All right, everybody, welcome back to

the number one podcast in the world,

your favorite podcast, the All-In

podcast. We got a huge, huge docket with

me again, the core four.

Chamath, Freeberg, Sachs, and your boy J

Cal. Topic one. Topic one. Let's get

right to it. No small talk, boys. Dario

has spoken.

Apparently, he listens to the All-In

podcast, and he was compelled to respond

to Gavin Baker's

little discussion last week that

many people inside, or some people,

allegedly, maybe inside of Anthropic

believe, quote, that they will be

the only private company in the world at

some point. Some folks from Anthropic,

Sholto Douglas, fired back, completely

false. Whoever told Gavin this is lying.

And Dario decided he would come out of

hiding, and he entered the chat with an

epic two-part essay on regulation.

Sachs, he said, quote, "I know the

Silicon Valley shorthand where

regulation equals regulatory capture

equals concentration of power, but I've

always found this to be an overly

simplified picture."

On messaging, he said, quote, "I do not

agree my messaging has been

disproportionately negative. It has been

about equally balanced between risks and

benefits." Took a little responsibility,

quote, "By far the most accurate

criticism of AI companies, including

Anthropic, is that we haven't yet

delivered on our big promises to benefit

the world. That is totally on us." Most

quoted line, "The thing that will work

is actually curing cancer, not glitzy

marketing." Questions.

Sachs, uh, you've been talking about

Anthropic for a year and a half.

He never responded.

Gavin comes out, and he suddenly, uh, is

very talkative and responds. What do you

take from the fact that he never

responded to you, and then he responded

to Gavin, and then we'll get into the

details. Does he not want to spar with

you?

>> he did respond

to me. I mean, I I want to center

myself, but the reality is he did not

respond to what Gavin said. He easily

could have said that what Gavin said he

said is untrue, like Shalto did. He did

not weigh in on that issue. Instead, he

really weighed in on the regulatory

capture issue. So, that's the thing that

I think drew him out here is I think he

is a little bit irked by the fact that

we keep accusing him of regulatory

capture. And this is something I've been

saying since last year that they were

engaged in a sophisticated regulatory

capture scheme based on fearmongering.

And those are the points he's really

responding to. And I think the thing

that he doesn't like about it is that he

feels like it impugns his motives, that

he's not pure in pursuing all these

regulations for the right for the right

reasons. And my response to that is

look, there's no question that Anthropic

has been extremely aggressive about

seeking to implement its preferred

regulatory frameworks at both the state

and federal level. That is regulatory

capture. Now, look, I think that Dario

may be sincere in his beliefs. I'm not

saying he's doing this for pecuniary

reasons. Nonetheless, he is seeking to

capture the machinery of the state on

behalf of his political agenda. It's

just there's

not much to debate there, I don't think.

There's a few other things to say about

this. So, let me go to

point number two first. He says that

he's not responsible for the negativity

around AI, that he's been balanced in

his portrayal of AI. Oh, really?

Do you you expect us to have amnesia

about the fact that just about a year

and a half ago, you said very

specifically that within 1 to 5 years

50% of entry-level knowledge workers

would lose their jobs. And this was not

just some sort of idle speculation on a

podcast. This was something that they

engineered and amplified into a

full-fledged media campaign. You may

recall that President Obama even

retweeted this. And many other

Democratic Party officials did the same

thing. Moreover, this pattern repeats

itself with the whole Anthropic

blackmail study. Remember, he's got a

team at the company, they're supposedly

studying alignment. They create this

highly contrived study where they prompt

this model over 200 times until they

finally get the headline-grabbing result

that they wanted. And again, my point

here is that this is not just someone

dishing on a podcast about the alignment

risk of AI. This is them actually

creating a study, engineering that

study, and then pumping it to create the

headlines they wanted. And Dario and his

sister, who's the president of the

company, and other executives went on 60

Minutes and breathlessly pumped this

thing. And since that study has come

out, a lot of people have looked at it

and said, "Look, this thing is highly

contrived." Including the UK AI Safety

Institute, basically said that this

thing was created under

highly pressurized conditions, and they

engineered the result. So, these guys

have created campaigns

to make people fear AI. Why is the

public so afraid of AI? They think it's

going to take their jobs, they think

it's going to become the Terminator.

It's exactly the fears that Anthropic

has put in the media bloodstream. And no

company, and you'd have to say,

therefore, no founder CEO has done more

to promote these fears and pump these

fears and amplify these fears than Dario

has. And the fact that he can't see that

either makes him

I'd say disingenuous or delusional.

>> I'm going with the latter.

>> So, that that's point number one. And I

really think that

almost everybody who read that, who's

been paying attention, felt the same

way. It's like, "Dario, you really have

a blind spot with respect to your own

behavior."

>> By the way, can we can we talk about

that one for a second or no?

>> Yeah, let's do it. Yeah.

>> Just to build on what you're saying, the

issue that we have right now is actually

pretty problematic. If I had to take

three different vectors of actions and

now put them together, you've had

a very disjointed, dis-

organized,

and frankly,

pearl-clutching,

disingenuous

AI doom narrative.

And it's actually seeded

and now it's growing.

And as a result, what's happening?

I was really shocked when I saw Governor

Abbott of Texas put down this executive

order around Texas data centers and

limiting its growth. Josh Shapiro in

Pennsylvania just did the same thing.

Axios reported that the GOP party sent

out a memo

to the executives at the various AI

companies essentially saying, "Hey, stop

rage baiting people because we're about

to lose this critical GOP Senate race in

Ohio largely around this issue."

So, you have

doomerism

and then you now have mainstream

political pushback from both sides of

the aisle, which I think is extremely

dangerous.

And then the third leg of the stool is

rising yields. By the way, the Treasury

Department just doubled its bond buying.

If you put all of these things together,

as a just a casual observer, what I

would say is we have made some really

stupid unforced errors in the United

States. And the coda to all of this

is

if you put all of these things together,

rising yields constrains the money

supply in terms of how people want to

invest

in risk seeking assets because the risk

free rate just keeps going up.

That causes people to be less likely to

invest in all the data centers. Data

centers themselves are being shut down.

Where does that leave frontier model

companies? They're the most at risk.

Why? Because they're not investment

grade. They're in the worst position in

terms of their balance sheets. They're

not in a position to then get access to

the compute they need to be successful.

So, even as you grow, you're actually

making your problem worse in the sense

that you need more and more capacity to

sustain that growth that you can't fund

because all the negativity has turned

people against you. So, all roads lead

to a big question mark and a and a

head-scratching moment for me where I'm

like, "How did we end up in this

situation?" But, whether it was

accidental

or whether it was well-intentioned risk

management, whatever it was, we are now

in a very precarious situation that we

could have frankly avoided.

>> Totally agree. Freebert, your thoughts

on this anti-data center movement or on

Dario's going direct and writing the

double missive. Do you think he's

sincere, delusional, some combination?

>> Why don't we steel man it? Yeah. And if

we put ourselves in the shoes of a

frontier lab

leader and the leader is seeing

capabilities of models that perhaps we

don't see because we're working

day-to-day in enterprise settings

[clears throat] making stuff

doing things in a benign, non-nefarious

way.

And they're sitting there and they're

pressure testing models and they figure

out, "Hey, there's ways you can

jailbreak models to get them to do

things that they're not supposed to do.

And then you can use them to do things

like design bio weapons, make viruses,

make

infectious diseases that don't exist

today.

You could use them to design cyber

weapons to get them to go and do things

online

like break into bank accounts and take

people's money and all these sorts of

things.

And you can prompt them to do things

that could broadly influence society

by creating fake media, fake videos,

fake images, propagate them through

social media,

hack the algorithms. I mean, X's

algorithm is public, so theoretically an

agent could read it, copy it, understand

it,

and figure out a way to manipulate the

broad public.

And so you realize that as you're

building these tools where there's a lot

of benign positive world-leading

progressive kind of applications, you

see all the bad stuff that could happen

with it.

And you can keep trying to build systems

and keep trying to build ways to stop it

from doing that. You can build all your

own code that reviews every prompt that

comes in, that reviews every API call.

And yet somehow a network of agents can

be used to do things. And they can start

to do things that we don't want them to

do. And so let's assume that you're

sitting there and you're the executive

of the company building this great

technology. You believe fully in its

capabilities and its benefits to

society, its benefits to the economy.

But you can't get a grip on how to keep

it under control and how to stop social

engineering, cyber weapons, and cyber

weapons. What do you do differently?

>> Okay. Okay. So you're bringing up it's

an exceptional going down an exceptional

path. I love this.

There is one thing that you must do.

If you believe that this is true, to

further steal my thunder. You cannot

obfuscate the thinking tokens of a model

then.

What do I mean?

If you just compare open-source models

versus the closed frontier models.

There is no way

for us to understand

what the thinking tokens are. Meaning

you give it a prompt,

you get back something,

but all of the stuff in the middle

is obfuscated. Quad obfuscates it.

Okay? So do the open AI models.

And I would say

if I was really afraid, the first thing

I would do is try to find a way to

unobfuscate these thinking tokens so

that you could have a third party

actually legitimize what you're saying.

Because what's interesting to me is I

haven't seen

the same

doomerism from any open-source model

company, including Nvidia. And the thing

with the open-source models is you can

actually see it thinking. So, you can

see its misalignment in real time. And

so, instead, we have to basically agree

to their interpretation

of tokens that we can't see, that only

they can see, that they can interpret

how they want. And without judging

whether it's right or wrong, I would say

give them the benefit of the doubt that

they're trying to do the right thing.

Make the bloody thing available to other

people then. Let somebody else with some

amount of judgment as well sit in the

room and steel man it with you.

>> So then, let me make this point. So,

Sachs, there was this argument that

Demis put out for a FINRA-style

regulatory system, where industry

participants that understand technology,

move quickly, and are aligned with

commercialization

actively review each other's systems and

each other's models via an industry

consortium that hires and assigns

scientists to work on this stuff, and

they're just doing it, versus having it

be owned and managed by the government

and create some regulatory capture

scheme. But then, this week, you were

pretty against the FINRA system in your

tweets.

You seemed to be supportive of it the

first time around when Demis originally

published it.

It seems to me that the proposal from

Demis that Dario signed up to, Sam

signed up to, Elon all signed up to,

you're now against, but that could be a

solution to, if there is genuine concern

here, given Chamath's points. That the

industry can can can kind of police each

other.

>> Let me let me clarify that. I think

designing a new regulatory agency for AI

that's designed after FINRA, which is a

pretty sleepy regulatory agency that

writes rules for stock brokers

in a fairly mature industry that's not

dynamic at all,

is a horrible idea. And by the way,

FINRA is widely perceived as just

protecting incumbents. And talk to any

startup founders had to deal with them,

they view FINRA as existing to protect

the big banks from disruption. It's It's

just not a good model to base regulation

after. So, now Demis, hold on.

>> the NFA, the National Futures

Association, which is also one of these

self-regulatory organizations in the

financial markets, is a better

alternative cuz that's a pretty dynamic

market.

>> so now what you're saying is very

interesting, which is you mentioned the

term self-regulatory

organization or SRO, and there's many

different models. And one of them may

work, and that's been my point. The one

I think is the most appropriate for this

circumstance would be something like the

MPAA, which does not report to the

government at all, and was formulated by

the motion picture industry in response

to the Hays Code. And what the

government said is, "Get your act

together, guys, or we're going to have

to do it for you." And and what the MPAA

did then was promote standards that then

forestalled more intrusive, heavy-handed

government action. So, that is basically

the model that I said I could get

behind. But is that the model that Dario

supports? No. Dario, and I think Demis,

wants a FINRA, which is basically this

rule-making regulatory agency that would

not only promulgate standards, but also

do pre-release model testing.

Okay? And it would then report into the

government and then officially be

enshrined in law. And the reason why

everyone says, "Well, Elon's behind it."

I've talked to Elon about this. Elon

does not support a FINRA for AI. What he

could get behind is an MPAA for AI. And

that's my point is Demis wrote something

>> what I've been saying on this podcast,

Zach, since the beginning. I have been

saying MPAA self-regulate.

>> I get it, but look, here's my point.

Demis wrote something very high-level.

And so, when you say something like,

"Well, everyone supports Demis's idea."

There's many versions of Demis's idea.

Some of them would be okay, and some of

them are bad. And what I'm saying is if

it's a FINRA model, that will not work.

>> Having spoken to Demis at length about

this, I think that the the general

framework is

SRO in the right structure. However,

FINRA is often used as the example of an

SRO simply because it is the most

well-known SRO.

And but you are correct. I think that

there's a mechanism by which this thing

needs to operate that is distinct from

any other SRO. But the idea being the

industry gets together and to Chamath's

point, they get to look at each other's

models, they get to police it, they get

to have independence, but they don't get

to be controlled by government. And that

>> Well, here's what I think is important.

And and just to be clear, this FINRA for

AI AI idea, Dario's behind the

demonstration of that.

>> an SRO for AI. SRO.

>> It's not an SRO because it's not

self-regulating. It's a regulatory

organization and the S part is a total

fig leaf designed to hide the fact that

this is a new regulatory agency that

reports to the government that does

pre-release testing and approval of

models. I call it a DMV for AI because I

think what's going to happen is all

these models are going to get lined up

in a queue

waiting to get their test done and then

released and it's going to slow us down

horribly. Have you ever been to the DMV

in Arizona?

>> It's a terrible idea and it's just a

repackaging of what Dario has always

wanted, which is an FDA for AI. Now he's

saying it's an FAA for AI. You know how

long the FAA and the FDA take to approve

new products? Years. Years.

>> Yeah. Yeah, this is China's China's

advantage. Yeah, exactly.

>> China's going to win if we do this and

and it will become pure regulatory

capture.

>> You should look at China's rocket that

they landed yesterday. You know it's

completely steel and there's a a good

analysis that was done on how quickly

they were able to do it from the last

time they had an explosion of this, then

they got full steel done and Elon's

still waiting for FAA approval on his

steel Starship. You could actually watch

it playing out in China where their

regulatory agencies are allowing them to

move much more quickly and as a result,

they're starting to gain real traction

in the space race. And then separately,

a lot of biotech has moved offshore from

the US for the same reason that you're

pointing out, which is the FDA approval

cycle is so long and the stages slow

people down so much. And China's

completely revamped their rules for

getting to clinicals and getting to

phase three and then completing that all

the biotech investing in the world is

now moving to China.

>> The fact that Dario could want and has

called for, including in very recent

blogs,

a regulatory apparatus modeled after the

FAA and that that is the right model for

AI in my view is completely

discrediting. And yes, we will get

smoked by China because they will not

subject all their companies to these

constraints. Now,

>> Okay, so let's play this out. Let's play

this out. Yeah.

>> go back to your steel man for a second.

>> Yeah, yeah.

>> Just because I believe that we should

not have a DMV for AI does not mean that

I'm against AI safety. So let's talk

about some of the things that can be

done. So first of all, I think it's good

that these frontier labs take safety

seriously. Sam just came out with a

post, I believe, yesterday saying that

actually they're going to slow down the

release of some of their frontier models

because they felt that their safety

stack was not keeping up with the

capability. Okay, that's responsible. By

the way, do you know why I think they're

doing that? Because they have huge and

ample liability

to take responsible steps because if

they don't, they're going to be

subjected to all sorts of product

liability lawsuits. Look at what's

happening to Meta right now.

They're getting sued because supposedly

their product led to social media

addiction and they're getting sued for

over a trillion dollars and this comes

on the heel of them losing a $6 million

jury trial in Los Angeles where a

plaintiff sued them for creating her

body image issues. So, we are seeing

massive product liability lawsuits

against big tech companies like Meta and

Google and if OpenAI and Anthropic are

smart, and I think they are, they do not

want to be next. So, these companies

have ample reasons for liability

protection not to just race out their

product, okay? Safety is part of what

they have to get right. Now, how should

the industry coordinate with each other?

There are tried and true ways of doing

this.

Companies in the industry publish

papers, they publish technical papers,

they publish blogs. These are good ways

of sharing best practices. They attend

symposia and conferences, and they

present at these things. They do request

for comments as part of open standard

setting exercises. There are ways of the

industry collaborating

on safety in very productive ways. But,

what is the common denominator of

everything I just said? They are all

open. They are not in secret, and that

makes those judgments contestable to the

point that Jamath made earlier about we

need to see the thinking behind this.

And what I'm against is these companies

meeting in secret, whether it's part of

some sort of like FINRA or otherwise, to

set standards that are not transparent,

that are uncontestable. And you know

what's going to come out of that?

Regulatory capture and anti-competitive

behavior. So, there are ways of doing

this that will protect the public that

are open and transparent. That is what

we should lead towards.

>> not You will not see it happen. And I'll

tell you why. Just again, the technical

details matter.

If all of a sudden competitor A, B, and

C

could see every single trace and span

that your model generated as an artifact

of going from input tokens to output

tokens,

you're essentially giving away

uh a lot of your recipe.

And I just don't think that if Anthropic

isn't willing, even if I'm an API

customer, to share my thinking tokens

from my company with me,

they're sure as not going to share it

with OpenAI and anybody else in a room.

Okay?

>> Okay, let's And let's just do one more

steel man. So, let's say that Dario's

successful.

And Jaq, I'll ask you the question cuz

I've taken over as moderator of this

segment.

>> Yeah, no, I mean I No, Sachs has This is

Sachs's wheelhouse. I wanted to hear

your

whole No, no, to be honest, this is

Sachs's wheelhouse. I wanted to hear

your whole position on it.

>> Let's just say that Dario's successful.

There's some regulatory scheme that's

created that does in fact, to Sachs's

point, slow down the industry, slow down

model development.

And China's frontier labs make

significant progress and they start to

leap ahead and they get this RSI, this

recursive self-improvement going and

their models become the best in the

world and they only get better and

better and better. we'll start

with you.

>> Okay.

>> we'll go around the horn.

>> Okay, world's greatest moderator.

>> What is the implication for the American

worker,

for the American business and for the

American consumer in a world where China

just has the best AI and they have all

the data center? What happens in our

world? What is the consequence cuz

everyone keeps hearing, "Oh, China will

win. China will win."

Who cares? What does that actually mean?

>> I don't think China is going to win. I

think it'll be, you know, there's not

going to be one person who who takes the

whole prize. I think it's going to be

incremental improvement. So, I don't

think that that matters. I you know,

I've been thinking about why this

backlash is happening actually

for the data centers and it was kind of

shocking to see Abbott come out and

Shapiro come out because those two

people were the most pro data centers,

right? And if you kind of double click

on it, they just want to make sure

you're not tapping into the grid and

you know, the water concern which we've

talked about here is not too serious,

but I think it was very performative and

I think you and I were talking about

this on the back channel is they both

are doing this because their

constituents, the people who vote for

them, really care about these data

centers and they want to stop them. So,

then you have to work backwards. Why do

they want to stop data centers so much?

Why Why are Americans so opposed to AI

right now? And the

perception of AI was already pre-baked

with science fiction, of course. So, we

we needed to work

to get past the Skynet Terminator

vision. But, Dario told everybody,

"We're going to lose our jobs." Elon

said, "You're not going to have to

work." It was a more world positive

view, but he did say that. Sam Altman

did, you know, studies on um universal

basic income, and he told everybody,

"You're not going to have to work in a

UBI." Saying that kind of stuff

to people who have to work for a living

and who have no savings and who are

watching,

you know, in administration after

administration not be able to tame

inflation, whether they're Democrats or

Republicans, and then watching the

minimum wage just stay the way it is and

barely move while the stock market hits

records, and then all of us all of us

being tech executives get super rich,

and you wonder why

people now are embracing socialism and

why you have Abbott and Shapiro saying,

"You know what? I And and and Ro Khanna,

worst of all, saying, 'I have to be

anti-capitalistic.

I have to be a decel. I have to

decelerate.'" It's because, you know,

they were supposed to see some relief,

and they haven't. And then, what do

people do who do not feel they have any

power? They look to find power. And if

you look at what's happened, they are

sharpening the guillotines. And I you

know, that metaphor

should wake people up, whether it's, you

know, the United Healthcare CEO getting

killed or people firebombing Sam

Altman's house.

We need to wake up and look at why are

people so upset. It's because they can't

survive. They're having a hard time with

the affordability, with their wages. And

what two things can they do? They can

vote for socialists, and they can

actually stop data centers. And that's

what this is about. Nobody No No regular

rank and file American cares about AI

safety. That's not the discussion for

them. The discussion for them is, "Why

am I not getting rich and everybody else

is?"

>> tune your argument by 1 degree. I I

really think you're onto something, but

the 1 degree shift is I don't think they

think about it entirely that way. I

actually think they think about it as if

I think about who has won

over the last decade

this generation of tech oligarchs who

have won

are pretty displeasing. They're not

aspirational and they're not the people

that one would look up to. They're not

Steve Jobs by any stretch of the

imagination. And now they look at this

other next generation and they're like,

wait, we're going to go from

billionaire, decabillionaire,

centibillionaire to now trillionaire and

it's those guys? Those guys are even

worse than the last crop.

That's exactly what's happening and so I

don't think it's as specific as what

you're saying Jason. I think it's vibes

and the vibes are terrible and they're

looking around they're like

if we can just slow this down maybe

another batch of people will show up and

they will actually mean to do the right

thing and will make me at least feel

better and I won't be so begrudgingly

hating the fact that you are about to

make a trillion dollars. It is precisely

that sensation. And the folks that are

at the front of the show on this are not

trustworthy. That's what it is.

>> Zack, let me ask you my question and I

just I need I need to hear someone

answer this question.

>> Okay, but I'll answer your question. I'd

like to

>> Yeah, so my question again, if there's a

regulatory slowdown with AI development

in the US and China races ahead what are

the implications for American business

for American consumers?

>> They will win. How does this actually

affect They will win.

>> Look, there are big What does that mean?

What does that mean? Help people

understand. So like if I'm sitting at

home

>> Okay, imagine this. Okay, let me give

you a like a counterfactual. Imagine if

China had won the internet. Imagine if

all the major internet companies were

Chinese right now.

>> I need you to I need you to imagine for

me. Tell me what what So give me a

scenario of what this means.

>> imagine that instead of I I I know

people don't like big tech, but imagine

if Google and Microsoft and Meta and all

these companies were actually it was

Baidu and Alibaba and Tencent and all

the rest of them instead. I mean,

obviously that would be way worse the

United States. Our economy would not be

as vibrant. It would not be as cutting

edge and all that wealth would have gone

into China. They're also military or you

know, dual use applications of this

technology, especially with AI, the

algorithms power all sorts of weapons,

drones, things like that. So we'll be

behind them. I mean, look, America is

not going to be the number one country

in the world economically and militarily

if we lose AI. It's just that simple.

>> Chamath, do you agree? Like what's your

view of the world, the US,

business, consumer, individual, in a

world where China has won quote in AI?

>> I don't know what you mean by won. What

do you mean by won?

>> I don't know what it means.

>> Okay, so I'm what I'm trying to get to

is the implication of

the implications of regulatory slowdown.

So if we do slow down AI, what are the

implications for people? How do the

people understand tangibly what that

means?

>> Yeah, unless we actually go and ban,

and I don't even know how one would

implement a ban, so I think it's just a

worthless exercise.

Ban open source, I think we're going to

be just fine. I think the consumer is

going to win. I think American companies

will win. I think the American economy

will win.

And the reason why it will win is that

what we are finding, I'll give you an

example of a really interesting insight.

And this is about closed versus open,

okay?

Three years ago, all there ever were

were models, yeah? And you would look at

some benchmark and there would be a

score free bird and you would say, "Wow,

the one with the higher score is

better."

And then in the last few years, what's

emerged is what's called a harness,

right? And a harness just wraps the

model, right? Like Codex or Claude Code

or

Hermes or OpenClaw, these are harnesses.

You know what the interesting thing

about open source versus closed source

models? When you take a closed source

model, it does really well on a

benchmark. When you wrap it in its own

harness, it decays in capability. When

you take an open-source model and you

use any other open-source model, it

improves in capability.

What is that trying to tell you?

What I think we are finding out, and

this data is just going to be a tsunami

over the next year,

is there are all kinds of ways of using

open-source technologies that are

meaningfully more performant and

dramatically cheaper than the

closed-source alternative.

Unless America stops us, us being

consumers, business owners,

from using the cheapest, fastest, best

thing, unless they stop us from doing

that, we will win.

What we are debating at this point is

which private American company will win

or lose. I go back to the previous

argument. I don't think Americans care

that much whether any of these

closed-source companies win or lose.

And I think you're seeing that in the

policy. So, Friedberg, my explicit

answer to you is as long as we don't do

some draconian thing like trying to stop

open-source, the American consumer will

win.

>> got bad news for you, Chamath. An

open-source ban is coming. They're not

going to call it that. You know what

they're going to say? They're going to

say that we simply have to apply the

same standards to open models that we

apply to closed. Okay, here here's how

they do it step by step. Let me explain

how regulatory capture actually works.

So, first of all, you got to get this

regulatory apparatus, okay? Dario wants

an FDA for AI, but he doesn't have

enough political support for that, so

instead, they do this Trojan horse of a

Finra for AI. They call it

self-regulating. It's not really, but

anyway, that gets them off the ground.

Now they've created the standard-setting

organization. Now they've got

pre-release model testing. Then the

pressure grows to codify that in law, so

that happens next. And then what they do

is they say, "Look, all these standards

need to apply equally to all models."

But here's the problem with that. Open

models and closed models, as you know,

are technologically different. Go back

to Dario's Senate testimony

in I think it was 2023 where he said

that open models, if sufficiently

advanced, are dangerous. And why are

they dangerous? Because they cannot be

centrally monitored and controlled and

rolled back and withdrawn hold on like

like a closed service like the one he

hosts. Okay.

>> I understand David, but you know

>> hold on let me just finish the point.

Please let me just finish the point then

you can

>> Yeah.

>> you can respond. Dario basically says

that open models are dangerous because

of these characteristics they have and

those characteristics are immutable.

They're technologically they can't be

changed. Once you release an open model

into the world, you can't roll it back

and you can't monitor exactly how people

are using it because they run it on

their own hardware. Dario says this is

what makes open models dangerous. So

what they're going to do is they're

going to have the standard setting body

say, well, we have to set the standards

for AI safety. By the way, Dario and

OpenAI, they're going to fund the whole

thing. They're going to contribute all

the compute. They're going to be behind

it. They're going to be the ones

coordinating with the government

officials because frankly people in

government have no idea how to monitor

and control and set standards for AI

safety. Technologically this is way

beyond them. So they're going to go to

these companies and say, tell us how to

do it.

And so what will happen is the standards

will get set and then it'll be a very

simple matter of fairness to say that

the standards need to apply to open as

well as closed models. The open models

cannot comply in the same way and

gradually they will be shut out of the

market.

>> I understand but the American economy

would

overnight. Why and how?

>> You're saying regulators have never done

things that are crippling.

>> Okay, let your mouth let your mouth

answer.

So let let's take it again. I'll use the

example of Coca-Cola. Coca-Cola is is an

extremely profitable, cash generative,

well-run business. It has existed for I

don't know 100 plus years. At this point

it will exist for many hundreds more if

left to their own devices. It is a

global business, right? Take Pfizer,

same situation. Well-run business,

global business.

And now what you will tell them is,

unless you tell them, "Hey, anywhere you

operate, you need to follow American

rules." Okay, that's one thing.

Or it'll say, "Inside of America, you

need to follow our rules, and other

governments will have different rules."

Now, what is Coca-Cola to do? Run the

slower, more costly,

less effective, less valuable model in

the United States? Sure, they'll do

that, and their US business will

They will have a better flourishing

business abroad. They will invest

abroad, and what you will see is FDI,

foreign direct investment in the United

States, go off of a cliff. And what you

will see is direct investments into

other countries of the world rise.

You've seen this, by the way, in China.

When China made all these moves to

the Chinese tech companies, I

think this is the best analogy.

There was a moment where China was at a

fork in the road, where the large

oligopolists there, the large tech

oligarchs, were trying to seize power,

and the tip of that spear was when Jack

Ma gave that very famous speech on the

eve of the IPO of Ant Financial. What

happened? Xi Jinping cracked down. They

took complete control. They said, "We

are now operating together. Everybody

that is worth anything will have a

representative from the Chinese

government on their board. We have the

golden vote. We're going to work

together."

When you look at what happened to

foreign direct investment, and you look

at what happened their economy, it fell

off of a cliff.

That will happen here if this happens.

So, they can try, and everybody will

say, "Okay." And what what the Coke CEO

will do is redirect all of his capital

allocation to outside of America. So

will Pfizer. So will I. So will

anybody." And then what are you going to

do? Take away our passports so you can't

travel? So, I think it will be a very

visible way of just destroying the

United States.

And you can do that if you want to, but

you will see it play out almost

instantaneously in the equity markets

and in the capital allocation of

companies.

>> I agree with you about all the negative

consequences if we ban open models, but

that doesn't mean it can't happen. Look

at all the negative consequences of

banning data centers. Data centers are

going to be 3% of GDP. It's basically

creating all the gains in the stock

market.

>> But they're not voting against that.

They're voting against two people that

they deeply dislike becoming

trillionaires. That's what they're

voting against.

>> That's a big part of it. Jacob, what do

you think?

>> Well, I was just going to add to this.

We already know what would happen with

AGI, Freiberg, cuz your original

question of like trying to explain to

Americans what happens when China wins.

We already know what happens when they

win. Products get cheaper.

And and uh you get more access to them.

If they solve cancer, what are they

going to do with that solution? They're

going to just keep it for themselves?

No, they're going to sell it to

Americans just like they sell phones

cheaper, just like they sell cars

cheaper, and we try to block them. And

then what Americans are going to do?

We're going to lose our jobs to them.

And so that would be the way I I think

to explain it to them. But if we want to

turn this around, this really is just

about convincing Americans that they're

going to have jobs and that this is

going to benefit them. The American

people are scared of losing their

livelihoods. That's the beginning and

end of it. And you know, the the place

where I have a some expertise is in

having invested in Zipline and Uber and

a bunch of self-driving companies. And

that's where you're

>> You're saying being poor.

>> The money's not the issue here, but the

thing that I think is, you know, where

this is going to play out

is really on the autonomy and and those

jobs. Zipline just did a partnership

with Uber. I'm investors in both of

those companies, uh obviously, and they

are going to do a million deliveries a

day. Then you look at just massive

progress by Waymo. They're doubling the

number of cars on the road like every 6

months or so. Tesla's about to go

cybercab. And what people are perceiving

is in their community

that you're not going to have any money

staying in their community. Cuz those

drivers, you know, as as much as

hand-wringing has occurred,

that money at least stayed in the

community. Oh, they weren't making

enough. Oh, they're only making $18, $16

an hour, $20, $21 an hour, whatever it

is. But now we're taking that away from

them. And then where does that money go?

Where does the money for a robo-taxi,

Waymo, Ride, Zipline, where does it all

go? It goes up into the cloud and then

comes back down into Silicon Valley,

polarizing more wealth. And that's where

you're going to see, I will predict it

now, they're going to ban Waymos in New

York, Boston, DC, and they're going to

limit them with licenses. We must figure

out how to explain to Americans that

we're going to raise the minimum wage,

something that when I say we should

raise the minimum wage and focus on

that, people are like, "That's crazy."

But when we talk about an experimental

tax cut, people are like, "Oh yeah, we

do an experimental tax cut. We'll change

the cost basis of capital gains. Great,

let's try and see what happens." But

nobody wants to try to raise the minimum

wage. Nobody wants to give people an

explanation of where their job will be

in the future. And that's where, you

know, whoever is making the point, I

think it was You Tur Off about like who

are the spokespeople here. We need

spokespeople who are saying this

technology will empower you to get a

great job. Paradoxically, the guy who

did the best job explaining this, or the

two guys, were Jensen, obviously, who

said, "You're not going to get replaced

by AI. It's going to be somebody who

works with AI." And then Zuckerberg who

said, "I'm going to give you a bunch of

free tools." In his manifesto going

direct, he was like, "I'm going to give

you free tools. I'm going to empower

you. You're going to get agents. Your

life's going to get better."

Dario and Sam have not done that and

have done the exact

>> great thing. Zuck did a really great

thing, which is he created this new

program or it's almost like a training

school

>> Yes.

>> for it's like a trade school for people

to go and learn how to get these various

kinds of jobs, laying fiber, doing these

new blue-collar construction jobs,

>> Yeah. which we have a huge shortage of.

And that's why it actually it's like

hard to build these data centers.

>> or something. It's a great program.

>> Yeah.

>> Yeah, I mean that's that we need more

of. And so, how is Zuckerberg all of a

sudden the best spokesperson for our

industry? Like

>> It's a very low bar. I mean

>> I guess that's [laughter] it.

>> I mean this all goes back to the fact

that Dario, not exclusively, but again,

he was the one who put the most specific

numbers on it and therefore made it the

most tantalizing and salacious for the

media. 50% of entry-level knowledge

workers going to lose their job, not in

the distant future, as soon as 1 year.

We're now past that 1 year mark, by the

way. Has he updated? Has he said I was

wrong? Not really. Sam did, by the way,

to his credit.

>> Sam Altman and Dario should start

talking about jobs.

>> No, but Sam actually came out and said I

was too negative. I was wrong.

Dario has doubled down, as far as I

know. He's never recanted. He's

an ideologue. So, but I mean to your

whole point, yes, I agree with you that

the animus and anger towards data center

flows out of the fears about job, as

well as other fears about AI, but it's

the job loss that is the main concern

and there is no evidence of that. We're

now years into the AI boom and there's

no evidence of that. We only see net job

creation.

>> Exactly. It's always been the opposite.

>> I mean, listen, I was I had I had

massive concerns about it and I had

business opportunities so great I got

seven job openings. So, I keep saying

>> Hold on, hold on. This is important.

Hold on, J Kaskas has got an important

announcement here.

>> No, I I listen,

what what I've discovered is the if you

can convince your team to embrace the

tools, so many business opportunities

emerge that you wind up hiring people to

work for the people in your organization

who embrace the tools. So, we have

become so fast at building the

syndicate, building our programs that

I'm like, you know, we need to add a

couple people. So, I thought we were

going to automate them away and we're

adding

>> say I'll just say another general point.

Silicon Valley has completely lost what

made it great.

It was a place for weirdos,

for people at the fringes, for people

that really were idealistic.

And it has

become something that's far from that

now.

It is the equivalent of what Harvard

used to be. It's a credentialing place.

It's a place you come to to say, "Oh, I

came, you know, to Silicon Valley. I

worked at a startup. You know, I got

into YC." You know, when we came,

we used to aspire to meet the Bill

Campbells of the world, Mike Moritzes,

John Doerrs. Those folks are gone. We

used to aspire to work for Steve Jobs.

He's not here.

And in that breach,

all we have done is focused on making

money in every single way that we can,

hand over fist. And I think again,

there's nothing wrong with that, except

now is a point where we need to do a

better job of acknowledging it and

trying to do a little bit better. And

every time we don't, and we're given a

chance to do be better and we're not,

the hatred builds. The animus, as you

said, David, builds. And that's what

we're seeing now.

>> Yeah, there's no question about that.

But can I defend Arie? Let me just say

something in his

>> my

my headphone went [laughter] out. You

said you WANTED TO DEFEND ARIE? Breaking

news.

>> think I actually think he is very

idealistic. I don't think money is his

main motivation. It's just what are his

ideals? He wants to bring forth this new

super intelligence,

machines of loving grace that are going

to apportion all the resources of

society while humans twiddle their

thumbs. It's not a vision that the

average person believes in or is

attracted to. In fact, it's dystopian.

And that's why a lot of their messaging

is dystopian. And because of that

vision, no matter how idealistic his

motives,

it is why he does not inspire trust. I

mean, I actually I I don't think he's

lying to us and what he's really trying

to do here is capture all the wealth for

himself. I actually think he's he's

trying to bring forth this future, but

it's not a future that I think the

American public wants. And by the way,

he should have to defend that. I mean,

if you think you are bringing about the

singularity, and let's face it, he

probably is in the lead to do that, to

bring about recursive self-improvement,

he should defend this future. I see all

these people simping

on X, so like, "Oh my god, Dario, thank

you for coming forth. Oh, you know,

thank you for coming down from Mount

Olympus and slumming it with the rest of

us on X and finally engaging on social

media, you know?" And it's like, no, he

should have to do that. You know, if

you're going to put yourself in the lead

to bring about this crazy future, you

should tell us why you're doing that.

>> Well, and he should speak more. I think

this is a key point. And to to your

point about it's not about money for

him, the seven co-founders of This is my

understanding. It's been documented.

Um I think in a bunch of press reports,

but they never talk about it. They

donated 80% of their shares. So, like

10% of Anthropic's in some sort of

trust, which at two or three trillion,

you know, 10% of that's going to be the

largest

>> Well, it's a

>> It's going to be the largest Democratic

PAC. It's going to be the largest PAC

>> However they use it, but why aren't they

talking about how they're

>> It's going to be the largest DSA

>> dollars to EA causes. What could go

wrong?

>> Well, I mean, let's hope they put it

towards something that actually is uh

humanity positive. But they they And he

only they all they all own only like

1.8% each.

>> That's a term of art.

>> Yeah. Well, and then I do think going

direct is something you just I think we

can move on after this.

is critically important.

>> What have you got to learn? You got an

AI to to talk.

>> No, no, no. You got a

The playbook is very simple. You got a

number one, you got to write it all

yourself, which he clearly did. And, you

know, Jensen's been doing

>> about that?

>> I think so. It felt like to me. It felt

very Claude-like to me.

>> You think

>> [laughter]

>> you know the Claude voice? I mean, he is

the father of Claude.

>> That's true, actually. Claude could

sound like him rather than vice versa.

>> be the other way. Causation correlation.

But, what he did is he did the exact

playbook, which is you have to exhaust

the audience. You have to go thousands

of words like Zuck did, and then you

have to get ahead of problems. That's

where

the leadership is breaking down. You

have to talk about what's coming next,

and then never ever

apologize

or give an inch. Just attack whoever's

attacking you, fake news.

>> right now, I don't think he can win the

argument by being transparent because

what he's selling is fear

in order to motivate the government to

give him control to bring about this

dystopian future that he believes in. At

least that's that's my distillation of

of what I think

>> did. Create a program for tube bell

generation. Come up with ideas like

that. Do more of that. Freeberg, last

you get the last last last last. Go.

>> I think that it's worth

having a view on whether or not you

believe in recursive self-improvement.

And recursive self-improvement is this

theory

that at some point

an AI model can spin up a whole bunch of

agents to do a bunch of work, and they

can work together

to make a new AI model,

and the new AI model is better than the

last AI model.

And at some point this all becomes

effectively fully automated and

self-evolutionary.

The AI is now improving itself

continuously.

And that is this idea that you have the

singularity as some people would call

it, or you have the ASI, the artificial

superintelligence that arises from this

capacity.

But, the capacity is recursive

self-improvement, RSA. Anthropic has

stated they're not sure if it's going to

happen, but it could, and they're

working towards it, and they expect that

there's a path to get there.

I happen to

believe having looked at this and

thought about it, I think that it is

possible. I think it is likely to happen

soon. People I've talked to in industry

do think it's real.

And there is this kind of philosophical

debate because companies have a

different view on the path forward where

it really needs to be human constructed,

human designed.

And there isn't this like let it all go,

let humans detach from the AI and let

the AI evolve. And this is really like

out of the movie Her where the thing

just takes off and it evolves.

But if it does happen and if RSI is a

real construct, then you're almost

fighting it's like a fool's errand. And

it's a fool's errand in the sense that

like all this idea that you've got human

intervention in the stages of model

development.

>> Uh you're scaring people again.

>> Well, no.

I I actually No, this is my point. If

RSI is a thing and and by the way, RSI

doesn't need lead to some dystopian

outcome. It just means that the models

improve faster and faster.

>> Without humans.

>> Without humans necessarily constructing,

architecting, and designing the next

evolution. And then you don't

necessarily have space for oh, we just

did one big model run every 6 months.

We're going to go to the government

regulator or we're going to go somewhere

and get it approved. There's just this

continuous policing and monitoring

service that needs to take place at some

point. And the truth is that all that

you need to pull this off is you don't

need governments in the US to say yes.

Or governments in China to say yes.

Or governments anywhere to say yes.

>> you're going to say. You need satellites

in space.

>> You need some So you need some

sovereignty, some space where you can.

And I I don't know if it's in space.

I don't know if it's with Balaji and the

deal he just did in Kazakhstan and

you've got some unique geography.

>> Nice.

>> It could be in Iceland.

It could be in the ocean.

>> People are floating it.

>> It could be in the ocean. But the The

point The point is if RSI is a thing,

you don't have a human process where

you're stepping in to run this thing. So

you don't necessarily have a cohort of

frontier lab scientists running it.

Theoretically, an individual that's

smart enough or a group of individuals

that's smart enough

can go spin up an RSI factory anywhere

in the world or anywhere in space. And

And your attempts to ban the data

centers

or the attempts to ban or to create a

regulatory body, that's why I call it a

fool's errand. Because the thing with

the open internet and the thing with

compute is all that it needs is the

chips and the power and a connection.

And if it's got the chips and the power

and a communication connection, it can

run. And I'm I'm not painting a

dystopian view. I'm just saying

practically, pragmatically

the the labs are all talking about RSI.

And so if RSI is where this goes, then

the labs can go and set up

data centers in Iceland, in China, in

wherever.

>> Whoever will give them the freedom. It's

a great point.

>> better off? Wouldn't we be better off

having systems where we actually have

those labs based where we have those

data centers based in the US, where we

have jurisdiction over them, where we

have capacity to monitor and control and

police them, rather than just have them

sprung up in some random country or some

random territory? So, I guess my point

is we should be attracting and retaining

the frontier labs, not trying to

>> Yes.

>> you know, chase them off.

>> And then here's the famous wait, but why

image of a human progress going on a

nice clip, and then recursive

self-improvement and it just goes out of

control and

>> I'll tell you why I think RSI

>> Yeah.

>> is the legitimate concept.

>> to it? And that's I think what people

would want to know. How close do people

>> You know, honestly, time there there's a

massive problem with time dilation in AI

model development. And And what I mean

by that is we would typically consider

some sort of thing that takes a linear

amount of time as a certain amount of

compute to get somewhere. There are

changes that happen that are

non-predictable, that you don't actually

know what the next phase, what the next

step change takes in terms of time. The

time models change a lot in terms of AI

model development. And that's what's so

crazy to make it so hard to predict.

Which is why no one's really good at

predicting when is AGI When's the next

breakthrough happening? And then all of

a sudden everyone's like, "Oh my god,

we're in the singularity." They just

solved eight unproven math theorems in a

week off of some model that's fairly

cutting edge. It's now going to be the

second cutting edge model. So, it's

moving very quickly.

But, a lot of the the models are this

mixture of experts concept where you've

got these kind of smaller models that

call each other to do things. And then

you wrap it up and you call it a big

model.

And those smaller models, it seems over

time look a lot more like you see in

biology where you have genes. A gene

makes a protein and proteins interact in

really complicated ways that we don't

fully grok. Networks of proteins do

things.

And then they complete tasks.

And I think the same evolution is likely

to happen with the models where they

break down into smaller models and that

makes them so much more efficient and

that makes them so much more performant.

And we're seeing a lot of this in in how

a lot of the models are evolving. We

call it a model, but it's actually many

models underneath it that work together.

And so, if the models actually do evolve

this way, then RSI is the perfect system

for figuring out the right path, which

is how many sub models are there? What

does each sub model's functions look

like? How do they call each other? That

evolution is likely going to happen

without a human architect behind it.

It's going to be

developed through a test and deploy

system and it's going to be fully

automated. And that's why this approach

to actually solving that problem ends up

becoming the future of how model

development takes off, which is why I

think RSI is

probably the future.

And when that happens, again, it's just

wherever the data center and the power

is.

>> I remember a few years ago everyone was

like, "Oh, AGI is imminent. AGI is

imminent." And then

where is it? I mean

>> I don't think we're soaking in it.

>> Okay, fine, but did it turn out to be

the Terminator?

>> Right. No, that would be super

intelligence. I mean, artificial general

intelligence is like as smart as any

human. Super intelligence is like you're

getting towards what

>> I get it.

>> we're talking about. That's far off.

>> I

Do Do I think RSI could possibly happen?

Yes. I think there's lots of black swans

that could happen. It's very hard to

assess the probability of those things.

What I do know is like you're saying, I

don't think some new government

regulatory agency will stop it if that's

the thing cuz it won't be technically

sophisticated enough. All it will do

actually is concentrate power around

that thing. It'll limit the options. You

know, when it comes to Let me talk about

AGI

>> want to have that technology in this

country is my point. And I just want to

go back to the to the point I was asking

earlier. Why do we not want China to

win? Because we want the best labs. We

want the first breakthrough system to be

here. Not to be there.

>> the argument Dario actually made this

argument in the context of trying to ban

export of chips, which is one of his

hobby horses is Anthropic has really

been behind a lot of the political

activity to restrict Nvidia's sales

internationally. And the argument was

that we want to have a data center full

of geniuses in the US. And that

eventually, you know, what AI's going to

be used for is you're going to be able

to create all these agents that are

basically Nobel Prize winning level

scientists. And if we have thousands or

millions of those and China has only

dozens or a hundred, whatever, then

we're going to win everything. And that

was the whole argument. But now

we're basically banning the data

centers. We're not going to have those

data centers full of geniuses. And he's

done his best to restrict sale of chips

to our allies as well. So, I guess our

allies aren't going to have the data

centers either. So, we are totally

shooting ourselves in the foot. And

probably it would be a good thing if

Dario really does believe in the data

centers full of geniuses

uh idea that he was arguing for last

year, he should come forward and say

we're making a big mistake by

over-regulating data centers. Here's how

we should do it. I haven't heard him

step up in that way. And it makes you

kind of question, do you only fight for

the doomer side of the argument or are

there versions of the positive side that

you're willing to fight for politically?

Now, Friedberg, you're just one last

point about RSI. I think this is really

important is look, again, black swan,

very hard to say if it's going to

happen. I you know, I do think that

we're headed for AGI or ready in AGI or

whatever, but the most important thing

about AGI is that we have choice. Like

I'd much rather have multiple AGIs than

just one, right? So for example, Elon

says that the way to keep AI or AGI

aligned is to make it maximally

truth-seeking.

I kind of like that, right? That's a way

to prevent it from becoming woke.

What Anthropic says is the way to keep

it aligned is to have this clawed

constitution that is full of liberal

values and you train it on that and

they've kind of got this EA ethicist or

whatever who's writing these things. So

there's different approaches. I kind of

want all them

to produce sophisticated AI to keep

checks and balances to keep these things

in check. What I don't want is just a

Skynet or you know, like a woke Skynet

is sort of the the worst possible

outcome. And you know, if we're going to

go like sci-fi for a second, you know,

there was like a Terminator TV show.

>> Yes, that was pretty good. They they

stopped

>> good. It got canceled. This is like

years and years ago. But anyway, what

they figured out in the show, like the

plot was that the way they finally

defeated Skynet was they created a good

AGI to take on Skynet. They realized

like humans just couldn't do it by

themselves. So they created a choice.

>> Maximally good.

>> Yeah, they trained it to be more

benevolent you know, benevolent towards

humans. So in any event, and if you're

going to get like really sci-fi about

it, I look, I think choice has to be our

hallmark. Competition has to be our

hallmark. We want multiple winners here.

We don't want

a small number of elites guardrailing

this thing.

And that that is what you will get if

you head in this FAA Finra direction.

>> Breaking Friedberg, new nickname club

just just dropped. There it is.

>> [laughter]

>> It's It's

This is what you sounded like for a

bird. Doc Brown, Marty. Marty, your

future's not predetermined. You can make

your own future. You can use RSI.

>> [laughter]

>> Doc Brown next

>> I'm not trying to be an I'm not trying

to be an advocate for RSI. I'm trying to

be pragmatic about it.

>> future. You're back.

>> If If RSI is the way things are going to

go, you definitely don't want to be

trying to regulate AI to stall out

because someone else will win it. And

then you're literally handing the keys

to RSI to them because they're suddenly

going to be able to get there faster.

And you don't want to be in the data

centers because then they're going to be

offsite.

>> All right, there was a peculiar story

this week. Andreessen Horowitz is

allegedly being investigated. This is

all according to a Bloomberg report that

they're being investigated by the

Department of Justice for over a year.

This is all according to Bloomberg.

Under something called Section 8 of the

Clayton Antitrust Act. This is a 1914

law. It's like over 100 years old

prohibiting interlocking directorates,

which I guess is like old-timey English

for directors, like board of directors.

And the conflict seems to stem from Ben

Horowitz being on Data Bricks board

while another partner from Andreessen

Horowitz, Martin Casado, sits on Five

Trains board.

I don't know what if you guys have heard

about this story. It was like one of the

top stories this week. Uh obviously

Andreessen and uh Ben Horowitz have been

all in with uh Trump and big big

donators. Uh

put that into the mix as you will. Why

is this happening now?

>> I can tell you.

>> Enemy of Andreessen Horowitz jealous of

their returns

says. [laughter]

>> What are we talking about? Do they not

understand how venture works? Like is it

like you invest in one company, you

can't invest in another? I don't

understand.

>> What did Bloomberg say?

>> They said they've been under

investigation for this conflict as

described between these two companies.

And

>> Which means Which means Which means that

enemy reported them to the DOJ and then

said to Bloomberg they're under

investigation.

>> Well, that's why I bring it up is like

it seems so odd.

>> Which to me which to me likely seems I

will make a perspeculative guess.

The CEO of one of these companies is

pissed off that the other partners on

the other board.

And reported it to the DOJ and reported

it to Bloomberg at the same time.

>> Interesting.

All right, well there you have it folks.

Moving on in the docket and I think we

made quick work of that one. Let me let

me let me just say you know you've been

seeing like the distribution of like

cursor and then space x.

And Andreessen Horowitz is on fire. They

are crushing it.

So.

>> They've had two wins in the last few

weeks.

>> I mean my god. Congrats to them. They

are on fire. Keep going.

>> Well, it's cursor and didn't they make a

lot of money off of open router? And

space x

>> And open router just went out

million.

Open router was more like an

amuse-bouche. It was like 6 or 700

million.

>> [laughter]

>> The cursor the cursor was decent. Yeah,

it was like an appetizer but space x was

the main course. That's like 15 17

billion.

>> Yeah.

>> Just just by the way even if you want to

say that VC firms should not invest in

competitors, the reality is that

startups exist a very dynamic

environment. They frequently pivot and

change their business models and two

companies that start off in totally

different spaces can end up competing

with each other.

So now these are different board members

and they can probably set up a you know

a firewall between them.

>> Yes. Yeah, trust me

sorry these are not these are not filing

companies. What confidential information

did any of these

private businesses have?

>> And and by the way.

Andreessen Horowitz could also just put

an independent director in there and

just be done with it. So like if this

was some ticky-tacky very important

thing I don't know why the DOJ is on

this.

>> I think Freeburg is right now because

when you when you make a claim to the

DOJ they technically if they open a file

you are technically under investigation.

So then you can you can report that to a

buffoon reporter who doesn't know

from Shinola and they'll just repeat it.

It means nothing. All right. And then

the DOJ is doesn't tell you that that

the you're under investigation and then

they also don't tell you when it's

closed.

>> Same as the SEC.

>> PR ratchet for an enemy to exact some

sort of chaos.

A H is crushing it.

God bless them. Godspeed to them.

>> It is interesting that there's even this

rule,

but we had some fun with that. So let's

keep moving. I want you, Freeberg, to

join me and Sachs

invest each of them up at the All-In

Summit happening September 13th, 14th,

and 15th in Los Angeles. All-Star

Weekend has been announced and hey,

guess who's headlining the party? The

same guys who sell out Madison Square

Garden.

I know that Freeberg has a personal

relationship. Go ahead, tell everybody

who's going to be on the music and

smokers.

>> which is going to be awesome. So we'll

have them at the closing party. It's

going to be great. And then we're also

doing another

wow full takeover at Universal Studios.

We got a whole party at Universal, which

was awesome last year.

Uh where Sachs and I were with Diplo on

stage. Jake, I you were there, too. It

was great.

>> Yeah, I was on stage dancing.

>> Who's Diplo?

>> Diplo's [laughter] great. The DJ.

>> Just say Diplo.

>> You're getting Diplo and Chainsmokers

mixed

>> They blew our minds.

>> Come to that concert. We have other

special unannounced guests that we're

not going to announce. So this is it.

We're done making announcements.

>> All right, we know the Democrats have

been favored to take the House

in the midterms, which are just around

the corner. Polymarket has them at 88%

favorites, but Polymarket now has the

Dems at 52%. Basically a toss-up.

Current balance of power, GOP 53 seats,

Dems 47.

Which means I guess the Dems have to

flip four of those without losing any.

35 seats are up in 2026.

Uh there are some special elections

going on in Florida and Ohio. 23 of

those 35 seats are held by Republicans.

Big races to watch, Alaska, Maine, North

Carolina and Ohio.

On February 25th, the day before the

Iran war started,

GOP was favored 60 to 41. It's been as

high as 70%. Here's your Polymarket.

Sachs, what do you take from this? Why

are

the Republicans set to get trounced in

the midterms?

>> Well, first of all, polls are

notoriously wrong in the summer before

an election and there's some data on

this. So, we should just If you're going

to cite polls, let's just actually talk

about the topic of whether political

polls are even accurate at this point.

>> These aren't polls. This is Polymarket,

just to be clear. The polls are slightly

different, yeah. These are people

betting.

>> Yeah, but the polls are shaping public

opinion right now. So, political

scientist Patrick Ruffini analyzed over

3,000 polls over the last four election

cycles, every 2 years since 2018. And

what he saw is that there is a huge

bias. The preponderance of polls in all

four cycles favored the Democrats and

the average polling error across all the

polls was D plus 3.7 relative to the

election outcome. And I think this

polling problem has become even worse

recently and you see it where there

seems to be an over sampling of young

progressives in these polls because it's

not just the fact that the polls favor

Democrats over Republicans, they also

favor the DSA Democrat over the more

moderate or centrist Democrats and

you've seen this in a few elections

where the DSA candidate was supposed to

win by a lot and then they basically

eked it out or actually lost like in

Wisconsin. So, in any event, I just

think that the the polls are very

unreliable at this time of the year and

a lot of the polls have They're actually

created as internals

by campaigns to motivate their donors.

>> So, basically, people are upset,

then they throw people out of office.

That's just the trend.

And that's what happened over and over

again, yeah?

>> No, I just think that the polls somehow

are over sampling Democrats and

progressives and have a bias. That's

what the data is showing. So, I just

wouldn't read too much into this right

now. I do think that the Democrats, I

think it is legitimate to say that they

are favored to win the House. I think

the Senate right now is a toss-up and I

would say that the Republicans will

ultimately keep it if I had to predict

right now. And I just think that when

you get back from Labor Day, that's when

the campaign for the midterms really

starts and I think that

Republicans need to focus on the right

messages in this campaign and I think

there are plenty of good ones. They just

have to remind them

>> What are they?

>> things.

>> What What are they What would you say

the top three they should focus on are?

>> Well, look, everyone's been over

indexing on the war and that's been the

focus of the news and hopefully the