Jason, do you want to tell us about your

new favorite podcast? Oh, it's so good.

My feed is now because, you know, since

cancel culture ended, Sachs, everybody

uses the R word and the f word right

now. My entire feed on Instagram is

either gay or down syndrome or bulldogs.

It's one of those three. And then I

stumbled upon the Miss Thing pod,

Miss Thing. And they do a bit called gay

name, straight name. Here's gay name or

straight name for David. This good news

and bad news freeird. Here we go.

>> Gay name or straight name?

>> David.

>> David to me is straight.

>> Okay. But he has my perfect body. It can

be confusing because I'm kind of like,

are you gay? And it's like, no, I just

want to be you, David.

>> Totally. Well, it's so like the

Michelangelo's David the male ideal.

It's like incredible body kind of small.

Sorry.

>> Yeah.

>> Oh,

>> it's a little rough. [laughter]

>> What?

>> What are you watching there, Jal?

>> They basically nailed these two, but

okay, keep going.

>> I don't think Chimoth is on their short

list, but I know Jason will come up at

some point.

>> Gay name or straight.

>> Maybe this is it.

>> Chimoth

on the count of three. Yeah.

>> Three, two, one. gay. [laughter]

I'm seeing like Italian sweater, like

really kind of like a loud [laughter]

vibrant sweater. He like wears it to

like poker night with his like his boys

and like not I'm not talking like

straight poker. I'm talking like gay

poker nights like at the bar.

>> Yeah. Always talking about wine.

>> Talks about wines.

>> Always sort of like

Yeah, exactly.

>> Yep. Also, it's so like the guy at the

gym taking off his shirt, taking

selfies.

>> Yeah. And everyone else is kind of like,

"Excuse me, Chimoth. I'd like to use the

mirror. [laughter]

I'd like to see myself.

>> See you at the next day." Poker night.

>> Totally.

>> You bring the wine. [laughter]

>> We'll bring the sweater.

>> Yeah,

>> there it is. Wow. They did do.

>> That is fantastic. That is fantastic. A

shout out to my guys at the Miss Ding

podcast.

>> Wow, that was awesome. I think I'm gay.

>> [laughter]

>> I never knew. [music]

>> Let your winners ride.

>> And it said we open [music] sourced it

to the fans and they've just gone crazy

with it.

>> What did you do like cameo? Did you pay

them to do that?

>> Did it for me as a favor. So they did it

for

>> That's awesome. Well, thanks to those

guys to the miss. I've seen those guys

before in clips. I find them very funny.

[laughter]

>> It's so great. Shout out to my guys.

>> That was awesome.

>> All right, everybody. Seriously, welcome

back to the number one podcast in the

world. It's the All-In podcast with me

again, David Freebergia, David Saxs, and

of course, I'm Jason Calcanis. You can

call me Jay Cal if you're here for the

first time. Topic one, open AI. They

missed their targets for chat GPT

Freedberg both on users and revenue.

Let's talk about it. The Wall Street

Journal says in a uh a breaking

investigative report on Tuesday that

OpenAI expected to hit 1 billion wows

weekly active users before the end of

2025. They missed that and they still

haven't hit the milestone 4 months into

2026. Also, Chamath, they missed their

2025 revenue target for Chad GPT. Exact

number wasn't specified, but as we've

talked about here, they're at a 2030

billion run rate. There's a little bit

of accounting nuance that is yet to be

worked out in the industry. Two reasons

why this matters. Sachs, OpenAI has $600

billion in spending commitments for

compute. Just to put that in

perspective, that's about what they're

trading for on secondary markets. In

other words, the entire value of the

Open AI enterprise equals their spend

commitments in the coming year. CFO

Sarah Frier, who is coming to liquidity,

is reportedly worried, hey, that revenue

isn't growing fast enough to keep up

with expense and OpenAI wants to IPO

later this year. This has put Frier and

Oughtman in conflict or uh maybe there's

some natural tension there. Frier

doesn't think OpenAI is ready for public

reporting standards. According to the

Wall Street Journal, Altman obviously

wants to move faster, so they released a

joint statement. this is ridiculous yada

yada yada. Let's go to you Saxs. What do

you think's going on here? Are these

major headwinds or is this just managing

expectations as the leader of the pack

in the most important race of our

lifetimes, the race towards super

intelligence?

>> Well, I actually have a little bit of a

contrarian take on this. I know that

OpenAI had a really bad week. Like you

said, they had that Wall Street Journal

article which said that they missed

their numbers. They missed their 1

billion user growth target. They missed

their revenue numbers. That's called

into question whether they can afford

the data center commitments that they've

made. And then in addition to that,

they've also had the lawsuit with with

Elon happening this week. So in the

press, it ended up being I think a

pretty bad week for them. But I have a

contrarian take on this, which is I

think that over the past week or two, if

you look at kind of what's happening at

the product level, it's been a pretty

good couple of weeks for them. They

released chat GBT 5.5 and the reviews

from, you know, people I talked to in

Silicon Valley have been really strong.

You talk to developers, coders, they're

very happy with it. At the same time,

Opus 4.7, which is the latest anthropic

release, appears to be a bust. People

are complaining about it. They're in a

lot of cases are rolling back to 4.6.

They're saying that Opus 4.7 is

rationing compute. It's reducing

thinking time, not as good. there were

some bugs and clawed. So if you just

compare chat GPT 5.5 to Opus 4.7, it

does appear that OpenAI has had a better

couple of weeks on a product level. And

I think there's reason to believe that

the product improvements will continue.

GPT 5.5 is based on a new base model

called Spud, which is the first base

model upgrade they've done in I don't

know over a year. and having a new base

model will pave the way for future

improvements as well. So I think OpenAI

is feeling pretty optimistic about their

product right now and I think you're

starting to see on X some of the

developer mojo is shifting. I'm seeing a

lot of people saying that they are

shifting their their coding usage from

Opus to GPT 5.5.

So I think that SAM may end up being

right but for the wrong reason. And what

I mean by that is that when he made

these big compute commitments, it was

based on those estimates of hitting the

billion users on the consumer side and

hitting those revenue targets. The

consumer business ended up being weak.

So they missed those targets. But in the

meantime, coding has become the

allimportant sector of AI. And because

they made all these compute commitments

and they built out these data centers,

they have more compute than anthropic

right now. Anthropic is token

constrained. It's reducing their ability

to serve mythos, for example. It's

causing them to engage in compute gating

with Opus 4.7. And I understand why

Daario made that decision. I'm not

saying I mean it was a prudent business

decision. I'm not criticizing him for

it, but I think again I think Sam may

end up being right here for the wrong

reason, which is he missed on consumer,

but enterprise is going gang busters and

is giving him the ability now, I think,

to catch up on code. your poly market

>> which is the all important market right

now

>> of course and we talked about gro and

cursor teaming up last week Elon and the

team over there poly market showing now

a 32% chance that openai goes public by

the end of 2026 this is down from 60% in

December and Shimath you gave a bit of a

warning hey there's only so many dollars

to go around SpaceX IPO is obviously

getting out first and now if openai

doesn't go out this year and anthropic

does the sets up an interesting dynamic.

What are your thoughts here generally

speaking about the massive commitment

that OpenAI has made? Are they going to

run off the cliff or will it wind up

being brilliant? Uh even if it wasn't

strategically for the exact reasons,

>> I think they're going to be fine. I

think this is a multi-t trillion dollar

company. I think Anthropic is a multi-

trillion dollar company. I think the

thing that's happening right now is uh a

complete misunderstanding

of what's actually happening

inside of the world of AI. And there is

one very specific choke point

that is constraining everything which is

access to the power that's necessary to

drive these tokens. To the extent that

open AI missed, I think what that is is

an insight to not enough compute

capacity today. And that problem is only

getting worse. You've already seen that

with Anthropic as well where they just

found a way to economically induce

Amazon to give them enough capacity so

that you don't have to route through

bedrock to get to the anthropic models.

You're also seeing them do

differentiated deals now with economic

participation on top of what they

already had from folks like Google to

give them more capacity. What is my

point? Everything in this market is

power constrained. The reason that these

folks may miss a number or a forecast

have nothing to do with demand. It is

entirely 100% due to the supply of the

power necessary to generate the output

token. There is a really interesting

thing that was just announced today that

will make this problem even worse, which

is what you're starting to see now is

backlogs build up of not just the access

to the power, but then the componentry

that's actually necessary. Not just

resips and not just NAT gas turbines,

but now you're talking about

transformers and all the actual tactical

grid infrastructure.

Why is this important? If you look at

the actual amount of gigawatts that are

under construction, we have a huge

mismatch now,

people have announced all these

projects, Jason,

but less than half of it is actually

being built. Less than half. Most of it

is stuck in red tape.

Most of that is because there are these

supply chain delays. So there's no

credible strategy to turn any of this

stuff on. Who will this hurt? It will

hurt Anthropic and OpenAI the most. Who

will this benefit? It will benefit the

hyperscalers, specifically Oracle,

Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, and Google. And

now what you're going to see is a

negotiation and a trade back and forth.

How much equity do I have to give up?

How much control do I have to give up to

get access to the compute versus how

badly will I miss my growth forecasts if

I don't? And now what that means is, and

we spoke about this last week, that's a

huge lane for Grock to just run through

and SpaceX to run through cuz they have

a ton of excess capacity. And so I think

the cursor deal was the appetizer. But

if I were Elon now, I'd be running all

over this market because if the models

catch up in quality, I think he could

also do something really crazy with

anthropic or open AI right now. Maybe

not open AI because of the

>> we'll get into the lawsuit in a bit

>> the baggage.

>> Yeah.

>> But man, he and Dario should do a deal

tomorrow.

>> So you're framing, hey, the the limited

resource here is compute. The demand is

off the charts.

>> No, the limiting resource is power.

power which then powers compute which

then provides tokens which then services

the massive uh developer and co-work and

all these other projects that consumers

and enterprises can't get enough of. Got

it.

>> And Jason, the other factor that

complicates that for anthropic and open

AI is all the stuff that's sort of

sitting around thumb twiddling. 40% of

that is going to get cancelled because

they've done such a poor job of creating

a good positive halo around AI that 40%

of all the announced projects get

cancelled because 40% of all projects in

the last four years have been cancelled.

Yeah. And there's there there are some

bad feelings about data centers, AI,

jobs, etc. And that's causing some

headwind. People are you literally doing

violent things in society and blaming

data centers and AI for it. I don't want

to give it too much air time. Freeberg,

what's your take on the chessboard we're

looking at here? Either through compute,

energy or through going public on a

business level, you know, the strategic

nature of capital, compute and energy

now playing a role in this massive

amount of demand. still a ball in the

air kind of game. BCG had this theory, I

think I talked about this once before,

called the rule of three where they've

shown time and again that any stable,

mature, competitive market evolves to a

4:21

ratio of market share for basically 90%

of the market. So there's a market

leader that has four times the market

share of the second place, that's two

times the market share of the third

place. This is the case in pretty much

every mature kind of competitive market.

So you can kind of think about AI

probably evolving into a consumer market

and an enterprise market. Open AAI, even

if they're not at a billion, they're

still at 900 million weekly users, which

is well ahead of whatever Claude is at.

I think Claude is like probably subund

million sacks, you may know. And then

Gemini is probably closer to them at 700

to a billion somewhere in that range.

Probably pretty neck and neck with open

AI. So, you know, the consumer market

looks like it's trending towards a chat

GPT/Google

fight for first place and second place

and then probably anthropic in third

place and maybe Elon emerges and takes

off enabled by his compute capacity and

then the enterprise market is a little

bit of a different story and that's its

own market which is kind of anthropic or

probably Google in the lead actually if

you look at all the vertex use. Google

claims that 75% of GCP customers are

active users of Vertex. So there's

probably a pretty sizable

market share that Google's captured on

the enterprise side as well. This is

also probably why Google stock has

absolutely ripped over the last couple

of months is they're literally in first

place or fighting for first place in

enterprise and consumer.

But I still think that there's a lot of

opportunity to Chimoff's point about the

compute and energy capacity constraints

in improving how we actually scale and

deploy models in both the enterprise and

the consumer setting. And it is such

early days and I just want to highlight

this paper that came out from MIT from

these two scientists and these guys

published a paper on pruning techniques

and neural networks. This paper showed

that you could actually reduce the size

of these networks by 90%.

And get the same accuracy out by pruning

very large models down to smaller

models. And then you can make a

selection on which model to run for

inference. And by doing this, you can

actually reduce inference costs by 10x.

You can get 10x the output per energy

unit that goes into the data center with

no loss of accuracy. And so it's a

really interesting call it algorithmic

technique that can be applied to the

existing large models to actually make

them much lower energy use. So if you

think about it, you're firing up a very

large model to answer a very simple

question. You can actually prune away

that model. Now this is probably going

to be the case in AI applications as it

is in traditional Google search. There's

a long tale of searches, but there's a

few searches that account for a large

percentage of search volume. It's like

what is the weather? What are the movies

times? You know, what's the stock price?

Like there's a certain set of things

that make up the bulk of consumer

energy. And there's probably a certain

set of things that probably make up the

bulk of coding output as well. And so if

you can get that 80% of searches or chat

interfaces or coding requests reduced

down through pruning techniques to

smaller models and then you have a whole

set of smaller models that can be called

dynamically and you reduce inference

cost by 90%. you can make much more use,

call it 10 times the use on data center

and energy capacity than we can today.

So I would argue that we're still in the

very early days of getting efficiency in

terms of output and tokens and we're

just in the very kind of early stage of

that which also unlocks the opportunity

for guys like Elon to reinvent how this

is done and potentially compete pretty

aggressively.

>> There are two ways to win. You could

throw compute at it or you can do SLM's

small language models and V SLM's

verticaliz small language model. So if

you had a verticalized small language

model for the weather, let's say that

doesn't exist, but uh you can you can

use it as an example. They will have one

for travel as an example. When you hit

Google for flight information, it's

obviously going to route you to

something lighter and faster that uses

Google flights. And Google flights has

been incor incorporated into Gemini.

Gemini now is right behind 700 750

million users

>> and it's exactly what we discussed I

don't know 18 months ago on this podcast

Freeberg that what if they put it at the

top

>> and what would that do to their search

revenue search revenue is surging and

they're also surging so they figured out

a way to balance those two competing

forces having search results that are AI

enabled and still getting people to

click on links they've done it

brilliantly apparently and the stock is

rewarding.

>> I'll just add one statement to what you

said, which is like you're using what I

would call a humanistic on

humans don't intuitively know what this

model is. It's not just a verticalized

model, but there are going to be models

that will be discovered through

automated pruning techniques that will

then be working in concert. So, lots of

small models that link together. And we

don't define each model by some human

heristic like this is a search travel

model.

>> This is a maps model. We don't we don't

know why these models work the way they

do when they get broken down. But I do

think that that's really where the

evolution is happening. So effectively a

model becomes a macro model. It's got

lots of smaller models underneath it

that can be dynamically called and that

allows you to have 10x the inference for

the same unit of energy.

>> Sax,

>> let me just build on your point about

Google. Jcal, I would say that if

there's a single reason why OpenAI did

not hit its user targets and its revenue

targets, certainly around consumer,

you'd have to say it's because Google

managed to take meaningful share, you

know, they were basically nowhere a year

or so ago. Sergey came out of

retirement, helped focus the company,

and like you said, they did a brilliant

job improving Gemini and putting it at

the top of search, incorporating it.

Now, that being said, again, I don't

think the news is all bad for OpenAI

because I do think that the 5.5 release

was great. We're hearing really good

things about Codeex. I do think that

Codeex is taking share in coding tokens

right now. And I just think we're in a

really interesting place where these

companies are constantly oneuping each

other. I mean, two weeks ago it looked

like Anthropic was going to be

completely dominant, right? I mean,

Anthropic was growing at 10x. Open AAI

was growing at 3x and it looked like

>> and then the servers started going down.

Did you see that this week? The server

going down. People were in my office

were complaining we can't get on claud.

>> Listen, competition brings out the best

in everyone. Anthropic forced open AI to

compete. Google's forced open AI to

compete in consumer. I just hope the

market stays competitive for as long as

possible. I do think that's what's best

for consumers, our economy, and for our

country overall. Let me just say one

other area where I think OpenAI had a

good week is in this red-hot area of

cyber. Obviously, Anthropic made a huge

splash with Mythos. It hasn't been

commercially released. Their compute

constraint, but as a proof of concept or

training model, it hit a new level of

capabilities with cyber. But now OpenAI

has released a new model called GPT 5.5

cyber which has just been through a

bunch of tests and they've shown this

was testing done by the AI security

institute that GPT 5.5 is the second

model to complete one of their

multi-step cyber attack simulations end

to end. So it has the same level of

capability as Mythos and it does appear

to be commercially

ready. You know, they've got the compute

to serve it. So I do think that that's a

big accomplishment. I mean, look, we

knew that other cyber models were

coming. It wasn't just going to be

Mythos. In fact, within 6 months or so,

all the Frontier models are going to

have Mythos level cyber capability. But

it's impressive that OpenAI got this GPT

5.5 cyber out. so quickly and I think

5.5 might be the first cyber model that

cyber defenders actually get to use

because again I don't think they're as

compute constrained as anthropic is

>> and this is an incredible opportunity

you know for the crowd strikes and

PaloAlto networks of the world both of

which have been on the program they come

out and they start attacking this space

man you could really

see everything get tightened up and this

could be an incredible revenue stream

for everybody who's got whether it's

cursor claude or open eye or Gemini.

This is an amazing opportunity to

tighten up as much as it is to get

attacked.

>> Can I make a point about that? Cuz look,

there is so much fear right now almost

the level of panic about mythos. People

are treating it like a doomsday weapon

or something like that. It's not. is

simply that the frontier models have

reached the point where they're capable

of automating cyber activities just like

they're capable of automating coding.

But that means that a model could power

up a cyber attacker or cyber defender

the same way they can power up a coder

and allow them to discover a lot more

vulnerabilities. So there is obviously a

risk there. But I think it's important

to understand that Mythos or GPT 5.5, it

doesn't create the vulnerabilities. It

just discovers them. The bugs were

already in the code. They were sitting

there waiting for some hacker to

discover. If we can now use AI to find

these bugs in advance, these

vulnerabilities and patch them, then you

actually harden our infrastructure and

and you harden our security. I also

believe that this leap from let's call

it preAI cyber to post AAI cyber it's

going to be I think a big one-time

upgrade cycle because again you're going

to find all these dormant bugs and

vulnerabilities but I think that once we

get past that upgrade cycle you're going

to reach a new equilibrium between AI

powered cyber offense and AI powered

cyber defense it's going to become a lot

more normal it's not going to feel like

this huge disruption which is to say I

think you know people are treating this

as like some existential threat. I don't

think it is as long as everyone does

what they're supposed to do, which is

use the new capabilities to harden their

code bases and infrastructure and

security before the hackers get a hold

of these capabilities.

>> Yeah. And if Chimath, if you were to

look at this to build on Sax's point,

there are about 5 million or so security

experts in the world. We talked about

token cost. 40 hours of tokens just

pounding it, you know, a week. You could

create another five million for a

hundred dollars per chief security

officer per security expert. So it's the

volume of security expert agent saxs to

your point. Yeah. You could have 50 50

million of them 100 million of them.

They're not finding something unique.

They're just they never sleep. They're

relentless in their pursuit of these

problems. It's a really great point.

>> Just kind of just refine that. So yeah,

there's probably 5 million people in the

cyber industry, but there's probably

only a few thousand really elite

hackers.

>> Sure,

>> those hackers didn't have the time to go

after the entire surface area of every

possible attack vector out there. And so

if you train a model to do what they do,

obviously, like you said, it can operate

with a scale and speed that a human

hacker can't. So obviously, you know,

what you need to do is get these tools

in the hands of the white hats, let them

do the cyber attacks themselves to then

find the vulnerabilities and patch them

before the black hats get a hold of

these capabilities. But I think it's

just just one last point on this, I'll

stop. It's just it's really important to

understand that the Chinese models are

going to have these capabilities within

approximately 6 months.

>> Oh, they have them now in Deep Seek 4

for sure. They've got some level. Well,

no. Deepc4, I mean, Dec 4 is impressive

in a lot of ways, but its capability is

not at the frontier. It's maybe 80 80

85%. Let's call it the American

frontier.

>> Chimoff, you wanted to get in on this.

Let's get Chim in.

>> Two things. The reason that this is even

possible is because humans are

errorprone and when humans code, they

create holes. And so, humans exploiting

humans is where we've been for a long

time. Now we have computers exploiting

humans because the computers go and seek

out all these bugs that humans wrote.

In the next phase it'll be machines

versus machines.

And so I think the nature of cyber is

going to completely change. Probably in

the next five or six years there'll be

so much reason to rewrite all of the

software that runs the world.

In one part because you're going to be

asked to show more operating leverage

and revenue growth, but in another part

because everything else that was

handmade in the past is just

fundamentally insecure. Either way, all

roads will lead to all the operational

software that runs the world will get

rewritten. More and more of it will be

written by machines. More and more of it

will be impregnable as a result. But

then the cyber threat actually will only

increase because then you're going to

try to figure out how to use a machine

to inject something into another machine

so that some agentic loop inject some

malware or injects a bad token. And I

think that's a very complicated thing.

What I will tell you is

I'm not even sure if I'm allowed to say

this, but

a very good probably the best cyber

security company in the world run by one

of the very best CEOs in the world who

may or may not be speaking at liquidity

[laughter]

would tell you that they have penetrated

and can essentially

manipulate every model. Let me just let

me just say it roughly that way.

>> Okay, perfect. Yeah. And I uh at the

breakthrough prize uh which three of the

four of us were at I talked to George

Kurtz the other person you were kind of

describing was not that

>> sitting beside Nash. Yeah I'm talking

about

>> Nash and George are the two guys leading

this Palo Alto Networks Crowd Strike and

they understand the what George told me

was there is just a line out the door of

people who want this product or service.

And if you look at it, Freeberg, like

the murder rate, like we're sitting here

with the lowest murder rate in the

history of humanity. It has gone down

massively in our lifetimes, but

massively over the arc of history. I

think that's what's going to happen with

cyber. There is only so many attack

vectors, and the remaining attack

vectors are just going to be human

factors, right, Freeberg? That's always

been the case. And as we make the

software more resilient, then the the

weak link is, you know, the secretary

who puts her post-it note, you know,

with the password there or the

accountant who, you know, uses their

dog's name plus one, two, three for

their password, right? That's the the

historical one. Okay, let's any anything

you want to add, Free Bird, as we wrap

there? Oh, that's

>> Why is your bed so messy, by the way?

Why can't you just ask the room service

to come in?

>> Listen, I'll tell I can tell you what

happened. Listen, I'm here in Atlanta.

And also, why don't you have a suite

like where there's two rooms? Like, is

it just one room? This hotel only has

one.

>> It's just one room. [laughter] Yes.

>> You know, either you're cheap or poor.

Which one is it? I'm cheap. Here's I'll

tell you what. [clears throat] Here's a

situation. I'm in Atlanta for the Knicks

game tonight.

>> You're in one room.

>> Here's what I do. I just want to explain

to you value for value. Some people

spend their money on private jets and

they spend $30,000 flying to Atlanta. I

spend 30,000 on courtside seats. I don't

want the suite. I want to put it into

the seat side.

>> You can do both. I guess I could do

both, too. I don't I'm I'm in the

process of becoming

>> I don't understand

>> of embracing my richness. Okay.

>> If you've already convinced yourself

that you should spend $30,000 for

courtside tickets, which I think is

outrageous, but okay. You've already

convinced yourself like 10k each, but

yeah. Yeah.

>> A hotel room that has two rooms. Okay.

>> Probably cost 15% more than what you're

paying.

>> It's 2x, but yes, you're right.

>> I'll get the I'll get the hotel room. 20

or 20% more, but you room like 200 bucks

a night. So you pay 400 a night. You get

another hotel.

>> I mean it's it's Atlanta. The most I'm

in the best hotel the most expensive

hotel is 500 a night in Atlanta. It's no

big deal. But everything's sold out

because all the Knicks people are coming

here.

>> So you're selling me double that would

have been a thousand and you couldn't

spend,000.

>> Everything is sold out because the

Knicks are here.

>> So we have to look at your dirty beds.

>> It's gross.

>> The bed's not that dirty. Come on. Just

deal with it. Okay. Take it out and

post.

>> I have a private jet story about flying

to Atlanta.

>> You reminded me. Okay. So yeah, there

was some event there. So I I flew my

team there, you know, there's a few

people on my plane and it's kind of a

long flight. Was it like 4 hours or

something

>> from the back? Yeah.

>> Yeah. So I went in the back to to sleep.

Well, first, you know, we we started the

flight and I had a few bottles of Papy

Van Winkle on on the plane. And so we

started off with like a drink and then I

went in the back and and fell asleep and

I woke up basically when we landed.

>> So I come out and like all three bottles

are basically cashed of like [laughter]

Happy Van Wink.

>> Oops. Those were like two grand a

bottle.

>> No, no, they're more. These were like

antique bottles. Like one of them was

>> I have one of those from your plane. I

have one of those from the old Falcon.

Yeah.

>> Yeah. They were like these vintage

>> $4,000. I remember. Yeah.

>> Anyway, you can't even find this

anymore. So these guys, they asked me

like when we land like, "Hey, Sax, how

much did it cost for you to fly us to

this event?" And I said, "Well, about

$8,000 in jet fuel and about $12,000 of

Happy [laughter] Van Winkle."

Well, you gota you got to fuel the the

vibes as well as the plane. It's uh

>> Is Atlanta nice? I've never really

>> Do those people still work for you or

are they are they uh [laughter]

>> they called in Atlanta? Um is Atlanta

nice? Listen, last year I went to the

Detroit games and that city was on the

rebound. Atlanta has an incredible

opportunity to rebound. I'll say it that

way. There's a great opportunity for

them to upgrade the city. I I went to

Waffle House at midnight last night.

There was no shootings. Okay, let's keep

moving. By the way, do you get royalty

points at the Best Western Atlanta or

No, [laughter]

>> I get double points because I use my

Best Western uh Visa card. Yeah, it's

everywhere you want it to be. All right.

Use the promo code Jcal and get a

thousand extra points. In other Open AI

news, Musk versus Alman, the trial of

the century or maybe the decade has

started. Elon is of course accusing Open

AI of breach of charitable trust, unjust

enrichment. He's accusing Open AAI of

essentially flipping a nonprofit into a

for-profit. He's seeking 150 billion in

damages that they revert back to a

nonprofit that Alman and Brockman be

removed. And there were some fireworks

between Elon and the Open AI lawyers.

Elon kind of leveled up the discussion.

He said, quote, "If we make it okay to

loot a charity, the entire foundation of

charitable giving in America will be

destroyed. That's my concern."

Obviously, there's a ton of interesting

nuances here. Specifically, Greg

Brockman keeping a diary where he was

journal maxing his plans uh like a Bond

villain here. And uh the excerpts from

his diary include conclusion, we truly

want the BC Corp. The true answer is

that we want Elon out. If 3 months later

we're doing BCorp, then it was a lie.

Can't see us turning this into a

forprofit without a nasty fight. I'm

just thinking about the office and we're

in the office and this story will

correctly be that we weren't honest with

him. In the end, it's still about

wanting a for-profit just without him.

yada yada yada. Freeberg, your thoughts

on this case? Is Elon going to win? I

just don't know why Greg Brockman's got

a freaking diary where he's like

literally documenting. I mean, I love

the guy, but what the is he

thinking? Like, you're just sitting here

at home and like, let me write about the

the crime I'm committing or let me write

like and let me record it. And by the

way, let me never delete it. I don't

understand this.

>> It's not just journal maxing. It's

discovery maxing. [laughter]

>> It's smoking gun maxing.

>> I don't get it. I don't get it, man.

>> I mean, do you guys remember from the

wire in that scene where the guy's like,

"Is you taking notes on a criminal

conspiracy?" [laughter]

He's got everybody in the room. Can we

play that clip? It's like,

>> "What are you doing, Greg? is you

taking notes on a criminal conspiracy?

What the is you thinking, man?

>> If you're going to commit a crime, you

do not write down the date and time of

the crime in your journal.

>> Well, look, we don't know it's a crime.

Let's not.

>> Okay, sure.

>> A crime, but yes, you keeping

shenanigans. Jamat, do you keep a diary?

>> What do you think, Juel? Do you keep a

diary?

>> I I believe ruminate. [laughter] No,

I'll tell you right now, rumination is

the path to unhappiness. Nobody gives a

about your feelings. Writing your

feelings down is only going to make you

miserable. Talking to your spouse about

your feelings.

>> Just go to a beautiful dinner, sit

courtside at the next, and do what I've

been doing for 30 years.

maxing.

maxing. And the register goes up.

All you have to do is work. Start new

projects. Nine out of 10 foul. Place

nine out of 10 bets. One wins and you're

golden. Go sit courtside at the Knicks

game.

>> Keep going. Life's too short.

>> And just keep moving forward. Don't

write anything down. Period. Full stop.

>> It's good advice. Yeah, I just The

biggest surprise to me was this guy's

got a diary. I just I don't know anyone

that has a diary. I've never heard of

this. So anyway, that was shocking.

Besides that, I have no view on what's

going to happen with the case or what

the judge will do.

>> I have no comment on the case either. I

think it's weird that Poly Market hasn't

budged even as all of this discovery has

been published. It's effectively at 42

or 43% that Elon wins. So, one of the

friends in our group chat said what may

just happen is that Elon technically

wins and he's just credited back the $40

million. And so, maybe that's what this

poll is front running.

But on a totally separate note, I think

Jason, I know you say it as a joke, but

this idea of just keep moving forward,

don't ruminate, I think is very good

general life advice for everybody to

follow.

>> The modern-day therapy industrial

complex and the medication industrial

complex, I believe, is

>> around rumination. Well, it does pivot

around rumination.

>> Yes.

>> That is the gateway drug to all these

things.

>> Yep. Talk about your problems.

You know, when these people go to

therapy, you ever hear these people?

Howard Stern's like, "I've been in

therapy with the same person 2 or three

days a week for 40 years." I'm like,

"Okay, what's the incentive for the

therapist to stop charging you $1,200 an

hour? There is none." Then they lose a

revenue stream. They lose a customer.

It's all a giant fraud. Facts.

Uh, in terms of this case,

>> I wouldn't go that far. I do think that

there's a lot of value in kind of

untying some of these Gordian knots that

people have because of how they grew up.

But there's a difference between that

and being specific and just randomly

ruminating cuz I don't think there's a

lot of productive.

>> You've got an acute issue like in trauma

in your life. Yeah, sure. Unpack it,

figure it out. I'm just talking about

this neverending self-improvement,

you know, ruminating thing. Uh but

getting back on topic here, Saxs,

what's the And we're we're talking about

a jury, I believe, in Oakland.

>> No, but it's a bench trial. This is

important. It's a bench trial where the

jury is advisory in capacity,

>> but ultimately that judge, she will make

the final call

>> and she'll do the damages. And so, is

this a case sacks of like we've got a

Bay Area jury judge and we've got Elon

who's considered, you know, a bit

right-wing and people don't all agree in

that area in terms of his politics. And

then you have this Sam Alman New Yorker

story and people finding out that so

many different people feel they got

screwed by him. You put these two things

together, it's impossible to handicap

where this turns out. Sachs, your

thoughts?

>> Well, yeah, I don't think this is about

politics. I mean, I guess you could

argue that what Elon is seeking, which

is to protect the charity, is if

anything a left-coded sort of principle,

although I don't really think it's left

versus right. Look, I don't want to take

sides on this trial. I'm just watching

like everyone else. The last time I

weighed in on some Elon litigation, I

got deposed for six hours. Remember

that? Cuz they just assume that somehow

I know something,

>> right?

>> I've never talked to Elon about the

case. I don't know anything about it.

>> Yeah.

>> I'm going to see what happens like

everyone else. Now, one thing I I will

say having just read some of the

coverage is that apparently the company

at some point did offer Elon shares in

the company, but he thought that there

was something kind of icky about it. Do

you remember this that

>> Yes. Because at at one point I said on

our show when this dispute started

happening but before it became a court

case I said look if Open AAI at a

certain point decided they had the wrong

structure they should just gone and done

a make right with Elon and he should

have been a shareholder on the cap

table. What I didn't know is that

apparently they did try to do something

like that but Elon turned it down

because he did want the entity to remain

a charitable entity. In other

>> had a principled view of it according to

the reports and was like no we're trying

to save humanity and then you're giving

this keys to the kingdom to Microsoft

that's all come out

>> and I I also have not talked to Elon

about any of this but my guess is like

most of these things there'll be some

sort of settlement or something here but

maybe he takes it to the mat who knows

Judge Rogers who's doing this

61-year-old Obama appointee politics has

played a role. Saxs, they have had to

tell the jury like however you feel

about these individuals politically,

whatever, please put that aside. But of

note is that she oversaw the Epic Games

versus Apple trial over App Store

exclusively ruled in favor of Apple with

some caveats um that they don't have a

monopoly, etc., etc. So, this is going

to be a really interesting one. And I

think the worst case scenario is open AI

for for OpenAI is they have to unravel

this somehow and that would delay the

IPO. That would cause chaos in

shareholders and I guess the best case

is some sort of settlement. And if Elon

put the first 40 or $50 million in, he's

he's due 10 20 30% of the company after

dilution.

All right, let's keep moving through the

docket. Lots more to discuss and uh good

luck to everybody in their lawsuit and

those of you betting on market all-in

summit selling up fast. Our fifth

edition Los Angeles September 13th to

15th. Go to allin.com/events

and uh speakers are going to be top

tier. Apparently Freeberg is having this

as his major creative outlet. I heard

some back channel chimoff today that

he's going to be doing Broadway musical

uh illusionist. tap. I got a tap dancing

situation.

>> He's literally going fullon entertainer.

This is going to be vaudeville sachs

wrapped up. He's just going to take it

to a whole new level. Musical numbers

>> like Nathan Lane.

>> I think if you're coding that it's going

to be his big gay summit. Yes, it could

be a big gay summit.

>> Might be our last year in LA, guys.

>> Why?

>> Not might be.

>> Might be. Oh, everybody wants to go to

Vegas apparently.

Those bones, baby. Can you imagine

leaving the summit for lunch and going

and playing crabs? Jimoth, we get a

fresh. Yes, I can. Yes, I can imagine.

>> I got some bricks. Oh, I got some bricks

right here. Let's go. Yum, yum.

>> That way Sachs can come.

>> Yeah, [laughter] Sax is like, I'm never

setting foot in California, but I will.

You know, we're doing a couple live

events. Are you coming to them?

>> Liquidity or something different?

>> Liquidity. And then there's the the

all-in summit happens in September.

>> Yeah, I'm going to do those, too.

>> All right. Big tech smashed their

earnings on Thursday. Google, Microsoft,

Amazon, and Meta all reported. I don't

know why they do this on the same night,

folks, but they do. And performance was

spectacular. It was great. However, the

capex announcements were really the

story here. Let me just cue this up and

show the chart.

$725 billion in capex guidance in 2026

from but four companies. Amazon,

Microsoft, Google, and Meta. Amazon

leading the pack with 200 billion, 190

billion each for Microsoft and Google,

145 billion for Meta. You add Grock, you

add OpenAI and some other players to

these plans. And we haven't heard from

the new Apple CEO yet, but he's going to

be taking over. And he's going to have

some plans here. I'm sure we are going

to see the large a trillion dollars a

trillion dollars in buildout over the

next year. I don't know if this is even

possible, but this is all being driven

by AI and cloud computing. Google Cloud,

which includes the Google Suite, that

grew 63% year-onear.

Let that number sink in. 63% on 20

billion in revenue. That's in a quarter.

Microsoft cloud, that includes Azure,

Windows Server, SQL Server, they bundled

some things together there to get the

number to go up. Uh that grew 30% on

34.7 billion in revenue. Amazon Web

Services, the original cloud, that grew

28% on 37.6 billion in revenue. That's a

bit of a pure play. Just counts Amazon's

web services. Obviously, these are all

moving to NeoClouds. These are all

serving AI jobs and tokens now. They

have a massive customer base and the

customers from the smallest startups all

the way to the biggest frontier models

cannot get enough compute and it is

going to the bottom line. But this is

shrinking Chimath cash flow massively.

These were free cash flow machines, the

largest money printing machines in the

history of humanity. But they are giving

up on free cash flow, stock buybacks and

dividends and the focus on those three

to invest in infrastructure. Amazon's

free cash flow down 97%

Google, Microsoft and Meta down 12, 12

and 8% respectively. your thoughts on

this free cash flow, the end of the free

cash flow deluge and the massive massive

investment we're seeing in capex.

I think we're seeing a very important

structural shift in the capital markets.

I think the last 20 or 30 years, well 20

years, it's been that the mag 7 just

kind of ran away with it. that these big

companies got bigger and bigger and it

absorbed all of these investment dollars

and the biggest reason was that it had

these very assetike business models,

right? You just built some more software

and it just has all this leverage and it

all just kind of worked except maybe for

Amazon cuz they needed physical

infrastructure for warehouses and

delivery and whatnot. But by and large

it was a very asset light investment

cycle. Now all of a sudden the pendulum

is swinging violently in the other

direction. And there's something that I

think people misunderstand which is as

it moves back to these asset heavy

infrastructure investments.

The hyperscalers are signing checks that

I mean I suspect their body can cash but

there's a world in which they can't.

I'll give you an example. You know when

Microsoft convinced the owners of three

Mile Island to turn their

>> nuclear site back on?

>> Yeah.

>> Do you know what their Ford purchase

agreement was? It was for more than 2x

the prevailing spot rate for energy.

More than 2x. The problem is that's not

for an enormous percentage of their

overall energy needs.

So if you play that out and you think

these five or six companies all of a

sudden are not just spending Jason 700

billion a year of capex which they are

but then from an operating cash flow

they're going to be spending 2x the

prevailing spot rate because they just

want guaranteed demand into the future.

Where's all this cash going to go? It's

not going to go

to the shareholder and it's not going to

stay on the balance sheet. These

companies will now get levered. They're

going to get highly sophisticated around

the financial engineering. They'll have

more debt. They'll have all kinds of

different vehicles and term loans and

revolvers and all of this stuff.

And so, they're going to look like this

big bulky industrial business in five

years. And I'm not sure that there's a

good valuation case to be made at that

point.

And so I think it may be simpler and

this is what I tweeted to just follow

the dollars like a trillion dollars a

year going out of the hyperscalers.

Where is it going? Just follow those

dollars and buy those companies because

those companies are already underpriced.

This is uh obviously reminiscent of

something we all experienced. Uh Nick,

can you pull up the Cisco chart I just

sent you and put it at max? uh we had a

massive buildout of the infrastructure

of the internet in the late 1990s and

into 2000. And what that caused was a

lot of aggressive companies to do

massive amounts of spending, a lot of

retail investors to embrace these stocks

like we're seeing with people trying to

get into these private companies and

saxs. Look at the 2000 peak of Cisco.

This is the most extraordinary chart

ever. It took them 25 years to get back

to that peak and uh they had a lost two

decades and we had a massive amount of

fiber that wound up getting bought. We

talked about that a couple years ago on

the program. But there's something for

you to build off of here when you look

at this massive infrastructure. You

think it's going to be Cisco systems all

over again, World Warcom, etc.?

>> No, I really don't. The issue we had in

2000 was dark fiber. You had all this

infrastructure being built out and it

wasn't being used. There's no dark GPUs

today as you know Brad Gersonner likes

to say. So what's driving the capex now

is the voracious demand for compute for

tokens and the demand is now pulling

forward this additional um investment in

infrastructure. So I think what's

happened here is that the bull thesis

for AI just got validated in a single

afternoon. I mean again you got

Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud, Amazon

AWS, Meta, they're all basically

exceeding expectations, exceeding

guidance in terms of where their cloud

revenue would be and therefore how much

they're going to reinvest in capex this

year. I think we were supposed to have

660 billion of hyperscaler capex up from

350 last year. I think there's now the

new estimate is it's going to be over

700. So this is you know again it's more

than 2% of GDP. This is a huge tailwind

to GDP. There's another article saying

that I think in the last quarter

AI was 75% of GDP growth. And by the

way, this is just the capex part. This

is the physical infrastructure. This is

not the economic impact of the tokens

that are generated inside the token

factory. This is the building of the

factories. How do those tokens get used?

like we're seeing they're being used not

just to do research or to answer

questions but to create code. And so

we're seeing this explosion of

productivity in software development.

And we're seeing an explosion of bespoke

software being created and that's going

to accelerate every part of the economy.

Every business that now wants to get

code will be able to get code for the

first time. Before they couldn't even

hire the engineers, they needed to

generate it. Now they will be able to.

So that is a huge unlock of productivity

across the economy. Then you're getting

into these new use cases like the the

co-working use cases and agents, right?

So the the workflow automations that are

happening, it's still early. I don't

believe that this is going to replace

humans. We had that um in the past week,

we had that crazy case of an agent

deleting a production database in 9

seconds because because of a bug. Look,

what that said to me is that

>> it's not that agents aren't valuable.

They are valuable, but they have to be

supervised. You know, this idea that

you're just going to be able to like

automate all the jobs away. It is a

massive amount of handwaving over the

real technical problems and issues. The

agents have to be supervised. Someone

has to be accountable. It's not going to

be the CEO. The CEO doesn't want to be

accountable for thousands of agents. You

need people

>> despite what Jack had block said.

>> Yeah. Thousand direct reports is a great

like goal, but it's not realistic. Yeah,

>> you need IT people who are savvy who can

supervise this and make sure it's

working. They have to be accountable to

the CEO. Someone has to drive the

productivity. It's like Bology always

said, AI is not end to end is middle to

middle. You have to have someone to do

the prompting and you have to have

someone to do the validating and I would

add the supervision and accountability.

So anyway, the larger point though is

I'm speaking to the fact that I don't

think there's going to be this huge job

loss associated with this productivity

boom that we're going to get. And in

fact, I think what's actually happening

now is that AI is becoming synonymous

with the American economy. I mean, the

fact that it's generating 75% of GDP,

you have this capex explosion, this

energy explosion that feeds it, and

again, just the beginning of the

applications that are being unleashed by

these new token factories. I think it's

all a very, very positive thing. and all

these doomers who are trying to throw a

wet blanket on it or constantly scaring

the daylights out of people. I mean,

what do they want the American economy

to do? Just to stop I mean, they just

don't want any progress. I mean, like

again, you know, when you talk about

stopping AI or halting AI progress? What

you're really doing is stopping the

American economy now. You're basically

saying you don't want economic growth.

AI is now synonymous with the growth of

the American economy. And if there's no

economic growth, there's not gonna be

money to pay for all the social

programs. There's not gonna be money to

pay down the national debt. There's not

gonna be money to basically build up our

national defense. All these things we

want to spend money on. We have to have

a vibrant economy. And that is now

synonymous with AI. So I know that AI

may not be popular. I see those polls.

But having a strong economy is popular.

And I believe that those things are now

synonymous. It's almost like there was

some architect or ZAR who set up the

chessboard in the first year of this to

make sure that it was ultra competitive.

>> President Trump set the table on this.

>> Absolutely. With some good advice, I

think. Maybe.

>> Freeberg, your thoughts?

>> It's always good to have good advisors.

>> Always good to have good advisors.

Absolutely. Absolutely.

>> No, but look, I've said it before. The

president just wants America to win.

>> Literally, there are people who if we

were looking at this, you know, I don't

know, a hundred years ago, it'd be like

people were like, "Yeah, you know what?

we shouldn't build the highway system or

we half built the highway system. Let's

stop let's stop building the highways.

>> No, the highway system was funded by the

federal government. There was no

competition. It was the most expensive

on a on a inflationadjusted basis. I

think it was the most expensive project

in US history.

>> Yeah. And the railroads before that like

you can't stop these things. They have

to keep going. It's interesting point

you know there is so much demand for the

resource of tokens of intelligence

freeberg and it's quite different than

the fiber situation as Sax correctly

points out where we [snorts] built all

this but we didn't actually have an

application here the application is

pretty um pretty wellnown and you've got

a large number of people in businesses

who are trying to vibe code their way to

success trying to push this stuff and we

had an interesting story referenced

earlier in the show

where

uh Claude ate somebody's homework. This

is the nightmare of all nightmares.

Somebody was vibe coding. Uh it was the

founder of Pocket OS. Apparently, they

make software for rental car companies.

He was using Opus 4.6 through Cursor's

AI platform, their coding platform, and

uh you know, which is like the most

expensive tier. Uh and he said he

configured it with enough safety rules,

but the agent was working on a routine

task. They saw some sort of credentiing

mismatch and they decided to fix the

mismatch by deleting a railway volume

without user confirmation and uh they

pushed the code from a repo to a live

app and they deleted everything

including the backups. Literally a scene

from Silicon Valley's HBO clip of Son of

Anton. Hilarious.

>> You gave your AI permission to overwrite

code in the internal file system. Were

you going to tell me about this? No, I

thought that was the company policy

these days.

>> Okay, well, your AI just failed

epically.

>> That's unclear.

>> It's possible the Son of Anton decided

that the most efficient way to get rid

of all the bugs was to get rid of all

the software, which is technically and

statistically correct. But artificial

neural nets are sort of a black box. So,

we'll never know for sure.

>> How did they get that so right, Zach?

Five or six years ago, art and neural

networks are a black box. So, I guess

we'll never know. But technically, it

was correct. Freeberg, when you blow up

a hollow system with your vibe coding,

which you were absolutely showing off in

front of Jensen a couple of weeks ago

about how much code you're pushing, who

are you going to blame? You going to

take responsibility yourself? Are you

going to blame Cla Claude or Kurser? Who

are you going to blame when you blow up

the entire stack over at Ohio?

>> Who you blame?

>> Yeah, I'll blame Dario.

>> You blame Dario. Okay, that's what I

thought. That's a correct answer.

Correct answer. Blame Daario. He's the

one who says it's a doomsday machine.

Uh, come on the prodio.

17th invitio. [laughter]

>> I mean, I've invited the guy like 17

times. He is totally going to me. He

wants nothing to do with this podcast.

>> Actually, let me speak to that. So, I

think I think that um there's maybe a

misperception that this error occurred

because of, you know, quote unquote AI

scheming,

>> like kind of in that video that the AI

decided that the best way to get rid of

bugs is to basically eliminate the

codebase. This is kind of like the, you

know, AI is going to turn the world into

paper clips type thing where somehow

it'll like miss scheme. That's not

really what happened here. This is a

case of just a of old-fashioned bugs

occurring at an edge case. You know,

you've got the fact that this API was

not designed for permissioned usage.

You've got the fact that a credential

was left kind of lying around. Probably

it should not be. There's kind of like a

perfect storm that caused the AI to do

something or the agent to do something

that didn't quite understand it was what

it was doing. I think that if there is a

systemic problem here rather than just

kind of a like a random edge case is

that AI still doesn't know what it

doesn't know. You know, like a human

would stop before deleting a production

database and just say, "Oh, I'm about to

do something like really serious, really

destructive. Am I sure I want to do

this?" You know, and a human would have

stopped and said, "Oh, wait a second.

like I need to be more confident in what

I'm doing before I take that action. And

AI still has this issue where again it

can be kind of overcon. This is where

like the hallucinations come from is it

doesn't know when it should have a low

confidence in its output, right? But

this is why it has to be supervised. You

know, the longer the time horizon for a

task, the more likely it is to go off

the rails.

>> And a drift. Exactly. And this is why I

think people are starting to realize

that this idea of eliminating all

software developers was the peak of

inflated expectations. Yes.

>> Right. There was actually a really good

tweet on this by Aaron Levy who's got

the right take on this. Aaron retweeted

Matthew Glacius who sort of sardonically

tweeted that 5 months in I think I've

decided I don't want to vibe code. I

want professionally managed software

companies to use AI coding assistants to

make more better, cheaper software

products that they sell to me for money.

>> Just lower your prices. Don't make me

vibe code is the translation.

>> Yeah. I mean, I think like rare win for

for Madaglacius there. Anyway, Aaron

Levy then says

Agent Coding is a huge win for software

developers that want to get more done

and it's fantastic for anyone curious to

learn how to start coding. What it's

less great for is casually building

complex software that you have to

maintain on an ongoing basis and take

all the risk for upgrades, maintenance,

keeping up to date with latest security

issues, you know, the bugs, cyber, those

are taxes on most knowledge workers who

aren't familiar with the system.

>> It's not a tax. It's a huge risk.

>> Yes, it's a risk has to be managed if

you don't. People will get fired because

there will be some public companies

where some goofball tries to vibe code

their way out of something and they're

going to torch the enterprise value.

It's going to be glorious to watch

because we're all going to laugh and

realize that was stupid and should never

have happened in the first place.

>> Yeah. I mean, it's there is a chance

that this improves to the point passes

trial of disillusionment and becomes

super productive and you'll be able to

get an agent to do reasonable things

without deleting your data set. But we

have a way to go. Here is your, you

know, this is the tech adoption chart.

Basically, you got a technology gets

triggered. You have the trial, you have

this peak of inflated expectations. You

go into the trial of disillusionment and

then the slope of enlightenment invest

and eventually it becomes deer and it's

an opportunity. Hey, uh, Freedberg,

you have become reddit tide curious. You

have and also

>> tell me tell me about rea cuz I want it.

I want to get on it. M

>> I want to use it and I need you to tell

Nat that it's okay for me to take it.

>> I I have a friend who has some advice as

well.

>> Freeberg, the coverage is coming out of

this phase three clinical trial data

release that Lily put out last month. So

everyone's going crazy over the data

which continues to show pretty amazing

results. So unlike trazepatide which is

kind of Lily's main

product today, it's a which is a dual

agonist. It's got two peptides in it

that that bind to different receptors,

the GLP1, the GIP receptor. This other

one now also binds to glucagon, which is

a third receptor. And that glucagon

receptor binding peptide causes the

cells to increase their metabolism,

which actually accelerates fat energy

consumption

over what would typically be muscle

energy consumption. It's more likely to

burn up fat early on, which causes more

quick fat loss, but also reduces muscle

loss. And some of the other data that's

now coming out shows non-HDL cholesterol

down 27%, triglycerides down 41%.

>> Liver fat down 80% to

>> 80% reduction of liver fat. A1C drops

from 7.9% to 6% in 40 weeks, which is

amazing, by the way. If you're diabetic

and your A1C drops that much in a couple

of months, it's literally a life-saving

product. The average user in this phase

3 trial saw their weight decline from

214 pounds. They lost 37 pounds. That's

compared to six pounds on placebo

in 40 weeks. And you know, modest side

effects. 20% people felt more nauseous

than the people that were on the

placebo. There's a lot of other separate

studies that are being done now that are

showing significant reductions in

inflammatory signaling molecules. So

systemic signaling of like hey cells are

in distress triggers this kind of

inflammatory process that can have a lot

of other damage to your body can

accelerate aging. And so one of the

other conversations is that retride

might actually be kind of a deaging drug

as well.

Hercules, Hercules, Hercules,

you know, and a lot of the studies, by

the way, are done on the the the very

high dose, 12 milligram dose, but you

could probably get this thing dosed down

to 2 milligrams and still see a lot of

the anti-inflammatory

maintenance and other benefits. I'm no

doctor, but people are going nuts over

this being more widely useful than just

for clinical obesity or type when the

FDA when's the projected date for

>> 2027. Mid 27.

>> That's what they're saying. Could happen

sooner. I mean, the data is in the, you

know, the FDA will take their time to

evaluate it, but I think given the way

this is all looking,

>> could happen sooner, could happen

sometime later this year. Swim Chimath

Swim said it's incredible and that uh

it's living up to the hype in their

experience.

>> Who?

>> Swim.

>> What is that? What is that?

>> Someone who isn't me. Swim.

>> Oh,

>> this is a Reddit term. Someone who isn't

me said who has a guy swim has a guy and

has cycled on reddatride and does

push-ups and says muscle gain has been

spectacular

no muscle loss and a lowering of fat.

>> If you go on X and you just search up

rea

>> Mhm.

>> it's like incredible. You see these like

65 year old guys that go from a dadbod

to looking like an incredibly ripped

athlete in weeks. And and I

I mean I'm shocked. And then for me I

don't need that help per se, but my

liver health is important to me. My

cardiac health because I'm South Asian

and it just looks like a wonder drug. I

can't wait. When you starve your body,

when you turn off the the appetite,

which is the GLP-1 agonist function,

normally your body goes into this kind

of mode of starvation and you have this

process by which your body tries to

generate energy from your existing

cells. And because muscle is much denser

than fat, you can have a favoring of

muscle tissue being kind of broken up

over fat tissue. But what this new

agonist, this glucagon agonist that they

put into this neutrutide

is it favors fat burning over muscle

burning. And so that actually can drive

short-term use at low dose for people to

cut weight and maintain muscle and get

ripped. And so that's why a lot of

people in the kind of fitness community

are talking about, hey, I want to get

access to this and get on it for a

while. So you'll see a lot more hype

probably in that community as well as

the all the health effects. It just

feels like we're about to have an

absolute avalanche of peptides to choose

from.

>> On November of 2025, Lily cut a deal

with the Trump administration. I saw

this to drop the price on Drespatide

pretty significantly. I think it's like

50 bucks on Medicare.

>> 50 bucks from Medicare. Yeah.

>> Yeah. Which is a pretty cheap price

point, but it starts to make sense as

you think about the portfolio of Lily

products. You get Tzepide for 50 bucks,

but if you want to upgrade, get the

Retatride. That's the high premium

product and that's where they're going

to start the Mercedes to the Honda. I'm

sure if I'm Lily and I'm sitting there

and I'm looking at this data coming out,

I'm like, "My god, people will pay for

this and that starts to become sort of

like the upgrade to the BMW or the Model

S plat if you will."

>> Yeah. The Trappetide is like the one

bedroomedroom messy bed hotel room

>> and the other one's the sweetide

is like the twobedroom suite.

>> Well, you can also, by the way, you guys

know I'm a spokesman for Row. They also

have the Waggoi pill uh row.co/twist

cotwist uh to get your

>> Wait, are you a paid talking about

[laughter] Are you a paid What are you

talking about? We're putting Charles

Barkley and

>> we're not having sales team

and then you come over on Allin and you

start promoting.

>> No, no, no, no. Trust me, we'll get one

of those as well. We'll get a row.

Sponsorship here.

>> What was the ro pill that you had me

get? What was it called?

>> Oh, sparks. Sparks. Sparks. Did you take

it?

>> I have taken it and now

>> Amore please. No, not

>> maybe just a half of a lousy.

>> I want to hear the story. I want to hear

the story. Go.

>> It's so out of control.

>> I told what I told you.

>> So then what happens is Nat and I are

like, you can't you can't just randomly

use it. It's scheduled. We discuss it.

We put it on the calendar.

>> You need a plan.

>> You need a plan.

>> You need a plan. Can't go in

>> because otherwise otherwise it's too

much. You just can't randomly take it.

>> What do you mean?

>> It's going to be a sesh.

>> It's a whole thing, man. It's like I

don't have the energy for that.

>> It's an extended session. You you have

to be well rested. This don't do this at

1:00 a.m. This is like a 10 p.m. This is

like a No, this is more like a This is

more like on vacation, you know, like

>> 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., you know, to

noon, you know, you got to really

>> you got to really schedule it.

>> Schedule it because kids around

>> otherwise it's got to be empty.

>> Otherwise, it's unfair to her and it's

just a li it's a lie. Put it [laughter]

out.

>> It's a It's a big commitment literally.

>> You You look embarrassed, Jim. Do you

feel embarrassed talking about it? It's

just a lot, man. It's like It's a lot to

handle. It's a lot.

>> It's If you want to get the extra 20% in

your performance,

>> it's a lot, bro.

>> It's a [laughter] lot. It's basically

over time.

>> What happened? What happened was I was

like, "Oh, what is this thing?" Jason's

like, "Dude, you must get it. You must

get it." So, we got it. We tried it and

>> we were like, "What the was that?" And

so, [laughter] then I've been trying to

bleed the pills out. So, I gave some to

Stant Tang. I'm like, "Stanley, you try

it." Literally, he's dealing them like

cards

>> but when we're having poker dinner, I'm

like, does anybody want to try these

things? But these what is it? Rose

sparks. Is that rose sparks? Shout out

to my friends out. All right, let's keep

moving here. Freedberg, guys. Friedberg

had his own personal Super Bowl. You see

me getting ready for Nick's playoff

season. I get my courtside. Freeberg had

the equivalence acts. He went to the

Supreme Court in order to hear them talk

about chemicals. This was a big deal for

him. The Supreme Court coming together.

Did you wear it? Yes. The Monsanto trial

happened in the Supreme Court and he

went he got courtside. He went to the

Supreme Court and listened in the

building. Have you guys ever seen a live

Supreme Court hearing?

>> No. I'd love to.

>> I'd love to. Tax, have you been?

>> No, I haven't actually.

>> I mean, honest honestly, I think it was

one of the most amazing experiences I've

ever had. There was a massive protest

out front. We went through the

marshall's office to get in. And that

building, you walk in, it's like sacred.

It's all marble. It's you're not allowed

to talk. You have to be super quiet when

you're in the building. Like they keep

going like you're in some quiet library.

It's like people treat it with this

level of kind of sanctity that that and

respect. And they're like, there is no

politics here. There is no

There is no freedom of speech. This is

the court. When you come into this

court, the justices tell you how you

will speak, how you will behave, what

you will do, and you will not speak

unless spoken to. You put all your stuff

in a locker, you go up the stairs, you

go into the the courtroom. And the

courtroom, it's just so amazing being in

there. They have this amazing marble

freeze above the justices that has some

of the great people of human history,

Moses and these kind of amazing

historical figures. And then below them

are the nine justices and the court

case. If you guys haven't watched the

case, you can listen to them, I think,

online. on you. Is it worth listening

to?

>> Hold on. Wait, wait, wait. I have a

question. So,

>> does Robert sit in the middle cuz he's a

chief? Yes.

>> And then do all of the right justices

sit on the right?

>> No, they're mixed. So, they're I think I

don't know I don't know the exact

seating, but they're mixed in terms on

appointments of the court. Is

>> that right? I think that's right. And

then so yeah, that's right. And then it

kind of goes out from the middle with

Roberts in the middle. Roberts

occasionally will name the justices and

say, "Hey, do you have a question? Do

you have a question?" if no one's

talking, but otherwise the justices will

jump in with their questions when they

want and they'll ask. Now, honest to

God, watching this is like watching

LeBron James play basketball. These

lawyers are so mind-blowingly impressive

on both sides that you would just like

sit there and I was like in awe. It was

so I I felt like my energy was

completely sapped from me at the end of

this process because you were just so

engaged and so caught into the way that

these guys are thinking and talking.

>> Did you take a rose sparks? Did you take

a rose sparks when you were there?

>> No. And if you're familiar if you're

familiar enough with the case or the

case history or the law that's being

debated because again when when you get

to the Supreme Court, you never debate

the case. What you're debating is the

legal interpretation of the the

decisions that were made on the case.

And so is this constitutional? How do

you interpret this particular act, this

law, this federal law? What's the right

way to think about it? So you don't

actually talk about the case. You talk

about the interpretation of American

law,

of our laws, of our constitution, of the

global.

>> You're saying the facts have already

been determined.

>> That's right.

>> Right. At a lower court, there's

questions of fact and questions of law.

>> The facts have already been determined

by the lower court. It's just Supreme

Court is ruling on questions of law.

>> That's right. And so they have a full

briefing with the full history of the

case. And remember, they only hear two

cases a day. So they're one hour each

for each hearing.

>> So you go in and they only do it Monday,

Tuesday, Wednesday on the last two