Well, uh, Anthropics responded. We're

going to go through that proposal, the

the the facts and the proposal

[clears throat] for what happens next in

the open, uh, open model debate over

whether or not they should be banned,

restricted, tested, limited in some

ways, sued. There's a whole bunch of

different possible outcomes. Uh, but

we'll take you all through it. The Wall

Street Journal is reporting that large

companies are beginning to

>> They have a large white pill. Yes, it is

a large white pill

>> has hit the front page of the journal.

>> Yes. And I think people have been going

back and forth on this. This is a story

that's that's just getting digested by

the tech folks like the actual AI lab

leaders who had predicted crazy job

losses and are now not really seeing

that. They're seeing productivity boosts

and different uh diffusion taking time

in certain places and there's new

capabilities, but it's not exactly a

drop-in replacement for a co-worker, at

least in in most scenarios. And that's

what the Wall Street Journal is

reporting. So, let me set the table and

then uh we can debate it a little bit.

After roughly a year of cautious hiring,

companies across technology,

transportation, defense, and other

industries now say they need more

employees to work alongside AI systems.

Total victory for both humans and AI.

We're working together. Peace is

possible. It's an example of Je of

Jevans paradox. Jeban's paradox. When a

technology makes something more

efficient, demand often rises enough.

The total use and the need for people

actually increases. For roughly the past

year, many companies pointed to AI while

announcing layoffs. This was a huge

thorn in your side. You I think you

hated this more than anyone else. Um and

you were right to because it did seem

like it was just PR spin, etc. Yeah, it

was it was a way for CEOs and management

teams to save their own ass instead of

saying, you know, hey, we we overhired

or the business isn't doing as well as

as as we would like and we need to sort

of

>> uh basically [clears throat]

settle down for a second and uh get our

mojo back. Yeah, obviously no one wants

to say that, but I I think uh one of my

favorite posts was the and and obviously

these circumstances are never great, but

the the new CEO of Xbox came out and

just was like very honest about the

situation.

>> Yep.

>> And I think that uh more of that is

necessary.

>> Yeah. Also, there's a lot of firms where

they once they get to 10,000 20,000

employees, they might say, "Look, 20,000

might be the right number, but the

bottom thousand people are not

performing. We would like to lay them

off and then bring in a new thousand

people that are better fit for the

company and the current trajectory that

we're on, the current skills that we

need, maybe we need more sales people."

>> And those bottom people might be top 10%

at another company. Exactly. Yeah. So,

uh, the narrative appears to be

shifting. Uh, companies like CSX,

Alphabet, Service Now, Snap-on, and

consulting giant Booze Allen, Hamilton

have all recently signaled plans to

expand hiring, particularly in areas

where employees can use AI to become

more productive.

>> Yeah. It used to be somewhat of a flex

if a company was like, "Yeah, we put up

a role and we got 2,000 applicants."

Yeah. You know, it's like, well,

>> that's true. And then also, it's a

little bit of a sign of like, "Oh, wow.

They have a hundred openings. like they

must be like growing so fast, you know?

So, but if it's just a prompt to say,

"Oh, yeah, put up like look at my

organizational design and and add five

roles for everyone because why not? Why

not see who comes by?" You know, we're

not we don't necessarily have to

interview these people. Uh so, weird

weird dynamics, but we'll dig into it.

So, uh meanwhile, the latest weekly US

jobless claims fell to one of the lowest

levels in decades, underscoring the

resilience of the labor market. The

shift also requ reflects a more

realistic understanding of AI's

capabilities. Sarah Franklin, CEO of HR

platform Lattis, says many companies

initially assumed AI agents could

replace entry-level workers, but are now

recognizing that human human employees

remain essential. Just because you have

coding agents doesn't mean you're not

hiring engineers, she said, adding that

Lattis is seeing renewed hiring among

many of its customers, including for

junior roles. Uh Robert Half, CEO M.

Keith Watt said, "AI's effect on

employment has been more benign than

some has feared, adding that hiring

demand continues to improve and market

conditions are increasingly more

supportive of business." And so I do

think there was a little bit of like a

successful scop with the with the AI is

going to be able to do everything where

I do think there are some firms that

were like, "Yeah, maybe we shouldn't

hire or because like what if we get it

wrong and we hire a bunch of people and

then AI really does catch up and we

don't need those people. That's silly.

We shouldn't go through that like

whipssaw effect." Uh, and so people are

going back and forth on that. Bryce

Roberts.

>> Yeah, it's interesting. At least in at

least in our organization, which is

unique and and uh very niche and there's

not that many organizations that are

running, you know, a niche technology uh

daily show. Yeah.

>> I feel like a lot of

>> what the the value that we get out of AI

would have historically been done by not

super expert level freelancers, right?

these sort of like Upwork style tasks

that you would do historically like an

idea for a funny song, right? I've paid

to get a funny song made probably a

decade ago online, right, as just like a

joke [clears throat] and now you can

just go to Sunno and and make something

like that. And and then there's other

things like make a funny website, right?

I historically would maybe work with

>> So, you're saying that I should I should

take down the five open roles I have for

Celtic punk uh session musicians?

>> Not yet.

>> Because I was going to hire five Celtic

punk session musicians to constantly

record Dropkick Murphy's covers for us.

Yes. Every day

>> and then perform that you shouldn't do

that. [laughter] I'm actually closer

than ever to hiring a full-time Celtic

punk band to to play music to recreate

songs.

>> Yes, I'm I'm closer than ever uh to

doing that where that was not even on

the road map uh a few years ago. Yeah. I

don't know. It's it's a good point

there. Yeah. There there's a lot of

things that you uh are doing that you

would never do with a full-time

employee. Yeah. uh that just sort of

like fills the cracks and allows you to

do more different things in your

organization, but the core stuff is

still like you want a person that's

responsible and then you want them using

AI. I don't know. Yeah. Um the Wall

Street Journal uh breaks it all down,

but we went through most of that. So

Bryce Roberts, he's he's taking the

other side of this. He says he shares a

screenshot of a text message says, "We

honestly aren't hiring a ton right now.

AI backfilling most roles." Backfilling

is that specifically does that

specifically refer to when someone

leaves the company you backfill them

with AI? So you say, "Oh, someone quit."

Like if there's Steve and Jim on two

different on one team and Steve quits,

you say, "Hey, Jim, can you just instead

of hiring another person just do twice

as much work with AI?" Is that what this

person's articulating? I mean, obviously

there's some companies that are like,

"Yeah, we're not hiring anyone. We're

going for the one person$ one billion

dollar company. Like I'm not going to

hire anyone. I'm just going to use

>> Yeah, but that's rare. Usually, usually

when your business is ripping, you're

like, I can't hire great people fast

enough. Yeah.

>> And sometimes you actually sometimes you

actually don't have time to

>> invest into various hiring processes.

But yeah,

>> uh yeah, I would read into this text the

company's just probably not like

ripping.

>> That's my that's my takeaway.

>> Well, Bryce Roberts says, "Rip newrads."

Matthew Prince over Cloudflare takes the

other side. He says, "Wrong strategy to

stop hiring new grads." the right

strategy, hire them and insert them into

legacy teams to help them better adopt

AI.

>> And Cloudflare of course hired 1,000

>> something. It was a It was a crazy

number, wasn't it, up there in like

almost a thousand

>> four digits.

>> That's crazy. Let's play the latest Good

Work uh real. We're just watching reals

now.

>> This is one we got is a Bernie Maidoff.

>> Pretty good

>> gloves.

>> That's from the 80s, too. That's good.

>> Yeah. Yeah. I've I've seen a few of

these around before. Up next,

>> solid Sam Bankman Freed here.

>> That's nice.

>> Really nice.

>> That's really nice.

>> I like that they actually printed these.

>> I think he made balsa wood.

>> This is balsa wood.

>> The acting is so

>> Wow.

>> Wait, John.

>> This is a This is a vintage Zuckerberg.

>> 05.

>> This is a vintage '05 Zuckerberg. Let's

just check the back really quick.

There it is. That is a patch from his

Fruit of the Loom boxer briefs. You can

tell by the smell.

>> Is that real? What is that referring to?

>> This is on athlete, you know, trading

card. I'll put a piece of the jersey

one.

>> Yeah. Yeah.

>> All right. Up next.

>> Sleeve it.

>> Ooh. Okay.

>> Nice.

>> Elizabeth Holmes. We do have two. I

believe we have two. But a triple Holmes

is what every good collector has

>> in their arsenal. All right. We have one

last card.

>> One one card left.

>> Three, two, one.

>> Oh my god. [laughter] Oh my god.

>> Oh my god. Oh my god. Oh my god.

>> Turn it off.

>> Very funny. Very funny.

>> It is funny how the the like business

comedy cannon has really solidified

around like Elizabeth Holmes. Uh Sam

Bankenfreed, Mark Zuckerberg. There's

like a few names.

>> I'm surprised they didn't have an Adam

Newman rookie card in there.

>> I don't know if Adam Newman is like a

big enough name relative to

>> That's true. Sam Bank and Elizabeth

Holmes. Uh it's just interesting like

the different the different names that

have broken out that you can do a comedy

sketch that's like you know it goes as

big as uh as good work does because they

get you know I think millions and

millions of views on their stuff.

>> All right, pull up this image from

Manhattan this morning. We got sent

this.

>> We've been doing on the ground reporting

>> from one of our on the ground reporters

in Manhattan. There's a company called

Black Sheep

>> that that got 20 trucks and they are

just driving them around Google's

Manhattan office. Yes. Saying, "Shame on

you, Google. Return our $80,000."

>> We had to dig in. We got very curious.

>> I had no idea. They make sunglasses.

>> They make $8 sunglasses that beat $350

sunglasses in an NBC lab test.

>> Okay. Are you wearing black sheep today?

What you

>> I wish [laughter]

I wish. So, uh, Black Sheep makes direct

to factory.

>> Okay. Factory direct prescription

eyewear. Stop paying

>> No. This is from their own website.

They're saying direct to factory optical

disruptor, [laughter] which is not. This

is from their website. Where you uh on

Black Sheep.

>> I'm on black sheep.io as well. It says

factory direct direct to factory. Look,

I want to send some eyewear to a

factory. Direct to factoryactory.

>> I'll be sending it to them.

>> Direct toactory.

>> Yeah.

>> Uh so this company, they say direct

toactory optical disruptor black sheep

launches 25 truck gorilla campaign

against Google in Manhattan. Okay. And

then they're they're sort of like

narrating their own gorilla campaign. A

fleet of 25 minimalist LED billboard

trucks surrounds Google's Chelsea

headquarters after the tech giant

weaponized an organic search glitch to

pocket nearly $80,000

in ad spend following Black Sheep's

viral NBC Today Show debut.

25 LED trucks deployed. $77,000 drained

in 30 hours. And then they're and then

they're just continuing to market their

own product. So very interesting

strategy here. I think every marketer

has had the experience of of having a

campaign go haywire. Yeah.

>> Very fascinating to take to take this

route. Let's see how it works for them.

If I were Google, I would say you can

have your $80,000 back, but you can

never advertise on Google again because

I just don't know how. I don't think

Google would ban them permanently for

this. This is ridiculous. But it, you

know, they're just going to they're just

going to be like any other like as a

self-s served platform.

>> But is it a good campaign?

>> But what what actually happened? So they

say how it unfolded. NBC Today show

segment airs. Uh they test the retail

subscription against Black Sheep's

factory direct pair. National search

traffic spikes. Hundreds of Americans

search Black Sheep because they're

seeing it on TV. The organic listing

breaks. Google search engine redirected

organic brand traffic to a dead-end

third-party 404 error page. And so with

the organic route broken, users were

funneled into Google's paid listings. So

what is their claim? How is Google

responsible for this? Exactly.

>> Sounds like user error

>> because I mean you do you do have some

control over your Google search results

based on the web master tools. you can

index certain things and then also if

you're noticing a 404 page you could

like redirect it quickly but again if

this is happening all very fast

but I mean it is interesting because

they're probably going to get more than

$77,000 worth of organic just from this

I mean I didn't see the original

campaign and I'm seeing this because

this is hilarious but this is like a is

this they they shared an AI image with

tons of these like shame on you trucks

but those are real

>> these are real

>> and are those minimalist

Those seem maximalist to me,

>> but maybe they're minimal.

>> Minimalist, I guess, in the in the

display of the uh in the way they

actually are leveraging the space on the

truck, but black and white.

>> Truly underrated surface area for stunts

and advertising. like like this message

is sort of like squabbling with Google

over this like sort of odd scenario. But

you can imagine someone using this for

something much cooler and much more

positive and not like this uh you know

sort of unfortunate situation for them

where they're dealing with the you know

fallout of a Google error.

>> Well, we want to interview the truck

drivers.

>> So if you're driving a black sheep truck

around Manhattan today, reach out

>> for sure.

>> Show Nick, make it happen.

>> Ilio said straight shot to SSI. So, they

better not be gearing up to release a

work agent called France. [laughter]

[gasps] Francois would be a very good

name for a for an AI agent. I like that.

Uh, I do wonder what they're going to be

releasing. Has the SSI is going to

release. Is that complete rumor? Because

all all I said scale their research. So,

that just means they've done a bunch of

research. They have some sort of

architecture that they like, some sort

of flywheel, and they're going to like

use more compute. And so that's why

they're raising money. I don't think

they said like and we're going to

release it publicly.

>> Yeah.

>> But everyone's thinking like probably

still LLM or something different. No one

really knows.

>> Yeah. I mean I think still broadly like

generally

>> post god like next [clears throat]

level. There are levels to vague

posting. When you live a vague life just

like your entire life is vagory.

Anyway, uh, in other news, recursive

super intelligence signs a $410 compute

[laughter] deal with Amazon.

So funny.

And it's in the TechCrunch. It's in the

It's in the [laughter] the the header,

too. Of course, that is a typo. Uh, it

says recursive super intelligence signs

410 million million dollar compute deal

with Amazon. Congratulations to

recursive super intelligence. Throwing

safety out the window. That should be

the that should be the uh the tagline

because there's already safe super

intelligence but we're just doing

recursive super intelligence over here.

Um but of course the company is doing

very well. They emerged from stealth in

May with 650 million in funding focused

on building open-ended self-improving

systems and potentially compute

intensive approach to AI research. This

multi-year deal is meant to provide

flexibility as the company looks to

scale up those systems. Uh, Recursive's

$410 million outlay represents the bulk

of the company's fundraising to date,

but on a call with TechCrunch, uh,

>> hey, hey, they still have a couple

hundred million left over.

>> Founder and CEO Richard Socher

emphasized that he expected it to be the

first of many such deals. So, is this I

feel like normally when you see a like a

compute deal signed, it's always like

more complicated than just like we're

buying this expensive thing. It's

usually like we're we're paying that.

I'm like it's we we used to be so like

anti- circular deal that now I just have

come to I've been so normalized by them

that I expect them every time and I'm

like wait

>> this is just there's no circularity

here. I would have expected changing

hands.

>> Yeah. Like Amazon's investing in you and

you're buying tranium and racking it in

AWS doing new campus and they're

investing and this and that and you're

investing in them. Uh instead it just

seems like it's a pretty vanilla deal.

It's like they're just buying a lot of

compute from Amazon. Great.

>> Seems like it.

>> Well, good luck to them. very excited

for what they're launching. Um,

>> yeah. Uh, Jason, [clears throat] VP of

startups and VC at AWS, says part of the

agreement is that we're going to

co-develop him for a purpose built for

these types of companies. So,

>> fingers crossed, but it seems like we

could get some some circularity.

[laughter]

Yeah, let's hope so. Uh, let me tell you

about Railway. Railway is the all-in-one

intelligent cloud provider. Use your

favorite agent to deploy web app

serveres and more while Railway

automatically takes care of scaling,

monitoring, and security.

Fingers crossed. [laughter]

Well,

well, here's here's a deal that's

somewhat circular. We got Nvidia

revealed as a tenant for a $50 billion

data center that will use its chips. So,

they're the tenant of the data center

that uses its chips. We'll talk to Tate

Kim about this. Uh CEO Jensen uh Wong

deploys balance sheet to backs stop

growth of AI computing market. Nvidia

has signed leases worth up to $50

billion for a massive Texas data center.

That's very very big. That's very very

big for a single site. Uh a previously

undisclosed commitment that shines a new

spotlight on the chips on the chip

group's growing role in financing AI.

The nearly $5 trillion company is

leasing the entire gig 1 gigawatt

facility that developer Hut 8 is

building which will house hundreds of

thousands of Nvidia graphics processing

units. So you have to imagine that once

they have these they serve something or

wind up selling them. Like these things

change hands so many times there's a lot

of different ways that this could play

out ultimately. Um but in the uh Can we

pull up the Nvidia chart? Yeah, there we

go. Nvidia,

>> big candle today, up 3%, 5.17 trillion.

Let's take a look at Apple

>> 4.99. They crossed five today. Uh

they're down a little bit since they

since they beat breached that, but

they're neck and neck. Uh Google is

sitting at

>> Apple running the do nothing win

strategy. Yeah. Jensen doing thousands

of deals.

>> They didn't even sign the open letter.

Uh there are three companies that still

I I believe still haven't uh signed the

open letter and

>> only three companies on the entire

[laughter] surface of the earth.

>> There are three there are three major

companies that haven't signed that

Nvidia open letter about uh banning open

source uh and or not banning open

source. Amazon, Apple and Anthropic.

Anthropic put out a uh uh a post

yesterday very very clear response sort

of outlining their view on open source

their stance. Apple and Amazon haven't

signed and they both have like very

physical elements in the world in the

sense that they're not uh they're sort

of unsloppable like you you can't vibe

code an Amazon warehouse. You can't vibe

code an iPhone. There are threats to

those businesses of course and of course

Apple should benefit from open source

and so should Amazon because they'll be

able to serve open models across AWS.

But it's just potentially interesting. I

think the Apple standing it standing

back is more just like look we're not

jumping on with this crazy open letter

that everyone is signing like we just

have our own brand. We're thinking

different. We're doing

>> well and based on other Apple AI

timelines I would expect them to sign it

in maybe a year or two

>> potentially. These glasses have have

changed you. They turned you a new

beast. Uh let me let me run through the

the three anthropic proposals because uh

it's an important response. So Dario

Amade anthropic CEO uh responded

directly to that letter summarizing uh

supporting openweight models uh that

circulated over the weekend. So he makes

three claims just to sort of clarify

things that I think are important. One

he says anthropic has never advocated

for a ban on openweight models. Now that

that's a blanket ban. There's obviously

like defining what a ban is and what an

openw weight model, what a distilled

model, what a foreign model is. These

things all matter. But he has he has

come out and said look, we never

advocated for a total ban on openweight

models. Uh two, he says uh undergirling

all of this is the US must beat

authoritarian governments in the AI

race. He points to China, but he

identifies any authoritarian government

if they get really powerful AI, they'll

come over here and steamroll us and you

won't be free to do whatever you want to

do in America. Uh three powerful AI

models may be misused to carry out cyber

attacks or biological attacks. There are

there are risks to having really really

powerful uh AI opensource systems just

running around. So he's worried about

those three things clarifying those

three points. But he makes three uh

recommended actions. He makes three

proposals. Uh first he says uh let's

continue to sanction chips. Let's not

sell chips to China. He says we should

not sell powerful chips or chipmaking

equipment to China. So this has been

debated for years like going back to the

Biden chip uh controls. Um everyone

knows every different angle on this uh

the basics. I mean there is a pretty

good argument for chip controls. Uh even

on purely geoeconomic competitive

grounds like even if you don't believe

in the the the risk of authoritarian

governments having powerful AI even if

you just think it's like you know fancy

autocomplete it's like well it's the

engine of our economy and if you can

slow down arrival economy that's

beneficial to you right? Um and so and

there also seems to be basically

unlimited demand for chips in America.

So uh by restricting sales to China that

shouldn't actually hurt American chip

companies all that much. Uh but yes,

>> well they just like the their argument

would be we fully lose the Chinese

>> market. Yeah. Which is

>> the second largest Yeah.

>> computing market in the world. No.

>> Right. So So I think um but but you're

the counterpoint to that is you were

going to lose it anyways.

>> Yeah. Um and a lot of that it stems from

the fact that chi China has been

building an indigenous chip supply for

decades. We've talked about going back

to uh a whole bunch of their you know

state-led statef funded chip and fab

processes. They've always been uh a few

years behind. Uh and so maintaining that

gap all else equal is an advantage for

the United States. Uh the second point

Dario makes is he says we should crack

down on industrialcale distillation

operations. Uh this seems totally

reasonable. companies can set their

terms of service and they have a right

to maintain intellectual property uh

with proper legal consequences for

violations. Anthropic's been fighting

distillation attacks, but according to

them, it's not that effective. Daario

proposes policy interventions to deter

this behavior. And this is where I'm

still not clear on what where that goes

next. Like what is the correct policy

intervention? There's a like policy

intervention is a very very broad thing.

It can mean anything from like a tax, a

tariff, a fine, uh a sternly worded

letter, uh not getting invited to a golf

tournament. Like there's so many

different things that policy like covers

these days, right? Um where where does

this actually go? He says he doesn't

want a blanket ban on openweight models,

but it does seem like one possible

policy intervention would be to sort of

like ban restrict or pressure open

weights models that can be reasonably

shown to have been distilled. So if

there's someone who's just a perfect

distillation, it just gets it just

doesn't quite feel right. It's hard to

quantify these things. We don't have a

binary where you run some sort of

algorithm and you say, "Yes, this was

distilled." Because you can distill, you

know, half on Opus 5 and then throw in a

little GPT 5.6 and then mix in some some

mistrol and like just be distilling from

all over the place. Fine-tune stuff,

change the flavor, change the RL

environment. There's so many different

pieces of it. And Tyler, you were making

a point about uh Tinker or

>> Yeah. So, so the the Inkling model from

Thing Machines like it used some synthet

synthetic data that was created with uh

I think Kimmy K2.5.

>> Yes.

>> So like I does that count as like

distillation like probably not when

people usually talk about it but like it

definitely benefited from Chinese open

source models.

>> Yeah. So I wouldn't call that downstream

of

>> Yeah. I wouldn't call that industrial

scale distillation. Yeah.

>> There is like some big gray area where

like how do you actually define these

things?

>> Yes. And so defining that is going to be

what that's going to be the conversation

that plays out in in DC like behind the

scenes on the basis of this and that's

where the actual negotiation is going to

happen between uh you know the the

position of Nvidia and everyone that

signed the letter versus the position of

Enthropic and everyone who didn't sign

the letter. They're going to sort of

decide okay well if you can prove this

this and this and you can show us that

your API was getting hit by these

different things and you have a really

solid report of what happened and then

the model also you know sort of you know

checks these boxes quantitatively when

we do this eval then maybe we will

pressure it and then what does that

actually mean? Um, you could go after

the lab that committed the distillation

attack with lawsuits, but that seems

really difficult given the international

nature of these attacks. So, we're sort

of back to where we started. Like, what

what can the government do that the lab

can't? Like, the lab should be looking

at every customer and saying, "Oh, this

seems like someone who's trying to

distill. They keep asking for basically

what looks like a lot of training data.

They they're not acting like a normal

user just being like, "Build me a

website." Okay. Third, he says, "All

sufficiently capable models, open and

closed, should go through mandatory

mandatory safety testing." So, this was

recently outlined by Dennis Hassabis

over at Google Deepind as well. And and

it seems like that the two companies are

in alignment on this in particular. Uh,

and it's a somewhat reasonable position.

Uh, although the risk is that small

companies who have safe models could

that aren't distilled could get tied up

in a review queue for years before they

can release. Like that would be very

very annoying if you're uh recursive

super intelligence for example and you

don't have a Washington DC office and

you're like hey we want to release our

new model and they're like yeah totally

like you got to go through the the the

the review process get in line and then

it's like every you know every trillion

dollar company is there with a ton of

lobbyists being like we'll review our

model first because we want to get out a

week before the the small startup and

that's the frustration of biotech the

FDA anything that goes through approval.

We've talked about this with the nuclear

stuff. Uh it gets very tricky and so you

want to avoid that and you don't want to

wind up slowing down innovation that's

happening on small scales and decreasing

competition. Dario does do a good job of

like acknowledging upfront that he says

it would protect a US AI companies from

competition, but that's never been my

goal with anything that he's saying

here. And so, uh it's still worth

working through what happens in a really

adversarial situation. Like what if a

foreign lab distills a bunch of frontier

models, they're the most aggressive.

They're just distilling everything. Then

they jump forward a bunch in capability.

Uh they get a bunch of smuggled chips.

They take all the restrictions off of

cyber, all the restrictions off of bio.

Uh and then they just drop the weights

on like a torrent or they put them up on

Hugging Face and Hugging Face is like

this is really crazy. No one likes this.

There's a lot of pressure to take it

down. I don't know. But it's out there.

Like what does the government actually

do? like the government probably

pressures or bans like hosting the

weights uh maybe serving the model you

maybe won't be able to run it in

American data centers you go to the

neocloud and say like hey this thing is

actually bad and I think people are

divided on this because they see the

current models not as actually dangerous

which is totally reasonable to assess

that yeah it's not that bad um but like

if there was a model that was like yeah

it's actually just like the killing

machine like I think most people would

be like yes I'm democratically voting to

not serve that because it's just like

it's an annoyance at at best and like

actually bad at worst.

>> And the other big question is like how

much compute do you actually need for it

to be dangerous, right?

>> Yeah, totally.

>> Is is uh like having some GPUs in the

back shed going to be enough. Maybe for

sufficiently advanced model, yes. Or do

you need access to a ton of racks? Yeah.

>> Ton of power. And then you do need to

work with

>> a Neocloud in that case. And as soon as

you're a US-based company with a real

data center with a bunch of NVL72s in

there, uh, you probably have

registration and, you know, all sorts of

just like business registrations where

the government can reach out to you and

say, "Hey, we're actually really worried

about this." Just like there are other

things you can't host in a data center.

There's all sorts of stuff that's

illegal, even just intellectual

property.

>> Yeah. Exactly. Yeah. That's it's uh

>> like you can't even just just because

you have a data center doesn't mean that

you can like take an open-source you

know uh

>> you can't you can't as a data center

>> oh yeah open source Marvel like they'll

be

>> or even even a you know a CRM company

can't knowingly support like a organized

cart global cartel that is like

trafficking narcotics right you have

you'd have to imagine like

>> uh that uh they have

>> they have to vi balances [laughter]

maybe.

>> So, uh, so, so, uh, what, what's

interesting is like what is the next

step of that? So, if there is a bad

model, uh, and and everyone agrees like,

okay, yeah, we got to not host this, not

distribute this, like yeah, the weights

are out there, people are trying to like

sort of run it a little bit. Uh, but

does it go offshore? Do we wind up in

like the crypto scenario where there's

like these offshore things and people

are using VPNs to get access to it? like

what level of aggression do you see from

the US government in that scenario? It

probably should be proportionate to like

the danger imposed by the model. Like if

it's just a model that's like that's

like annoying or like slightly IP

infringes, but like no one's really

being like I'm not I'm I'm canceling my

Disney subscription because this new

model will generate me Disney IP. Like

that's probably not like okay, put up a

crazy firewall. But if it is like the

ultimate hack machine that's like

stealing everyone's money from the

banks, then yeah, you are going to put

up the the firewall and sort of be much

more aggressive. So I think the response

will be in reaction to whatever the

power of the models are. But uh it'll be

interesting to go back and forth.

Anyway, all in all, the letter clarifies

a lot about the anthropic position. So I

think it's good that it it came out. Uh

but it's still worth working through the

game theory of like what happens down

the line. Policy interventions is all we

got here. And I think it's still too

generic at this point. I want to know

like what policy looks like. I want to

predict that. I want to understand uh

what's actually being proposed, what

people like, what people don't like. And

so I think we'll learn more about this

in the coming days.

>> Mark Zuckerberg is in the Wall Street

Journal opinion section with a new

piece. The AI future is for everyone. He

says, "The history of democracy and

economics has proved that centralized

power stifles human potential."

>> And uh it's quite long. go let you guys

read it, but let's head into the comment

section. Let's get a quick Let's get a

quick rea Let's get a quick reaction.

>> Uh this is the Wall Street Journal. I

think it'll be

>> um No, it it it looks relatively tame.

Um but yeah, making a you know, a clear

effort to position to to be the overtly

>> there was a white space for a guy

investing hundreds of billions of

dollars a year in AI that is like says,

"Hey, this is going to be really great

for everyone." Yeah. And I'm going to

help us get there.

>> It is It is interesting. I Facebook does

have some monopolies, but like the

competition for attention is constant

and there are always sources outside

like they've never had a full monopoly

on social media even with Tik Tok and

Snapchat and uh LinkedIn and Twitch and

YouTube and Netflix and the podcast feed

and SMS and iMessage. like there are so

many other platforms for disseminating

information like I I don't know I I it's

hard to jump straight to a critique here

but um the the key quote that Andrew

Curran pulled out was that he said in

most cases like cyber security the

history of open- source software has

shown that giving everyone full access

to powerful systems will be the best way

to protect safety and security over

time. So, he's firmly on the side of uh

democratizing powerful AI and uh he is

yet another one. Uh I imagine that they

that they signed the letter. I I've lost

track at this point, but you can imagine

that he did. Um anyway, thank you so

much for tuning in. The other piece of

news is that Apple is launching Apple

Upgrade next week, then iPhone, iPad,

Mac, and Apple Watch

leasing/subscription

program. Uh they said you will own

[laughter]

>> and you will be happy.

>> We're launching our new program. You

will own nothing and be happy.

>> Uh it's partnering with Clara to launch

in the United States at online and

retail stores. Uh it's now official.

Leasing prices start as low as $20 or

$17.99 per month for iPhone. Uh $11.99

for Apple Watch, $24.99 for Mac, and

$11.99 for iPad. So uh interesting. I

mean, a lot of people are saying this is

a direct reaction to uh increased prices

for memory, increased prices for

products. There was a time when an

iPhone was a couple hundred and there

were incentives to jump on a Verizon

plan and you sort of advertise the cost

over that. Those days are gone. Like

we're in the world of like a $2,000

iPhone. It's a significant

>> Same thing with our gongs for people

honestly.

>> You want a subscription gong?

>> No, I'm just saying there was a time

when a TVPN gong was $200. Yeah,

>> now it's in the tens of thousands of

dollars, right?

>> It's actually so expensive. Somebody a

friend of mine texted me and was like,

"Where do we get the gong?" Cuz I need a

gong. And I was like, I think you should

start small. And this is not like you're

you can't handle the big gong. I was

more saying that like there is a joy to

being on the hyonic treadmill of larger

gongs. Like you don't want to jump

straight to the biggest gong. You want

to start with a small gong

>> and work your way up.

>> Work your way up. Because every gong

that we've added has been so electric

when we get

>> I think it's time for a new one.

>> You want an even bigger gong or what?

>> Yeah, I want I want one that's hanging

from the rafters.

>> Leave us

>> five stars on Apple Podcast and Spotify.

>> Money never sleeps. You shouldn't

either. Call me.

>> Sign up for the newsletter at tvpn.com

and we will see you tomorrow at 11:00

a.m. Pacific. Goodbye.

>> Cheers.

>> Flashbang.