

about it.

>> It's explicit. It's not.

>> It's explicit. But with AI, it would

have been worse because you wouldn't

have even known. It would just be there

rewriting history in real time to serve

a current political agenda. It would

have been brainwashing our kids.

>> Oh, and people trust these AIs more than

they should. I mean, these things are

making a prediction of the next word

coming. This is not like God-given truth

here. And so, Freeberg, you wanted to

interject about this one because this is

actually I'll be honest, Saxs, I'm

surprised you're saying this was the

most important one to you. I like that

you clarified it because it was the one

that was mocked or kind of like people

were like what why is this important? I

think you made a good case for why it's

important. Freeberg your response. Yeah,

but sex this is not about broadly making

quote AI non ideological. Private

companies should still have the right

through freedom of speech or freedom of

expression or freedom to operate to make

AI that does whatever they want it to

do. What the EO was was that the federal

government would not procure

ideologically biased AI. Is that

correct?

>> Yes. Exactly. No, we're we're aware

>> just to make sure that the the federal

government is not trying to instruct

private companies how to operate. It's

simply saying if you want to sell to us,

this these are the rules of the road.

>> Yes, that's true. So, we were very

careful about the First Amendment

issues. And you're right that if a

private company wants to put out a

biased AI product, we're not going to

tell people they can't use it.

>> And it could work. It could be

successful. People might like it. Ya.

>> Yeah. We're just saying that the federal

government is not going to spend

taxpayer money

>> buying AI models that have compromised

their accuracy and quality because

they're beholden to some, you know,

ideological agenda,

>> which is similar to the approach with

the universities, right? Hey, listen,

you could have a biased university.

We're just not going to fund it. We're

not participating. I think it's it's

quite reasonable in that way. And

>> yeah, and I would just say that, you

know, we were a lot more careful about

this than the Biden administration was

when they required that DEI be inserted

into all these models. They didn't

distinguish between public and private

money or government procurement versus

private models. So they just they were

trying to suffuse DEI into everything.

And what we're looking for here is just

neutrality, right? We're looking for a

lack of ideological bias. The first step

was to get rid of that Biden EO, which

the president did his first week in

office. This goes a little bit further

and it's a little bit of a shot across

the bow of these Silicon Valley

companies saying, "Look, you need to

play it straight. You need to be

ideologically unbiased."

>> As the default,

>> as the default, when you sell to the

government, you can't insert your values

at the expense of accuracy. Look, at the

end of the day, accuracy and truth

seeeking is the standard, right? You can

measure. That's the goal.

>> So, we don't want the quality, accuracy,

and truth seeeking to be sacrificed

because of these any are you still are

you still seeing that are like when you

say these Silicon Valley companies I

mean is this still kind of a widespread

concern or widespread deployment from

your point of view where you're sitting

like are you still seeing a lot of the

models being trained on ideological

systems that you know are preferential

to one group and not to another

>> I think it was a much bigger concern 6

months ago and I think there's been such

a huge vibe shift since President

Trump's election and taking office that

like the woke stuff is sort of going

away on its own but

>> I and I I think that's the trajectory

we're headed. But it was

>> But you still think it's important

enough to make sure that there's any

error?

>> Yeah. It's like, look, this is make sure

this thing doesn't come back from the

dead. I think that there's been a huge

vibe shift since President Trump's

election and woke has definitely fallen

out of favor and it seems to be going

away on its own. But we could still get,

you know, Orwellian outcomes with AI.

And I do think it's very important to

just keep underscoring that what AI

models should be focused on is the truth

is on accuracy. And we don't want

ideological agendas to sacrifice that.

And um and I think I think that even

though this is a less salient issue now

than 6 months ago, precisely because of

the vibe shift, I still think it's

important to underscore this point that

we don't want

>> would you go so far

>> we don't want AI taking an Orwellian

direction.

>> Yeah. Would you go so far as to limit

free speech and and make it

non ideologically biased? Like would you

make that law if you could

>> because again the the decision about the

federal government procuring versus what

these private companies can choose to

reflect as their quote values in their

systems.

>> No, he just you already answered that he

would not.

>> Yeah. No, look, I we understand the

difference between public procurement

and private speech and again in a way

that the Biden administration did not

because they were saying that all AI

models

>> Yes. had to be adhere to a specific

ideology

>> to the CI stuff. So

>> yes, it was an ideology they wanted

embedded in it. You're saying don't put

an ideology in. But just to be clear

here, I want to make one point. This is

the defaults. Anybody who wants to could

when they start their prompt or they set

up their preferred language model could

say, "I'm an atheist. Here's what I

believe. Please speak to me with this in

mind." Or, "I'm a Catholic. Uh, you

know, I'm a Protestant." Whatever you

want. Here's my belief system. Please

never reference, you know, these three

subject matters in this way. So this is

the default. I think it's a great thing

to

>> I think that's a great example, JCAL. I

do think we'll end up seeing religious

AI. I think we'll see AI that's tuned to

people's religious

ideological, but I think yeah,

>> I have one of the startups we did was

doing a learning app and they were

struggling and they just made a prayer

app and their prayer app went parabolic

and now they're just like printing

money. So there is definitely a a huge

market here.

>> Check out what what were your

highlights?

>> It was great to be, you know, included

in everything. So I appreciate that we

had uh No, I'm being dead serious.

>> Your invitation finally didn't get lost

in the mail.

>> No, but here's the thing. It I think

this could have been a nonall-in thing.

It could have just been, you know, you

could have done it and just invited who

you wanted to. So I like that it was

under the all-in umbrella and that we

didn't censor anything and we went right

at hard topics. I'm a moderate. I know

people want to make me into like a

stupid lib, but I am an independent

moderate. And there were moments in time

when we had great debate, too. This

wasn't just a love letter to the

administration. One of the great moments

was J. D. Vance. It was just great that

he wanted to come chop it up and just

hang with the besties. And he came out

and he went right at me. He was like,

"Hey, you treated me like a beep at the

thing. We had a big debate and you know,

he went right at me." And then I was

like, "Okay, it's on. Want to talk about

stuff?" And he said, "Yeah, let's get

into it." And that's what I love about

JD. JD to me seems like the politician

of the future. I know this is like the

Trump's administration, but

>> So, you like him?

>> No. No. I I'm in like with Trump. I'm in

love with JD because he's young. He's

opinionated and he likes to mix it up.

He's on Twitter all day long. He engages

people on Twitter. He engages people in

other groups. I'll leave it at that. And

uh we had a really, I think, honest

discussion about immigration. And we got

back to the highskilled immigration

question. That's the third rail for MAGA

and and for the country right now.

Immigration recruiting.

>> You mean you brought it up right off the

bat?

>> No. No. He said he wanted your hobby.

You brought it up. Your hobby horse very

I want to continue the debate and I

said, "Okay, let's continue the debate."

So, here we go. He was super spicy and

he made a great super spicy point that I

want to point out here on Amplify. if

companies are going to be laying people

off. And there was an incredible uh

chart that came out. It was in the

Financial Times and they showed male

college graduates versus

non-olgraduate males. And there was

usually a huge gap in unemployment

between those two. In other words, if

you had the college degree, you you had

a much better chance than the non-ol

male. And now those two things have

flipped or they're like neck and neck.

If you have a college degree, you have

no advantage as a man coming out in

this, you know, 20 to 27 year old range.

This is men. Women are actually doing

better. More women in college than men,

yada yada. But he's very attuned to

this. And he said he's got big concerns

right now. So this is again why I love

JD because JD is very tuned into the

fact that people are asking for more

H-1B visas and that typically is to save

money and supposed to be very skilled

people. But why is Microsoft laying off

9,000 people then asking for more, you

know, H-1B visas? This is a really

honest, truth-seeking question. And I

it's hard for this administration to

talk about this issue because I know you

got Steve Miller, Bannon, whatever

people all the way on one side who want

to deport 20, 30 million people, Tucker,

and you know, and then you have other

people who are more moderate. And I

thought that was like a really great

moment in time for America and for us as

a podcast to challenge and have a really

important discussion. And he made some

great points there. Number two, we had a

great debate, I think, about energy. Uh,

disagree.

>> You disagree. Okay.

>> I disagree with the because I think you

challenged him with I I think you

challenged him with things that were not

facts and not true. And I'm happy to

debate that with you offline. I think he

was caught off guard, but I think it was

pretty like

>> rough and inappropriate.

>> 100 If you think it's inappropriate,

that's fine. I

>> Jake's favorite moments were all the

ones where he got the ones where we had

debates.

>> That's what you're describing.

>> No, no. Where there were debates. got

with the vice president. You got into it

with the secretary of energy. Those your

favorite moments when you got to

>> Okay, great. So, okay, fine. I like when

there's a little conflict, a little

debate about an important issue. And

when I walk the audience, which was, you

know, 90%

Republican, GOP, MAGA, etc. People said

that was a great moment. I really like

that debate because he kept saying like

nonreliable energy and whatever. And I

said, are you talking about solar? And I

think there was a little misinformation.

>> Reliable. No, it's not.

>> You put it with a battery. Right now,

Texas is 30% some days wind and energy.

You know, like I can tell you I live in

the great state of Texas.

>> Texas is Texas roughly 5% solar. Just so

you know.

>> What's that?

>> Texas is roughly 5% solar,

>> right? And wind puts it up to 25 to 30%

on the top days is coming from that. My

point about that is and it's cheaper to

put in a solar uh and battery farm than

a new coal plant. It is 100%. We can

pull up the stats.

>> It is twice the cost to do solar than it

is to do nat gas. It takes 4,000 acres

whereas gas takes 20 acres.

>> I said coal.

>> Yeah, but these the big advocacy with

these guys is to use nat gas to use

methane. He was saying coal clean coal

clean coal. He said it 50 times.

>> These methane plants are half the cost

of solar. They can get stood up in less

than two years to generate a gigawatt.

And instead of being 4,000 acres of

solar, you can get it done for, you

know, call it 20 acres. Now talk a

little bit about pollution. And that's a

big part of why they're doing this.

Well, a big part of methane is that it's

actually cleaner than coal, which is why

they're using it. Cleaner than oilar.

>> Cleaner than oil and the two ways of

getting energy. Now, science guy, now do

>> I'm trying to give you the fact about

why about why it is cheaper and faster,

which is what he was making an advocacy

for, right? It's not about like solar.

Yes, you're right. It has a lower carbon

footprint when you're running it. But at

the end of the day, what these guys are

focused on and a big challenge for

America is how do we scale energy

production in the states and scaling

energy production, I personally think we

need to fix the regulatory roadblocks in

nuclear. And Chris Wright's been very

vocal on this.

>> We all agree on that.

>> But the fact is this NA gas supply that

we have in the United States and the

fact that we can deploy nat gas energy

production very quickly is what makes it

such a reliable source right now. if the

US wants to have a chance at scaling

from 1 terowatt to two faster than

projected today and that's the reason

you know it's not it's not about like

solar is being bad solar is bad like

that's not the the argument it's just

like dude we we got to get moving fast

and we got to have reliable energy

in our debates I just want to point in

our debates when there's bad faith

moments I think it's a bad faith moment

for when I say coal versus solar and

then you say no you're wrong it's solar

versus n gas and that's what he was

doing this is what politicians do here

all in. We like to do, you know, uh,

fact-based, truth first stuff, not

biased stuff. And so solar, you're

comparing. So, you know, solar and how

fast it is versus how fast it is to go

to net gas. Of course, it's faster to go

to net gas if we have those available.

Let's put that aside. It's an important

debate. The fact that you and I are

debating it is important. And I also

thought Lisa from AMD was fantastic. I

haven't heard from her. By the way, I

just want to point out that when I got

back to the conference, so I I left for

a time to go back to the White House and

then I came back.

>> The first thing everyone said to me

>> when I got back was,

>> "Did you see Jal being a jerk to Chris

Wright?" They were everyone was like,

"Oh, about the Yeah, a jerk.

>> He's a civil servant. He has to answer

hard questions. You didn't talk to him

in a in a in a in the way that you

would." Basically, everyone thought you

were a jerk to Chris, right? And you

were kind of a jerk to JD. And what are

your favorite moments?

>> Call me an

>> What are your favorite moments from the

conference? You're reminiscing about

>> that. You were an to me.

>> Anyway, the point is one thing you're

going to get here at the Allin.

This is where everyone%

two out of three were

>> everyone was saying this. You almost

derailed the whole thing.

>> Nobody derailed. You're a civil servant,

Mr. Sachs. You're a civil servant.

You're all civil servants.

>> I've been putting up with you for 5

years on this podcast.

>> The hard questions.

>> It was perfect training for government

services beyond the podcast being

interrupted by you for 5 years.

>> Yes.

>> That's why I'm so ready to dwell.

>> You learn about you work for us, all of

you. And you're all going to take hard

questions. And you're all going to take

hard questions on September 7th, 8th,

and 9th when we have the allin summit in

>> Los Angeles. By the way, by the way, one

thing I'll say is Chris Wright's chief

of staff came out to me afterwards and I

said, "Oh, I'm sorry. I heard Jake was a

jerk to to Secretary Wright and he's

like, "Oh, no. Chris loved it. He loves

mixing it up." Okay, of course.

>> And he's coming to he's coming to Olan

Summit in on September 8th. So,

>> can't wait to debate him more. Can't

wait to mix it up more.

>> So, he he likes mixing it up. So, kudos

to him.

>> Okay.

>> And so did so did JD Vance, the vice

president to you. Stop calling him JD,

by the way. Well, I mean, listen, I just

want to say Vice President J. D. Vance

and I have been directly communicating.

We had a We Yes.

>> No, you haven't.

>> David Sachs, your worst nightmare.

>> Oh my god. Your worst nightmare.

>> The nation is ruined. What the

>> We let Jake Allen to Washington and now

look what's happening.

>> Yeah.

>> And listen, I want to level set with

everybody.

>> We I am going to ask whatever

question I want to whatever guest we

have and nobody's stopping me. The only

way you're going to stop me is by

writing me a huge check to buy

me out of this podcast and replacing me

with some mid until

>> or if the Secret Service keeps you off

stage, which might be an option.

>> Or Secret Service keeps up stage. But

the truth is, this is one of the great

things about this administration sex is

that they love to mix it up. They like

great debate. You know who didn't like

great debate and ran from it? Kalama

Ding-Dong. She wouldn't even come on

this podcast. You know who doesn't like

debate? Tik Tok.

>> We get that at Bernie's Biden who didn't

even know what a podcast is.

>> Tim Waltz who doesn't own

>> you. You definitely you definitely have

your moments, bro. You definitely have.

>> But Tim Waltz doesn't own an equity. He

literally doesn't own one share of any

company, doesn't his home

>> and Tim Waltz is on there giving a hard

time about the uh Trump savings

accounts.

>> I mean, I don't even know if that's a

hat though, which you loved. You thought

that was going to win the election. I

thought he might be able to speak to

like the middle of America and then I

find out like

>> when they do the the Deep Oppo research

that the guy doesn't own one stock.

>> The guy doesn't own his home. He's

financially illiterate and we're making

him

>> employed by the government. He's been

employed by the government his whole

life.

>> I mean, have you

There it is.

>> That's what Jake thought would win the

election.

>> You're never going to live that down. I

remember when you tweeted you thought

that was it. You thought that was the

master stroke. I thought it might

>> master stroke that was going to win them

the election.

>> Hey, listen. No straanis does not bat a

thousand. No, no, even no straanis

cannot bat a thousand. But it did come

out, by the way, that Nancy Pelosi

wanted to do the speedrun primary. I

don't know if you saw that, just not to

rehash too much stuff. Sax, I want to um

say there was one point of difference if

you want to get into it around the the

the content part of part of it where and

this is something that

>> the press was having a field day with

and they really keyed on which was hey

respecting IP, respecting copyright.

What's the feedback been so far on that

which was a pretty spicy part of

President Trump's speech?

>> Well, I think what the president said

was just very pragmatic. He said we had

to have a common sense approach towards

intellectual property. And he said if

you have to make a deal with every

single article on the internet, every

single website, every single book, every

piece of IP in order to train an AI

model, it wasn't feasible. He said,

"Look, I appreciate the work that went

into people creating these works, but

you're not going to be able to negotiate

a deal for every single one of them. And

if we require our AI models to do that

and China doesn't and they won't.

They're just training on everything

whether it's you know pirated or not

then we're going to lose AI race. So I

think he took the side of a fair use

definition. I don't know if he used the

term fair use but effectively he was

taking the side of a reasonable fair

use.

>> What did you think of that part Dave

Freeberg? You have any thoughts for

Jimoth on that part?

>> I think he's absolutely right. I've said

this before. If something's in the

internet, if something's in the open

domain, and I strongly disagree with the

idea that AI getting trained is the same

as AI replicating copyright material. If

AI outputs text or outputs audio or

outputs video that contains copyright

material, it is 100% in violation of

copyright.

>> And he said that, by the way,

>> yes. And if the AI is learning, it is

understanding patterns, it is

understanding reasoning, it is

understanding concepts by reading

copyright material just like humans do.

A writer, an author reads a bunch of

fiction, learns good techniques, learns

good concepts, learns good theory from

reading all those books and then goes

and writes his or her own book. They are

not violating copyright material. In the

same way,

Freeberg, what if it's all the New York

Times on the open internet?

>> 100%. You're you're 100% correct that

should be paid for or licensed. I'm

talking about the open internet. I'm

talking about open material. I'm talking

about stuff that's in the open domain

which

>> common crawl.

>> There's a thing called common crawl.

>> If there was if somebody stole a hundred

books, let's say, and put them on their

website and it was a pirated Russian

website with a thousand books on it and

you accidentally crawled it, you would

be obligated to take that out then. I

think we all agree.

>> Correct.

>> Okay. Correct.

>> Cuz that's what a lot of the lawsuits

around. So, I think we're reaching

something. I just want to say, you know,

this is such an important point,

especially to me as a content creator

and somebody who spent his career in

this. I've been thinking about the

endgame and um I was I'm here in Park

City. I was just giving a a keynote and

I wanted to show you something I made

saxs because I think we have to get to

the the endgame here. So, in my talk, I

talked a little bit about how can we get

through this fight and then maybe

getting to a solution. So, I had my team

mock up

the New York Times website here and chat

GPT doing a deal with them. So, here you

see you're on the New York Times website

and you ask it a question powered by

GPT. You ask it, hey, you might ask this

question. In fact, you log in with your

chat GPT credentials. You're and it

could be Gro, it could be Gemini. Give

me the earliest mentions of Putin, you

know, if you were a fan of Putin or

something. And it would then go through

that and give you your your Putin

references. And then I made another one.

And then obviously this would be an

exclusive to Chat GPT. It would be one

of those things where you know they get

an exclusive. And then here on the uh

Disney Plus channel, imagine you could

make yourself into a Jedi Knight and you

could then upload your photo. You know,

kids might really get into this. You

upload your photo, you can make You

talked about this free a couple of times

of the future of narrative storytelling.

You up your photo and then it makes you

into a Jedi Knight. There's there's

Darth Calacanis. So

>> that looks to me like you're infringing

on their trademark. What's that?

>> Are you infringing on their their

copyright?

>> This is fair use. This is fair use. This

is a perfect example of fair use for

editorial.

>> You're also infringing on some Osmpic.

That's absolutely infringing.

>> Trust me, I am definitely infringing on

some OMIC here, guys. I'm I'm past

those. I'm on to peptides now, man. I'm

on the Wolverine protocol. So, look at

>> Are you

>> Yeah, I started doing the I mean I I

don't What could go wrong?

>> Don't take a podcaster's advice. Please

don't take a podcaster's advice on your

healthcare rule number one. Take

Chimat's advice because he's got 6% body

fat, which I think attributes to much of

your pomp and circumstance around your

privates. I think it has to do with the

lack of fat. But I'm going to leave it

at that.

>> First of all, it's 11 and a half, but

you know, it that's that's like right

that's like right before I go on summer

vacation. Then it then it ends up at 12

or 13.

>> Did you go get that? Did you go get that

gelato? What was that place we went that

we love? Lulu me. I've gone there every

day. Every day so far.

>> Did you do two or one? Be honest. Two or

one?

>> Bro, I've had I've had I've been doing

>> No, no. Per session. Do you do two or

one? Be honest.

>> Per session, too. I start with the

medium and then and I finish with a

small.

>> Yeah, exactly. You This stuff is so

good.

>> I've never tasted any gelato like this.

It's incredible.

>> I mean, it's unbelievable. We have to

license it for the United States and the

all-in brand. We have to license it from

them.

>> It's really incredible. But Chamath just

generally speaking or anybody who wants

to have at it. Friedberg Sachs, what do

we think about the endgame here? Because

there's some major lawsuits here.

They're going to get settled in the next

year or two. What What do we think about

sort of the future I've shown here

today?

>> I think what Sax just highlighted is

exactly right.

>> Look, we got to have a common sense

approach here or we're going to lose the

AI race. I mean, one of the out one of

the key determinants

>> of AI quality is the amount of data that

you have. It's very simple, right? It's

there's a few building blocks. There's

energy, there's chips, and there's data,

and there's algorithms. And if you lose

on any one of those dimensions, then

you're in trouble, right?

>> So, look, you just can't have a

situation where China can train on the

entire internet. And RAI models are

hamstrung by needing to contract,

>> negotiate contracts with every single

website.

>> But right now, Europe, Elon owns X,

right? He owns Twitter for now X. Does

Sam Alman have the right to use X in his

corpus?

>> It's public.

>> No, it's not. No, it is not public

endpoint.

>> It's not a public.

>> I just honestly I don't

>> there's I don't know the answer to that.

There's some edge cases here. We're

going to have to come up with

>> It's not about whether it's behind a

payw wall or not. It's whether these

APIs exist and whether you're you're

actually contractually allowed to use

them or not.

>> The terms of service. Correct.

>> The terms of service. It's published on

every website what the terms of service

are with respect to the content. I think

it would be okay to let people opt out,

you know. So, we already have this with

Common Crawl. You can put in the footer

of the website, you put in robots.txt

and you opt out of Common Crawl.

>> Common Crawl is like this nonprofit

organization that basically archives the

entire web every few months.

>> Funded by Gil Elbaz,

>> former Yeah.

>> formerly of Google. Great fan of the

pod. Shows up to our summits. Great guy.

>> And all of Open AI was built off of

Common Crawl originally.

And he but they're very clear by the

way. They say you have to clear

copyrights. You don't get to just use

open Chrome.

>> Can I go out on a limb? I don't know if

you guys saw this Amazon deal with the

New York Times for $25 million. Did you

see that today?

>> No,

>> I didn't see today. Explain it, please.

>> I think that the New York Times licensed

Amazon all of their content, including

The Athletic and a bunch of other things

for training. 20 million. Sorry, 20

million a year.

>> Okay, here we I read that and I thought

this is the peak of these deals. These

deals will only go down in terms of

dollar value from here.

And it it actually brought me to this

point where I was thinking to myself, is

it even realistic

to believe that patents and copyrights

actually exist in 5 years? And I went

through this exercise of like if a

computer studies the

periodic table and also understands the

laws of physics, the laws of biology,

the laws of chemistry and then

independently deres

some material that is otherwise

patented,

what will happen?

And then separately, if two competing

AIs invent a new material from scratch,

how will the international courts deal

with this? And if you take all of these

examples to the limit, at the limit, the

idea that there are copyrights,

enforcable copyrights,

I think is a very fragile assumption. So

I'm actually thinking more that we have

to spend some time understanding the

landscape of a world that doesn't have

copyrights and patent protections and

instead what is the surface area in

which you compete what is trade secret

what does that mean in a world of AI and

I think it's quite an interesting thing

to think about

patents are a totally different piece I

think that's a fascinating string to

pull on I will tell you I will take the

other side of the bet if we want to make

a poly market on this. I will guarantee

that this will be the beginning of the

deals and the deals will go up from

here. I'll tell you why. The reason the

New York Times made that deal is to make

it apparent that what OpenAI has done

has damaged their business because now

they have a customer and their customer

is Jeff Bezos at Amazon and Jasse and

now they can show damages because and

now those damages could give them an

injunction against OpenAI and OpenAI's

got to take it out of their crawl of

their you know construct and that's

going to be really expensive for them.

It's not not doable, but it's going to

be expensive. And let's think on a

societal basis of what we want as a

society. Do we want a society in which

journalists, writers, artists,

musicians, filmmakers, actors cannot

make a living, podcasters, or do we want

a world in which they can?

>> And I think technologists,

>> hold on, let me hold on. As a

technologist, as a technologist, we

typically think if we can crawl it, it's

ours.

>> What I can tell you as an artist is if I

make it, it's mine. and you need my

permission because it's my art and I

think it the industry will do better if

they respect them because now the New

York Times can hire more fact checkers.

>> But can I just ask you a question?

>> Yeah, go ahead. Sure.

>> But why do you have to connect the two

as immutable things? meaning why can't

somebody make something still you know

let's just say it's a song but that song

can now be made by multiple AI models

but if they make the song

there's a reasonable claim that even if

they don't have the copyright more

people will want them to perform the

song than some random AI

so can't you make a living without

having the copyright

>> which is the choice of the artist some

artists are were very well known for not

wanting their art to exist in some

mediums. As a perfect example, the

Rolling Stones for a long time thought

they would be sellouts if they had their

music used in commercials. And when they

did Start Me Up with Windows, that was a

really big concession from them. And

that's up to the artist to make that

decision. You make a a valid claim. Hey,

yeah, you go on tour and make more

money. But that's the artist decision,

not the technologists or the people

stealing their content. And by the way,

$20 million a year is a hundred $200,000

highly paid journalists, fact checkers

at the New York Times. They're going to

get 10 of those deals. And it's going to

create a golden era age of journalism

and content. And we should be happy.

>> I told you this example, Jason, but at

at Beast, we did a a licensing deal of

our content to allow OpenAI to learn

>> Yeah.

>> to run training runs on our videos. And

at the board, the thing that we kept

talking about was I was I was really

concerned like, let's just do a a couple

year deal max.

>> And the reason is we have no idea what

this looks like. in

>> five or 10 years. And there's just as

much chance to your point that we get it

wrong as right. Now that was about 6

months ago. And so the intuition that I

had back then was maybe we should keep

the deal term as short as possible. But

now when I see how important AI is in

the global landscape and what China is

doing, I think on the margins that this

idea that these copyrights will mean

something

>> in my mind, I am underwriting the value

of these things going to zero and I'm

asking myself instead for my businesses,

how are we actually building a real

defensible moat and not a piece of paper

that we can use to sue somebody?

>> Okay, Freeberg, you want the last word

here? We got to move on to some other

topics. I

>> I just want to be the last word.

>> I just want to be clear that nobody is

losing their copyright.

>> Copyright is the right not to have your

work copied. And if an AI model produces

outputs that copy or plagiarize your

work, then that's a violation of the

law.

>> And I think the president specifically

said that we're not allowing copying or

plagiarizing. The question is whether AI

models are allowed to do math on the

internet. You know,

>> pattern recognition pattern recognition.

>> Basically, that's what it is. And it's

and Jal, I think you're conflating the

two. And I I don't want to be

interrupted. I just want to say this.

>> I understand the distinction.

>> And and I think that this idea that like

I can't, for example, go to the library,

rent a book, read it, and then learn

some of the good techniques on how to

write a good book should be restricted

to humans in this AI context. Like this

is exactly what they're doing. They're

identifying patterns and then they're

building predictive algorithms that

allow them to output stuff that starts

to fit within different kind of, you

know, variable settings. Do you guys

think it's possible that if you

allocated enough compute

at the problem, you could write Michael

Kryton's Jurassic Park Denovo without

ever having read it?

>> Yeah, me too. Me too. I I think

>> I don't know what that would mean. Like,

>> well, this is my point. I know who

Michael is and I know what Jurassic Park

is. I don't know what it means

>> this issue.

>> I don't know what it means to say can AI

write that like

>> but you guys remember the Ed Sheeran

lawsuit. Do you remember the lawsuit?

>> I I did. But let me just make one point

here on this cuz you're saying I don't

understand it. I spent my career in it.

I understand it much better than you do

>> and I understand it from lawsuits and

being in the weeds on it. Like I

understand it from first principles

which you do not. And I will say this is

what we're talking about here is the

definition. It's the definition of a

derivative work. and the output matters.

So if you were to take my knowledge and

then create a derivative work from it

and you used a percentage of my work and

that's where this will get into the

nuance is what percentage of the

original work is used in the derivative

work and under what context a commercial

context or a non-commercial this is

clearly a commercial one if it's a if

openai was a nonprofit right now we'd be

having a distinctly different discussion

because it would there would be you

wouldn't be competing with me as the

copyright holder to use this new medium

and create the derivative works and it

has to change substantially. So if it's

a if it's a cliffnotes

>> when China has the only models that are

able to meet your stringent definitions

of copyright.

>> Well, no. Here's the thing. I think the

China fear the China fear is

I'll be totally honest here.

Just because China steals IP does not

mean you get to steal from Americans. In

America, we have rules. And when you go

to China, and by the way, we spent the

last 30 years. The major issue with

China is not Taiwan. It has been

the technology industry itself. Let me

finish. The technology industry itself

has leaned on our government for 30, 40

years, including Microsoft, including

Google, to make sure our trade secrets

are not stolen, our IP is not stolen,

our movies are not stolen. That is the

key issue with China. So just because

China's a thief does not mean American

companies get to

>> have you seen Have you seen the latest

batch of Chinese open source models or

open models?

>> They they steal everything. Does that

mean you should be able to steal

Windows? Should you be able to steal

Jason? We don't think it's stealing.

Elon has said this pretty clearly, but

Grock 5 and for sure Grock 6 will not

use Common Crawl. It will not use the

internet. Okay? It'll just be an

enormous amount of synthetic data. And

back to what Freeberg and I just agreed

upon, if you synthetically go and try to

generate all this content to learn

across, you're invariably going to

produce something that's already been

created.

>> That's like some sci-fi level.

>> I understand. That's what's happening

now. It's happening now.

>> If somebody

>> What do you think happens to Grock 5 or

Grock 6? Is that violating copyright? It

didn't even know that it existed

>> on the output. Yeah, that's fine. If it

on the output created a similar work,

they would need to then take it down.

And so that that would be a really

interesting new that's a new space we're

going to have to contend with. So you

can if it does happen is a new concept

that we would have to address in a new

way. I'll give you I'll give you a

science corner example. There's this

EVO2 model that they published at the

Arc Institute which Patrick Collison you

know is the name Sherman.

>> So that EVO2 model they just ingested

all the DNA data they could find in the

world. Trillions and trillions of base

pair of data that they ingested

>> and then they looked at patterns in DNA

and that's it. They had no context for

what the DNA represented. They had no

context for the concept of genes. none

of the structured understanding of what

that DNA does, what it is. And you know

what it did? It fed in the BA gene

variant and the thing output a warning

saying I think that this is a pathogenic

variant to DNA without having any

context. This is the the breast cancer

alil and it didn't have any knowledge

and it did it wasn't trained on that at

all. It had no knowledge that there are

pathogenic variants for cancer and it

identified that this was a genetic

variant that can cause some sort of

pathogenic outcome in the organism. So

that was that's a great example where

there's a lack of understanding at the

human level on what really drives some

of the patterns in nature, the patterns

in society, the patterns in behavior

that are kind of emergent phenomena

perhaps that these AI models are

starting to identify. And I think to

Jama's point, we may end up seeing this

in things like entertainment as well.

All right, this has been an amazing

debate. We got to move on. And you know

what? We're going to have more amazing

debates September 7th through 9th in Los

Angeles at the All-In Summit. The lineup

is stacked. Alibaba's co-founder Josai

Tomma Bravo co-founder Arc Invest Kathy

Wood Uber CEO Dra Sequoa's Rolaf Botha

YouTuber Cleo Abram and many many more

coming you get the last word here go

>> I was just highlighting this tweet that

I saw

>> where talking about Chinese openweight

models are basically open source models

so

>> basically all the leading American

models are closed source and all the

leading Chinese models are open source

this is kind of the way things played

out.

>> It's a pretty good technique for

catching up because then you got the

larger open source developer community

helping you out.

>> But the point is just that these open

source models are catching up pretty

fast. We're ahead in many other aspects.

Our chips are a lot better. Our data

centers are better and so on. And I'd

say our closed source models are better.

But they have this one area of open

source models. So again, if you

hamstring our AI models access to data

by creating a whole bunch of new

requirements for contract negotiations,

like we could really lose the AI race.

This is a really big deal. It's not a

madeup concern. I don't know why you

think it's made up.

>> I never said that it's made up. I think

it's an opportunity for America to

actually have a distinct advantage,

which is that $20 million from Amazon

alone is 1% of the New York Times

revenue. And that's going to go directly

to the bottom line. It's going to allow

them to hire more journalists. Then that

protected site will have be giving in

real time something. These language

models are going to have to go hack and

steal that real-time data is going to be

a distinct advantage for Gemini, OpenAI,

Amazon, whoever chooses to do it. And we

can create

>> you have this like nostalgic sort of

quasi romantic notions about like

journalism and the need to save the New

York Times.

>> It's also art. It's I mean you can say

all the derogatory things you want about

me personally, Saxs. That argument

doesn't work. No, no. You just said I

have this whole nostalgia whatever when

you

>> Yeah, you do. You're nostalgic for

journalism as it used to exist.

>> When I know I've beat you in the debate

is when you make it personal like that.

It's not personal. I'm not being

nostalgic. I'm trying to create a

sustainable a sustainable advantage for

America. And you are our public servant

and you're learning AI. You will take my

feedback.

>> You will take my feedback.

>> We're going to ignore your feedback.

Take your feedback. Public service.

>> Throwing in the trash. No, you take it

and I will be showing up at the White

House for my tour.

>> You have this crazy idea that we're

going to win the AI race by tying one

hand behind our back so that you can

subsidize journalists so you can

subsidize movies. You'll get more

content. You said before you want more

training data, pay for it. Pay for more

training data. You're the zar. Take it

back to pus. All right, let's keep

moving here.

>> We have to keep moving. We have a great

This is great debate. Great debate here

on the All-In podcast. It's not going to

stop, folks.

>> It's just you yelling. It's just you

yelling saying things that don't make

sense.

>> Okay, you can say that.

>> You only have like three topics going

on. You can you can personally attack.

>> You know what it is? It's like we got to

let in more immigrants. Number one.

Number two, high skilled immigrants.

>> AI is going to put everyone out of work.

By the way, no sense of perceived

contradiction between those two things.

Number three, we need to like subsize

here. You know, the audience says the

same. When the three of you guys attack

me, Jason,

when the audience

gang up on me like this, the three of

you gang up on this and you personally

attack me, the audience comes up to me

and they say, "Wow, you really nailed

and beat."

>> Have you done that today?

>> No, not yet. Not yet. But a little bit

of the buting.

>> Yeah, that's true. Let him eat the

He's emaciated. He's 11% body fat. Let

him eat. Let him cook. All right.

Listen, you and I, Saxs, will do more

debate and it's going to be amazing.

allin.com/ yada yada yada for tickets.

Get in there, folks. Uh, we have to get

to the docket. We're an hour in and we

still have all the news.

>> We should talk about this this um AI

privacy issue that Sam Alman mentioned.

>> All right, that's a great segue cuz I

saw that as well, David Saxs, and as our

civil servant working on AI, this is

something where you can have an

additional contribution. There's more

work we can give you. All right, listen.

Here it is. AI user privacy is becoming

an issue because friend of the pod Sam

Alman says there is no legal

confidentiality when using his product

chat GPT. Here's a 30 secondond clip

again. Friend of the pod fop Sam Alman

on the vaugh people talk about the most

personal in their lives to chatt

young people especially like use it as a

therapist a life coach uh having these

relationship problems. What should I do?

And right now, if you talk to a

therapist or a lawyer or a doctor about

those problems, there's like legal

privilege for it. We haven't figured

that out yet for when you talk to

ChachiBT. So, if you go talk to CHP

about your most sensitive stuff and then

there's like a lawsuit or whatever, like

we could be required to produce that.

And I think that's very screwed up. I

think we should have like the same

concept of privacy for your

conversations with AI that we do with a

therapist or whatever.

>> Okay, Saxs, this is bringing up

something super important.

What's your take on it?

>> Okay. Well, I I think this is an

interesting topic because like

copyright, this is an area where we have

existing law, but it does make you

rethink whether those laws are truly

applicable or make as much sense in this

new world. So, the existing law, the

existing example is search history. You

know, the government can get a copy of

your search history. They can subpoena

it.

>> Yeah. Every true crime story starts with

the person's search for how do I kill my

husband slowly with you poison and then

they Yeah, that's

>> right. Exactly. The point is though that

I think Sam is right about the legal

treatment right now, which is that your

chat history isn't any different than

the search history in the eyes of the

law. But it is much more personal. It's

much more interactive than your search

history. You are using it like you said,

you could use it as a as your doctor.

You could use it as your therapist. You

could use as your lawyer. And so the

ability for the federal government to be

intrusive is so much greater than with

your search history. So I don't know

what like the right policy should be

yet, but I I will say it does make me

uncomfortable.

>> Yeah, there's a market.

>> Can I make a recommendation to my AIR?

>> Yes, please. He's our

>> Why don't we Why don't we let AI models

get bar certified and get medically

certified? So, if the AI models, it

turns out, are actually proving to be

more accurate, more thoughtful,

more responsive, more reasonable,

whatever it is, whatever metric we're

using, and they pass the same criteria

as one would need to pass to qualify for

the bar or to qualify for a doctor

certificate. Why don't we do that for

the AI? If that then happens, then the

the same privilege occurs to the AI as

it does to the individual human that

does it. And now if you extrapolate from

where that takes us, if we're suddenly

giving AI the same sort of privileged

rights that we give to privileged

humans, where's that going to take us

ultimately with respect to the overall

rights for AI?

>> Well, and they have responsibility. Hold

on a second. I just want to point out

here once again, you have a mind-blowing

concept here. I've never heard anybody

vocalize that. Could they actually be

certified in that knowledge? And if they

pass the test, makes sense they would.

But then you also get responsibility.

>> So with great power comes great

responsibility. I will tell you this.

>> You can turn this stuff off. But this is

an opportunity. I'm going to send a note

to you.

>> And it sounds crazy today, but I

guarantee if you put it on Poly Market,

there will be a date when this happens.

>> Poly market. Shout out to Shane. Let's

get that up there. I just want to point

out I'm going to email Elon about this

when I get off the pod.

>> This is an opportunity to create the

signal of the signal equivalent of an

LLM. The all of your chat should be

encrypted. All of it should be by by

default. Encrypt it by default on Grock.

Make it so that Grock can't even see it.

They don't have it. So when you try to

subpoena it, you can do what Tim Cook

does, which he says like, I don't have

it. You, if you want to try to back door

it, you can. That's a market

opportunity. I can tell you I only use

the Brave browser and Brave search for

this reason. I don't want my search

history like saved somewhere or

whatever. that. You can take

control of this as an individual, but

the defaults matter and you have to then

do the work. It's a great market

opportunity. Chimoth, I don't even want

to know what you're talking to chat GPT

about. What are you What's in your chat

GBT logs?

What's in there, Chimoth? How to extend?

How to get the extra centimeter? What's

in there? You trying to

What's in there?

>> I keep asking it to find me a moderator.

>> Oh, great. I keep asking it to find me a

participant who's not a douche. Um,

>> my god, you are so deep in your villain

era and you're leaning into it and I'm

so here for it, Chimat. I love your

villain.

>> You know why? I am so

>> Why are you going into your villain?

>> I am so riskon right now. It's like

>> it's liberating actually. It's amazing.

>> It's really amazing.

>> Is there any blowback to how outlandish

you've become this year? Any blowback at

all? Has it had any negative consequence

on business or hiring or anything?

>> No. But but outlandish? How how have I

been outlandish?

>> You're you're you're just filter off.

You're filter off. And I think it's

great. I think you're over two windows

back. It's absolutely fantastic we're

seeing here. I asked chat GPT about my

future and uh my IQ. It's very

interesting when you ask chat GPT to

analyze you.

>> I suggest everyone do it.

>> Well, actually, yeah, when you just ask

chat GPT or whatever, what do you know

about me?

>> And it's scary how much it already does.

>> It's scary. There's this great

personality test. You can put this

personality test into Grock and this guy

like made this prompt and it goes and it

tells you all your personality based on

your Twitter ex history. It is wild how

accurate it is. What does it say about

you, J? I'm actually curious.

>> It says the same thing about all of us.

We're all likeworked

narcissist, ENTJ. You can literally run

the MyersBriggs against your

>> Yeah, your chat history. It's actually

But I I like your mind-blowing concept

there, by the way, of like them becoming

certified in some way. Okay, fresh

economic news. It's time for the

administration to take their victory

lap. GDP growth was 50% higher than

expectations in Q2 as the Fed held rates

at 4.25%. In Q1, GDP declined 50 basis

points. That's probably due to the

imports. People were stockpiling goods.

>> That's the most pointless chart ever.

>> Okay. And then Yeah, it is. I agree.

It's a little bit Yeah,

>> it's distorted by I wanted to have both.

I wanted to have both as bar charts.

This one

>> totally on drugs. Just say it. It's

okay.

>> What drugs are you on? I'm not I had

coffee and now I'm out. I'm out.

>> We're all friends. You can tell us. Is

it really just out?

>> All right, that's it. I'm taking it out.

>> Oh my god.

>> I took it out. And now let's get back to

the here. Okay. The Fed kept rates

unchanged for the fifth straight

meeting. This time, two out of 11 Fed

governors desented from Pal's decision.

Two of the dissenters were both

Republicans nominated by Trump. So, it

seems like the Fed is becoming a little

polarized now, too. First time in 32

years that more than one governor

dissented. And um yeah, even one person

dissenting is rare. Here's a 25-second

clip of Pal explaining how GDP factored

into the cut decision. Nick, please play

the clip. Recent indicators suggest that

growth of economic activity has

moderated. GDP rose at a 1.2% pace in