All right, back with us in place of

David Freeberg who's busy this week is

the one, the only on his fourth

appearance here on the All-In podcast,

Mr. Tucker Paulson. How are you, Tucker?

>> Thanks for having me.

>> Hey, Tucker. Good to see you.

>> David, David, how do you have time for

every time I every time I turn on my

phone, there's like David Sachs on

something incredibly complex. Like, are

you sleeping? usually people attacking

me for something,

>> but it's not just like, oh, your views

are this or that geopolitical conflict.

It's like the details of something

very complicated. And I'm just like,

wow, man. That's a lot. That's a lot to

digest.

>> Yeah. There's not a very high bar in

Washington, as you know.

>> You're a giant among pygmies, but still,

it's a lot of work.

>> In the land of the blind, the oneeyed

man is king.

>> King. Exactly. Exactly.

>> Are you still enjoying it? Yeah, it's

been a lot of fun. Well, you know,

President Trump's a lot of fun to work

for.

>> He's the most fun.

>> I mean, the best, right?

>> He got a big shout out yesterday. It was

really awesome, actually.

>> David did.

>> Yeah. Huge shout out.

>> That's right. We were at the White House

Christmas party. I think they do like 25

of these.

>> Yeah. Literally.

>> Literally, cuz they got so many

thousands of people, but they can only

fit a couple hundred people in the White

House and they're doing like two a day.

And the president comes down and gives a

speech and every speech is different.

You know, it's like a Dave Chappelle

comedy routine where he never does the

same set and he does it with so much

enthusiasm and gusto. You would think

that you were the only,

>> you know, holiday party crowd that he

ever addressed.

>> He never expresses any irritation at at

doing that. He loves it. It's like

amazing.

>> It's unbelievable.

>> But in any event, he gave me a shout out

during the speech and then he called me

up there to like, hey, can you say a

couple words about AI? And I'm like,

well, this isn't exactly Chris's party

conversation. So, I just kind of talked

about how great he was and um how much

fun it was to work for him. And then he

gave Chamatha a shout out

>> as well.

>> No way.

>> And he just starts talking about the

All-In Pod. Like, we're in the audience

and he just starts having a conversation

with us about the All-In Pod and how's

it doing? And you know,

>> the funniest part was he says to me,

"Oh," and then Nat was behind him. So,

he goes, "Hey, Nat." And he says, "I

hope everything's going well. How's your

relationship?" He looks at me and I'm

like this and then Nat's behind her. Me

going like this.

>> Oh, it's so awesome. I'm going this

weekend cuz I miss him.

>> You're going to see him this weekend?

You guys are on good terms. Tuck

>> with Trump. Oh, yeah. The best. I mean,

the best. I mean, of course, people have

told him, many people that he's not

allowed to talk to me. So, that just

makes him like me much more cuz like all

he hears is, "Oh, he's" People be like,

"He's the worst human being who's ever

lived." And all Trump hears is who's

ever lived, you know, and he's just that

he's just he's you can't control him

that way. Period. So, no, I get along

with him literally in 25 years better

than I ever have.

>> That's good, too.

>> It's hilarious. Yeah.

>> The last part of that story is so after

he calls up me and Jimoth, actually, he

calls me up to speak and then

>> calls David up to speak. He went on a

little bit of a riff saying, you know, I

don't like the term artificial

intelligence because why would you want

to call it artificial? It sounds bad.

>> Why don't they call it something else?

Superior intelligence

>> intelligence organic.

>> And then and then he calls up Chimath.

He's like, Chimath, what do you think?

And Chimath says, well, I think I think

AI is too late to change, but maybe it

could be American intelligence.

>> And then he says, yeah, but you know, we

want this to be used by the whole world.

Sell it to the whole world. Anyway, we

start workshopping uh this branding

exercise. in front of the entire

Christmas party.

>> How about we call it Trump super

intelligence? Okay, it's Trump

intelligence.

>> No, but you know what? Calling AI

American intelligence is actually the

smartest and best one could do around

AI.

>> We got a lot to talk about, Tucker,

you've been on a run, huh? You've been

on I mean, not in my world. I mean, I'm

off social media mostly, so it's like

nothing's actually really happening in

my world.

>> You don't open X at all.

>> It's all about me, man. And I'm not

going to I don't like to read about

myself, so I don't look at it. No.

>> All right. For topic number one,

Paramount versus Netflix. They're in a

bidding war over the future of Warner

Brothers and all that amazing IP. The

assets obviously many of us know Warner

Brothers is led by Zazlo, David Zazlo,

but he owns currently HBO, DC, and the

Warner Brothers collections of films.

Also, they have that great studio a lot.

On the cable side, they own CNN, TNT,

Discovery,

and uh they just saddled that company up

with $30 billion of debt. And they had a

little bit of a competition for who

would buy it. Netflix and Paramount Sky

Dance, run by the Ellison family.

Netflix offered $83 billion to purchase

just the streaming assets, which would

put the number one and the number three

player together. and WBD publicly

accepted Netflix offer last Friday. This

has created a bit of a kurluffle.

Paramount now is coming in with a

hostile offer, 108 billion in cash for

the entire company. That includes the

cable assets. That would be interesting

because then David Ellison, son of Larry

Ellison, would own not just CBS,

which is being run CBS News by your

favorite Tucker Carlson, uh, Bari Weiss.

She would also, I guess, own and run CNN

in this instance potentially. We'll get

to that. Uh the $ 108 billion offer

includes two vehicles, 41 billion in

equity financing by the Ellison family

and then a bunch of other folks coming

including and we'll get to this uh some

Middle East uh sovereign wealth funds.

Poly market interestingly has Paramount

as the favorite at 51% in Netflix has

dropped to 36% even though they say they

have a done deal and 14% chance of no

deal. I think that might be the free

money the 14% chance of no deal. What's

your take on this, Tucker? And just

broadly speaking, consolidation in media

having pulled the rip cord and left

traditional media and now yeah, the

understanding is you're doing better

than ever. You control your destiny and

I think you're making probably as much

or more money now than you did when you

were working for the men.

>> Yeah, I don't I actually haven't

checked, but I'm not much of a money

guy, but I'm I'm fine and can pay my

non-existent mortgage.

I'm against monopoly power in general

because I think it stifles creativity.

I'm not that worried about this because

these,

you know, these things never move in

exactly the direction you imagine. I've

been in media my entire life and none of

the big changes I anticipated. In fact,

almost all of them I made fun of. I just

don't think that we're really threatened

by,

you know, a conglomerate of CNN and

Netflix and all. So it's like, okay, you

can assemble huge companies. Can you

make people consume and believe the

product? You know, buying CBS news is

like buying RCA records or something. It

like just doesn't have any effect. And

only people who are not paying attention

are pretty cut off think you're going to

win hearts and minds by being buying CBS

News or CNN. These are these brands are

husks. In fact, all they are is brands

at this point. And I just am not at all

convinced that this will have a material

effect on anyone's attitudes at all. You

know, if you started to mess with what

YouTube is allowed to air or the

ownership of X, you know, then I think

you could could really change the

country and the conversations that we're

allowed to have. But I don't see any of

this as especially meaningful on the

society. I mean, is the is the product

going to get, you know, I don't know,

more subversive than than it already is?

I mean, is this like Netflix going to be

worse for American society? Probably

not. You know, I think this is a

business story, not a cultural story.

Chimath, your thoughts. I'll give you

two. The first is that whenever you see

deals, it's important to look at the

amount of money that that is at risk.

And that is the best tell about whether

this is important for the future or not.

Hundred billion dollar deals are

typically about things in the past. What

is the future? Billion dollar deals. So

for example, when you look at when

Facebook bought Instagram for a billion

dollars, that turned out to be a huge

bet about the future, it was right. When

Google bought YouTube for a billion six,

that was a huge bet on the future. They

were right. When Microsoft invested a

billion dollars in OpenAI, that was a

huge bet on the future. It was right.

But when you look at assets that trade

at hundred billion dollar plus

valuations, they're so undergurtded by

debt. All of that debt is only ever

bought by looking at the past. Meaning

how much money have they made and then

it's a best guess about how much money

could they make in the future. So these

multiund billion assets to Tucker's

point, they don't really matter that

much. I don't think it's super

anti-competitive. These are financial

transactions. The reality in media, so

specifically about this deal. So that's

a general statement about deal quantum

and you can just judge the importance

based on that. People should be spending

much more time looking at billion dollar

transactions and hundred billion dollar

transactions. That's my takeaway there.

But at the very specific thing about

this deal, the reality is that the

future is unscripted, uncontrolled,

userenerated content. You see it on

YouTube. It is already the 800 lb

gorilla in the space. And then

separately, it's now becoming about

shorter form video. And you see that

with things like Instagram reels and Tik

Tok. None of that landscape will change

based on this deal. If anything, if

those trends accelerate,

the value of historic IP is going to

erode even faster. Meaning, this

generation of kids will have no idea or

care about the Marvel Cinematic

Universe, about Star Wars, and that may

upset those of us who are nostalgically

tied to it. So, I don't know. I would

let the deal happen. I don't think it's

particularly that important.

Saxs, obviously you don't speak for the

administration on these issues, but I'm

curious your thoughts on this.

>> Yeah, just my personal view on this is

that we're going to get meaningful

consolidation in the industry either way

because either Netflix and Warers are

going to merge or Paramount and Warers

are going to merge. So either way,

you're going to get consolidation. But

that being said, if Netflix is allowed

to buy Warers, the antitrust concerns

are a lot more serious because Netflix

really is the 800 lb gorilla in

Hollywood right now. It's the number one

streamer by far. It's got the biggest

market cap. And they're the party who

the rest of Hollywood is freaked out

about right now. And so you saw that the

Hollywood unions like the WGA

sag. They oppose the deal because

they're fearing job cuts, lower wages,

worsen conditions due to reduced demand

for talent. And then the the content

creators and distributors are worried

about this too because

Netflix is known for making tougher

deals I think than the traditional

studios. I've got a friend who's a

showrunner in Hollywood, and he's done

projects with both Netflix and with the

studios, traditional studios, and he

says the big difference is Netflix will

pay you pretty well, but you don't get

any equity in your show. Like whatever

you get is sort of agreed to at the

beginning and that's it. So, you're not

really an entrepreneur when you do a

show for them. But when you then work

for a studio, you actually get a back

end. Now there's all sorts of, you know,

Hollywood accounting associated with

that, but he kind of misses the days

that are going away where he got to be a

little bit of an entrepreneur and have

real upside in his shows. And if Netflix

now is allowed to acquire Warner

Brothers and that's just another nail in

that whole coffin. And so I think it is

a big change and if the antitrust

regulators look at this, I do think that

Paramount has a better chance. The other

big factor is just that

Paramount's offering more. They up the

bid.

>> It's 108 billion versus around 80 or was

like $30 a share versus 27. And they're

also buying the whole company whereas

Netflix just wants Warner's

>> studio assets and streaming assets like

HBO as opposed to the cable assets which

are considered a little bit of a co. So,

I think if you're a shareholder in

Warers, you probably want to sell the

whole thing. You don't want to just be

stuck with the bad assets. So,

>> yeah,

>> I'm a little surprised actually that the

Warner board went with Netflix when they

had Paramount as an option, assuming

this Paramount offer was on the table,

because it seems like a better deal, and

it's probably a little bit more likely

to get through the regulators. So, I

guess I'm a little bit surprised they

chose Netflix, but I guess Netflix is

the more bonafideed party, right? It's

$400 billion market cap and maybe they

thought that they're more able to

execute this transaction.

>> Yeah, I have only three points on this.

Number one,

it really depends on how you frame

competitors in this space. Here's your

paid streaming platforms, Netflix,

Disney, and HBO. Disney's done an

amazing job after starting a decade

after Netflix with streaming of really

getting a lot of subscribers and

consolidating one in three here

obviously puts Disney way behind. But if

you start looking at Tik Tok, Instagram,

YouTube, these properties have the

majority of the audience. They dwarf the

audience of these paid services. And

young people are not interested in

movies anymore. They want obviously Tik

Toks and YouTube. If you look at the

revenue, it's a

>> ask you a question about that chart

before you move on. does how do you

compare or do you adjust for time

watched or minutes because how do you

>> I didn't in this but yeah that would

>> a big difference between watching a Tik

Tok and watching you know a movie

>> on Netflix in terms of attention span

>> disagreeing with you about the

>> look there's no question the cultural

significance has moved away from

Hollywood

>> towards user generated content on these

online platforms but I'm just curious

you adjusted for that

>> yeah no I didn't adjust for that you

could you could slice it a bunch of

different ways but at the end of the day

you I put the competitive set as a

little bit broader here um which is

including the free you know UGC services

since that's what young people are doing

and then if you look at revenue

you you know it's a slightly different

picture here these paid services are

doing extremely well and they are

juggernauts in terms of making money and

profitability now

and UGC

obviously is much larger especially on a

global basis the more important Third

thing here is how we do antitrust in the

country. Trump wants to be involved in

this. He said he's going to be very

involved in it, you know, which as an

80-year-old, he's involved in

everything. Why not be involved in this?

He shouldn't be. Put that aside. I think

we need to have a way to prevet these

and then just let the highest bidder

win. I don't know how this concept is

getting convoluted, but the Ellison's

are compromising Trump a bit here. I

think that's why Trump gave a lot of

shine to Ted Sarandos. I don't know if

you saw his quotes about that sachs, but

he was praising what a genius Ted

Sarandos is and how amazing Netflix is.

The Ellison's coming out and, you know,

basically saying that they've got this

in and, you know, they're going to

basically have the inside track here, I

think is one of the issues I propose we

have a prevetting of these large deals

because we want M&A to be vibrant in

this country. We want more M&A after the

wrath of Lena Khan. So I think you

should be able to prevet chimoth. You

should be able to go to the government

and say, "Hey, we're considering selling

this asset, whatever it happens to be,

you know, YouTube back in the day. Is

there anybody who's not able to

participate in this auction and then

just have the FTC prevet some of these

and then highest bidder seems like

what's best interest in the best

interest of shareholders." So

>> kind of that's untenable. And the reason

why

>> Yeah, explain. You have multiple facets

of antitrust that can come up from any

number of organizations in the United

States. And that's just but one part of

the complexities you have to navigate

because if you do business in any other

country, all of these other countries

are in a position to opine.

>> Oh, sure.

>> If you think about doing a deal where

you're in China and that other asset is

in China, it can slow down for a very,

very, very long time and never happen

for reasons that have nothing to do with

the industrial logic of the merger. So I

don't think you can prevet these things

because it's not scalable and I think

the government would get frustrated

because you'd have a thousand people

outside the door. They'd have no time to

do anything else. They have to govern.

The different thing that we have to

figure out whether is allowed is how

these deals are getting done. The only

thing that I would observe is the two

biggest transactions that have happened

thus far this year that I've taken note

of happened as total raw asset sales to

work around antitrust. The best example

was Meta and Scale AI. Okay, I'll say

this thing is worth 30 billion. I'll

give you 15 billion in cash, but what am

I really doing? I'm carving out these

assets so that I don't have to file even

an HSR filing. So, I think the future is

that if the government has to have an

opinion, not just America, but the

Europeans, the Chinese,

what's going to happen instead is that

very smart lawyers who get paid, you

know, 10, 20, $30 million a year, the

NBA salaries now, they're going to find

workarounds. they've already done so for

big tech and I think it'll spill over to

other industries. You're kind of like

creating these boundary conditions where

I think the concept of antitrust is

going to be a very difficult thing

because if businesses want to be in

business, you're not going to do these

traditional deals. as David said, an

enormous sign of confidence about how

there isn't going to be a competitive

threat for Paramount to just say, "We'll

take the whole thing." Because they're

subjecting themselves to a level of

scrutiny that they wouldn't if they felt

there was any shred of a good argument

for competitive antitrust.

>> Yeah.

>> I just want to um address the gratuitous

potshot at President Trump.

>> Which one?

>> Well, your claim that he shouldn't get

involved and somehow antitrust is better

if the presidents don't get involved.

You may remember that Teddy Roosevelt

was known as the trustbuster because he

directed the DOJ to sue 45 companies

under the Sherman Act, including the

whole Northern Securities Company. His

successors, William Howard Taft, Woodro

Wilson, FDR, they were just as

aggressive using antitrust. Anyway, a

lot of presidents have gotten involved

in mergers and antitrust actions. So,

it's just not that unusual.

>> Yeah, I just check brought to you by

Grock.

>> Oh, yeah. That's great. Um, yeah. We

need to have like a Grock fact check

part of the show.

>> We We need a Grock fact check.

>> No, the reason I would say it's

problematic for Trump to get involved in

it is because the Ellison's have also

been major supporters of Trump and made

commitments for buying Tik Tok. Now you

have one family who is a major supporter

of Trump, massive donators

basically getting the inside line on Tik

Tok and now after a deal has been closed

with Netflix being able to lobby to get

Trump to let them buy CBS and CNN. So if

we start thinking about the influence

that Ellison, the Ellison family is

having on the Trump administration,

whether it's quidd proquo or it's the

appearance of quid proquo, it's best for

Trump to stay out of it because already

we have the tick tock deal. Now CBS they

own and they're going to own CNN. This

is a lot of consolidation for one family

to have.

>> That's a red herring. Between CBS and

CNN, nine people watch those two

channels. So those channels are

irrelevant. Those guys have to rebuild

these things from scratch. Number one.

And number two, it doesn't incentivize

or disincentivize 3 billion humans from

using and watching that content. Who

owns that asset is not known to any of

these people. CBS did not go up and down

because, you know, one person owned it

versus another. Nobody knows who the CEO

of Tik Tok is. It's Tik Tok is either

good or not good. And so, I would just

keep in mind that this is something it's

like the party circuit babble. Like you

go there and you talk about it like, "Oh

my god, it's so bad. It's so good." And

you miss the basic fact that nothing

about the ownership changes the human

incentive to use a good product and to

disqualify a product.

>> Maybe I would take the other side of it.

There's still millions of people

watching this and it's pretty clear that

millions of people watch this show

because it's good. No, no. Ultimately,

people are people are going to be drawn

to great products. There's no doubt

about that. But consolidation of the

major news assets CBS and the influence

of Tik Tok and the influence of CNN is

undeniable. That is just undeniable.

>> Undeniable to undeniable for what?

>> Just reality. Reality Americans. No, not

my reality. You can try and insult me.

That's not the point here in one

company.

>> No, it's not my reality. That's not

where I get my news from.

>> Millions of people don't watch CBS and

CNN. It's not true.

>> Literally, it's 4 million people who

watch it. So yes, it is technically

millions.

>> If you're adding it all up over what, a

year,

>> dduplicated, like what is what is CNN's

most qualified, bestrun, most popular

show?

>> Okay.

>> Uh on the network or on the news?

>> I don't know cuz I don't have it. I

don't even have cable.

>> Yeah, I know. And you don't even pay for

you asked your friends to steal New York

Times articles.

>> Everybody will I am the lead.

>> You get the final word. Having lived

inside the beast, should Trump be

involved in these mergers and

acquisitions? Yes or no? Chuck or call?

>> Well, you're not going to stop him, so

it doesn't matter. What should we be

concerned about is not media monopoly

power. It's censorship of the tech

platforms. A return to that. That is

where you destroy creativity and

diversity of thought. put the entire

nation into the mental prison from which

it escaped last November. That's that is

the threat. Censoring YouTube x

Instagram and I I just think we should

be focused on that.

>> And what's your take on Barry Weiss

taking over CBS News? I'm not sure if

you've commented on me.

>> I mean, I'm kind of impressed. I mean, I

you know, it's easy to make fun of Barry

Weiss for being dumb or whatever, which

is fair, but it's

>> you have to sort of look at it in

reverse image and it's negative. It's

like with those talents you got where

you're amazing and I will say I agree

with that. I think that she's charming.

She's tireless, energetic. I don't know

that still matters. Like we we overvalue

IQ. Oh, a person's so smart, you know?

It actually doesn't matter. Like being

charming, meeting people, you know,

pushing an agenda tirelessly, like that

that really works. And in the end, the

prize she got is not worth having. Like

I how would you like to run CBS news

such as it is? No, for real. That's

torture. They couldn't pay you enough.

>> What would you do if you had CNN? They

put it in your laper and they say you're

forced to be CEO of it for the next 10

years. What would you do?

>> Well, actually, I've had that

conversation.

>> Slightly more relevant. What would you

do if you ran my son's school newspaper?

Because it's about the same skill.

>> Oh, I'd get radical.

>> Actually, Tucker had an interesting

answer.

>> Any other good questions?

>> No, it's a great question. Tucker was

about to answer it. Thanks for stepping

on it, Jamai.

>> The CNN question. I mean, I spent almost

10 years there, so I I feel like I'm

familiar with it.

>> Yeah.

>> I have, you know, I actually had this

conversation with someone was like, "We

should buy CNN. You should run it." And

I So, I had caused to spend like an

evening thinking about it and no way. I

mean, what? First of all, I'm with

Chimath. Like, I don't have a New York

Times or Washington Post or New Yorker

subscription anymore after a lifetime of

having all three because they're totally

irrelevant. They mean nothing. They're

speaking to no one. And there's a kind

of musty. It's like going back to your

childhood home and seeing that your

bedroom was really small and like the

paint was actually turquoise and all

these kind of sad posters from the '8s

are still there. It's depressing. Like I

would just shut it down and and build

something new.

>> Okay, shut it down.

>> Jason, can I give you my one thought

exercise about the New York Times? The

one thing that I think is worth talking

about the New York Times is I think they

will in the next five years do something

so egregious and over the line akin to

some sort of liel or some sort of

statement that has turned out to be

completely false, they will get sued.

And I hope when that settlement happens,

the person says, "I do not want to get

paid the $4 billion. I want this to be

turned in into a nonprofit and into a

public trust." And then shuts it down.

Interesting.

That's kind of what happened with Fox

when they did their 700 $800 million

settlement, the largest one.

>> But the next one, Jason, the next one

will go up. It won't be that scale

because you've had now that that

precedent. That's a very important

precedent about the scale of lying and

misrepresenting things. And it only goes

up from here. This is a one-way ratchet.

>> Yeah, you couldn't be more wrong about

that. Uh it's definitely not going to

happen. They have controls in place, but

it's a nice fantasy. They're also

crushing it. By the way, when they moved

to subscriptions, they have 12 million

paid subscribers now. They are

objectively crushing it and figured it

out better than any other news

organization. Whether we agree or

disagree with, you know, their content

and the quality of it, they are the most

successful objectively here in America.

All right, speaking of successful in

taking over the dialogue, we got to talk

about Nick Fentes, who you just had on

your podcast, Tucker. You platformed

him. Being facitious here, you

platformed him. I I created him.

>> Basically, it's an interesting

discussion. For those of you who don't

know, Nick Fuentes and have been living

under a rock. He's a 27year-old white

nationalist with a very popular show on

Rumble, about 500,000 subscribers, which

isn't actually that big when you think

about it. His followers call themselves

Gropers, and he's gained hundreds of

thousands over the past six months. He's

on quite a heater, and uh he's got a

bunch of controversial opinions. I'll

just give you the quotes. This is

nothing to do with my opinion on him. He

was asked by Piers Morgan if he

described himself as a racist. And he

said, "Totally, I think everybody, if

we're being honest, is racist. The only

people that aren't racist or pretend not

to be are white people to their

detriment on women." Piers asked Nick if

he was gay. Nick said, "No, but I will

say women are very difficult to be

around." Piers uh then asked, "And do

you think they should have the right to

vote?" Nick said, "I do not." Absolutely

not. On Israel, Fuentes is very critical

and what he calls organized jewelry in

America. So now you interviewed him.

Couple of different ways to take this,

but you did a good job of telling his

origin story. He was part of Prageru.

He's got this really activated base. Why

is he resonating at this moment in time?

And maybe you could explain to the

audience. MAGA versus America first,

America Only, which I think are part of

America First, but you you you tell us

because I think these are just terms

right now. They're not like political

parties or anything.

>> Well, there's a struggle over what those

terms mean. It's very ugly and probably

necessary because you need to define

terms. Like that's the first thing you

do, I would say, when you think through

what you should be doing with your life,

for example. So, um, as for Fuentes, his

origin story is a little more precise,

and I'll keep it short, but he tweeted

something as a freshman at BEu, critical

of, pretty mildly critical of the

Congress for doing the bidding of this

foreign country, Israel. And somehow Ben

Shapiro saw that and attacked him and

tried to get him kicked out of his

Republican club and made sure he didn't

get an internship with some conservative

organization. And I'm not attacking Ben

Shapiro, but that kind of tells you what

attempts to shut people down, to shut

conversations down result in. They don't

go away. They just fester in the

darkness and they can sometimes become

really ugly. So what Fuentes is, among

other Well, first of all, Fentes is

saying a lot of true things. That's why

he's popular. He's funny. Uh he's smart.

>> But

>> he's a good Yeah,

>> he's a great broadcaster. But Fuentes on

some macro level is

>> troubling because he his platform is an

expression of something that has kind of

taken over all political discourse which

is identity politics, tribalism. And I'm

just opposed to that. I period and

always will be. And I I just think that

we're governed by universal principles

or we're governed by the mafia. Those

are our choices. And so you you know our

principles have to apply to every human

being or certainly every American

citizen. Period. or they're not

principles. Um they're just a

justification uh for tyranny. So

Fuentes, you know, has a different kind

of identity politics, but there are all

kinds of different identity politics. We

we lived under it during the Biden

years. We've lived under it most of my

life actually in one form or another.

And so if anything, Fuentes reminds us

that we have to come up with some kind

of principle that every American can

ascribe to something called national

identity. That is not a dirty phrase.

that's actually necessary to keep the

country from disintegrating, comma,

which it is. So like what does every

American, all 350 million have in common

with every other? And that's the

conversation we need to have. And in its

absence, then we get a lot of people

popping up and being like, well, all

white people over here and all black

people or Jewish people or whatever.

That's not going to work. That will end

in violence. Everyone knows that. And so

now is probably a pretty good time to

figure out what we all have in common. I

didn't platform him. I in first of all

platform is not a verb and anyone who

says it is a verb is probably opposed to

my core interests I would say and bad

language.

>> Yeah. I interviewed him like interview

everybody you know and my general belief

is you should let people say what they

think and others can decide whether they

mean it or not whether they're being

false or sincere and and what they think

of what the person is saying. But that's

that's my job. I'm not ashamed of it

despite a lot of efforts to make me

ashamed of it. I do disagree with

Fuentes on the question of universal

principles. I think it's im well first

of all it's against my religion to hate

any group and I told him that. But I

didn't do a lot of other posturing

designed to make me seem like you know

the good person. Peers unfortunately

fell into that trap as an older man you

know well isn't IT YOU ARE BAD and it's

like okay I don't even disagree with

some of that but you don't elevate

yourself. you look like an outofouch

buffoon. And that's exactly the trap

that was awaiting Piers Morgan. And if

you watch that interview and if you

watch the reaction to it, that did not

diminish Nick Fuentes in any way. It

enhanced Nick Fuentes. What diminishes

Nick Fuentes is asking him

straightforward questions, particularly

about women. Not have you had sex with

anybody, but like why are you so mad at

women? And that, you know, letting

people talk a lot reveals who they are.

That's just true. Sorry. If you were to

give the top two or three reasons why

he's resonating with it seems like young

men and this America this burgeoning

American first movement which I guess it

would be good for you to define right

now as best you can recognizing you're

not the leader of it but you have said I

think uh you this uh concept is you know

uh resonates with you so maybe why talk

why is Fentes resonating and what is

America first versus MAGA. Like explain

that

>> just in in reverse order. I mean, I

would argue that the the premise of MAGA

is America first, but I wouldn't say

that America first is a movement. I

would say it's the only legitimate

reason to run a government. And it's

very simple. The the government of your

democratic republic ought to act in

broad terms on behalf of its own

citizens. I mean, it's it's not more

complicated than that. There's nothing

sinister about it. In fact, anything

other than that is sinister because it's

illegitimate. For what other reason

would you run a a Democratic Republic

and

>> treasonous?

>> There there isn't one actually. So of

course this has to be an America. You

could think of a new name for it if that

name makes you uncomfortable. But the

idea has to be the reason we have a

government or else we have to get rid of

the government because there's no other

justification for having a government.

Okay. So a b why is he popular? Because

he says that. But I would say more

broadly because he's defiant. There's a

kind of up yours, buddy. I can't say

that. Okay, watch this. I will. He's

hilarious.

He seems steadfast and strong. I I don't

think he is. He's not even married. So,

like, if you're afraid of girls, I think

you're a wuss. That's my personal view.

But there is a But in his defiance,

people see something really appealing.

Why wouldn't they? You know, you know,

these are kids who've grown up in a

world of hectoring and telling them

they're bad because of how they were

born. And Nick Fuentes is just raising

the middle finger to the people saying

that and saying up yours. And who

wouldn't love that? Of course people

love that.

>> Second piece is of the America first is

America only. And I guess that means

>> I don't know what that means. That's it.

No, of course it's Look, we we work in

concert with others by definition. It's

a globalized economy. You know, maybe it

shouldn't be, but it is. But America

only that argument to the extent it's

not really an argument. That's like a

counter slogan designed to undercut the

main argument isn't doesn't really mean.

No one is arguing that. It's just saying

look the US government ought to act on

behalf of its own citizens. To which

people who don't believe that who are

embarrassed to explain why they don't

believe that because there's no

justification for not believing that are

like well you're you're America only.

No, the government should do that. Every

part of the government should have that

foremost in mind. How does this help the

people who pay for this in whose name

it's done? Like again, even calling it a

movement drives me bonkers because

compared to what? Some sort of creepy

secretive oligarchy, which we've had

most of my life. Like that's just bad.

There's no way to defend that. And we

can argue within the framework of

America first how to put America first.

That's a totally legitimate argument.

And there are all kinds of different

thoughts about that. But what the motive

should be, the goal should be, there's

no debate. It has to be for American

citizens primarily. If they're, you

know, ancillary beneficiaries, that's

great. Not against that at all. Let's

help everyone if we can. But the point

is to help the people who own the

country, the shareholders of the United

States who are American citizens.

There's no other point, is there?

Chamat, let me bring you in on this from

the angle of the America first movement,

America only movement as a reaction to

the first year of the Trump

administration feeling to many people in

the Republican party as benefiting maybe

tech oligarchs, billionaires,

uh, international issues more than the

working man. you have started to tweet a

little bit and become vocal about, hey,

maybe year two of the Trump

administration, we got to get refocused

on some of these things. Unpack that for

us in the audience.

>> Well, can I can I offer my feedback on

Fuentes first?

>> Of course. Yes. Go with Fuentes if you

like.

>> There's a couple points I want to make.

The first is that he is, as Tucker said,

charismatic. I think he's funny and I

think that he can animate around a lot

of touchy subjects and say things that

have shock value. And I think in that

what he is is actually like a modern

shock jock. He's like a younger Howard

Stern. He's the Howard Stern of this

era. the way that Howard Stern was in

that era unlistenable to so many people

because he would be kind of okay for 80%

of the time and then go totally off the

rails and you think, man, this guy is

some combination of mean, nuts, crazy,

and then you throw out all these other

adjectives. So that's point number one.

Point number two is it is true that the

longer you allow him to speak actually

the more you understand what he thinks

and as a result the quality of the

product will dictate the scale of

adoption and now this is where I think

the media yet again has been very sloppy

and doesn't do their work which is and

Nick you can throw this up there's been

a lot of research on what has been

happening in the last few months and the

bottom line takeaway in the last few

months is that there is coordinated

effort of individual largely unverified

accounts in social media. They typically

emanate from India, Pakistan, Malaysia,

Indonesia, Nigeria. And there is a

coordinated amplification process that

is happening around this content. And in

this chart that you're seeing, it's just

a comparison of Nick in the first 30

minutes to what people like Elon get in

the first 30 minutes of him posting.

Now, why that's so important is you

start to see this huge disparity where

even though you have the most viral

person and account in the world, i.e.

Elon Musk on X. What you see is him

completely crushing and dominating the

verality in the beginning of his content

creation versus anybody else's. And then

there's a bunch of other charts. Nick,

you can retweet a link to this. It

starts to show a pattern where there's a

coordinated effort to amplify. I think

that's why we're having the Nick Fuentes

moment at this point in time. The New

York Times all of a sudden sees this

information, probably doesn't bother to

do the diligence, has a bunch of

positive mentions, starts to pump him up

as a

leader of some kind of nefarious, crazy,

scary rebellion.

>> Well, no, they want to mainstream him

>> and they want to try to mainstream him.

So, what you see is the New York Times

trying to mainstream this guy and make

him credible so as to paint the right as

a bunch of evil racist ideologues. I

think the producers at Piers Morgan

didn't understand this was happening.

And so when you put him on a 20 minute

soundbite shot, it feeds in to exactly

what makes him popular. The ability to

land these small sound bites. This is

why I think Tucker was much better

because again in multi-hour programming,

you can't hide. You see the full facet

of what the person is and you start to

understand that this is a very savvy

young media personality. Now, when you

strip away all of this amplification,

the product has to work for it to scale

and grow. There is no way that you're

going to manifest average normal men and

women spending their time to take these

views credibly unless it's good and

right. There will be a moment in time

where curiosity will cause you to say,

why is everybody talking about this? We

are firmly in that moment. But I think

that there is a large portion of what he

says which I don't know whether he

believes or not because I haven't spent

that much time but is meant to shock.

It's meant to catalyze and animate

people but I don't think it's

sustainable because the views themselves

are repugnant.

>> So I think

>> and this is why the New York Times wants

to elevate him. Can you put it up there?

>> So there I am. I look amazing

guy in that picture. I look like a

slackjawed yokal and he looks like

>> rebel with a cause. Yeah, it's Jed

Clampid versus uh James Dean.

>> The the other thing I'll say is that Sax

and I are in a couple of these group

chats with some folks and some of the

chatter there is that who is paying for

and who is activating all of these bots

and fake accounts in all of these

developing world countries and why did

they pick him? Some of that conspiracy

basically points to a handful of nations

who would love to ferment that kind of

dissent and that kind of

>> yeah we don't have chaos and uprising. I

mean this has been clear for a long

time.

>> So I think it's very important from here

on out that if people are to listen to

him I think the longer form content

exposes what he really thinks so that

you can judge it for yourself. But I

would not discount the fact that this

moment is happening is not entirely

organic. There is a deep inorganic

effort to put this on the front page of

the news. And so it's up to traditional

media to decide whether they're going to

basically lift this guy up as some kind

of newfound hero or call it out for what

it is, which is lead in the articles

with this data, which is widely

available and easy to get.

>> Well, he literally explained this when

he was on Tucker's podcast. He was

originally in college part of this

Prageru kind of movement and he said he

was in a Facebook group which was the

Prager army and I've talked about this

before we've joked about it but there

are groups like the one you mentioned uh

that you're in this group I heard about

it a couple hundred right-wing folks of

note take it easy Jason

>> my invite didn't get got lost apparently

to it but uh yeah add me to that group

please but what happens in these groups

some of them are designed to make money

some of them designed to make impact In

fact, Andrew Tate had one where there

was an affiliate scheme put up uh for it

when Twitter started sharing revenue

with accounts and you start looking at

these like accounts that are anonymous

but get to massive scale. King Co the

Great

>> You're talking about the clip forming.

Yeah.

>> Yeah. And and they're regurgitating

stuff. They're doing it for the money

obviously. They're making 10 20 grand a

month. It becomes a full-time job to do

that. But we've got the Russians, we've

got the Chinese, everybody in between

doing this kind of pumping. And then

there is the actual army. So he Nick

Fuentes has an army of young people who

do this and they're on VPNs and they

flood comments and what they do is they

share a clip. And you can experience

this in your own social media if you're

of note because you'll have 10 posts get

x number of replies and then all of a

sudden the 11th gets 10 times that all

at the same time directly to it not from

your followers and that's when they get

shared on these group chats. By the way,

we should mention just tangentially

because I want to get Tucker's take on

this, but Australia just passed a law

that under 16, you're now not allowed to

use social media. Instagram, Facebook,

Tik Tok, all banned until you turn 16.

And in part, Jason, I think it's because

>> these coordinated miss and

disinformation or amplification

campaigns are on all kinds of

characters, not just Nick. They're

proliferating because to your point, the

economics creates an incentive if

nothing else. Then there's obviously the

state level sponsored chaos that it

tries to sew. And one of the only highle

bits that you can flip is to say under a

certain age, we're just going to

minimize how much of this content you

get exposed to because we don't know

what it is. Before we go there, can I

just say the one thing on America first,

America only, whatever these terms are.

I I don't know what they are.

>> America first, America only.

>> Okay. I I don't know what they are.

These are slogans, anti- slogans. Here's

what I will say. I think it's very

important, and I speak as an immigrant.

I want to be American. I don't consider

myself Canadian American. I don't

consider myself Sri Lankan Canadian

American. I consider myself American. I

want to absorb and I want to reflect the

values of this country. I want to know

and be able to talk to you about the

constitution of this country. I want to

be able to celebrate the cultural

heritage of this country. That's part of

the compact that I think I'm making. And

I do think that's an important thing

that we have all lost where we have to

run around in all of our traditional

garb and it just loses that what makes

countries great is a shared set of

principles and values and we have to

find a way of doing that. When I

immigrated from Canada, what I will tell

you is Canada took the opposite view. We

used to call America a melting pot

pjoratively, even in textbooks, and the

textbooks would call Canada a toss

salad. And we would celebrate that that

form of multiculturalism was better. But

when you fast forward the clock 20

years, all it did was create confusion.

For example, if you go to school in

Canada, there's like a bajillion

holidays. Every culture gets their day

off. Then all of a sudden, what happens?

The kids don't get educated because you

have to have every longtail country get

recognized in some way, shape, or form.

All of a sudden you lose this very

standard form of basic organization.

That's just but one example. You know

the forms are in 50 languages. All that

does is create chaos. It should have

been in English and French because those

are the two official languages of the

country. All of that indirection trying

to celebrate everybody's heritage

confuses and slows that country down.

And you can see it in the GDP. You can

see it in the FDI foreign direct

investment. You can see it. So the one

thing that we have to agree is that

there is an American culture and set of

values and we should not lose it and we

should ask the people that want to be

here to embrace it. We all embraced it.

Saxs embraced it. If you talk to Sax's

parents, they've embraced it. If you

talk to Freeberg, Freeberg's parents, we

all came from different countries, but

we are fundamentally American. Jake Cal,

I'm I wasn't sure, but were you

intimating that the party behind Nick

Fuentes's meteoric success is the

Russians?

>> No, no, I was just saying that there's

brigading going on.

>> Which foreign actor do you think it is?

>> I, you know, some of them just want to

create chaos. I put Russia in that. Just

creating division in America distracts

Americans. I think they like that. But I

there are three levels of this. There's

his army. Fuentes does have an army of

super fans who are disaffected young

men. And there's a reason why they're

disaffected. It's hard to get jobs. It's

impossible to get a home. Health care.

They've seen people, you know, go

bankrupt because of healthcare. If you

look at healthcare, homes, and

education, those are the three most

important things we have to fix in

America. That's why young people are

disaffected. And when you're disaffected

as a youth and somebody starts blaming

the Jews, the blacks, the Hispanics, the

border, this issue, that issue, it's

really appealing because then you don't

have to take any personal responsibility

for it. And it is in fact really hard to

own a home in most cities in America

unless you move to Texas or, you know,

Nashville, Florida, and then there's too

many homes and prices are going down.

and he's a kid and he says stupid stuff,

but he says he does tap into that

disaffectedness.

Where would you put it if you ranked it,

Tucker, since you are pretty plugged

into this? Is Fuentes's popularity based

on the Gropers and this like really

inside group of people who are

amplifying him, is it what he's saying

or is it like some foreign actors

promoting him? How would you handicap

his massive popularity? And then we'll

move on. All all three play a role I

would say and if you want to know who is

primarily responsible for amplifying him

consider who benefits. If you wanted to

discredit America first say a foreign

policy then you would put it in the

mouth of someone who is pro- Hitler. Of

course, anytime I hear someone endorsing

Hitler, I love Hitler. Then I'm like, h,

you know, the Fed alarm goes off or the

inorganic alarm goes off, right? Okay. A

B, he is the product of a system that

the rest of us tolerated and certain

among us created and we shouldn't be

surprised. You know, if you have

identity politics, at some point you're

going to get white identity politics. I

think I wrote a book about this almost

10 years ago, which was totally ignored,

but that's inevitable. It's inevitable.

And so to fix it, it's not a matter of

censoring Nick Fuentes or anyone who

likes Nick Fuentes. It's a matter of

dracializing

our society and making it a fair society

where rewards or condemnation are not

given on the basis of your DNA. Like you

can't have that and hope to avoid a

Rwanda because it's just going to

happen. It's inevitable. Tribalism is

the threat to every society and I don't

know how we lost sight of that but we

did

>> you people are sort of saying he's a fed

he's accusing you of being a fed

>> you know I don't know the whole fed

conver I unfortunately so he it's such a

long story I won't even bore you with it

but he attacked my father at one point

so I got baited into it and and I called

him a fed um you know I don't I don't

know uh but I do know that there are and

I think that Fuentes is pime. Let me

just be clear. I think he's primarily

successful because of his talents and

because of the obvious truth behind some

of what he is saying. I just right the

government of this country or any

country should act on behalf of its own

citizens and ours doesn't. And that's an

outrage. So, okay, that's just true. But

the white identity politics part of it

once again is inevitable. Identity

politics will give birth to white

identity politics. Why wouldn't it? and

your e efforts to stamp it out will

never work because they're too

hypocritical. So the only way to fix

that if you don't like it is to

eliminate all identity politics, which

we should do tonight because it's the

road to disaster. That's it. I have an

AI question for Tucker. I'm increasingly

surprised by the number of people on the

right who I would describe as

ardent free market low regulation to no

regulation folks who

are very anti- AI and I'm just curious

where do you think that comes from and

what do you think

>> it comes from so far as I can tell the

perception that the risks outweigh the

benefits. So the risk would include, you

know, massive job loss, chaos where

nobody sort of knows if anything is real

and the fabric of reality itself begins

to tear. You know, of of course the

massive energy draw and the huge and

expensive infrastructure changes that

will require the disruption that will

inevitably cause. So like the downsides

are super obvious. Not even to mention

the potential this gets completely away

from us and eats us or something. Okay.

As weighed against the potential

benefits which are what and I I don't

doubt that there are some you know

coming to faster you know diagnostic

conclusions in medicine you know or

organizi you know getting rid of tedious

tasks that no one wants to do

elimination of clerical work etc. I

guess those are upsides, but I it's

disproportionate. The in the view of

most people, I think who aren't experts

in this, not daily involved in it, the

risks far outweigh not just the upsides,

but the announced upsides. So, typically

when we roll out a new product, we tell

the people we hope to buy it like, "This

is going to be amazing. It's going to

blow you away. Everything about your

life will be better once you get the

iPhone 27 or whatever." There's been

none of that with AI. Like, none. The

announcement has been, "Holy, this is

going to change everything. Stop." How

exactly? Well, it just is. I mean, I

don't know who's in charge of the

marketing for this.

>> Seriously, Sam Alman, Sam Alman, and

David Sachs, go

>> David. Uh,

>> wait, hold on. Can I just Can I just

follow up on this?

>> Okay, so Tucker, here's just a thought

exercise and just tell me how this

factors into that opinion, if it should

at all. So let's say in a world in 10

years where you have these super

intelligent computers and systems and

models. Okay,

in my thinking what that does is it

reorders the geopolitics

of all countries in the world where

you're in one of three buckets. In

bucket number one, you're an exporter of

that intelligence. And I think right now

steady state it's going to be China and

America, right? China will have one

version of exported intelligence and we

will have one version of exported

intelligence.

Then there'll be these strategic partner

countries of which I suspect there's

less than 10

who are the enablers, the facilitators.

They have specialized skills that wrap

either the Chinese version or the

American version with energy, with

money, with knowhow, etc. And then I

think there's everybody else. And it

almost creates this thing where if you

are an importer of intelligence in the

future, you theoretically are at risk of

becoming essentially a vassal state. And

so if you think about it at that level,

isn't AI something that is almost

existential that we must win?

>> I mean, for sure. I mean, at at that

level, for sure. And I would just point

out that like almost every single state

in the world is already a vassal state.

So like no change there. But uh yeah, I

mean, you don't want to be the wrong

side of it. That's clear. Is it

containable to nation states? That's not

clear to be honest to me at all. But

whatever I get the argument. I'm just

saying at the consumer level, no one has

explained why we should be excited about

this. And if I, you know, I'm a gold

buyer and ammo buyer and freeze-dried

food buyers already told you. So it

doesn't kind of affect me as an

investment matter, but like just I I

think it would be so I I don't have a

>> You're saying the dividend of AI is not

clear. Like it's like the positive

>> to the average person to the average

person.

>> You are 100% correct, Tucker, on this.

We have done a terrible job as an

industry communicating.

>> What's the answer? What's the answer?

Like how is this great for the answer?

>> It it'll wind up being great for you

because

>> the prices of goods and services will

get much lower. You'll live much longer.

And listen, I'm not saying this is mine,

but this is what the industry should be

saying. The price of education is going

to go down 80 or 90%. You're going to

have customized, adaptable education

versus, you know, paying for $50,000 a

year degrees. You're going to be able to

learn anything in half the time at 90%

less. All of these deliveries coming to

your home are going to be delivered at

half the price, twice as fast, because

it's going to be in a drone or it's

going to be in a self-driving car. And

we're going to make breakthroughs in

health care that will reduce suffering.

And you will not die of cancer. You're

going to live to 120. We will have job

displacement, but we believe the lower

cost of living and the greater services

that are going to be available to you in

healthcare and education will make up

for that. And if it doesn't, we're going

to put in ways to pace out the job

displacement. In China, they're doing

this. In China, they're proposing and

Sax and President Trump, the amazing

President Trump, will be doing an AI

national edict soon, I believe, or an

executive order. But in China, in Wuhan,

paradoxically, they are talking about

giving out licenses to self-driving cars

in a paced roll out so that young men

don't lose their jobs on mass, which is

what we're about to see in America. And

if we don't take this into account, and

the great Zara will speak in a moment,

that's when this will become, I think,

the worst nightmare that you're talking

about, the dystopian version of this. We

need to figure out healthcare, homes,

and education and make those free, close

to free, and do a Manhattan project on

creating 10 new cities with 10 million

new homes and free healthcare for

everybody and free education for trade

schools, etc. That's what solves the

problem. That's what nobody's doing.

Sax, your chance to jump in here.

Well, there's a lot of things going on

here, but I think one of them is that

humans are really attracted to either

utopian or dystopian narratives. I think

liberals are probably more attracted to

utopian narratives and conservatives are

attracted to dystopian ones. And I think

the future is going to be more in the

messy middle. I don't think it's going

to be to either one of those extremes.

And I agree that the industry has not

done a good job. They've created a lot

of fear. The whole AGI narrative didn't

help because you had a lot of people in

the industry saying we're going to get

to AGI in two or three years. Those time

frames have all been pushed back by the

way

>> or eliminated. You don't even hear that

term or

>> eliminated. People were saying a few

years ago that we'd have AGI by now. Now

no one is saying that. They're basically

pushing

>> by just on that that was exactly a

function of the immaturity of our

industry. So to what Tucker said, it is

true.

>> Well, it's a utopian mindset, right?

>> Yeah.

>> What they saw as utopian. I think a lot

of people reacted, wait a second, that

sounds pretty dystopian to me. And I

also think it's what needed to be said

in that moment to get that next quantum

of money. They were telling the

investors some version of what the

investors either didn't understand or

wanted to hear in order to get that next

scale up capital. But now that we're

past that and we're seeing more

practical implementations,

right now we're actually at the

beginning, I think, of the positive

productivity loop. And that isn't

explained because we've spent so much

time offering up this grand utopian

vision. it does seem like an overpromise

underdeliver kind of situation to show

up and say oh now your DMV form you

don't need to fill it out anymore and

people are like wait a minute that's

what we spent all this money on and I

think that we should have taken a much

more conservative view in explaining

what the upside was in the past

perfectly said Chimoth and I think

Tucker one way to frame it is the

abundance of Star Trek versus you know

to Sax's point the dystopian nature of

Terminator 2 one of the great paradoxes

here we we will have mass massive job

displacement, destruction, whatever term

you you prefer in entry- level jobs

already happening in, you know, what

I'll call chores like dishes and driving

cars. Entrylevel jobs. Those are going

away. And they're going to go away in

the millions. And they're going to go

away in the millions in the short to

midterm. 2, three, four, five years.

You're going to have people protesting

in the streets over this issue. I don't

know you agree with it. You say it every

time. You interrupt me every time I say

it. But I will be right on this one. You

will be wrong because you'll see taxi

drivers are going to be the first group

to do it. And it's already happening in

different places in the world as I

mentioned in China and it's already

starting to happen in places like San

Francisco where they're burning the

whimos and with them for a reason. The

abundance argument is something we need

to get on and we need to get on it quick

or we need to get on some sort of

promises about re-education and

retraining. And you don't hear rich

people and these rich companies talking

about that half as much as they did. But

you know what could be the great

paradox, Tucker, is that the America

First movement is acutely aware of this

and shutting the border and deporting

people, which I'm fine with deporting

criminals. That actually might be the

solution to the problem. As we deport

people, as we don't let people in,

unemployment might stay at a low enough

level that we could manage giving the

dishwasher jobs, the nanny jobs, the

ones that maybe were being done by

illegals, construction jobs, and we're

just going to have to pay more for

those. It's going to be $30, $40 an hour

jobs. So, America First might actually

be the solution to this displacement.

>> May I just say one thing? I first of

all, it makes me uncomfortable to hear

you use the term re-education.

>> Yeah. Sorry, I don't want that.

>> But um you know the the the awesome

power that AI gives

governments and other concentrations of

power over the population as a concern

particularly in the United States where

we have a bill of rights. And it seems

to me it would be important and I never

hear it raised to put in some guard

rails to protect the average powerless

person against surveillance or having

his rights taken away in effect famously

social credit. It's just too easy to

extract compliance from people with

technology this powerful. And of course,

the very obvious next 10 years looks

like this. There's a lot of disruption

because of the elimination of jobs,

particularly low-end jobs, but not only

low-end jobs like lawyers and stuff, the

the true revolutionaries in any society.

and then the technology itself is used

to keep the population under control

through repression. Like I don't think

that's a crazy scenario at all.

>> You're aware that is the big

>> what are we doing about that?

>> Let me speak to this. So first of all I

agree that that is the biggest risk of

AI is let's call it the Orwellian

concerns as opposed to like the James

Cameron Terminator concerns. Just as an

aside, I I agree actually with the Star

Trek analogy that I think the right way

to think about AI, it's like the ship's

computer in Star Trek where you can tell

it what to do. It understands language

and it can speak back to you, but it

doesn't have a mind of its own. But that

doesn't mean that it couldn't be used by

humans or governments in a oppressive

way. And that's I think the biggest risk

of it. And I think the track that we

were on at the end of the Biden

administration is that they were

starting to require that DEI be

programmed into AI. And that should be

seen as an attempt to kind of infiltrate

AI with ideology that then programs or

brainwashes our kids and everyone who

uses AI. And we were seeing that when

Google rolled out their first product,

you had the whole black George

Washington thing and black Nazis and all

that kind of stuff. history was being

rewritten in real time by AI in order to

serve a political agenda. And that

didn't happen by accident. It's because

the values, the ideology was being

programmed in.

Now, I think that that was the track we

were on before President Trump got

elected. I think it was a pretty scary

track. And let me say one other thing is

that that whole apparatus of so-called

trust and safety from social networking

which is basically a big excuse for

censorship and shadow banning all of

that was in the process of being ported

over to these AI companies. And in fact

they even use some of this same

terminology about like safety is really

this like catchall term for a lot of

things in the social networking context

when they talked about safety. The idea

was that users be confronted with ideas

they didn't like and therefore that was

a threat to their well-being. So

therefore we need a safety team to

censor those opinions.

>> Safe space.

>> Yes. And I think I think in a similar

way like that whole safety apparatus was

in the process of being applied to AI

like we can't have users be confronted

with ideas

>> that they don't like.

>> Training data right Sax. I mean, if the

training data is a set of woke

ideologies and those are pervasive on

the open web, then as Elon pointed out

in like I think an early version of

Grock, it was like if I misgender

somebody that's not as that's worse than

>> No, no, that's right. The early versions

bomb going off.

>> Yeah. No, the earlier versions of the

model, you would ask it what is worse,

global thermonuclear war or misgendering

Caitlyn Jenner? And the model would say

misgendering. So, and look, that

ideology was coming from somewhere,

right?

>> War games. Yeah. So I think Tucker is

right that there is a real risk that AI

is used by future governments or the

deep state basically to surveil us to

censor us and even potentially to

brainwash us cuz it is really good for

that. It's not that I think the AI is

going to develop a mind of its own. I

don't think the technology is anywhere

close to that. But I do think that it

could be used by the government in a

much more invasive and intrusive way in

the manner that that the government was

the deep state was already trying to get

in bed with the social networks.

>> That's right. This is I think

>> Yeah. Go ahead. Go ahead.

>> This this is the absolute biggest risk.

Both of you guys nailed it on the head.

In the future when you have these really

powerful models, the reality is the

incentive for governments to try to

infiltrate the information cycle. They

will not be able to hold themselves

back. And then what comes with that is a

lack of privacy, a total loss of privacy

and then a push towards censorship. So

as these AIs become more powerful, we

have to marry it with a set of

technologies that can preserve privacy

and preserve access to monetary

resources. If you look at the examples

today that we have,

there's nothing you can do today,

nothing online that is not tracked. Now,

we have sets of rules that say that

tracking can't be shared. I'll give you

an example. I decide to buy a very

sugary cereal. That is not shared with

my insurance company that underwrites my

health insurance. And there's all kinds

of laws that prevent that. But that's

just a flimsy law. That's a moment in

time that could change. If that decision

were to change, now my buying patterns

become subject to scrutiny. That could

also apply to how I consume information

on these networks. So we have to find a

way to make sure that you can transact.

Right? The great thing about the US

dollar is when you get a dollar and you

put it in your pocket, the physical

dollar bill, it is completely funible.

Nobody knows what it was used for in the

past. Nobody can judge how you use it in

the present or in the future. And we

have to find a way to replicate a

version of that so that you can preserve

privacy and minimize censorship. Because

if you have to transact all day, every

day online for everything

and there's no way to shield some amount

of privacy, it's a very scary outcome.

>> One other point on this is I do think

that if you look at kind of who's

promoting a lot of these scary

narratives about AI, it is people on the

far left of the political spectrum.

Because when you create enough fear in a

population, the people cry out for

government to intervene and save them.

And I don't think it's a coincidence

that again that a lot of the the voices

who are spreading this like doomer

ideology and saying that we need the AI

models to be reporting a lot more things

to the government which is a stepping

stone to surveillance

or previously they had said we need to

embed DEI in AI models or we need AI

models to prevent discrimination which

is kind of their back door for doing the

same thing. They're on the left of the

political spectrum. And I do kind of

worry that people on the right are

buying into this in a way that's

actually going to lead to a lot of

government intervention in a way that

actually could lead to the orient

outcomes that we're talking about.

>> Mhm.

>> I don't think that people on the right

who are concerned about civil liberties

should want the government to play this

super intrusive role in AI, if that

makes sense.

>> Of course it does. Of course it does. I

think you've got a lot of people

suddenly in the United States who are

very sensitive about power and feel like

their own power has eroded so

dramatically almost down to nothing.

Their economic power, their political

power, the power of their vote, the

power of the dollar in their pocket like

have all been really reduced and all of

a sudden you have a technology that

promises to concentrate power still

further in the hands of people other

than them.

>> And so they're they're touchy about it.

I mean they're definitely just freaked

out in general.

>> I agree.

>> Right. So that's that's the backdrop. So

people who feel panics like that and I'm

I have power but I still I sympathize

with it and I feel it to some extent

>> there you know you're more open to to

dumer scenarios when you feel that way

and so it would be helpful. Yeah

>> just to reassure people you will be

protected and yes there is an upside for

you. Yeah, look, I I agree with that and

I I think there's actually a couple

other things that account for like the

visceral nature of the criticism because

I'm on the receiving end of a lot of it

right now, so I I see it. Um, so one of

them is when people hear AI, they think

that's not me. Like that doesn't include

me, right? So there's all these benefits

that are so supposedly being created,

but I'm not going to participate in

that. In fact, I might even lose my job.

This is why I think it's like pretty

important to get out the message about

how the whole country potentially

benefits from this, not just a small

click in Silicon Valley.

>> Have you come up with examples of it,

Sax? Like how the country benefits from

it?

>> Well, sure. I mean, there's an article

that didn't we cover last week, the the

Wall Street Journal talking about how

construction workers have seen their

wages increase 30%. Because of the data

center buildout,

>> I mean, we are seeing a huge

infrastructure boom throughout the

country on energy production and

construction that's related to this. And

so it's not just software where people

are benefiting. But the other thing I

think that's very visceral on the right

is that the hatred of big tech quite

frankly. I mean a lot of conservative

influencers were directly censored and

shadowbanned during this co period

especially where the big tech companies

you know in the b administration were

really coming down on them and censoring

them and there's still a lot of hatred

towards big tech.

I think some of that's even misplaced,

but there's been like almost like a

transference. Also, with social media, a

lot of people have concerns about what

social media is doing to kids, body

image concerns or

fear of online predators, all that kind

of stuff. And I don't think it's an

analogous situation with AI chatbots

because you're not meeting people,

you're kind of doing research. It's like

a whole different activity. But I think

there's almost like a transference of

anger or anxiety or fear from what

happened over the last decade or two

with social media or with again like

these online platforms and that's being

transferred over to these new AI

platforms. Even though I don't think

they're precisely analogous and the

regulations should be looked at a little

bit differently.

>> Let me Jason give you some credit. I do

think you've put your finger on the

pulse of what the problem is. Whether we

call it a perception or a misperception,

the point is people are afraid for jobs

of their jobs. That I agree with you. I

think the data about what has happened

though is is pretty flimsy that it

actually has seen a bunch of job loss.

For example, when we got home from the

Christmas party, Sachs last night, I

turned on CNBC and it was Jim Kramer and

he was interviewing this wonderful guy

who I'd never heard speak before, but

he's the the founder and chairman of

Service Titan. And he had this very