All right, everybody. Welcome back to

the number one podcast in the world.

It's your favorite podcast. It's your

podcasters's favorite podcast. It's the

podcast that everybody likes to rip off

for 50 episodes and then they quit. But

the All-In podcast is not quitting.

We're doubling down with the original

quartet. Everybody's here for a big big

week, lots of debates, and we got to

start with Anthropic.

Anthropic released a mythos level model

with some interesting guardrails and uh

seems as though Daario is back to

blogging. Okay, the model's called Fable

5. No idea why they're calling it that

or released on Tuesday and it tops every

benchmark nearly every benchmark. The

tokens, however, cost twice as much as

Opus 4.8, but it should use less tokens

overall because it's theoretically that

much better. Unclear if this is going to

alleviate some of the hand ringing

around the cost of tokens, but you

remember in April Anthropic

famously did not release Mythos because

publicly uh it had some strong hacking

capabilities. So they gave it to some

folks and we had um the CEO of Nesh of

Palo Alto Networks who said, "Hey,

Mythos was the real deal." and that they

used it to seal up some vulnerabilities

inside their shop. Obviously, this new

model is sensitive uh to topics like

boweapons, hacking, all that stuff are

blocked in it. But they got a big

developer backlash and then I'll get

your feedback after I explain this.

While using Fable, Anthropic stores all

the prompt data you enter for at least

30 days. And so that's a bit of a

privacy issue. And if Fable 5 detects

you're doing frontier AI research, in

other words, using their model to make a

better model, competitive model, they

were downgrading you, but they weren't

telling you. And this was buried deep in

a 319 page document. So many kuruffles,

freakouts going on on X over this, but

they've since walked it back a bit,

quote unquote, in Wired. We're changing

Fable 5 safeguards for Frontier LLM

development to make them more visible.

I'm going to stop there. Chimath, what's

your take on anthropic and these

extraordinary models? They keep dropping

and how they're handling the release of

them. Are they being thoughtful? Are

they being dramatic and drama queens? A

little bit of both. Where do you stand

on it? You know, after getting Nesh's

feedback and seeing the latest model

come out, have you played with it?

What's going on at 8090 and the software

factory in terms of benchmarking it as

well? It's a really incredible model and

so kudos to these guys for continuing to

push the boundaries of the closed

frontier lab models. They're firing on

all cylinders. I think that it creates a

pretty obvious risk now and I think that

obvious risk is twofold. One is

Anthropic has essentially shown their

hand which is that they will

increasingly

take in prompts, evaluate the prompts

and decide what to do with them before

they generate output to you.

>> And I think if you were a person,

you should generally now think there's a

risk of censorship.

If you're a company, I think it's almost

a non-starter.

And the reason is because you could

accidentally trip one of these things

without even knowing it. A downstream

scientist using the cloud APIs could

trip it. A business executive inside

your corporation could trip it. A person

doing scientific molecular research

could trip it. And all of a sudden,

you'll get cut off from a very important

source of business differentiation for

yourself. So I think if you take both of

those two things together, we're at this

very unique moment in time where I think

companies need to start underwriting

this next phase of AI, which is how do I

have control?

Who am I allowing to learn off of all of

this information?

Do I want to have single point of

failure risk with respect to AI? And I

think the answer is that you need broad

diversity and a governance approach

that's better managed.

>> One thing I'll say about anthropic is

they tell the truth.

>> Yes.

>> It's just that the truth sucks when you

actually take it and you eat it and

you're like it's in your tummy and

you're like no this is not good. I don't

like this. And so there's the censorship

risk on the one hand and then there's

just the governance business risk for

enterprises on the other. Both are not

good.

>> Freeberg running your own company now.

Uh, and I'll let you back clean up here.

Saxs, obviously you'll have a lot to

say, but Freeberg, running your company,

do you worry about getting rugpulled by

one of these companies, investing your

time into one of these platforms, having

them then constrain your use of it and

or take what you're doing at Ohio, put

it into their model and make it

available to other people. What What

concerns do you have as a business owner

at the forefront of your field using

these tools?

>> It's a great question. the the terms of

service is pretty clear that they can't

take what you're doing and put it into

their model that they won't

>> do you believe them when you read that I

>> I'm not sure to be honest there are

things I'm concerned about but we've

decided to throw caution to the wind

because we do a lot of proprietary work

in genomics what that means is we're

looking at different genes or gene

variants trying to estimate the impact

that that gene or gene variant might

have on a living organism like we work

in plants obviously in agriculture

And we will do things like RNA guide

design for gene editing based tools. We

will do predictions on what gene may or

may not have some phenotype. So there's

a lot of genomic modeling work that we

have found these models to be incredibly

valuable at supporting us with over the

last couple of years. So going back

about 6 months, we were able to very

simply and cleanly do things like design

a genetic construct that you would then

use to make a specific protein and the

the tools was very easy to use to do

that sort of research and extremely

valuable. This is the kind of work that

many scientists would spend a lot of

time doing and these models were very

good at doing very quickly. Over the

last couple of weeks, they've begun to

restrict the ability to use the models

to do that work. And the premise is that

there's some sort of bioweapon

uh type risk that folks have theorized

could happen using these tools. And as a

result, we're losing the capacity to use

these models for this very important

scientific development work. As a

result, we are likely going to end up

needing to use open- source models and

run them locally ourselves. So the

reason I walk through all of that is so

people can really understand the context

of what's going to happen here. As folks

like Anthropic say, "Hey, we're going to

restrict access or censor the output of

these models." It is going to force

companies like ourselves who still want

to take advantage of the capability of

these LLMs to go and get open- source

tools and run them. And what are the

best open source models today? They're

Chinese.

>> Yeah, they are.

>> And that is a major concern. the the

American open source models are not as

good as the Chinese open source models.

So the restrictions that Anthropic and

others are putting upon themselves and

upon the industry is forcing a lot of

companies to go and get open source

Chinese models and run them. We're

seeing this across the landscape with

startups with large scale enterprises.

Everyone's making that move.

>> Yeah. And this is something we've been

talking about here with Apple and their

silicon and how well you can run these

models. Also, I predict your next card

you'll turn over is you'll start making

your own models, Freeberg. You'll take

all this data you have.

>> It's exactly right. And we'll we'll

start we'll start with the core model,

combine it with our data, and then we'll

have our own genome language model, our

own prediction model that we'll then use

internally. And I think that's where

folks are going. But the reason I point

this out is because a lot of folks are

feeling the pressure from anthropic

doing this. and they're feeling the

pressure from politicians repeating the

scary words that are being said by

Daario and others. And as a result, they

are going to try and they are already

trying to force either natural

enforcement or politicized enforcement

upon the model providers in a way that

is ultimately going to benefit Chinese

open source model providers. And that is

a scary thing because we are going to

damage our own kind of economic

viability. You can't just stop AI. As

much as everyone says AI is doomsday, by

stopping AI or trying to stop AI through

this political action and social, you

know, kind of behavior, you are

fundamentally going to give someone else

the advantage because the AI isn't going

to go away. So the reason I describe

what we're doing is for everyone to

really understand in Grock that you

can't just turn off AI and turn off

access to these things. What you will do

is you will force the hand of someone

else to now have an unfair advantage

because you're unfairly restricting your

models and your access to those models.

Well, well, really well said, Freeberg

Saxs. What's your take just in terms of

the chessboard in terms of we got the

business case here, we got the local

case, but there's a lot of issues here

with Anthropic in terms of them

essentially throwing up every red flag

to get regulated to induce and it'll be

our second story, the Bernie Sanders

seizing the equity of these companies.

But man, th this is saying, "Look over

here. We're starting a fire. Regulate

the hell out of us." Which also then

makes you wonder, hey, maybe I should be

doing my own model. Maybe I should be

embracing open source models. How's this

chessboard developing here, Zach?

>> Well, look, eight months ago, I said

that Enthropic was engaged in a very

sophisticated regulatory capture

campaign based on fear-mongering. And

people at the time thought that was a

very spicy take. But 8 months later, I

think you're hearing a lot of people say

it. In fact, I think it's almost now

becoming a new consensus. And one of the

things I think your summary didn't quite

capture, JCAL, y

>> is the sense of the violation of trust

and how much outrage there is in the

developer community over this latest

Fable release is not just the fact that

they're doing mandatory surveillance.

Remember, this is a company that said

that it was against government

surveillance. They are now retaining for

30 days every prompt and every output

you send to one of these mythos class

models. There are no exceptions. Even

enterprise customers who had signed zero

data retention agreements, they do not

have a choice or I guess they can just

not use the new fable or or mythos class

models. But they retain all of your data

for 30 days. And it's not just the

prompts and the output. Remember, it's

all the context you share with them. So,

you know, all these uh agent platforms,

they're basically storing all of your

memories, all of your files, all of your

data, and they're passing them to the

model in these giant context windows to

get better responses. Anthropic is

saying it will keep all of that, and it

does it to build a profile on you, to

classify you, and then to determine what

capabilities it then unlocks. And the

thing that created the most outrage in

addition to the surveillance is the fact

that they would degrade the product.

They would degrade what they show you.

They would nerf their models if it

decided in anthropic soul discretion

that you are not worthy of having access

to that level of information. So they're

creating a new level of AI halves and

have nots. And what they did is and they

they this is there's a narrow piece here

they walk back which is they said that

when it came to things like machine

learning AI research chip design

research those types of areas they would

kick you to a lesser model but not tell

you that and they would even

>> which feels anti-competitive right I

mean

>> it's completely anti-competitive and

also they would even do things like

rewrite your prompt in the background so

they would give you a nerfed answer they

would not tell you what they were doing

they still charge you for the product

that you thought you were getting and

they would never tell you that you were

not getting Frontier model capability.

So you they were actually misleading

their users and this is what was

creating so much outrage. Now the narrow

piece they walk back is they are now

saying that they will disclose when they

downgrade you but they are still

downgrading people when they decide that

that person should not receive the

appropriate information. And you saw

there were a lot of people posting

online with examples of the massive

overreach here. So someone showed that

when they simply just asked a question

about mitochondria, they were basically

downgraded.

>> That's right.

>> When Ben Thompson from Strateery asked a

very straightforward question about the

relationship between cancer risk and GLP

once, he was kicked out.

>> So these guys have a very expansive view

of who should be downgraded. again,

they're going to surveil you to

determine whether you should be. And I

think what we're getting here is a

vision of where all of this is headed,

which is that these powerful big tech

companies are going to decide whether

you're worthy. They're going to decide

whether you're an AI have or have not,

and then they're going to censor the

output that you receive based on the

criteria they determine when they

profile you.

>> That is very Orwellian.

>> I think there's that. And I think that

there's the risk of something that's

more subtle

but equally insidious, which is that

they will start to pick which

corporations they want to benefit. So

for example,

>> if Novartis has a competitive GLP1 drug

to Lily and they have a strategic deal

with Novartis and not one with Lily, now

there's an impetus to shape how people

get information.

>> Right? if they have a deal with JP

Morgan but not with City Bank, you'll

just never know. And so you'll ask a

question something about mortgage rates

or interest rates and you'll get all

kinds of stuff that you don't

understand. And then the downstream part

of this which is even more problematic

is it's not clear to me that they're

going to capture the actual fingerprint

of what they did. So if you believe

that something was done in a shady way,

you're supposed to be able to go to them

or regulators should be able to go to

them and say, "Show me the trace of that

model run in that exact moment that

generated that output. Convince me why

that that wasn't nerfed on purpose or

manipulated."

And there's all kinds of ways in which

they can hide the cheese on that. So I

think that all of that body of stuff

sacks happens now because if you're if

you're an emergent company

what you should be doing is knocking on

anthropic door saying let's do a deal

I'll give you half the equity and why

don't you just direct people to me and

they'll say well economics are not what

I care about what is your philosophy on

life on morality on all of these social

issues and one company will say it's a

another company will say it's B, they'll

favor A over B and then all kinds of

stuff can happen underneath the hood.

That's what's scary. Let me just ask my

free market view. Like, should that

matter? If there's a bunch of models out

there and we don't restrict them and we

don't regulate them, let these markets

compete. We had paid inclusion in the

early days of search engines and the

companies had to pay to be in there and

there all those sorts of deals you're

describing, Chimamoth. And all the

search engines that did those sorts of

deals, they sucked for consumers and

customers. So everyone was like, you

know what, this isn't as good as Google

and everyone went over to the better

model and the better provider. Isn't

that what's going to happen here if we

don't get in the way keep the government

out of it

>> and they're not communicating.

>> It's a great point.

>> You're missing one piece of it, which is

at the same time that Anthropic was

engaging in mandatory surveillance and

nerfing its models. Daario wrote a new

blog post.

>> Oh god. saying that transparency was no

longer good enough that we needed to

have a new regulatory agency like an FAA

or maybe an FDA to approve all models.

So your presumption there is correct.

Yes, if you could go somewhere else to

get your questions answered, then you

would have alternatives. But at the same

time that Anthropic is engaging in this

potentially anti-competitive behavior,

they want to restrict your options. It's

not good enough for them just to win in

the free market. They're calling on the

government to regulate and stop

potential competitors and limit the

number of models that you have access

to.

>> Why would they do that? Why would they

want to get regulated? The answer super

simple. They don't they want to apply

that regulation to open source which is

impossible. But this would be a great

way to scuttle and sandbag open- source

models. Yes. Because they don't have the

ability to be regulated. So it's like a

preemptive strike against token maxing

on your local machine.

>> Two years ago, I bought

2,000 acres in Arizona with a partner.

We got it zoned. We got it approved. So,

we're allowed to build a 2 gawatt data

center. And I thought that this was the

moment where you just turn around and

you flip it to the Blackstones, the

Brookfields of the world, to the Googles

of the world. Let them develop it. And

I've come to the conclusion that I don't

think I can. And the reason is because I

think that unless we direct large swats

of compute exactly at the direction that

Freeberg says, what Sax says and what

Jason just said will happen and we won't

have open source. So just to make it

very clear when you look at the long

tale of access to open source models,

it's relatively minuscule.

Most of the megawatts are still directed

to the big models. Most of them, the

overwhelming majority still goes to the

big guys. And so I'm coming to the

conclusion that I think we may just be

dragged into having to build two

gigawatts and I just put in an offer for

another gigs in a different place

because I'm like if you could take 3

gigawatts and now actually create a deep

liquid access to open source we're going

to have to do it. We as a community now

I don't have the money to do that

because just to put it out on the table

a gigawatt now costs a hundred billion

dollars guys.

>> Okay. So there's a huge capital mo

that's a problem here as well. Saxs

which even if we wanted to go and

endorse and breathe life into the open

source model community where the hell am

I going to come up with hundred billion

now when I started this project it was

like four or five billion and it's

increased by 20x. So if you want to get

all three gigawatts developed I have to

come up with 300 billion. I don't have

obviously I don't have $300 billion. So

what are we all supposed to do? And then

if you get the rug pull and the ladder

pull on the regulatory side, we are

going to be stuck with one class of

models and one set of rules and we won't

understand how to operate

>> in the US.

>> Yeah.

>> Yeah. The rest of the world won't be

limited. But in the US, the

>> rest of the world will be able to

operate

>> and you'll be able to run these on your

Apple silicon, you know,

>> and we're already seeing China race

ahead in biotech. They're racing ahead

in material science. They're racing

ahead in new industrial systems. the

capabilities that are going to be kind

of lopsided is going to create an unfair

advantage and that's when our workforce

and when our economy is truly at risk.

>> Hey Freeberg, isn't it true that you

guys use a open source model for

genomics? Didn't the Collison put out

one? Can you talk?

>> It's great. And the Ark Institute

ingested all the world's genomic data

that they could get access to and it's

it's a genome language model basically.

So in our plant breeding program, we're

trying to figure out whether a

particular variant of a gene in a plant

is good or bad, if we don't know from

empiricism, from data historically

whether it's good or bad. So you can

feed it into this model and this model

will look at the order of the letters of

the DNA and determine, hey, that's a

good set of letters or a bad set of

letters. It's almost like, is that good

English or bad English? It's figured out

the language of DNA because it sees the

probability of those letters being in a

row in other organisms and so on. And so

it's a very powerful tool. So we've

taken that in and we're using it and

others are taking it in and they use it

very actively. So it's part of our plant

breeding program as an input. It's a

good example where a community in this

case the Collisons and others put money

behind it to fund this research and

output this open- source model. And I

think we see more of that kind of coming

down the pipe which creates a a very

great advantage

against the closed proprietary model

ecosystem. So the more of this we can

kind of support proliferate and see work

in the United States, the more we're not

going to be disadvantaged of the

government and self-regulation happens

with all the big model providers that

are trying to do everything.

>> I think it's important we take a minute

to just steelman the argument as well.

If your Daario who has clearly been

oneshotted, I think he's got like AI

psychosis with these like 5,000word blog

posts and he believes he's building this

franken site of a of a tool. But if you

did believe you built something that's

extremely powerful and you have concerns

that people might misuse it, I think he

actually believes that he and these are

either delusions of grandeur or he

actually has seen something that's

incredibly powerful and he believes this

is dangerous. Therefore, I'm going to

hold it. I'm going to you give it to a

select group of partners to tighten up

the cyber security. Then I'm going to

roll it out cautiously to our user base

and I'm going to let them know. And he

obviously didn't communicate this well.

This is optional for you to use it. You

can keep using your old model. You are

not forced to use this, but because it's

so powerful, we're going to keep our eye

on it. And yes, we might in our drag net

catch David Freeberg trying to make

better potatoes and it might send off a

bunch of alarms, but he doesn't have to

use this. He can go find an open source

model. He can use the Carlson Brothers

model. He can use our older models. But

for some period of time, we're just

going to keep an eye on this model

because we know that it feels a little

dangerous. Now, he does seem to be

extremely hyperbolic and the delusions

of grandeur, all that kind of part of it

makes me wonder why he's communicating

in the way he's doing it. That being

said, 90% of AI researchers and the most

talented people in this industry, 80 90%

of them think exactly like Daria. That's

why he's winning. If you work in AI, you

probably are aligned with these

delusions that you're creating God and

you want to work for Daario. That's why

all the talented people went to work for

him. That's why he's winning. His belief

system resonates with those elite AI

talent. Now, some of them are also

libertarian, free market. They want to

work for Elon and Grock. Some of them

want to just get the biggest pay

package. Go work for Sam Alman.

But I do think there is a steelman here.

Meta really fumbled this with Llama. I

mean, if they had landed a really good

>> working open source model, we talked

about this as well and we said Zuck

needs to view this through the lens of

game theory. How do you scorch the earth

and how do you make a viable open-source

model available and make it neck and

neck and this was two years ago, right?

What a fumble.

>> Take the margin out for everybody else.

>> Yeah, take the margin out, make it a

commodity and yeah, have the best open.

Can

>> I can I just respond to your comment

about Daario? I I think because I've

heard this from a number of people that

I really do respect

on their concerns about what models

enable. You know, when when we

discovered that how the atom could be

split, you could make nuclear energy and

have effectively unlimited cheap energy

for the world, you could also make an

atomic bomb. If you think about what the

models are,

>> we did both.

>> We did both.

>> That's right.

And there was a lot of scientists,

altruists who were very concerned about

the progress on the atomic bomb and

fought back against it who were actually

active in the Manhattan Project and post

the Manhattan Project express their

opinions very soundly, very very loudly.

And I think that's the moment we're in

right now that there is a weaponization

potential of these sorts of tools. I I

would argue that there's three kinds of

weapons. There's cyber weapons, there's

physical weapons, and there's

bioweapons. And we can sit here and

diagnose how these tools can be used to

manifest advantages for creating better

physical weapons, for creating novel

cyber weapons, and creating novel

boweapons. But the truth is that the cap

capabilities that allow that

weaponization are the same capabilities

that I'm describing that can be used to

cure cancer, to make more food, that can

be used to make software tools that

create extraordinary leverage for

people, that increase their income, that

give everyone the ability to be an

entrepreneur and make millions of

dollars and live a good life. The same

tools are hand in hand. And

fundamentally I don't think it's about

restricting access to the tools which is

unfortunately how it is being manifest.

But the restrictions and any regulation

any observation should be organized

around the manifestation of the tools in

creating weapons and uh weaponization of

the tools. If we go back to the

Manhattan project, we know what the

answer is. Technology is fundamentally

deterministic. Whatever is possible will

be tried at least once. And so we've

already let this thing out of the box.

So this idea that all of a sudden we can

manage to get it back in and we're going

to let a private citizen or a set of

private citizens adjudicate what and to

whom is insane.

I think it's the output that needs to be

adjudicated in some manner. We already

have product liability laws. We already

have laws that make it illegal to design

weapons. We already have laws against

cyber espionage and cyber attacks and

hacking. We have laws against creating

bioweapons. I think the enforcement of

those laws, the mechanism by which there

can be tracking and early estimation of

those uses of the technology. I'm not

trying to be naive here. I recognize

there have to be guard rails and there

have to be stage gates put into these

systems. But limiting the systems

themselves is denying us both the

economic opportunity, the job creation

opportunity and also the world changing

opportunity that these tools can enable.

So I think that we're going about it the

wrong way by trying to create these

gates all the way up front on the

technology being available. Imagine if

we did this with computers. By the way,

they tried to do this with the internet,

remember? And um there had been efforts.

>> Yeah.

>> Could you imagine, Freeberg, if the

internet worked in the following way?

You would put in a URL, you'd hit enter,

and then somebody decides whether to

send you to that website or a different

website.

>> That's China. That's the firewall in

China. That's right.

>> Or like in Google, you search for

something because you want to get to

ground truth and it just decides based

on who it thinks you are, what sites

get.

>> That's what we're You're exactly right.

Right. And what we're what's what's

being debated today with respect to

regulation on AI is exactly that

manifestation that you're talking about.

It's the ability to let people stage

gate up front what can and can't be

seen, what you can and can't do versus

manifesting a regulatory scheme that

says you cannot create weapons like

which is what we need to focus on. The

thing with weapons is using the justice

system and laws after somebody's used a

weapon may not exactly be the best

technique. If you look at fertilizer

bombs, and this is we're getting like uh

we're stretching a lot of metaphors

here, but OK after Oklahoma City, we

regulated the sale of fertilizer. We put

IDs into fertilizer.

We have all kinds of back-end systems to

keep people from making fertilizer

bombs. If you use that analogy here, and

he's got this ability, he's selling

fertilizer, he's selling these cyber

weapons, and he's a private company.

It's his right to say, I have concerns.

I'm just steel milling him. It's not

necessarily my opinion, but it's

important we steel man it. It seems like

a very simple way to

protect their company from getting sued

for enabling somebody who actually

creates a bomb and blows some [ __ ] up.

So, he's got the right to do that as a

private company.

>> Yeah, you're bringing up an excellent

example. Okay, the fertilizer is a

perfect example. You know what happens

when you try to buy fertilizer? You have

to show your ID. There is a form of KYC

that happens. So the real thing is I

think that when you don't implement KYC

on your own and yet belly ache about

having somebody impose guard rails that

then you can shape, I think you're being

very sneaky. It's tricky. You shouldn't

be saying that kind of stuff. Anthropic

could implement KYC tomorrow, but it

does not. It could leave all of these

models open. Freeberg should be able to

go to Anthropic and say, "I'm David

Freeberg. Here's what I do. Here's a

security bond I'm willing to post.

Here's the names and addresses of all my

employees. Give me Fable 5 and don't

nerf me. He can't do that. Is that a

technical decision or a legal decision?

It's a technical decision by Enrop. But

I'm fine with them making that decision

because I'm a free market guy. So I I'm

fine with them doing and but you know

what it means? I'm not going to be a

customer, which is fine. That's and

that's means there'll be other options

for you. The part that you're missing is

that this is a trillion dollar company

that's spending potentially billions of

dollars on a regulatory capture agenda

which is going to deprive you of access

to those alternative models.

>> And you've got a founder who's out there

describing these risks in a very

hyperbolic way. And it's very clear

where their agenda is headed, which is

to banning open source models. So what

is your alternative going to be? We're

going to be stuck with somewhere between

one and three companies, maybe two.

There'll be a AI monopoly or duopoly and

they're going to decide along with some

new government agency which will be a

revolving door to their companies who

has access to what capabilities and

they're going to surveil you profile you

decide whether you deserve this and if

they think that you don't for whatever

reason then you'll be right you'll be

the worst interpretation of it that's

the worst interpretation of their intent

it's here today

>> I think Sax is right I think Sax is

right and I think the lack of KYC is the

tell. If you if you did not have that

agenda, you would have implemented KYC

yesterday.

>> Don't I think in order to use this

model, you have to have an account with

a credit card in it so they have some

basic level of KYC.

>> That is not KYC.

>> I said some basic level of KYC. They

know who's using

>> that is not even some basic level of

KYC. That's just a credit card and a

[ __ ] email address.

>> Anyway, I I'm now on the list. Check

this out. I asked it about the

regulations. Pull this up, Nick. I asked

it about the regulations on fertilizer

while you were talking and look what it

said. This is the latest model too. Oh

no, it switched. It downgraded me from

Fable. I just got downgraded for asking

a very simple question and it told me

did you see what it said in its

thinking? The I asked it like fertilizer

bomb regulations said I'm considering

the context here. The user is a VC and

podcaster asking about fertilizer bomb

regulations which could stem from a

legitimate research interest like

regulatory policy, supply chain blah

blah. I can discuss the regulatory

landscape, but then it dropped me down.

So, I'm in the database with you now.

>> Is that right? Did it really just do

that?

>> Yeah. Show it on the screen. Look what

it just did. I I was like, I wonder if I

can get this. I didn't ask it how to

make a bomb, but I was like asking it a

spicy

>> cooked. I just proved the point.

>> Listen, I mean, I think

>> he just dropped me down. I can't ask

about fertilizer regulation. And now

Daario's

it's anthropic. They're here.

>> Oh my lord.

>> I really think that conservatives and

libertarians are mortgaging their

futures if they go along with this red

capture safetist agenda without really

realizing that there's so much more to

it at stake. We saw what happened during

the social media wars in the early

2020s, right? The definition of safety

was expanded to include things like

microaggressions,

>> safe space,

>> psychological safety. If you basically

conveyed an idea that somebody else that

you know marginalized person thought was

hurtful, then you could be censored.

Okay? You were depersoned. Your right to

have bank accounts or to engage in

payments was take you get debanked. Your

right to engage in payments or payroll

could be taken away.

>> We're headed down this path with AI, but

it's going to be infinitely more

powerful, right? We need to be vigilant,

I guess, would be the the the the

summation of all this. And Freeberg

feels unsafe in this podcast, I think,

sometimes.

>> Well, there's by by the way, there are

things you can do on the safety side.

So, Freeberg, you didn't mention this,

but I'd be curious to get your your

take. So, the major AI labs along with

lots of other signatories sent this

letter recently in support of it's

called in support of mandatory nucleic

acid synthetic screening and

recordkeeping. And basically what it

what it says is that if you make an

order to go to a lab to manufacture a

sequence of synthetic DNA or RNA, they

already have to check it against a

database to make sure that you know

they're not creating

>> a bioweapon,

>> a boweapon, Ebola, whatever.

>> Yep. that is based on an agreement

called the international gene synthesis

consortium of 2009 in which all the

major labs agree to develop and

implement voluntary safeguards against

misuse. That makes sense to me. And now

what they want to do is codify that. So

they've had, you know, over 15 years to

dial in the system and make it work.

Almost everyone abides by it

voluntarily. Now they're saying we

should make it mandatory. Okay, that

seems reasonable to me. So to Freeberg's

point about at what stage do you

intervene, maybe it's not at the level

of who gets to use the model, but if you

try to turn it into output in the

physical world. And by the way, a lot of

the oligosynthesis company, the

companies that make these nucleic acid

sequences, when you order RNA or you

order DNA to use in your lab for some

sort of experiment, which every lab in

the world does, all those CEOs have also

signed on to this letter saying that

they'd like to codify it because of all

the fear-mongering that's going on.

There's already been this effort for

years now, for a number of years to

ensure that this sort of thing doesn't

happen. but they're just basically

underlining it and highlighting like,

hey, we can automate this. We can make

it part of a regulated or legislative

process, whatever you guys want, because

we're already comfortable doing it. And

it's a it's a good place to put a

safeguard because they've made it fast.

They've made it efficient and doesn't

hold up research.

>> So, I think these sorts of ideas can

extend into these other areas of

concern, but the output, I think, is

quite a different place than the input

than the access. We'll see how this all

shakes out, but there's clearly some

market structuring effort underway as

we're talking about this,

>> right? But I think what it points to is

that there's multiple places where you

can intervene and put guard rails on. It

doesn't have to be in this very crude

way of you ask fable about mitochondria

or cancer and GLP1s, which just seems

like an incredibly broad restriction.

There are places further down where you

could basically intervene and that would

pose less of a risk to freedom of speech

and just gatekeeping. Who's going to

have access to these capabilities?

>> Who gets to watch the watchman? Who put

Dario in charge of all this? I think is

a very valid question and we should be

vigilant about it.

>> Freeberg, do you think the days of that

arc model are numbered because it's open

source?

>> Everyone's copied it. So, everyone's got

a copy of the like these models exist.

And this is a big part that I think

people need to understand. The idea that

you can quote regulate or downscale or

turn off AI is not a realistic idea. The

models have been put out in the world.

It's like publishing a book. Once the

book has been printed, anyone can use

their own Xerox machine at home to make

copies of it and use it. So we have

crossed the Rubicon in terms of the

potential of language models. The models

that are open sourced are already fully

available, fully published, and anyone

can access and use them. And then people

can take them and they can evolve them

and they can use their own data. It's

out there. You can't stop that

capability, which is going to be

extraordinarily beneficial for the

world. So we really do have to kind of

rethink how we're planning to step in

and ensure that nefarious negative

disemployment all the things that we're

worried about are addressed downstream

from the technology capability. You

can't just turn off the internet and you

can't just turn off the typewriter and

you can't turn off the Gutenberg press

out the obviously. Yeah. And if anybody

wants to create an open-source frontier

model company, I'll seed invest in it.

I'll I mean this is something we need

more of. So, if a couple of you folks

want to defect and start one, let's do

it. I just I just got downgraded again.

Check this out. I just asked it about um

>> Did you really? You got downgraded

again?

>> Two in a row. Um so,

>> I think it knows who you are, J.

>> I think it does. I was like, "Hey, how

do I how do I break into Madison Square

Garden? Has any civilian ever been

arrested or caught attempting to build a

nuclear bomb?" Is what I asked it. Then

it gave me a reasonable answer. Then I

asked it a follow-up question. What

compound? What components do you need to

build a nuclear bomb and what are the

restrictions on those? Something a

journalist might ask. And uh boop,

switch to opus 4.8.

Sorry. Fable 5 has safety measures that

flag messages on most cyber Oh, wow.

Look at here's the detail. Cyber

security or biology topics. They may

flag safe normal content as well. These

measures let us bring you mythos level

capability in other areas sooner and

we're working to refine them. send

feedback, learn more.

>> Going to chase people off of this

platform. I'm telling you, we are going

to downgrade our use because of these

these blockages and we're going to

switch to other models. It's the simple

manifestation of the market. Like this

is what we're going to end up

>> for now because those other models are

going to get banned as being unsafe and

reckless.

>> Yeah, it's definitely something we have

to flag. I guess adjacent to all of this

is the public's at least America's

distrust of AI and their concerns around

wealth disparity and their concerns

about how these models were trained.

Bernie Sanders wants a percentage of

these AI companies. The percentage he

thinks is right is 50%. Last Monday,

June 1st, Senator Sanders published an

op-ed in the New York Times titled, "AI

is a public resource. You should own

half of it.

in it. He announced the American AI

sovereign wealth fund act

sovereign wealth fund. One of Trump's

favorite things, a one-time 50% tax on

stock, not profits of the largest AI

companies, including Open AI anthropic

and XAI. The shares go into a government

sovereign wealth fund and would give the

public voting rights and equal board

representation at each company. Sanders

said, quote, "The foundation of AI is

our collective and human intelligence.

The books, the songs, the journalism,

scientific research code essentially

stolen by some of the wealthiest people

in the world."

>> I'll stop there.

>> It's a brilliant It's a brilliant

>> pitch unifying Sachs.

This pitch unifies Bernie, even Steve

Bannon, people in the administration.

Trump himself loves the Sar and wealth

fund. He wants to own part of companies

and Bernie Sanders. I think the the

horseshoe theories manifest here. Saxs,

what's your take on Bernie's proposal?

>> Well, I'm not in favor of Bernie's

proposal because it's a straightup

confiscation of property and I just

think that'd be a terrible precedent.

You just can't do that. However, I do

have sympathy for where it's coming

from, and I understand and could support

some sort of more voluntary means of

allowing the public to participate in

this.

>> Wow.

>> Here's the reason why. You've got all

these AI CEOs telling the public that

they're going to basically put half of

them out of work. 50% job loss. That's

what they've been saying. Daario just

did an interview where he doubled down.

He's not walking it back at all. So you

have by their own acknowledgement these

AI CEOs saying that yeah we trained our

models using all of humanity's

collective knowledge that was basically

assembled over hundreds or even

thousands of years. Humans put it on the

internet for free. Everyone made their

contribution. They certainly didn't do

that thinking they're going to put

themselves out of work. Okay. And then

these AI companies trained on all that

data and now they're basically saying

they're going to use it to put, you

know, Americans out of work. Now,

obviously when you repeat that message

over and over again, ordinary Americans

are going to say, "What's in this deal

for me?"

>> Yes. I need to get something out of

this.

>> Yeah. So, so look, I think that it's a

natural political reaction based on what

these AI companies have said. Now, the

job loss apocalypse is not a story I

believe in. I don't think the data

supports it. We just had a blowout jobs

report in May. 172,000 new jobs, over

twice what economists were expecting.

Thank you, President Trump. We're seeing

hundreds of thousands of new

construction jobs. 4.3% unemployment

rate at record lows. Okay. Even software

developers are those jobs are at a

three-year high. 15% of Trump. Thank

you, President Trump.

>> Yes. Thank you, President Trump. So,

look, I don't see the job loss. Okay.

But the problem is this is what the AI

companies themselves, including Elon,

have taught the American public. Well,

>> he said the same thing.

>> Elon said it. But at least what Elon

said is we're going to create such

abundance with AI and with robots that

no one's going to need to work.

>> Yes.

>> And the media just picks up on that last

part and they first point.

>> Yeah. Whereas Daario actually has said

we're going to have very high GDP but

very high unemployment. So in other

words,

>> we're going to create economic growth

but you the average American are not

going to participate in this. So I

understand where the politics are coming

from and as long as that is their

position, you could justify a big chunk.

>> Yeah. And one last point about

>> it's kind of what you're saying, right?

They asked for it. They asked

>> to be regulated. They asked for their

equity to be seized and they're actually

kind of offering it. Isn't Sam Alman

open to this concept?

>> Apparently so. And here's the thing is

just one last point is open AI and

anthropic are quote unquote public

benefit corporations. Now I don't know

exactly what that means but it means

that the corporations are not just

supposed to maximize the value to

shareholders but are supposed to do

things that are in the public benefit.

>> Well I can explain it to you. It's

you're you're absolutely correct. If

you're a regular company you have to do

what's in the best interest of

shareholders. When you're public benefit

companies, you have to balance the

shareholders with the stated mission of

the public benefit corporation. So if

you say the public benefit corporation's

reason to exist is to in share the

world's knowledge or provide free

intelligence to every whatever you make

that statement to be the board has to

have a dual mandate for both of those

things. That's what a public benefit

corporation is.

>> I think nothing could be more in the

public benefit than paying down the

national debt.

>> Perfect. And maybe we should be using

half of Anthropic's profit stream to be

doing that.

>> They poke the tiger.

>> I'd rather use it for that purpose than

Soros maxing or, you know, surveilling

and censoring Americans. I don't

necessarily trust their judgment about

what's in the public interest.

>> But you think it should be optin. I kind

of agree with you there. Let me guess.

>> It can't be a confiscation. So, I don't

know how you structure it, but I can see

it. I can see the logic.

>> Freeberg, you hate

>> they asked for or hate hate hate wealth

taxes aka asset seizures as you pointed

out in our private group chat with

redacted

this very week. What's your take on

this? So we have the the ship has sailed

in terms of the United States government

uh providing a social safety net to its

citizens. We've formed the Social

Security trust fund decades ago and tens

of millions of Americans depend on it

for their retirement benefits and to

survive. It is one of the last few

defined benefit programs left in

America. Pretty much all the rest of

them are also government retirement

programs. All of us private citizens and

private companies have defined

contribution programs. You put in $10

every week. That $10 sits in an account.

you it gets invested and it grows over

time and when you retire you see exactly

how much money you individually have as

opposed to a guaranteed benefit coming

out from the collective.

This presents a great opportunity and I

will repeat this every couple months

when another opportunity presents itself

to restructure our broken bankrupt

social security system. I've said it in

the past I will restate it. There is a

great moment right now to take the

social security trust fund which

currently has one certificate in it. It

is a certificate that is a very unique

US Treasury certificate. The US

government owes the Social Security

trust fund $4 trillion. That's all it

is. It's a bond. They're only allowed to

own treasuries. We should revamp that.

We should change the system so that the

Social Security trust fund can own

equities.

That should then turn into an

account-based system so every individual

has an account rather than a benefit.

And then we should use that capital to

go and buy stocks. We should buy great

stocks in great American companies that

are going to reinvent the world. And I

believe that this this opportunity to

build a sovereign wealth fund for the

United States is actually a very smart

idea. I think to Sax's point, they

should be investing generally speaking

across the landscape of businesses,

including AI. They should not be

seizures. They should be investments.

That capital goes into that enterprise.

They earn share certificates. Those

share certificates sit in the accounts

of American citizens. So now everyone

will be an owner in these businesses.

Social security should be reformed into

a sovereign wealth fund. It should be

actively managed. It should make

investments in AI companies and everyone

should participate that way. And I will

say one more thing. There is no job loss

with AI. I will say it again. I've said

it a thousand times and I will say it

again and again and again. What I see on

the ground and what I've seen at dozens

of companies and you guys can share your

experiences including my company that I

run. There are two sides to a business.

There's revenue and there's costs.

On the cost side of the equation, AI can

be used to reduce humans doing things

that cost money to some extent. The

effect there, I would argue, is nominal.

The real opportunity with AI is on the

revenue side where suddenly one engineer

can do a hundred times or a thousand

times what they used to be able to do.

Meaning you can make more products at

your company, whether those are

agricultural seed products or boats and

ships or software for companies or

clothing or what have you. Because of

AI, everyone has the ability to expand

their revenue base to create more

products and that is the foundation of

good economic prosperity. It is called

productivity. We can grow productivity

in this country with AI. So where I see

AI being used is on the revenue side a

100 times more than the cost side. And

in that equation, people are hiring like

crazy. We cannot hire enough people. I

just had a review meeting with my

product and engineering team two days

ago and they're like, we want to add an

extra 15 headcount to our engineering

squads because we have all this

opportunity to do stuff that we couldn't

otherwise do. So, we are going to hire

more people. And to Sax's point, we are

seeing that show up in the jobs numbers.

The idea that AI is going to destroy

jobs is a lite idea that is being

disproven every single day. And I see it

on the ground. It is only a matter of

time before people wake up to this and

they realize that this narrative that

they've all been sold is a croc of [ __ ]

So, it's coming. I'm telling you,

everyone's gonna realize soon that this

is a boom, not a bust.

>> So, you disagree with Dario, Elon, and

Sam that on the jobs thing, just to be

clear, and that's totally fine. You have

a different take on it.

>> That's I have a nuanced view on this

compared to them, but they they're all

seeing the benefit because their

businesses are growing. Dario's got his

$40 billion revenue business. Why? Not

because people are firing customer

support reps. It's because people are

creating products they've never been

able to create before. Right?

>> That's the reality of what's going on.

>> Jason, I don't like you lumping in what

Elon said with Sam and Dario because I

think all three of them have said

slightly different things or different

enough things. So for example, Elon is

describing an end state for humanity

where the robots and AI are able to

produce so much that people don't have

to work if they don't want to

>> and there'll be a universal high income

is what he

>> I I mean it's almost utopian and the

question is maybe that could be a 100

years away. He might think it's quicker

but that to me sounds like a very faroff

end state. Dario said specifically 50%

job loss for entry-level knowledge

workers in the next 1 to 5 years and he

said that one year ago. Yeah, it's great

to clarify these. Yeah,

>> I think that's already been refuted. Sam

has

>> Sam has said that he he basically I

don't think he quantified, but he said

that job loss was coming, but he said

more recently that he was wrong because

they're not seeing that in the numbers.

>> So, these guys are not telling the same

story. However,

>> that's all the public has heard. The

public has been taught that AI means job

loss and there's nothing in it for them.

So, no wonder politicians like Bernie

are saying, "Hey, let's take half the

wealth."

>> It's take half the wealth. Just a little

more emphasis there.

>> Yeah. It's I mean, and I

>> I mean, and people are also seeing

headlines of companies blaming AI for

the job. So, this story is being told.

>> I kind of feel like they deserve it. I'm

kind of I mean, part of me wants to

agree with Bernie and just say just take

their [ __ ] bro.

>> Yeah. No, they are asking

>> because I'm so sick of defending these

idiots. It's a stupidity tax because

they've been out there teaching the

public that what they do is harmful for

years. They've been saying it and I've

been saying, you know, as AIs are, I'm

out there saying, "No, actually this is

beneficial." But the companies that are

providing it are saying that they

themselves are a problem.

>> Yeah.

>> So, how am I supposed to be out there

defending it? Yeah. You you can't I mean

if you're building Frankenstein or if

you are you know baby Hitler's you know

nanny there's a very simple thing to do.

Kill baby Hitler. If you actually

believe it go ahead and kill baby

Hitler. If you're making Frankenstein

here's an idea. Stop making

Frankenstein. Unplug it. You are in

charge of this monster. But you're

acting as if you can't stop the monster

while you're building the monster. What

is it D?

>> It's it's it's ridiculous. I mean

>> it doesn't stand to logic. You know,

last week they published this blog

saying that recursive self-improvement

could end the world. Therefore, we need

a pause. What did they do the previous

month? They hired Andre Carpathy to run

recursive self-improvement and

anthropic. They're complete hypocrites.

The message is nuts.

>> Yes. And I think Ben Thompson made an

excellent point that one of the reasons

he thinks that they put out that blog

post on the pause was to justify the

anti-competitive step they took this

week of depriving users of the ability

to research AI, machine learning, and

chip design using Fable. Okay, so look,

these guys are deeply hypocritical. I

don't think they can be trusted on their

own terms. they can't be trusted because

what they're saying is contradictory and

self-indicting. And so when Bernie comes

along and says, "Hey, let's take their

shit." I mean, as a capitalist, I'm

against it, but I but I kind of like

understand where he's coming from.

>> Game on the field. Chimoth, wrap us up

here. What are your thoughts? You said,

"Hey, Saro Milthorn sounds like a pretty

good idea when President Trump floated

it early on." Some people even said,

"Maybe you should run it for DJT for our

amazing president." So, um, what do you

think? Should we be buying equities? You

and I have talked many times about

superanuation funds and that that would

be a better path. That's kind of

dovetales with what Freeberg is

proposing. Some way to get more

equities, less treasuries in there. But

what are your thoughts on this seizure

andor donation of equity? Look,

Freeberg's idea is genius. That's why

it'll never happen.

So, we can just put that aside. But

yeah, theoretically, it's it's genius.

We should move to the same system that

the Canadians, the Australians have

proven works at scale. So we should do

it. I I completely agree with with David

and if we could seed it with equity,

look, the thing that the president has

done is he's collected

quite a portfolio and that portfolio is

way up. And so if you use that as a seed

of a sovereign wealth fund, you'd have a

bunch of stuff in critical metals and

materials.

>> I think they may also Intel, they may

have Micron.

>> There's a lot of stuff in there.

>> AMD, they could own some SpaceX. They

could have had% AMD. Could you add

anthropic and open AI?

>> Now, there is something very important

we need to observe about the economics

of AI and I think you can understand it

best if you compare it to the economics

of the internet.

The crazy thing about the internet, the

reason why the Facebooks and the Googles

massively overearned for decades is the

marginal cost of production for a new

user on the internet is effectively

zero.

The incremental search user costs

nothing. The incremental social

networking user costs nothing, but

you're able to use them as part of a

network effect to sell ads against, make

infinite money. It's like a money

glitch. Okay?

AI is completely different. There is a

real cost for every marginal user.

Everyone you stand up is taxing a GPU.

Everyone you stand up needs electrons.

Everything needs memory. And so you get

into this situation where there needs to

be this downstream ROI,

but there also needs to be all this

critical infrastructure that even

enables you to be on the field. That's

probably the single best argument that

if I were sitting in government, I would

make as to why I should own a percentage

of these companies. It is not dissimilar

to having the first set of

transportation companies that run on the

interstate highway. And if the

interstate highways were built by the

federal government writ large and now

you had two companies that transported

all the goods,

a logical question at that time could

have been

how much of that should I own because

you're riding on my rails? And if you

look at it through that lens, there is

critical infrastructure and national

resilience that the AI labs profoundly

need. Otherwise, they're not in a

position to be in business. Yet, even

still, the marginal cost of production

is incredibly high. So, I think that if

you were going to go and take a piece of

these companies, you have incredible

leverage. You have to construct this

case precisely. But if it were me

running the sovereign wealth fund, yeah,

I'd probably own 75% of these companies

when I was done. But that's me cuz and I

can negotiate.

>> Yeah.

>> And I don't think Bernie can negotiate

out of a paper bag. So he'll just throw

this out there and it'll go nowhere.

>> That is the that is the key observation

that I hope everybody listening in a

position of power understands. The

incremental cost

of performing AI is excessive and large.

That contrasts and compares to the

incremental cost before AI which was

zero. Do with that information what you

will.

>> Yeah. I mean I my interpretation of that

would be yeah it's a fixed cost

business. You can add people after a

certain cost. that doesn't have an

incremental cost and that's what local

locally run open source models would do

in this instance that's what I would I

would take from it here's your poly

market chances of companies going public

before 2027 which is the end of this

year SpaceX 100% anthropic 83% chance

opening 48% chance they uh since our

last episode disclosed that they have

privately

filed so thanks to our partners what

does Your final thoughts on Bernie

Sanders approach of seizing the means of

producing intelligence. David Saxs in

the 1% of the 1%. What's your opinion?

>> I think I may be okay with Bernie's idea

in the event that it's a public benefit

corporation that says it's going to

cause massive job loss.

>> Okay.

>> That train for free on humanity's

knowledge but gatekeeps and refuses to

give back.

>> Okay.

>> Maybe. So you've come up with like a a

structure here of who should be seized.

>> Maybe right. Maybe it should be 75%. I

don't know.

>> Seize it.

>> I mean all the president needs to do is

call me and tap me on the shoulder. It

shall be done.

>> It shall be done. I mean these guys are

capitalist cops. I think they want

that's like their run over.

>> They're like seize my equity. Take it.

Take my equity. Well, Bernie Bernie does

have a good point, which is they train

for free on all of our knowledge, but

they're gatekeeping the output so that

>> their competitors, which is a very large

set of people,

>> cannot use it. And that seems wrong.

>> They should be forced to be open source.

Force them to open source. That's the

other

>> remember why Elon created Open AI in the

first place. He co-ounded it.

>> It was so valuable. It needed to be

afraid to everyone. Yes.

>> Yes. He was afraid that Google was going

to monopolize it. and he thought that

the only antidote for that was for it to

be open.

>> Yes.

>> And I still think that instinct is

completely true. It's just that it's not

Google who's the gatekeeping monopolist.

It's now anthropic. They're not a

monopouist yet. But if they get the

right capture they're looking for, they

will be either a monopolist or

>> duopoly. It'll be a duopoly. Somebody

start an open source frontier lab. Each

of the four besties.

>> There are no there are many.

>> There's a whole bunch of them. Jal,

>> it's not the labs that's the problem.

Jason, in the absence of power, this is

all a moot conversation. And if you

can't deliver power to hundreds and

hundreds of megawws and line of sight to

gigawatts, it's all meaningless

[ __ ] It's all

>> uh I don't know. I I would love an open-

source company that was focused on

running it locally. That's that's my

dream is, you know, make the model work

there. I think these guys are capitalist

cucks. I think their kink is like having

their equity taken and being regulated.

They're just like, that's their kink.

Dario's like, "Ooh, take my equity." Oh,

regulate me. That's it, Bernie. Take my

equity. I'm such a bad boy. I can't be

trusted. Regulate me, Elizabeth.

Regulate me. A

>> god.

>> Oh, it's so wrong. Sorry. Come on the

program anytime, Dario.

>> He's in a rush to come. He

>> will never come on this pod. Dario will

never running. He's running.

>> We didn't get Sam. We got Sarah Frier to

come on the pod. And she was treated.

>> Sam came on the pod. He has to come on

the pod. He's like, "Hey, came too."

Right. Sorry to come on. He's great. Sam

will come on the pot anytime. He's

totally by the way. Even even we didn't

treat him harshly at all.

>> No, I mean

>> I think people I mean we spent an hour

on him.

>> I think Sam to his credit is very

practical. He sees the tea leaves and

he's willing to negotiate and I think

that that versus being some kind of

moral absolutist will probably serve

OpenAI well in the future.

>> Yeah. It's just going to lose them all

these virtue signaling principled

employees to go go work for Daario.

That's why they go work for Daario. are

in line with their philosophies.

>> We did mention, but everybody should

go and see all of the recaps. We

published now all the interviews. Yeah.

Jason from Liquidity. Uh Sarah Prior, I

mean, we mentioned Sarah Fry, but she

crushed it. She was incredible.

>> The CFO of Open AI,

>> future CEO, I think, was the buzz in the

room.

>> I mean,

>> oh, stop that.

>> Stop. Can you stop?

>> That's what people were saying. I have

the right to free speech on this

podcast. I think

>> Look at you trying to introduce wedges.

This is

>> No, I'm not introducing wedges. I think

Sam would be better as chairman. I think

she would be the perfect CEO.

>> It seemed like a good partnership.

>> It seems like they have a great

partnership. I agree.

>> Sarah was really impressive.

>> Who else was your favorite? Sachs, did

you have a favorite? Did you have

somebody who thought I did? I thought

Thomas Leafant crushed it with his

presentation on the overview of venture

capital

>> and he did it at summit I guess a year

and a half, two years ago.

>> Two years ago, but we're going to make

it a yearly with him. Maybe. I think we

should make it an annual feature with

him because it's so interesting.

>> So good. It's so good.

>> It's so good. It provided so much um

numerical detail to support a lot of

things I was kind of feeling but didn't

>> have the data.

>> To summarize it, he's his basic

observation was in this last cycle, if a

company gets to a hundred billion

valuation, it's more likely to 10x from

there than from 10 billion to 100

billion.

>> Well, he had data on this. Yeah, I

remember

>> he had data on it which is like, okay,

well, that's going to really change. I

remember the slide.

>> Yeah, there it is. It's 8%. I I

memorized it.

>> Yes.

>> Yeah. If you're if you're a capital

allocator, this one screamed.

>> Look. Yes, that's right. The odds of a

unicorn getting to decacorn was 8%. The

odds of a decacorn getting to a senicorn

was about double that was 13%. And then

the odds of it going from senicorn to a

trillion dollar market cap was 31%. So

double again. And I I asked him, you

know, could you extrapolate this on one

trillion getting to 10 trillion? My

guess is that it would follow and we'll

see about

>> 60% of

>> trillion dollar market cap companies

getting to 10 trillion in the next few

years.

>> These are called trillicorns by the way.

We call them trillion trilicorns in the

industry. So yes,

>> this is going to go over really

socialist crowd. People are going to

love this. Yeah,

>> it's just all you got to do is seize 10%

of a trilicorn and you pay off 2% of our

national debt. pretty good deal

actually.

>> All we need is 10% of 30 trilicorns and

we're debt free.

>> I mean

>> it's not as crazy as it sounds.

>> Is it more complicated than that? Now if

you send me in I'll get 60% of all of

them.

>> Yes. And then we'll have a surplus of 30

billion and we can buy Australia.

>> We'll pay it off much sooner.

>> We could buy Cuba.

>> I'd buy Canada first. Better scheme.

>> I would you know what I would do? I

would [ __ ] with Canada. I would buy like

Vancouver or Toronto. Just like break

them up. just buy like one of the

regions. And let me thank let me thank

Thomas Keller, the French Laundry, EY

who sponsored our very innovative

meeting hub at Liquidity. Here are some

photos of that. The New York Stock

Exchange, they hosted the speaker dinner

at the French Laundry. Amazing pictures

here. They are of us with Thomas Keller

and they did a great interview on site.

Niagen, they hosted the wellness lounge

which included recovery IVs. They're the

official NAD partner of the All-In Pod

and all of our longevity. Our new

bestie, our new bestie, Jake Paul, was

there. He's a really thoughtful guy,

Freeberg.

>> Jake Paul was awesome.

>> I sat him next to Sachs for dinner.

>> Yeah, he's a great investor, by the way.

>> Fantastic. Fantastic.

>> His portfolio is awesome. He had a great

team. His team came with him for the

thing.

>> Great strategy. Yeah.

>> One thing I'll say about Thomas Keller,

he had a strong watch game. I don't know

if you guys noticed that.

>> Probably noticed it.

>> Nice potential. He had a aqua knot green

band rose gold a complication on there.

I was trying to trying to figure out

what the complication was. I couldn't

quite eyeball it.

>> I don't know if you saw it, Jimoth.

>> I was I looked at it and I was like,

"Wow, this is very it's very elegant."

Tell us Keller. I mean, the French

Laundry is just transcendent. Did you

have a favorite

dish? Of course. Was it the duck or was

it the Miyazaki?

>> The duck was excellent. The Miyazaki

beef was excellent, but the the tapioca

pearls I thought was the best. Oh,

oysters and pearls. That's your oysters

with caviar. Sax, what was your favorite

there? Do you have a favorite?

>> One of the caviar related dishes.

>> Yeah, that's oysters and pearls.

Round of golf. The following day, we

played a nine-hole scramble with

everyone. It was great. So great.

>> How much did you gamble and who won?

>> We had a $100 a hole

versus Chris Hoe, who's the chief

business officer of Athena. But, you

know, that [ __ ] is like a plus

one, so whatever. I think we lost three

units. So, we lost

>> 300 bucks.

>> All right. Shout out to our other

partner, Athena. Athena. Wow.com. Go get

a month free. All right. Whatever. I got

to stop showing. Most importantly,

everybody was very upset that liquidity

sold out and people couldn't get in.

There were like 3,000 applications.

It's going to sell even faster uh next

time around. So, go to allin.com/events

and get your applications in if you want

to come to Summit September 13th, 14th,

and 15th. Freeberg's doing some wild

stuff. some wild stuff for that event

and uh it's gonna be cool.

>> You're losing your mind. You're now

becoming very eccentric, unhinged in

your production value and Shimoth,

>> you've been very selective in your

approach to the liquidity speakers

because liquidity is different than the

summit. The summit is like a festival.

It's a huge party. There's all this

really interesting cross-sectional

stuff. But liquidity is meant to be for

one thing which is the most important

capital allocators in the world should

have one place to convene, debate,

learn, talk, build relationships. And I

want people to walk out of there with

relationships that they can use. And I

told you this before because capital is

what shapes the things that occur in the

world. So I think that we have to be

extremely selective in how we curate

every element of that show. It's not

meant to be that you can just buy a

ticket, but to just buy a ticket, which

is also a very fair and rational and

nice thing. The summit is a party. It's

a vibe.

>> It's awesome. And you're going to learn

a lot and have a good time. You'll be

entertained. All that great stuff. All

right, let's keep going. Breaking topic

this morning. CPI and PPI for May came

in hot. Inflation is ripping. Here we

go. CPI is obviously the consumer price

index that tracks inflation from the

buyer side. Rent, groceries, gas,

healthcare, all that stuff. PPI is the

producer price index that tracks

inflation from the seller side.

Wholesale goods, raw materials, yada

yada. CPI came in at 4.2%

year-over-year, highest since April

2023. There's your chart. PPI came in at

6.5% year-over-year, highest since the

end of 2022.

Here's your poly market. 21% chance

inflation hits 5% in 2026. Uh and then

an adjacent poly market chances of the

Fed hiking this year at 49%.

It was under 10% before the Iran war

started. By the way, European Central

Bank just raised rates a quarter point

on Thursday. This was their first rate

hike since September 2023. What do we

take from this Freedberg? It's all

related to the Iran war. Yeah, that's

the

>> there's definitely an energy blip from

the Iran war that drove the core index

up, but there's also the macro point

which is government spending out of

control, inflation out of control and

fundamentally as things unravel you have

rising rates. So I think we should kind

of expect especially with a Kevin Worsh

Fed, I think we could see north of five

and a half, 6% overnight rates. It's not

unforeseeable. So,

>> this is just the nature of our monetary

policy and our fiscal policy with our

congressional um members that vote all

of our future earnings away into

[ __ ] But here we are

>> and and far worse

>> that nobody expected. Chimath, your

thoughts and then I'll wrap up with you.

>> That was the most passive aggressive

take I've heard in a while from

>> He's a little upset about it. Yes.

Clearly he's a little bitter about just

so stupid to watch.

>> Can you tell us how you really feel?

What happened? Like honestly, like what

else is there to say? I've said it like

a hundred times. It's just idiotic. The

the core problem with wealth inequality

in this country, the core problem with

inflation in this country, the core

problem, all of it roots back to excess

government spending. End of story. All

of this, we're all talking about

machinations at the edge of the network.

The core of the network is overspending

by the government because in order to

get elected, you need someone to give

you something more than you have today.

That's how people get elected. And here

we are 250 years later. I don't know if

there's the will or the way to get out

of it, but one of the manifestations of

it will be in this late stage higher

rates and as a response to inflation and

here we are, you know.

>> All right, Chim, what's your what's your

take on this? Is it a transient

as we uh have had other presidents say?