I have a very funny story to tell you.

Jason,

>> where have you been? I've been trying to

text you. You've been offline. What's

going on? Where have you been?

>> I've been working feverishly, but

yesterday I had to

go to prepare for some meetings that I

have on Sunday, which I can't tell you

about, but

>> Natt and I,

>> Natt and I went to Pasalaqua,

which is in Lake Ko, which is an in I

mean, it's stunning. The the grounds are

stunning. The hotel is stunning. if you

have a chance to go to Lake Ko.

>> Anyways, this is us at Pasal Aqua.

>> Who's the beautiful woman there? Is that

the woman who owns it or something? Is

that the queen?

>> That's not But the best part is we had

such a good time. You know how they have

like a registry book to leave a message?

>> Sure.

>> So, I left a message.

>> Here we go. What a truly magnificent

place. Above and beyond any expectation

we had.

>> Go below. Go below. That's not for me.

>> Thank you. We took everything. The free

>> We took everything. The free bird. Oh my

god, Jason. The hangers.

>> Okay.

The laundry bag toothpaste, the robes,

the slippers, everything.

>> Absolutely fantastic.

>> Listen, you're going to have to send a

bill to the free birds.

>> Absolutely.

[Music]

>> We'll let your winners ride.

[Music]

>> And that's it. We open sourced it to the

fans and they've just gone crazy with

>> love.

>> All right, listen. We've got a great

panel this week. It's the summer. Things

are slow. Some people are busy. I think

uh our prince of panic attacks, our dear

Sultan of science is uh he's at the beep

sax is busy. Couldn't make it this week

in his place. another brilliant PayPal

alumni and uh dare I say GOP supporter,

Heath Ra Boy. How are you, sir?

>> Pleasure to be with you again.

>> Nice to see you. And I'm assuming you're

in gorgeous Florida or somewhere in

Yeah,

>> I'm actually in New York.

>> Oh, my hometown. Is it safe? Is it okay?

Mom Dammy uh chasing you down the

street.

>> Not yet, but it's safe.

>> Seize your assets. It's safe. Yeah, it's

safe right now. We'll see you on

November 4th. You know, as you probably

heard, on July 4th was the first time in

recorded history that there were no

shootings or no murders in New York on

that day. So, right now, things are in

pretty good shape, but we may be maybe

leaving New York quickly.

>> Yeah, you're going to probably want to

sell that place if you got one there

because Mami is going to seize it and

turn it into a drugstore for you. Yes,

it's going to be

drug stores. Travis Kalanick is back

with us. How you doing, bestie?

>> Uh, pretty good. Pretty good. Yeah.

Second appearance here on the round

table and uh third time on the show. Of

course, you spoke at the summit. You've

been busy with cloud kitchens. Yeah.

Lots of exciting things going on.

>> Oh, lots of stuff. Lots of stuff. The

robots the robots are taking over. We're

we're rolling out. We're rolling out

robots. Yeah.

>> TK, can you tell us what you're doing

with this Pony AI thing or not? That's

speculation.

>> Uh look, you know, obviously is autonomy

as we, you know, in the US we have of

course. Wait, do you want to just frame

for people that don't that may not be up

to speed what was announced or at least

>> Why don't you frame it? So, why don't

you AI is um an autonomous company doing

self-driving? It's one of the few uh

players that actually have cars on the

road. They're based in China. They've

got a lot of operations in the Middle

East. They've got a deal with um a

delivery company called Uber, which you

might be familiar with.

>> Uh okay. So

look,

>> well the deal was basically that you

would partner with Uber, license in the

pony technology and essentially start a

competitor I guess to Whimo and Tesla.

>> Let me work on this one. Okay. So So in

the US we have Whimo. We see the Whimos

in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Boston,

coming soon to Miami, coming soon to

Atlanta, coming soon to DC. They're even

talking about New York.

Tesla's sort of like the, you know,

they're doing it the hard way, you know,

classic Elon style, like let's

let's do this sort of in a fundamental

holy let's go all the way kind of

kind of approach. Uh, and it's unclear

when it gets over the line. Of course,

he he launched sort of a a semi

semi-pilot of sorts in Austin recently,

but there's no other alternatives. So

what happens is is some of the folks who

are interested in making sure there are

alternatives

have reached out they they've reached

out to me and there different

discussions they get going because

they're like Travis you did autonomy way

back in the day got the Uber autonomous

stuff going in 2014

maybe there's something to do here to

create optionality now maybe like I'm of

course very interested on the food side

I talk about autonom onous burritos

being a big deal because if you can

automate the kitchen, the production of

food and then you can automate the sort

of logistics around food, you take huge

amount of costs out of the food out of

what's going on in food and that's of

course near and dear to my heart.

There's folks of course that want to see

autonomy and mobility. That's a real

thing. It it may be that or I would say

if you get the autonomy problem right,

you can use it to apply to both

problems. So there's a lot of folks

interested in

moving things, moving food, moving

people. And if there is some kind of

autonomous

technology that maybe I get involved in,

it might apply to a bunch of different

things. And so I've got some inbound.

Let's just put it that way. There's no

there's no real deal right now, but

there is definitely some inbound. And I

think there is some news about some of

that inbound that may or may not be

occurring. That's probably the best way

to put it. That is long-winded. I'll try

to tighten that up next time.

>> No, no, I think it's great to get the

overview here first on uh

>> allin. Thank you for sharing it with us.

And everybody knows you have

>> been doing a bowl builder lab 37 I think

it's called. We throw it up on the

screen. Not sure what the status of it

is. And then I'll let you go, Chimath,

with your follow-up question. But

>> I I think there's a pretty interesting

concept here of the bowl getting built

>> and then put into a self-driving car.

>> Now, that machine looks huge, but it's

actually 60 square feet.

>> That picture makes it look monstrous.

It's a 60 foot machine like uh imagine

running like a Sweet Green like brand or

a Chipotle like brand and just making it

so it comes to life for people who

>> who you know are like, "Hey, what is

this thing?" Imagine you just order

online exactly the kind of bowl you want

and actually this machine could run like

many brands at the same time and and

does you build the bowl you want

whatever ingredients uh it sort of it if

you look at that bottom you see those

little white bricks at the bottom that's

what carries the bowl underneath

dispensers it fills up the machine puts

a it sauces the the bowl then it puts a

lid on it takes the bowl puts it in a

bag uh puts utensils in the bag seals

the bag and the bag goes down a conveyor

belt where then another machine what we

would call an AGV takes the bull to the

front of house. The bull gets put into a

locker. The courier be a Door Dash who

breeds courier will wave their app in

front of a camera and it will open up

the locker that has the food that

they're supposed to pick up. So it just

it takes out a lot of what we would call

the the cost of assembly. um which is

more

>> reduces mistakes, right? I mean a

mistake. Yeah,

>> we know exactly how many grams of every

ingredient are put in. That's exactly

what you're supposed to get

>> and so you get a higher quality product.

It takes a lot of the cost out. You

imagine ultimately that's going to be

they're going to be couriers with that

as well that you know I like to say

autonomous burritos like is a Whimo

gonna carry a burrito or is Tesla going

to have a a machine that carries food or

you know is there another another

company that ends up doing you know sort

of the the the things the the the the

autonomous delivery of things and the

point is is well where we are right now

is we've got customers and so those

customers are starting to deploy

this quarter and it's pretty

interesting. I mean you can the in our

delivery kitchens

the cost of labor is about 30% of

revenue. That's what the successful guy

let's say 30% 35% of revenue in a in a

brickandmortar in a brick and mortar

restaurants it's even higher. Okay.

>> When they're running our machine it's

between seven and 10% of revenue.

Right.

>> Amazing. Then you take out the cost of

the delivery, you know, and now it's

becoming everybody can have a private

chef, which was your original vision for

Uber was people don't know the original

tagline, but it was your your p

everybody has a private driver.

>> Everyone's private driver was the

original for Uber. Basically, the

infrastructure was already there. And I

said this on, you know, one of your

recent, I think it was at the All-In

Summit, Jason, but like um

in the mobility, cars, you know, I

transport uh space, the roads were

already there. The cars were already

built. People weren't using their cars

98% of the day. So the infrastructure is

already there to get people around

>> to do this as a service and do it very

efficiently and conveniently

>> with food. The infrastructure is not

there. Like yes, restaurants have excess

capacity. That's what Uber Eatats

utilizes. But to go and say like let's

make 30% of all meals in a in a city uh

sort of prepared and delivered by a

service, the infrastructure is not

there. So you have to build it. So our

company that the mission is uh

infrastructure for better food. So

that's real estate, that's software and

robotics for the production and delivery

of food in this super efficient way.

>> All right. Uh Keith, what are your

thoughts? Any questions for

>> Well, he's not here, but isn't this what

David Freeberg tried to do a few years

ago?

>> Yeah. This came up on the last Allin.

Yeah. Or the last one I was at. Yeah.

>> Yeah. pizza. Pizza. The problem was I

told Freeberg, "People don't want to eat

quinoa.

>> You got to put a a little steak in

there, maybe a piece of salmon." But he

was kind of rel I think eventually he

relented and let people have a little

bit of protein. Uh but yeah, it's such a

great vision. And

>> wait, he he died as a vegan martyr.

>> I think the business died as martyr.

>> Well, that was the hill he was led to.

>> There's a lot of people have died on

that hill. But the bottom line is if

you're going to get into automation, you

have to it has to be endto-end

automation. And what I mean by that is

like there are pizza there are pizza

companies that have come and gone

automated pizza companies where it's

like we have a pizza machine and

everybody's like yeah this is amazing

and you have a guy you have a

million-dollar pizza machine and then on

the left you have a guy feeding

ingredients into the pizza machine and

on the right you have a guy taking the

pizza out and then putting it in a box

and doing all this. So instead of one

guy making pizzas, I have a

million-dollar machine and two guys

making pizza. And so when you look at

these auton like robotic food production

machines or food assembly machines, you

have to look at the full stack and say

does it work with the ecosystem that

exists in a restaurant and does it go

full stack from you know like like we

have this thing that machine we saw

earlier. The staff preps the food, they

put the food in the machine and then

they leave.

>> They're gone. This restaurant runs

itself for many hours without anybody

there.

>> But this could be McDonald's, Burger

King, and Taco Bell. Nobody would know

>> that right there. That machine is a it's

an assembly machine, right? The food is

prepped by humans and then assembled by

this machine. For a Chipotle or a sweet

green, this is like a a majority of

their labor, right? You go up to a

Chipotle, there's like 10 guys at lunch

and you're still in line. That machine

right there does 300 bulls an hour,

right? And so you go, okay, that's the

this is what's called um like the

assembly line. It's just that front line

where you basically assemble things. I

think sometimes I call it the make line.

>> What will happen over time is you'll

have perpendicular lines going into it

where you're producing food,

>> right? So you'll have a production or

bake line going into an assembly line

here and then you go, "Oh, wow." So you

have it something that dispenses burgers

on buns. That's the dispenser. That's

the assembly,

>> right?

>> But Factorio on steroids basically.

>> Yeah. And then it's like how do you cook

that burger? That's what I call that's

what we call state change. So state

change is the is the cooking of the

food. assembly is the like how do I put

it together and plate it.

>> Doesn't this collapse like for example

if you have a yield of 300 per hour you

said out of that one machine?

>> Yes.

>> Very quickly you can imputee the value

>> of having a smaller footprint store with

five of these things in a faceless

warehouse with drone delivery or cars.

You don't need the physical

infrastructure.

>> So then don't you create a wasteland of

real estate or how do you repurpose all

the real estate? Well, the way to think

about it is like 90% of well, it's

probably a little lower than that right

now. Let's say 85% of all meals in the

US are at home. They just are.

>> And a vast majority of those meals are

cooked at home. So, you know, like Uber

Eats and Door Dash, they represent like

1.8% or 2% of all meals right now. It's

very tiny, right? So what you're doing

is you're using real estate to and

infrastructure to prepare and deliver

meals to people at their homes. And so

it's not the restaurants still exist.

We're still going to want to go to

restaurants. We're still going to want

to go outside. We learned that during co

we knew it before. We definitely know it

after. Um and so I don't it's not really

like a decimating real estate situation.

It's taking a thing we used to do for

ourselves and creating a service that

does it higher quality. You know, sort

of I like to say you don't have to be

wealthy to be healthy

and just infrastructure to get that cost

down.

>> And so you're doing something as a

service that we used to do at home.

>> I think in the super long run you're

like what where's the story on grocery

stores? If you go to like in in 20

years, I think everybody agrees,

you you will have machines making very

high quality, very personalized meals

for everybody.

>> This will be good for Keith because he

measures stuff down to like five

calories based on his Instagram.

>> What's your What's your What's your body

fat? Like seven%.

>> It's like

>> Just open his Instagram. He posted four

times today about his body fat. like so

disgusted with himself at 10%.

>> It's like bad at 10. But um I actually

think the vision of this actually the

natural implication and maybe the home

run version of this is everybody has a

private chef in their house, a robot in

their house that actually does this

personalized because people do want to

cook at home, but they don't have the

time.

>> Yeah. Or space uh and infrastructure.

But man, these delivery services are

charging. Rich people do this all the

time, right? They do these crazy meal

delivery services for 200 bucks a day

and this is just going to abstract it

down to everybody and man people get

creative when there's that empty space

to your point Jimoth about what happens

to all this space. When I lived in New

York in the 80s and 90s it was common to

in Tribeca in West Chelsea where I lived

to take storefronts put your little

architect's office in the front and live

in the back. And many people were

hacking real estate. We still need five,

10 million homes in this country. And

they're already doing this with malls. I

I I keep seeing malls being turned into

colleges and creative spaces. One of

them in Boston, they turned like the

second and third floor into studio

apartments for artists. So, you know,

where there's a will, there's a way we

could use the space. I mean,

>> yeah. Where this goes, what Chimamas

saying and where the real estate goes is

we call it the internet food court

where, you know, you're on Amazon,

right? It's the everything store. Now

imagine that for food and then imagine

you have an 8,000 foot facility where

basically anything can be made.

>> Anything can be made

>> because if you have that machine you saw

has 18 sort of dispensers for food, 10

different sauces. You get the idea. Now

what what about when it's 50 or 100

dispensers for food? What if you have

multiple machines with a 100 dispensers

for food?

>> That's crazy. you can the combinatorial

math in terms of what's possible, what

can be made sort of, you know, goes

exponential and so

the internet food court is sort of the

vision for where this all goes.

>> Another example of the bitter lesson.

>> The bitter Yeah, we're going to get to

that, I guess, today

in a very full docket. Before we get to

that, just a little bit of housekeeping

here.

September 7th, 8th, 9th in Los Angeles,

the All-In Summit again, all-in.com yada

yada yada. The lineup is stacked and

we're gonna start announcing the

speakers. People have been begging us to

announce the speakers.

>> I don't know.

>> You got to hold some back. Careful,

careful.

>> Hold a couple back, but we got some

really nice speakers lined up. It is

going to be extraordinary.

>> It is. It is the best one yet.

>> I mean, every year we have this done.

Yeah. Yeah. Every year we have this

little bit of panic like um you know we

going to get great speakers and man they

started flowing in this week it's going

to be extraordinary

almost as extraordinary as this

delicious tequila behind my head here.

Get the allin tequila at

tequila.allin.com.

Deliveries begin late summer.

>> He's moving to the side. You can't even

tell

right there.

>> All right. Listen.

>> Oh wow.

>> Lots to discuss this week. Obviously AI

is continuing to be the big story in our

industry and for good reason. Our bestie

uh Elon released Gro 4 Wednesday night.

Two versions, base model and a heavy

model. 30 bucks a month for the base.

$300 a month for this heavy model which

has a very unique feature. You can have

a multi- aent feature. I got to see this

actually when I visited XAI a couple of

weeks ago where multiple agents work on

the same problem then they and they do

that simultaneously obviously and then

compare each other's work and it gives

you kind of like a study group the best

answer uh by consensus really

interesting according to artificial

analysis benchmarks you can pull that up

Nick Gro 4 base model has surpassed

OpenAI's 03 pro Google Gemini's 2.5 pro

as the most intelligent model

includes like seven different industry

standard evaluation tests. You can look

it up, but reasoning, math, coding, all

that kind of stuff. This is, you know,

book smarts, not necessarily street

smart. So, it doesn't mean that these

things can reason. And obviously there

was a little um there was a little

kurluffle on um X formerly known as

Twitter where XAI got a little frisky

and was saying all kinds of crazy stuff

and needed to uh maybe be redteamed a

little bit more decisively.

Many of you know Grock 4 was trained on

Colossus. That's that giant data center

that Elon's been building. And we showed

the chart here. Shimoth,

you sent us a link to the bitter lesson

by uh Rich Sutton in the group chat.

That's the 2019 blog post. We'll pull it

up here for people to take a look at and

we'll put it in the show notes. Maybe

just generally,

>> yeah,

>> your reaction to both how quickly Elon

has, and that chart showed it, how

quickly Elon has caught up

>> and I don't think people expected him to

take the lead, but here we are. Before

we start, Nick, can you please show

Elon's tweet about how they did on the

AGI benchmark? It's absolutely

incredible.

Two things. One is how quickly starting

in March of 2023, so we're talking about

less than 2 and 1/2 years, what this

team has accomplished

and how far ahead they are of everybody

else. that's demonstrated by this. But

the second is a fundamental

architectural decision that Elon made

which I think we didn't fully appreciate

until now. And it maps to an

architectural decision he made at Tesla

as well. And for all we know, we'll

figure out that he made an equivalent

decision at SpaceX. And that decision is

really well encapsulated by this essay,

the bitter lesson by Rich Sutton. And

Nick, if you can just throw this up

there, but just to summarize what this

says, it basically says in a nutshell

that you're always better off when

you're trying to solve an AI problem

taking a general learning approach that

can scale with computation because it

ultimately proves to be the most

effective. And the alternative would be

something that's much more human labored

and human involved that requires human

knowledge. And so the first method, what

it essentially allows you to do is view

any problem as an endless scalable

search or learning task. And as it's

turned out, whether it's chess or go or

speech recognition or computer vision,

whenever there was two competing

approaches, one that used general

computation and one that used human

knowledge, the general computation

problem always won. And so it creates

this bitter lesson for humans that want

to think that we are at the center of

all of this critical learning and all of

these leaps. In more AI specific

language, what it means is that a lot of

these systems create these embeddings

that are just not understandable by

humans at all, but it yields incredible

results.

So why is this crazy? Well, he made this

huge bet on this 100,000 GPU cluster.

People thought, "Wow, that's a lot. Is

it going to bear fruit?" Then he said,

"No, actually, I'm scaling it up to

250,000." Then he said, "It's going to

scale up to a million." And what these

results show is a general computational

approach that doesn't require as much

human labeling can actually get to the

answer and better answers faster. That

has huge implications because if you

think about all these other companies,

what is Llama been doing? They just

spent 15 billion to buy 49% of scale AI.

That's exactly a bet on human knowledge.

What is Gemini doing? What is OpenAI

doing? What is Anthropic doing? So all

these things come into question. And

then the last thing I'll say is if you

look back, he made this bet once before,

which was Tesla FSD versus Whimo. And

Tesla FSD only had cameras. It didn't

have LAR. But the bet was, I'll just

collect billions and billions of driving

miles before anybody else does and apply

general compute and it'll get to

autonomy faster than the other more

laborious and very expensive approach.

So I just think it's an incredible

moment in technology where we see so

many examples. Travis is another one

what he's just talked about. You know,

the bitter lesson is you could believe

that, you know, food is this immutable

thing that's made meticulously by hand

by these individuals, or you can take

this general purpose computer approach,

which is what he took, waited for these

cost curves to come into play, and now

you can scale food to every human on

Earth. I I just think it's a it's so

profoundly important.

>> One thing I'll throw out there, Chimoth,

is

the Tesla approach for autonomy is

taking human knowledge. In fact, the

whole idea is to approximate human human

driving, right? The is the whole damn

thing. Now, depending on your approach

in the technology, you can do like

what's called an end toend approach or

you can look at okay perception,

prediction, planning, uh, and control,

which are like these four modules that

sort of you you you sort of engineer if

that makes sense. But it's approximating

human driving to do it. The difference

is that,

you know, I I think Elon's taken a a

almost a more human approach, which is

like, I've got two eyes. Why can't my

car Why can't my car do it like a human?

Like, I don't have any LAR spinning

around on my head as a human. Why can't

my car? So, it's kind of interesting.

He's sort of taking what you're saying

Chimoth on the computation side because

hardware 5 is coming out on Tesla

probably next year

>> which is going to make a big difference

in what FSD can do.

>> That's the compute side you're talking

about. But then he is approximating

human.

>> Yeah. I just meant that, you know, other

than the first versions of FSD, which I

think Andre talked about, Andre Carpathy

talked about,

>> you know, they're not really so

>> reliant anymore on human labeling, per

se, right? So that that Yeah, that that

interference. And then

>> the other crazy thing that he said

subsequent versions of Grock

are not going to be trained on any

traditional data set that exists in the

wild. the cumulative sum of human

knowledge has been exhausted in AI

training. That happened basically last

last year. And so the only way to then

supplement that is with synthetic data

where the AI creates it'll sort of write

an essay or it'll come up with with a

thesis and then it will grade itself um

and and and sort of go through this

process of self-arning with synthetic

data. He said that he's going to have

agents creating synthetic data from

scratch that then drive all the training

which I just think is it's crazy.

>> Just explain this concept one more time

with a bitter lesson. hand coding

heristics into the computer and saying,

"Hey, here are specific openings in

chess."

>> Use Yeah, use chess, right?

>> You're hand coding specific examples of

openings in there, end games, etc.

versus just saying, "Play every possible

game, and here's every game we have."

>> So, here's

>> Yeah. So, the two approaches would be,

let's say, like Travis and I were

building competing versions of a chess

solver, and Travis's approach would say,

I'm just going to define the chessboard.

I'm gonna give the players certain

boundaries in which they can move,

right? So the bishop can only move

diagonally and there's a couple of

boundary conditions and I'm going to

create a reward function and I'm just

going to let the thing self-learn and

selfplay. That's his version.

And then what happens is when you map

out every single permutation

when you go and play Keith, who's the

best chess player in the world, what

you're doing at that point is saying,

"Okay, Keith made this move." So you

search for what Keith's move is, and you

have a distribution of the best moves

that you could make in response or vice

versa. That was the cutting edge

approach. The different approach which

is more, you know, what people would

think is more quote unquote elegant and

less brute force would be Jason for you

and I to sit there and say, "Okay, if

Keith moves here, we should do this. We

should do this specific variation of the

Sicilian defense." And

>> and it's too much human knowledge. And I

think what what it turned out was there

was a psychological need for humans to

believe we were part of the answer.

>> But what this is showing is because of

Moore's law and because of general

computation, it's just not necessary.

You just have to let go, give up

control. And that's very hard for some

people and for others.

>> It's also very hard in some

circumstances where a car is driving

down the road and it's learning in that

process, which is why you need a safety

driver. And and I think Elon made the

right decision to put one in there.

Keith, your thoughts?

>> Yeah, a a couple points. It's it's not

quite that binary. Chimoth, I generally

agree with your arc, but like if you

think about LLMs being the most

important unlock in AI, LLMs are all

trained on human writing. So someone

wrote every piece of data that every LLM

use a human wrote at some point in

history. So yes, it's true that they've

shocked everybody including OpenAI's,

you know, original team on the

implications, the broad implications,

the general applicability to almost

every problem, but it's not like there

was uh some tablets floating in space

that weren't drafted by humans that

we've trained on. as you get in non LLM

based uh models, you may be totally

right, but almost no one's really using

nonlm based models at scale

>> on driving specifically. Travis is

totally right that humans are actually

really good drivers except when they get

distracted. They get distracted by drugs

or alcohol. They get distracted by being

tired. They get distracted by turning

the radio. They get distracted by

chatting with their passenger. So

trading against human behaviors actually

turned out to be a great decision

because what for whatever sort of

Darwinistic reasons humans are pretty

ideal drivers and so you don't have to

reason from first principles this is a

much better path and I think again there

may be a a broad u sort of lesson there.

most important thing I think as a VC

that you said uh is we've been debating

for years should we invest in companies

like scale or mercore or any of these

surge the truth is I think there's a

very short halflife

on human label data and so everybody

who's investing in these companies just

looking at revenue traction

really didn't understand that there may

be a year two years three years max when

anybody uses human label data for maybe

anything

>> because we hit the end of human

knowledge or just the collection of it.

99% done

>> or you train on you train on it so well

that you don't need to label anymore.

Like the the machines know how to label

as good or better than a human. And so

like we're seeing this in the

self-driving space is labeling was huge,

right? You would have a

three-dimensional sort of scene that's

created by video plus LAR. Let's say,

okay, I have to label all of these

essentially what become boxes like I've

identified objects. You're you're some

of the players in the in the autonomous

software space, autonomous vehicle

software space are no longer doing any

labeling because the machines are doing

it all.

>> Just broadly,

>> it'll just be built into the chipset

that this is a stop sign. Like it's like

we know what a stop sign is. We don't

need the millionth time for somebody

>> captas like you're like find the stop

sign or what's the traffic light and

eventually the machines are just way

better than humans at identifying these

things

>> or you to be very practical when you see

a stop sign you don't have to identify

that it's a stop sign. You just see that

every human when they encounter a stop

sign 99.9% of the time they hit a break

and they never act. So nobody actually

knows it's a stop sign. It's just that

hit a break when you see something that

looks like this object.

>> It's just a vibe.

>> Yeah,

>> it's a vibe.

>> I would just say that that's like

intuitive knowledge versus like the

expressly labeled human knowledge. The

question for me is if everybody was so

reliant on human labeling initially, if

you're an investor now, when you see

these Gro four results,

how do you make an investment decision

that's not purely levered to just

computation?

So if you look at these results, does it

mean that the, you know, there's 300 to

a,000 basis points of lag

between just letting the computers vibe

itself to the answer versus interjecting

ourselves? If interjecting ourselves

slows us down by 300 to a,000 basis

points per successive iteration, then

over two or three iterations, you've

totally lost. So, what does it mean for

everybody that's not Grock when they

wake up today and they have to decide

how do I change my strategy or double

down?

>> I think look, I'm I'm not in the

investment game, but if I were, it would

be all about scientific breakthrough.

So, I sometimes get in this place where

I'm looking I'm going down a path. I,

you know, I'll be up at 4:00 or 5 in the

morning. Uh, my day hasn't quite

started, but I'm not sleeping anymore.

And I'll start go like I'll be on Kora

and see some cool quantum physics

question or something else I'm looking

into and I'll go down this thread with

GPT or Grock and I'll start to get to

the edge of what's known in quantum

physics and then I'm doing the

equivalent of vibe coding except it's

vibe physics

and we're approaching what's known and

I'm trying to poke and see if there's

breakthroughs to be had and I've gotten

pretty damn close to some interesting

breakthroughs just doing that.

>> And I, you know, I pinged uh I pinged

Elon at some point. I'm just like, dude,

if I'm if I'm doing this and I'm super

amateur hour physics enthusiast like

what about all those PhD students and

postocs that are super legit using this

tool and this is pre Grock 4 now with

Grock 4 like like there's a lot of

mistakes. I was seeing Grock make that

then I would correct and we would talk

about it. Grock could be this place

where breakthroughs are actually

happening, new breakthroughs. So if I'm

investing in this space, I would be

like,

>> who's got the edge on scientific

breakthroughs and and the application

layer on top of these foundational

models that orients that direction? Is

your perception that the LLMs are

actually starting to get to the

reasoning level that they'll come up

with a novel concept theory and have

that breakthrough or that we're kind of

reading into it and it's just trying

random stuffs at the at the margins.

>> It's uh

>> or maybe it doesn't happen.

>> No, no, no. So, what I what I've seen

and again I haven't used Grock for I

tried to use it early this morning but

for some reason I couldn't do it on my

on my app. But

so let's say we're talking Gro 3 and

existing chat GPT as it is. No, it

cannot come up with the new idea. These

things are so wedded to what is known

>> and they're so like even when I come up

with a new idea, I have to really it's

like pulling a donkey sort of. You see,

you're pulling it

>> because it doesn't want to break

conventional wisdom. It's like really

adhering to conventional wisdom. for

pulling it out and then eventually goes,

"Oh you got something."

>> But then when it says that, when it says

that, then you you have to you have to

go, "Okay, it said that, but I'm not

sure." Like you have to double and

triple check to make sure that you

really got something. To your point,

when these models are fully divorced

from having to learn on the known world

and instead can just learn

synthetically,

>> yeah,

>> then everything gets flipped upside down

to what is the best hypothesis you have

or what is the best question? You could

just give it some problem and it would

just figure it out.

>> So, where I go on this one, guys, is

it's all about scientific method,

right? If you get if you have an LLM or

foundational model of some kind that is

the best in the world at the scientific

method,

game the f over.

You basically you just light up more

GPUs and you just got like a thousand

more PhD students working for you.

>> Keith, you're nodding your head here.

>> I I agree with that. I think that's

fantastic because the scientific method

also the faster it is the more you when

you have a hypothesis the faster you get

a response you're more likely to dive in

and dive in and dive in recursively and

recursively and every lag every

millisecond lag causes you to like lose

your train of thought sort of so to

speak. So you get the benefits that

Travis alluding to plus speed and you go

places you never guess. This happens all

the time when you run a company and

you're doing like analytics and you have

a tool that allows you to constantly

query quickly quickly quickly double

click triple click you get to answers

that you never get to there's even a

second or two second or 3 second delay

let alone sending it to a human.

Secondly where you actually see this

today it's already happening. If you

look at foundational models that just

apply to science, there's lots of things

about the human body, let's say in

health biology, that we humans don't

actually understand all the connections.

Like why do we do X? Why do some people

get cancer? Why other people not get

cancer? Why does the brain work this

way? Models trained solely on science

tend to expose connections that no human

has ever had before.

>> And that's because like the raw

materials there and we only have a

conscious awareness of call it 110%. But

when you apply it to other human domains

where they're training on human sort of

data, human produced data, human

produced output, they're limited to that

output. So I think you just take the

science and apply it at large and you

you're going to wind up finding things

that no human has ever thought before.

And it's that the thing about science

though is that it's the hypothesis that

you then have to test in the physical

world. So the you're like okay you've

got this hive mind this like you know

this this

computation engine this brain of sorts

>> you wanted to say consciousness but you

start I was like how do I describe

>> the big C word consciousness

>> but but you need to be able to test in

the physical world so you could imagine

a a physical lab connected to one of

these systems

where then you could say, okay, like if

it was a chemistry experiment, you could

do chemistry experiments or physics. You

get the idea.

>> What could go wrong?

>> It would be it's yeah, no big deal. It's

going to be fine. Okay. So, but but this

is where it goes because if you have a

scientific method machine, you still

have to be able to test your hypothesis.

You have to go through the scientific

>> and the verification. Yeah. Exactly.

>> Yeah.

>> Wow. It's kind of mind-blowing. Reminds

me

>> really mindblowing

>> if you remember I don't know if you guys

remember dark matter and like the

discovery of it and everything and as

explained to me by Lisa Randall you know

the the discovery was made not by

knowing there was dark ma matter there

and observing it but observing there was

something you know gravitational forces

around this other matter and then they

said wait what's causing that and that's

why they found dark matter so these

ideas you know the idea that LLM could

actually do that

>> come up with something so novel is it

doesn't it feels like we might be right

there, right? Like we're kind of on the

cusp of it.

>> One of the seven most difficult problems

in math or the most important problems

in math is proving a general solution to

this thing called Mavier Stokes, which

is basically like viscous fluid dynamics

and conservation of mass. We use it

every day in the design of everything.

You know what? It hasn't been proved.

>> Isn't that the craziest thing where

you're just like, how is this even

possible? We use it to design airplanes,

to design everything. It hasn't been

proved. And so you could just point a

computer at this thing and you would

unlock all these incredible mysteries of

the universe and we would probably find

completely different propulsion systems.

We could probably do things that we

didn't think were possible.

Teleportation I mean who knows what's

possible.

>> But remember remember you know how Elon

talks about Brock and and about AI

generally is about why are we here? What

is the purpose?

>> Meaning of the universe. Yeah. What is

the meaning of the universe? How does it

work?

>> And a sort of fierce truth seeeking

mechanism there.

>> Let me ask you a question, Keith,

Travis, Jason. If you guys were running

Grock 4,

>> that'd be so much fun.

>> How do you judo flip open AAI? Because

they

are marching steadfastly towards a

billion Mao, then a billion DAO.

It's a juggernaut. So, how do you use

the better product in a moment to judo

flip

the less better product?

>> Look. Yeah. I mean, here's the thing,

right? So, you do the Elon way. So you

have you get a bunch of missionary like

full-on missionary engineers that work

twice as hard and you have a culture

that is ultra fierce truth seeeking

and you don't you don't get caught up in

politics, bureaucracy, BS

and you just you go for it and and I

think you know that's where you know and

then you go wow scientific breakthrough

scientific method method like you start

winning on truth and that will start I

believe that will start to give the

product awesomeness

of open AI a run for its money

>> but like the product of open AI the

product department those guys are

crushing

>> they're really good they're not only

ahead of the game but they feel like it

just they're just leading in a lot of

different ways but if you are better at

truth you will eventually you'll

eventually have an AI product manager.

>> Yeah. And on a technical basis too,

people forget how good Elon is at

factories and physical real world

things.

>> Uh what he did standing up Colossus made

like Jensen Juan was like how is this

possible that you did this right? So

pressing that his ability to build

factories and he said many times like

the factory is the product of Tesla.

It's not the cars that come out of the

factory or the batteries. It's the

factory itself. So if he can keep

solving the energy problem with solar on

one side and batteries and standing up,

you know, Colossus 2, three, four, five,

he's going to have a massive advantage

there on top of Travis, you know, the

missionary

individuals, which by the way was what

he backed before Sam Alman corrupted the

original missionary basis of OpenAI and

made it closed AI and a,

>> you know, this is nothing derogatory

towards him, but he did hoodwink and

stab Elon in the It's not nothing

personal. I mean, he just screwed him

over. And

>> would you say he bamboozled him?

>> He bamboozled him, screwed him,

hoodwinkedked him, you know, but pick

your term here. But, uh, he did he

didn't dirty. The original mission was

to be missionary and open source all

this content. That's the other piece I

think is a wild card. And I'll and then

I'll sing Keith's position, but

>> open sourcing some of this could have

profound ramifications. I think open

sourcing the self-driving data could

have a really profound impact.

Elon wanted to do something really

disruptive like he open sourced his

patents for you know um charging. If he

opens source the data set and

self-driving does anybody have the

ability to produce robo taxis at the

scale he can do it? I don't think so.

>> Travis's hypothesis is true then yeah

everybody will. Well, what? Sorry.

Everybody will what? Shiman,

>> if you have access to the money that

buys the compute, everyone could solve

that problem.

>> What's the hardware piece I'm talking

about?

>> He said he said if he if he published

all the FSD data, could somebody build

an autonomous vehicle?

>> Well, yes, but could somebody produce a

100 million robo taxis from a factory

with batteries in them?

>> Okay. No, that's a diff that's a

different question.

>> That's the thing I'm saying. And not

really because last time I was a guest

on you know on we talked about vertical

integration.

>> Uh products really require vertical

integration. So ultimately you have a

self-driving something that is

customuilt for knowing it's going to be

self-driving and it interacts

differently. The cost structure is

different. The controls are different.

The seating's different. everything. You

build a product taking advantage of

where in the stack you have the most

competitive advantage, but then you

leverage that and it reinforces it's

still why like Apple despite missing the

AI wave still a pretty good company from

any empirical standpoint. I mean like

the performance is absolutely miserable

on the most important technology

breakthrough of the last 70 years, but

the company's still alive and still

worth trillions of dollars because it's

vertically integrated. Open AAI at your

point, they do have a good product team

and they need to stay ahead on the

product level because they can't compete

on the factory level. The way to stay

ahead on the product level is shipping a

device. They got to ship the device.

It's got to be good. It's got to be

right. It's got to be the right form

factor. It's got to do things for humans

that are unexpected. But then if they do

that, they're like Apple plus AI.

>> Chimath, what's the paper you were

talking about before? What was the name

of it again?

>> The bitter lesson.

>> Yeah. could apply to autonomous driving

is right now it's still like hey how do

I drive like a human we talked about

that but the leapfrog moment here could

be like hey drive a car make sure it's

efficient don't hit anybody and just

simulate that uh quadrillion times and

it's all good right but right now we're

still trying to drive like humans

because we don't have enough data and

therefore can't do enough compute

>> that's the global lesson by the way

you're totally right conceptual you the

blog post is right. But that's only true

when you have enough data. And depending

upon the use case, the level of data you

need may not be possible for years,

decades, and you may need to hack your

way there through human interactions.

>> Yeah, physical world AI is lacking in

data and so you just try to approximate

humans.

>> I don't know if you guys have seen this.

In related news, OpenAI and uh

Perplexity are going after the browser.

Perplexity launch comet for their $200 a

month tier. I actually downloaded I'll

show it to you in a second. But this is

um a really interesting category. It's

something developers can do already and

they do it all the time, you know, but

having your browser uh connected to

agents let you do really interesting

things. I'll show you an example here

that I just fired off while we're

talking. So, I just asked it, hey, give

me the best flights from um United

Airlines and uh business class from New

York City, from San Francisco to New

York City. It does some searches, but

what you see here is it's popped up a

browser window and it's actually doing

that work and you can see the steps it's

using and then I can actually open that

browser window and watch it do that.

This is just a screenshot of it and it

will open multiple of these. So you

could I was doing a search the other day

saying like, "Hey, tell me all the

autobiographies I haven't bought on

Amazon. Put them into my, you know,

shopping cart and summarize each of them

cuz I like biographies and I like doing

it here." And when it did this last

time, it put my flight into

like uh and I was logged in under my

account and it basically put it into my

account in the checkout.

So again, this isn't like if you're a

developer, you do this all day long, but

this really seems to be a new product

category. I'm curious if you guys have

played with it yet. And then what your

thoughts are on having an agentic

browser like this available to you to be

doing these tasks

in real time. You can also connect

obviously your Gmail, your calendar to

it. So I did a a search, tell me every

restaurant I've been to and then put it

by city. And then I was going to open my

open table and then pull that data as

well. What's interesting about this,

Keith, and I know you're a product guy

and done a lot of product work. I'm

curious your thoughts on it is you don't

have to do this in the cloud. You're

authenticated already into a lot of your

accounts, nor do you have to worry about

being blocked by these services because

it doesn't look like a scraper or a bot.

It just it's your browser doing the

work. Your thoughts on this? Have you

played with it at Yep. I think it's a

great hail mary attempt by Perplexity. I

think up since something like this,

perplexity is toast. Like for the stat

about chat GBT is going to a billion

users like it's becoming the verb, you

know, that the way you describe using AI

for a normal consumer. There's nothing

left of perplexity if they can't pull

this off. So, it's a great idea because

like the history of like consumer

technology companies is whoever's up has

uphill ground like in a military sense,

whoever is first has a lot of control.

This is actually what Google should be

doing truthfully like I think Google's

also Google search qu search is toast

and since they have Chrome and they

theoretically have a quality team in

Gemini they should be putting these two

things together and hoping to compete

with Chad GBT they're going to lose the

search game like the assets that are

best at Google right now have nothing to

do with search it's every other product

is the only thing that's going to save

that company if they can put figure out

how to use them

>> Travis your thoughts on this category

anything come to mind for you in terms

of,

you know, feature sets that would be

extraordinary here? I know you you like

to think about products and the consumer

experience.

>> It's really interesting. So, you know,

I've been spending, as you guys know,

I've been spending my time on real

estate and construction and robotics.

And so, I' I've been out of the this

kind of consumer software game for a

long time. But super interesting over

the last six months there have been a a

number of consumer software CEOs

like when I hang out with them or

whatever they're like

yo how are we going to how are we going

to keep doing what we do when the agents

take over.

>> Yeah. The paradigm shift is so profound

that the idea that you would visit a web

page goes away and you're just in a chat

>> dial you have an agent that's just

taking care of your flights for you. So,

I I kind of I I think there's a leaprog

over that. I think

it's just like you tell something, yo, I

want to go to New York. Can you you

know, I'm sort of looking at this time

range. Can you just go find something

I'm probably going to like and give me a

couple options?

>> Yeah. And it's just a whole you have an

interface and then you know is perplex

is this thing that you just showed

perplexely is that the interface or do I

just have an agent that just goes and

does everything for me and is this the

start of that? I you know I just haven't

spent enough time. I I do know that

every consumer

software CEO

that has an app in the app store is

tripping. They're tripping right now.

>> And I mean big boys. I meet guys with

real stuff and sometimes I I'm doing

like almost like therapy sessions with

them. I'm like, "It's going to be fine.

You actually you actually have stuff.

You have a mo. You have real stuff

that's of value. They can't replace it

with an agent."

>> And they're like,

>> "So, you're lying to them. You're doing

hospice care and you're telling them

everything's going to be okay, but the

patient

options on Robin Hood while he's like,

"Yeah, yeah, tell me more. Tell me

more."

>> All these things.

>> There's certain things that are

protected and there's certain things

that aren't. That's all.

>> Well, let's talk about that because the

you and I are old enough to remember uh

general magic. This vision was out there

a long time ago with personal digital

assistance and you would just talk to an

agent. It would go do this for you. This

feels like a step to that where it does

all the work for you, presents you the

final moment and says approve.

>> Like a concierge or a butler. Yeah,

>> I think what you're describing is what

we want. But I think more specifically

for today, Keith and Travis totally nail

it. Look, I think building a browser is

an absolutely stupid capital allocation

decision. Just totally stupid and

unjustifiable in 2025. Specifically for

Perplexity,

I think their path to building a legacy

business is to replace Bloomberg.

Everything that they've done in

financial information and financial data

in going beyond the model has been

excellent. As somebody who's paid

$25,000 to Bloomberg for many years,

the terminal is atrocious. It's

terrible. It's not very good. It's very

limited.

and anybody that could build a better

product would take over a hundred

billion dollar enterprise because I

think it's there for the taking. I wish

that Perplexity would double and triple

down on that. And so when you see this

kind of

>> random sprawl,

>> let's do it, Jimoth. Let's just go do

it.

>> When you do the random sprawl, I think

it doesn't work. But I just want to say

like a browser is like the dumbest thing

to build in 2025 because in a world of

agents, what is a browser? It's a

glorified markup reader. It's like

handling HTML. It's handling CSS and

JavaScript. It's doing some networking.

It's doing some security. It's doing

some rendering. But it's like this is

all under the water type stuff. I get it

that we had to deal with all that

nonsense in

1998

to try LOS or Google for the first time.

But in 2025,

there's something that you just speak to

and eventually there's probably

something that's in your brain which you

just think and it just doesn't. You're

thinking

I need a flight to JFK or at the maximum

today in a very elegant beautiful search

bar you type in get me a flight and it

already knows what to do. Keith, in some

ways this is a step towards that

ultimate vision. So you'd think it's

worth it to you know sort of perplexity

to make this way point perhaps if you

look at it as a waypoint between the

ultimate vision which is a command line

and earpiece.

>> How do you get distribution Jason for

the 19th web browser in 2025? Well,

yeah, that is a challenge and I think

most people are speculating Apple, which

has a lot of users, might buy Perplexity

or do a deal with Perplexity and give

them that distribution because of the

Justice Department case against Google.

So, there's been a lot of speculation

about that. But Keith, what do you

think?

>> Well, I don't think they'd buy anything

worth it. Like, what do what is Apple

going to get if you continue this failed

strategy of Apple,

>> right? Apple has missed every possible

window on AI and continues to miss it

and it has cultural I think the CEO has

challenges I think culturally they have

challenges I think they have

infrastructure challenges so it's it's

not an easy fix but buying perplexity is

not going to help like strategy is

actually pretty coherent one for

perplexity qu perplexity uh so I think

that it's not

>> pick a vertical and own it strategy

>> not not a bad idea um especially because

you need unique data sources some of

those data sources may or may not

license their data to open AI. So, you

can do some clever things there, but um

I don't think there's any residual value

that Apple would get out of perplexity

except there's some product taste, but

what are you going to spend like a

billion dollars for product taste? I

mean, Mark's spending hundreds of

millions of dollar, hundreds of billions

of dollars or whatever he's spending

these days. And you know, Grock, if

anything, Grock for shows that Mark

really doesn't need to just spend money

to build a whole new team because

everything they've done in AI has also

missed the boat. Well, I mean, Keith,

the way you phrase it there almost makes

it worth it for Apple to throw a Hail

Mary, have a team with some taste

because that's how they tend to do

things is something that is elegant. And

why not just throw your search to it,

throw 10 billion at

a bunch of what's elegant would be if

there's a bunch of agents and just a

chat box.

>> Seeing a bunch of visual diarrhea is not

elegant.

>> It's lazy.

>> On our on our little Bloomberg clone,

I'll give you naming rights. So you can

call it that.

>> You like you like poly polyhapatia. So

hey, can somebody can somebody uh bring

up the polyhapatia?

>> You know what's so funny?

>> Rolls right off your tongue.

>> TK, listen. We were trying to do a

screen

of companies and it maxes out at five

companies on a specific type of screen

where you're like you're trying to

compare stock price to EBID and you're

like, okay, I can only choose five, I

guess. So which five should I choose?

Lefont was on right like two episodes

ago. He was like I can't pull this up.

It's limited to six companies.

>> Dude, you it's So what do people use

Bloomberg?

>> They use it for the messaging. Now like

my team has traded huge positions via

text message on Bloomberg. So there is

something very valuable there.

>> But the core usability and the core UI

of that company has not evolved.

>> I have my contribution

>> and Plexity is very good at that by the

way. It they they do a very good job.

>> I got a new domain name Travis. Let this

one just sink in here. This is my way to

weasle my way into the deal.

>> begin.com.

>> Begin.com.

>> You own that, don't you?

>> I do. I'm just a little I sniped some

good ones once in a while. I got

begin.com and I got annotated.com. Those

are my two little domains.

>> You're like You're like one of these old

people that show up at those show and

then

show and you're like, "Oh, I have this

thing that I bought 1845."

>> Guys, Jason Jason is Jason is the daddy

and GoDaddy. Okay. I'm your dad. I'm

your daddy.

>> That's what it is.

>> Who's your daddy? Hey, speaking of

daddy.

>> Let's go on to our next story.

>> Come on.

>> Is now the right time for a third party?

Elon seems to think so. Last week, he

announced that AXI would be creating a a

new political party. I'll let you decide

who daddy is in this one. uh he said

quote when it comes to bankrupting our

country with waste and graft we live in

a one party system not a democracy he's

not yet outlined a uh a platform for the

American party we talked about it here

last week I listed four core values

which seem to get a good reaction on X

fiscal responsibility doge sustainable

energy and dominance in that

manufacturing in the US which Elon has

done uh single-handedly here pronatalism

which I think is a passion project for

him and Shabbath you punched it out with

the fifth technological excellence

according to poly market 55% chance that

Elon registers the American party by the

end of the year and you know one thing I

was trying to figure out is just how

unpopular are these candidates

and uh these political parties this is a

very interesting chart that I think we

could have a a great conversation around

it turns out we used to love our

presidents if you look here from Kennedy

at 83% % his highest approval rating.

His lowest was 56%.

That was his lowest approval rating. So

he operated in a very high band. Look at

Bush 2 during after 9/11. 92% was his

peak. His lowest was 19, right? Wartime

president. But then you get to Trump

one, Biden, and Trump 2. Historically

low high approval. Their high watermark.

49 for Trump one, 63 for Biden, one of

one. and then 47 for Trump too and their

lowest 29 3140. So maybe it is time for

a third party candidate. Let's discuss

it boys.

>> I have no idea how to read this graph. I

have zero idea the worst.

>> I'm like what is happening here?

>> This is the worst formatted chart. This

is a confusing chart. But well, the

reason I'm putting it up is for debate.

So you should be saying thank you.

>> Yeah, we're debating that it's creating

debating. Why did you put it up? Here's

another one. Gallup pole. Americans

desire for a viable third party. 63% in

2023. So, it's it's bumping along an

alltime high.

>> Okay. I'm really concentrating on this

one.

>> Okay. Anyway, I'm going to stop there.

>> What's the gray?

>> I'm going to let you.

>> Okay. Okay. Got

>> the different presents during that time

period and how popular parties were.

Let's stop here. This is a good This is

a good place to stop.

>> Yeah. A couple points.

>> Yes. The idea of Elon creating a third

party is for any other human being like

absolutely absurd and ridiculous. Elon

has obviously done incredible things. So

dismissing anything he's touching is a

bad idea. However, I think the best

metaphor I've seen is it's a little bit

like Michael Jordan tried to play

baseball

>> and he became a replacement level

baseball player, which actually really

hard to do. By the way, Elon is probably

a replacement level politician. Um, he's

Michael Jordan for entrepreneurial

stuff, but the third party stuff is not

going to work. First of all, um there

that chart is misleading. It's a flaw of

average. Well, it's both badly designed

and it's a flaw of average politics.

Trump is incredibly popular among

Republicans. He actually has the highest

approval rate of any Republican ever

measured in recorded history. It's 95%.

Reagan was peaked out at 93%. It's just

Democrats don't like him, which is

perfectly fine. Being polarizing is is

an ingredient to being successful,

including with people on the show. Like

the point of accomplishing things in the

world is you don't really care what half

the world thinks. You need to make sure

that there's a lot of people who like

you and really approve and are

enthusiastic about what you do. And

Trump is about as popular with his party

as anybody's ever been ever. Period.

>> No exceptions. Secondly, um there's MAGA

has kind of already uh changed the

Republican party. Trump is sort of like

a third party takeover of the Republican

party. And so it's kind of already

happened and maybe you can do this every

20 years or 30 years. I don't think you

can have like this kind of

transformation on one party within a two

compressed period of time for a lot of

reasons. Third is um really smart

parties absorb the lesson of political

science. Unfortunately I studied

political science. I wasted kind of my

college years and instead of saying CS

and you know maybe then I'd be coding

stuff and doing physics like Travis. But

one thing I did learn is smart parties

absorb the best ideas of third parties.

So the oxygen is usually not there

because there's a Darwinistic evolution

of if you get traction on an idea, it's

really easy to conscript some of those

ideas and take away the momentum. No

third party candidate that's a true like

third party has won a Senate seat since

1970.

>> And that's actually Bill Buckley's

brother. So he had some name ID. The

other thing Elon I think is missing and

the proponents of what he's doing is

people vote not just for ideas, they

vote for people. It's a combination. The

product is what do you what do you

believe and who are you? And you can't

divorce the two. Trump is a person and

that generates a lot of enthusiasm and

it's one of the reasons why he has

challenges in midterms because he's not

on the ballot. His ideas may be on the

ballot but he is not specifically on the

ballot. So unless because Elon can't be

the figure head of the party, he

literally can't constitutionally.

You need a face that's a person, Obama,

a Clinton, like there's reasons why

people resonate.

>> Reagan

without that personality. Specific ideas

just are not going to galvanize the

American people.

>> Okay. So the counter to that and what

people believe he's going to try to do

is win a couple of seats in the House,

Travis. win maybe one or two Senate

seats if you were to do that. Those

things are pretty affordable to back.

Couple of million dollars for a House

race. Senate maybe$25 million. If Elon

puts, I don't know 250 million to work

every two years, which he I think he put

280 million to work on the last one. He

could kind of create the Joe Mansion

moment and uh he could build a caucus, a

platform.

Grover Norquist kind of pledge along

these lines. So, what do you think of

that? If he's not gonna create a viable

third party presidential candidate,

could he Travis pick off a couple of

Senate seats, pick off a couple of

congressional seats?

>> Okay. So, first I have this axiom that

I'm making up right now.

>> Okay.

>> Okay. It's called Elon is almost always

right.

>> Okay.

>> Okay. All right.

>> Elon was right about everything.

>> Seriously, let's just be real. And like

honestly the things he's upset about and

that he's riled up about especially when

you look at the deficit like man I am

right on board that train. Part one.

Part two.

We've never had somebody with this kind

of capital that can be a quote unquote

party boss outside of the system. Right.

And

there's a lot of people that agree with

the types of things he's saying and he

knows how to draw, you know, he Elon in

his own right kind of has a populous

vibe like he does his thing and he's

turned X into what it is and he's he's a

big part of X. And so I think it's the I

think it's great and honestly there's

there's the moves you can make on Senate

and House and just having a few folks

and then being you being levers then to

get the things you want done. That's

part one. And then part two of that is

the threat of that happening can make

good things happen separately even if it

doesn't go all the way.

>> I just love it. I'm I'm on the train.

>> Yeah. I'm I'm I'm in love with this role

for Elon more than picking a party

because he's picking a very specific

platform that I think resonates with

folks which is just balance the budget.

Don't put us in so much debt and let's

have some sustainable energy, you know,

job done. Great job.

>> The problem with that is like he's

actually wrong about the reason why we

have a deficit or debt.

>> It's not because we're undertaxed. It's

we're massively overspending. If we just

>> No, I think he believes we're

overspending. They should have been

supporting the last, you know, beautiful

bill because if you just held federal

spending to 2019 levels, so 2019 is not

like, you know, decades ago,

>> literally with our current tax revenues,

we would be in a surplus,

>> 500 billion.

>> Yeah. So there all we need to do is cut

spending. Now I admit that

>> why didn't that happen with the big

beautiful bill?

>> So this is where details do matter. I

think there is a willingness and a you

know discipline problem on both parties

and I think maybe he can help fix that.

The second thing is that we have these

arcane rules particularly in the Senate

that you need 60 votes in many ways to

cut things except through very hacky

methods and that's a reality. So the

best thing truthfully he could do is

help get a Republican party to 60 votes

and then in then in theory he could be

absolutely furious if you didn't cut

back to 2019 levels. But it it's very

tricky. Or you can just overrule like

this. The filibuster is an artifact of

history and at some point some majority

leader is just going to say we're done

with the filibuster and just steamroll

through all the cuts at 50 or 51 votes

which you can do. There's no

constitutional right to a filibuster. It

is an artifact of centuries of American

history and at some point it's going to

go away. So maybe the time is now. Maybe

we should just fix everything now.

>> I think you're exactly right. I think

that the filibuster it's just a matter

of time. I think it's on borrowed time.

And I think in a world where it is on

borrowed time, Jason, I think your path

is probably the one that gives the

American party, if it does come into

existence, the most leverage, which is

if you control three to five independent

candidates, you gain substantial

leverage. I just want to take a step

back and just note something. I don't

know if you guys know this, but the only

reason we're even having this

conversation or this is even possible is

because in 2023,

the FEC, Federal Elections Commission,

they actually released guidance and they

changed a bunch of rules. And the big

change that they made then was it

allowed super PACs to do a lot more than

just run ads. Up until that point, all

you could do if you were a super PAC is

just basically run advertising,

television, and radio,

I guess, online as well. But what they

were allowed to do starting in 23 was

they were allowed to fund ground

operations. They were allowed to do

things like door knocking, phone

banking, you know, get out the vote. So,

in other words, what happened was a

super PAC became more like a full

campaign machine. And Trump showed the

blueprint of using a super PAC,

specifically his, to win the

presidential election.

So he was able to fund this massive

ground game. He built infrastructure

across the swing states. He was

obviously incredibly effective. And now

that playbook can actually be used by

other folks. And so to the extent that

Elon decides to use those changed FEC

rules, Jason, I think what you said is

the only path. But but I just I I just

wanted to double click on Keith's point

because it's so important. I do think

the filibuster is going to go away and

it is because the the arceness of these

rules having to do a reconciliation bill

and you know needing a supermajority

veto proof supermajority in and the

other case it just means that nothing

gets done and I think somebody will

eventually get impatient and just

steamroll this thing. We've never had so

many people say they feel politically

homeless as we did the last two cycles.

And that includes many people on this

podcast, people in our friend circle.

And I think just the idea that Elon

could create a platform that people

could opt into and support, just the

existence of that would make the other

two parties get their act together.

>> By the way, I think that's what we need

is a little bit of a stick there and a

carrot. Hey, if you don't control

spending, there's this third option. And

if Travis and I are in it, and Keith, I

know you'll never leave the Republican

party, but Shimoth, you know, you're

probably set where you're where you want

to be right now. But I can tell you, we

go through our top 10 20 list,

>> out of those 50% will join Elon's party.

Well, look, the other the other thing,

Jason, that that Keith said, which I

think is is really important is

>> if he were to run people, I think they

have to transcend politics and policy.

And I think they need to be straight up

bosses. People that have enormous name

recognition so that effectively what

you're voting is a name and not an

agenda. Equivalent to, I think, what

happened to Schwarzenegger when he ran.

He ran on an enormous amount of name

recognition in the great Davis recall.

He didn't run on the platform. I don't

think anybody should mention that.

>> JD Vance had this great book, captured

people's imagination. He's an incredible

speaker. He pisses off a third or

twothirds of the country depending on

where you are in the country, but you

can't ignore him. I think Elon can find

10 JD Vance type characters and back

them fairly easily. He is a magnet for

talent. People will line up. I have been

contacted by high-profile people. I was

actually thinking of running. Can you

put me in touch with Elon?

>> I was thinking more like actors and

sports stars, meaning

>> where they just come with their own

in-built distribution. Like I think you

almost have to to rank ex followers and

Instagram followers and do a join and