All right everybody, emergency podcast

time. Episode 263 of All-In. We have

Emil Michael, the under secretary of war

for research and engineering working

directly for Pete Hexa. We had to get

this out to you on Thursday night

because it is an emergency pod. One of

my old besties. Emil Michael is here.

Emil and I uh were part of team Uber

back in the day. He was Travis's

right-hand man. Some might say fixer.

And Emil Michael is now the under

secretary for war

here in the United States, serving his

country like our bestie David Sachs.

Welcome to the program for the first

time. Neil Michael, how you doing,

brother?

>> I'm doing good. Uh I hope it was more

than a fixer, but you know,

>> raising 20 billion fixer. I mean, you

got it done. You got it done. The

hardest. He would give you the hardest

things. Yeah. Just

>> That's right. Fair enough.

>> If it was hard, and that's what a fixer

is.

>> An operational axe. That's what they

call them.

>> All right. [clears throat] Sure. Uh, in

Brooklyn, we call them fixers. With us

again,

>> a rain maker.

>> There's that, too. There's that, too.

Making it happen. With us again. Chim

Polyhapatia. How are you, brother?

>> Great.

>> Yeah. Look at that smile. What do you

got going on? You got some pokers in the

fire.

>> Okay.

>> I'm not going to say in the coming

weeks, I think some news is going to

drop. That's my prediction. I don't have

any.

>> Are you loving tweet mogging that's been

going on this week? So good. So good.

>> Oh my god.

>> So good.

>> He's looks maxing by default, but he's

been mogging

>> the Gooners.

>> Yeah. So funny. What was your favorite?

>> The [laughter] one I sent you this

morning that you said. What did you say?

So funny.

>> Are you collecting your losses? Tax

harvesting.

>> What did you say? Oh my god.

>> Chimat said uh Oh my god. It was just

like Yes, I did. Yes, I did.

>> Yes, I did. Yes. Someone said something

to Chabat. He's like dropped in. Why is

everyone so mad at Jamoth? All he did

was lose billions in retail investors

money by proep [laughter]

one page spaxs. It's not like he then

told them to enjoy their capital losses

or anything. Give the man a break.

Jama's response. Yes, I did. [laughter]

>> All right. Piling on is your sultan

[snorts] of science. Everybody's

favorite. Had a great

>> some great science that he brought to

the show last week. Freedberg, how are

you doing?

>> Oh, yeah. I've been traveling this week

back at home.

>> All right. Sax is out today. He's very

busy on Capitol Hill. We'll talk about

what he's up to next week.

>> Let's go. Come on. Let's go. Let's go.

>> Let's go. Go, Jason.

>> All right. The US and Israel launched a

joint attack on Iran on Saturday. Today

is day six of Operation Epic Fury. Iran

Supreme Leader Ali Hameni

was killed within hours of the

operation. 40 senior officials have also

been killed. Death toll so far. About a

thousand people according to reports.

Tragically, six US Army Reserve soldiers

were killed following a drone strike on

a base in Kuwait. A US submarine sank an

Iranian ship off the coast of Sri Lanka.

This is the first torpedo kill since

World War II. Why were at war been a bit

of a moving target in a debate. First

explanation from Rubio. He said Israel

was going to attack and the US had no

choice but to participate. Later walked

that back. Trump made it clear this is

not a regime change effort, but we're

doing this to stop terrorism and the

development of ICBMs by obviously a

pretty crazy group of individuals and

obviously nuclear bombs which we blew up

a couple weeks ago. Trump also mentioned

the people of Iran should seize the

moment quote and take their country

back. Pegsth believe is sure boss meal

said quote this is not a so-called

regime change war but the regime sure

did change and the world is better off

for it so here's an interesting poly

market right now US forces enter Iran

this is boots on the ground by the end

of March 40% chance by the end of the

year 59% chance so the idea that we're

not going to have boots on the ground

the sharps on poly market believe we

will will the Iranian regime fall by

June 30th 39% chance according poly

market and by the end of the year 51%

chance so Emil I guess there are two

questions people really want to know

I'll leave off why we're doing this I

think President Trump has been pretty

clear now but how long is this going to

take is the one question and are we

going to have to have boots on the

ground maybe what is success here

>> um I think the the president tal talked

about this is a weeks not months kind of

operation and it's aimed at essentially

disarming the the regime uh or the

country from uh in such a way that they

can't supply Hezbollah, Hamas, um Muslim

Brotherhood, all the kind of terror

groups that get sponsored by weapons and

money from Iran, not to mention the

nuclear bit. And that's why you see from

the reporting they're going after the

depots the the you know we went after

nuclear sites before they're a

prodigious drone maker. These like huge

one-way attack drones that can go hund

you know hundreds and hundreds of miles.

Um lots of ballistic missiles uh that

are aimed at every country in the Middle

East as you've seen they've attacked

them. So

I think that's one. In terms of boots on

the ground, there's no scenario where we

have some protracted boots on the ground

Afghanistan, Iraq 2 like scenario.

>> Freeberg, your thoughts on this war.

Obviously, a lot of people voted for

Trump in order to have the peace

dividend that he was in his first term,

absolutely the peace president. And now

here we are. Eight countries have been

bombed and we've had two leaders deposed

and one of those two have been killed.

Your thoughts, Freeberg?

>> I think the president and the

administration have probably the biggest

meetings of the term coming up in China

in April. My

estimation based on the conversations

and the comments made by the president

before he came into office and since

he's been in office is that finding a

grand bargain or a deal with China is

probably one of his top priorities. And

if you think about the importance of

that, is the US going to wade into a

giant global conflict led by a US China

rift or is the US going to find some

grand bargain? I think he would probably

have a preference for the grand bargain.

And that being the case, I think you

could look at the in the context of

Maduro and the actions in Iran as

creating maximal leverage going into

those negotiations that

>> the reason for that free bird

>> 90% of the oil that comes out of Iran

goes to China

and there's been a long developing and

developed relationship between Maduro's

government and China and these are big

economic drivers or support the economic

driving in China. So creating leverage

by having significant influence or

damage or destruction to those supply

chains for China gives the United States

footing to be able to negotiate a better

deal for America. I would imagine that

the president's intention here isn't to

go and decide who should be in charge

and drive regime change and end in a

multi-year conflict with Iran. But

ultimately, if there's some transaction

with China that gets everyone out of

this and puts the US on a strong footing

where American businesses can sell into

China, which is very challenging as

everyone knows today. And there's

parity, regulatory par, economic and

trade parity between the US and China.

there's a point of view on what happens

with Taiwan and availability of key

technologies like semiconductors. I

think it could be a win-win and I think

that a deal with China could be the

crowning achievement of this

administration particularly going into

the midterms. So the timing is right and

I think that's probably a core part of

the motivation here. Chimath, your

thoughts on this action and why we're

doing it. You've heard obviously the

president has his position. We're not

doing regime change. It's a secondary

effect obviously, but we want to stop

those ICBMs and nuclear bombs from being

developed and we want to stop terrorism.

Additionally, Freeberg says, "Hey, we're

framing this great, you know, discussion

we're going to have with she and China

and oil is part of that." Where where do

you think you stand on all this?

>> I'll build on both what Emil said and

what Freeberg said. I don't think this

is about regime change and I don't think

it's about a local regional conflict. I

think if you take a step back and zoom

out, the most important thing that we

did in the last 3 months was by taking

out Maduro and by taking out the Iranian

leadership, we have created enormous

leverage as Freedberg said

with China. Now, why is that important?

Because I think all of this centers

around that geopolitical discussion.

Last night, something important

happened, which is that the official

Chinese

bureaucracy posted what their GDP

targets were, and it was shocking to

anybody reading it because what we saw

was that they guided to a range of 4.5

to 5%.

which if you look at the historical

context of that growth is the lowest

that it has ever been in about 30 years.

So three decades. So before they entered

the WTO

and the question that one should ask

yourself is when a country that's

growing at 8 9 and 10% start to grow at

half that rate yet have double the

number of people and double the GDP what

happens? you already have incredibly

high domestic unemployment, especially

youth unemployment.

Does it become more or less chaotic? And

I think the historical artifacts of

every other country would show that it

will become more chaotic. If you have

that as a starting point, what is it in

China's best interest to do? And I think

it becomes obvious that the right thing

to do would be to invade Taiwan. Why?

because you start to create a sinkhole

that occupies your people, that occupies

resources, that can get domestic

production up and running, that can

start to generate a war machine. And you

see the economic impact of war machines

in any country during any conflict.

And if I had to guess, just to build on

what Emil said, the president saw that

and I think what they did can be

summarized in this chart which I sent to

Nick. So if your goal is to prevent war

with China, which is a massive global

conflict, which could be nuclear, which

could be cataclysmic,

how would you do it? And this chart

paints one way to do it. If you look at

the conditions inside of the Chinese

economy,

the most interesting takeaway is that

they are enormously

dependent on imported oil. So about 20%

of their economy, but it's not 20% of

their economy because it's 100% of these

critical things that create GDP,

logistics, transportation, aviation,

feed stock inputs.

And of that 19%

about a fifth of it comes exclusively

from Iran and Venezuela. And now all of

that is off the table.

So if you take that and then you see

what Steve Whitoff and Jared Kushner and

Josh Greenbond have been doing, which is

trying to get a deal done in Russia, and

you put all of these things together,

because by the way, if you add Russia

into that mix, it's about 40% of China's

oil, not only do you red dollarize, not

only do you stop the funneling of all of

these illicit oil funds to creating

chaos all around the world, but you hem

in China going into a massive moment at

the end of March, beginning of April,

where as Freeberg said really astutely,

there is the potential for a grand

bargain and I think that secures global

safety in that that is a huge thing for

America.

>> Emil, how much does this have to do with

China?

I think you know my instinct is and I'm

not speaking for the administration on

this is that's a second order benefit to

some of these things like the um you

know and you said eight eight conflicts

there have not been eight conflicts

there is like we inherited Gaza we

inherited Russia Ukraine um Venezuela

was its own operation and then you could

sort of attach to it the drug boats that

were coming out of that as like one big

operation

um and then the Houthies was just Biden

was ignoring the Houthies. They were

just shooting at our ships. So that was

like very limited in terms of like stop

shooting our ships. We need freedom of

the seas and that wasn't sort of a, you

know, so that's something any president

should be doing generally. I think um

Iran being the one, you know, material

conflict outside of Venezuela. So it's

not it's not that many. And and how long

did Venezuela last? It was one raid.

one.

>> I guess that's a really important

>> few hours. This is this is an important

note I think for you Emil to sort of uh

>> I've explained to us there's a new

[laughter]

>> approach here with regard to the these

actions which is no boots on the ground

and we seem to uh and and you of course

have better information than anybody

else does. I don't think anybody would

have known Venezuela would have gone as

well as it did and so far and listen we

got a long way to go with Iran. This has

gone very well as as well. So explain to

us what you know and what you the

president and HGV know that we don't

that makes these two operations go so

smoothly. What what is it then? There's

obviously some new technology here in in

the case of what happened in Venezuela.

>> Yeah. Bes besides the discombobulator,

what we've got is [laughter] a very

well-trained military. Like the the

global war and terror was disaster in so

many respects, but the people now who

are fighting that are generals now. And

so they've learned a lot of lessons. And

you compare that to the Chinese

military. They don't have a lot of

experience. In fact, the the

decapitation they did in the Chinese

military, the one guy they took out was

the one guy who had experience in

Vietnam. So, they don't have conflict

experience, and that matters because you

understand going in what are the things

that could go wrong. Um, and then you

you have incredible technology, space,

air, land, sea, cyber, um, all kinds of

effects that you could bring together.

And so you imagine uh a hundred guys

goes into the most fortified compound in

Venezuela where the president is, you

know, take him and his wife out safely

and are out with no KAS.

>> Incredible.

>> I mean, it's just incredible, right? So

stunning.

>> Yeah. So, and they they these things

these war games have been on the on the

shelf for a long time. Every every

scenario has been planned for years

ahead of time. Midnight hammer in Iran

was planned years ahead of time in terms

of how would you do it if you were going

to do it.

>> Um, and then you keep refreshing the

tactics, tactics, techniques, and

procedures and you're updating them. So,

we have a very sophisticated way of of

doing these things to minimize loss of

life and maximize success.

>> Can I ask a question? I don't want to I

don't want to derail this conversation,

but is the discombobulator real? Like,

what can you say about the discombobul?

>> I completely I was like obsessed with

this when I saw it on X. I was like,

"What is this thing?" I mean, I need it

in my house. Like, I just want to push a

button of all these my kids.

>> And that's just for when Helm Youth

shows up.

>> Oh my god.

>> Not meant for your kids or if they're

behaving badly. No, it's can't talk

about it.

>> Emil, do you think we would have been

able to pull off that mission as

successfully as we did 5 years ago, 10

years ago? Has the technology improved

that quickly that this is not something

that's been possible historically? And

how does that change the the pacing and

the face of war for the next couple of

years? I'd say no. It wasn't only a

technology maturation from five years

ago. It's the uh rules of engagement.

The rules of engagement that we used to

have uh there was some I mean if you

read about them some of them were insane

like if in Afghanistan if the guy had a

small gun you had to have a small gun

and you know there was this parody in

weird ways.

>> And when you're like well but is the

objective to have like a fair fight or

an unfair fight? Um, well, if you're on

our side, you want it to be unfair. So,

the rules of engagement were relaxed to

be

>> Who writes those, Emil? Who sits in an

office and says you can't shoot back if

a combatant is shooting at you if you

aren't matched gun forgun?

>> Yeah. I mean, who writes that crazy

policies that are written into military

department? And that's why when

Secretary Hicks talks about um this kind

of thing and what was happening with him

when he was in Afghanistan, if you ever

read his book in Iraq, he's like the

rules of engagement were so punishing

that we were we were at risk all the

time cuz you had to have like a legal

understanding of what was happening in

every minute in the battlefield as

opposed to well your job is to you know

take out these guys and protect these

guys. Here's your munitions. here's like

the the the red lines and then like in

the middle of that go use your judgment

your commanding officer use your

judgment on how to win and we kind of

gotten back to that use your judgment

push responsibility field still have

your red lines but other than that the

objective is the objective it's more of

a colon Powell approach it's like go all

in have a clear objective come out use

overwhelming force and we were not doing

that for the last four years

>> and then going back to the the face of

war going forward forward. My

understanding is that there have been

more drones deployed by the United

States this past week than we've done in

the history of military activity. Is

that right? And like how does that

really change things going forward here?

>> It it changes it big. Well, so so the

Predator drone was the first big drone

program like 1015 years ago. It was this

big honken drone. Um and then if you

remember Obama would take out some of

these al-Qaeda leaders with drones on

their balcony and things like that. Uh I

think we uh President Trump took out

Sulammani with a drone near his car.

That was the beginning. And then Iraq uh

sorry the Russia uh Ukraine war happened

where it's like drone on drone. 70% of

the the casualties are for drone but

because of drones. So um drone on drone

warfare, robot on robot warfare, those

things are the future for sure,

>> right? And that's why companies like

Ander are companies like Anderoll is

because they're making unmanned systems.

A and this has been something you've

specifically been very focused on and

you tweeted today a little bit about a

competition. We'll play a little video

here. And this Lucas lowcost unmanned

combat attack systems.

>> It used to take a lot of time. It

certainly wasn't startup time to get new

product into the channel for our

military to use. Explain what program

you're running here. Feels like the

DARPA self-driving challenge all over

again and what these drones cost. I know

there's a company making them for I

think $35,000. Am I correct?

>> I mean the the small drones like I'm

holding right there and that are way

cheaper than that. The Lucas oneway

attack drone which can go 5 6 700 miles

at the speed of an airplane

>> carry a big warhead. Those are like 50

$80,000

depending on what kind of equipment you

put on you put on it. But the we've have

a drone dominance program and the real

and we basically have to build an

arsenal for for drones. Now are we

likely to have a territorial conflict

like Russia Ukraine with Canada and

Mexico? No. But but we do want to take

out drug drones at the border and we

want but long one-way attack drones are

important for you know any kind of major

conflict like you're seeing in Iran. but

also to protect military bases for

America 250 World Cup uh Olympics in 28

like there's other there's a lot more

uses of drones for surveillance not just

for you know for combat

>> there you're showing drones that are

sort of human operated but how much of

this should basically be AI so that it's

just some computer vision and again back

to what you said before a model

understands the rules and the red lines

but otherwise is be on task and

accomplish your mission. How much of it

is one versus the other?

>> I mean, it I believe that a

sophisticated drone war is going to be

drone swarms controlled by AI to some

degree or another, right? To what degree

the control matters? Like for example,

drones have decoys. They could spit out,

you know, they could dazzle. They could

put out things. So, how do you

discriminate what's a drone and how to

hit it? You know, you could use AI for

that because it's learned, you know, how

to do automatic target recognition, for

example. Um, and then also could it

identify a person and that and and does

that make it safer? So, it's going after

actually someone you want to get and not

someone you don't want to get. Um, so

there's a lot of uses for AI at the

edge, if you will. Um, in the future

here, the the Ukrainians and Russians do

something called like a kill box where

they lose comms because it's jammed for

this drone and then it just starts going

in a box and looking for, you know, a

the person they're trying to get and

they're trying they're starting to use

AI to do that.

>> Wow.

>> And China has this uh ability already

probably times some magnitude. Yeah.

They have drone swarms because they can

they can force the companies that make

them, not just DJI, to interoperate. So

interoperating drones called

heterogeneous autonomy, right? You take

different kinds of drones and how they

communicate with one another and then

make sure they're not going after the

same target is like a pretty complex

thing that they're definitely working

on.

>> And let's talk uh about the fidelity of

these. Obviously, AI is a new

technology. They it can make mistakes.

Anybody who uses it on a day-to-day

basis might experience a hallucination.

How confident are you in the AI Ukraine

and Russia conflict? They obviously are

not going to be as thoughtful maybe as

we are in putting this together. They're

in a hot war right now. But we as the

United States have to be very thoughtful

about this. So, how confident are you

that this isn't going to make a mistake?

I think that's the key to a lot of this

debate. and and when will it be you know

perfect defined as much better and I

guess this dovetales with the

self-driving

you know thoughts it has to be a

magnitude better than a human so when

will this be a magnitude more accurate

than you know when we have uh make a

mistake as a as a military and we kill a

civilian

>> yeah no it's it's a good question and um

I don't know when that moment hits that

FSD moment where it get kind of gets

better certainly not there and you

wouldn't want to take huge risk with

that in like you know there there's a

gradation of when you would use that and

what kind of risk you were trying to

take or not. If you were trying to take

out a drone using AI using a like a

laser or something you'd be pretty like

okay making mistakes because you just

missed the drone you know like whatever

with a with a with the laser laser goes

off it's all over. Um if you were doing

something more sophisticated in a

population area have densely populated

area you'd take less risk. So, we're

developing procedures, tactics for each

scenario. And this is part of the debate

I had with anthropic, which is we need

AI for things like Golden Dome.

>> Chinese hypersonic missile comes up.

You've got 90 seconds before it

separates and all kinds of decoys and

you don't know where the actual payload

is and you want to get it hit it from

space. and a human can't doesn't have

the reaction time, doesn't have the may

not be able to discriminate with their

own eyes what they're going after.

That's a pretty, you know, lowrisk thing

because it's in space and you're just

trying to hit something that's trying to

hit you. So, I think in the next 10

years, you're going to see a lot of

these applications develop AI to one

degree or another so long as we think

it's safe and it's not going to do the,

you know, make mistakes.

>> Before we get on to the anthropic

discussion, and we really appreciate you

coming here and my lord, this has been

so informative. So thank you Neil for

coming here and explaining to the

American public and to us what you're

working on. It really makes us uh I

think speak for everybody really

confident in what you're doing and it's

so great that you've you know left the

private sector to do this.

>> What I would say just very quickly Emil

is I think that not enough people

understand that the American military

has had to fight with one hand tied

behind their back. Just that little

>> insight that you just gave about

Afghanistan

to me seems so scary because the men and

women that sign up for the American

military. They're doing this to fight on

behalf of this country. They deserve a

lot more than being sent there and all

of a sudden being given this rule book

and say, "Do your best." And it's like,

"Oh, wait. You violated 19 rules trying

to protect America. Do your job." That's

insane.

>> Let's just

>> It's really insane in some cases. I I my

my belief is that's what the frustration

for those soldiers who were out there in

those wars had more than anything. There

was the broader frustration what are we

doing here and then the secondary

frustration is while I'm here why can't

I do my job?

>> Yeah. Is there is there much of a debate

internally and sorry Jake before we move

forward on this

>> regarding this idea of full autonomy in

military action? I don't want to speak

ahead to the anthropic point, but it was

something that the media seemed to say

was part of Daario's concern is that

when you press the button and hand over

complete autonomy and there's a kill

action that you're now giving to a robot

or to some autonomous system, do we then

kind of have a moral issue at hand? And

is that something that's kind of debated

or discussed? And is that the right way

to think about the framing of what goes

on?

>> I mean, we're not even close to there

yet, right? where like this the systems

are not we we wouldn't feel that a

system uh that would have sort of like

real risk for a civilian is ready to

launch yet. So we're not even debating

that. We're just trying to get basic

autonomy in drones, basic autonomy in

underwater unmanned vehicles, basic

autonomy that, you know, you've heard of

this collaborative aircraft that fly

along with a the jetcraft so that it has

more firepower, but it's still tethered

to what the jet does. So, we're

>> incredible. Yeah.

>> Yeah. So, we're just at the very

beginning of this stuff,

>> but for Golden Dome's a good example of

like, yeah, who can oppose that? Like,

it's the only way to get out a threat

like that. Um, so who could oppose if

you have a military base and you have a

bunch of soldiers sleeping that you have

a laser that can take down drones

autonomously on that? So there's it's

it's pretty scenario by scenario, but I

don't we're not having a lot of debate

because the Skynet thing is so not a

realistic thing at this moment, right?

Except if one thing I did tell the

anthropic guys, I was like, you know, or

I'd tell any company, your models are

getting stolen by the Chinese. They're

going to unguard rail them and use them

against us. And then you want our models

to be less capable against your models.

It's sort of

>> they're not going to be thoughtful. In

other [laughter] words, they're going to

go for it. And you know, if we just

benchmark this against where we were at,

you know, but 101 15 years ago, there

was the Wikileak of collateral murder, I

think they called it, where we

tragically had an Apache take out some

journalists. And this technology even

applied today probably would have

avoided that in my mind. Yeah. Like we

have enough that when you're targeting

not drones but you know people on the

ground with an Apache this would have

probably avoided that.

>> Yeah. Or or you know the Kuwaiti

aircraft hitting you know an American

aircraft making a mistake because it

doesn't have the identification. I mean

it's the same self-driving argument to a

degree. like self-driving could save

lives even though it's scary to look at

a car without a human behind the wheel

but there's tons of scenarios where it's

a way better safer option more precise

um than the alternative

>> all right before we move on to the Dario

thing and anthropic and that brew haha

there was one piece that we haven't

addressed with this interaction Freeberg

Chimath which is uh the Israeli

government and their desire to take out

this regime And us according to Tucker

Carlson and a large contingent of the

MAGA base they feel that we are captured

by this group. Does Israel have too much

influence over the United States with

regard to these actions in the Middle

East? This is you know a big debate

within the party within the Republican

party within the MAGA constituent. Hey

we number one we don't want these wars.

Number two is Israel driving this thing

to the point of Rubio's quotes that hey,

we're doing this because Israel is going

anyway. I think we should address it

here. Not that I have a personal stake

in this. I'll give my personal opinion

at the end.

>> I don't think the president is captured

by Israel in the least. I think he

decides what is in the best interest of

the United States. And if

Israel can be a part of that, then

they're a part of it. And look, let's be

clear, they're incredibly capable. And

so in something like this, to be able to

incorporate the intelligence of MSAD,

what you're seeing today in this

operation Epic Fury, we're four days in,

Iran has been 90% depleted of all of

their munitions. It looks like they're

just firing no more missiles out from

Iran to anywhere else. There's fleets of

drones and planes just waiting.

Everybody knew where the Iranians were.

It's great that when we make a decision

on something that we need to do, we can

rely on our allies. I think the opposite

question should also be asked like what

was the UK doing? Why is Spain

pontificating? Why was Europe taking the

weekend off before they could even issue

a statement? Why don't you ask that

question?

>> Yeah. No, it's equally valid question.

You know, uh Freeberg, do you want to

get in on this or no?

>> No.

>> I'm a Jew. No one's going to care what I

have to say. They're [laughter] either

going to they're either going to be like

totally like or they're going to say

this guy's a Jew. We shouldn't listen to

him. So, like let's move on. Go ahead.

>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

>> Emil, any thoughts on on this? I do want

to know from Emil though like you know

is this Iron Dome working this laser in

Israel system is this operational and if

so is there any success metrics you can

share around it

>> I mean I think that the golden sorry the

golden iron beam was the first

generation of of the Israeli air air

defense thing and then they're build

building Iron Beam and and I think it's

still earlyish but yeah it works they're

they're a technologically sophisticated

country that's very small that has like

a reason to invest in these things and

they have a lot of smart people to do

them. So I think I think it's good. But

>> does it primarily work on rockets? And I

guess I just want to understand the

logical evolution of this because in the

80s and 90s there was a lot of

conversation about space-based lasers

that could shoot ICBMs out of the sky to

avoid, you know, global nuclear war and

we could always take out every nuclear

warhead delivered on an ICBM. Is that

technology feasible? Is there a place in

the near future where we could see

basically maximal global deterrence

using these systems, either groundbased

or space-based to take out hypersonic

missiles?

>> I think I think the the harder but more

valuable problem to solve would be the

space-based way of doing it because then

um you could get at any kind of almost

any kind of threat that hits space, but

you still need a ground layer because

there's cruise missiles that could come

at you, there's drones and so on. to so

we call them multi-layers like how do

you how do you get every kind of weapon

at every layer

but you know directed energy lasers as

they get more powerful you could take on

a bigger weapon farther away right so

those uh so those technologies as that

as they improve it gets more and more

capable and I think all these defense

systems uh are going to get more and

more capable to get more and more of a

variety of weapons at farther farther

standoff which is what want you want it

to you don't want to shoot it when it's

right over Tel Aviv. You want to shoot

it, you know, when it's still over their

their land ideally.

>> Are the laser interceptors in the field

today. There's reports that they are.

>> I I think there's some I think they've

demonstrated some of them.

>> Got it. And and is this our technology

or Israel's technology? Because

President Trump said, "Hey, that's

actually our technology." Is there any

insight there?

>> We we have collaborations with Israel on

some of this stuff. They have their own.

We have our own. Um, so it's not this is

uh but they're good at tech, we're good

at tech. There's certain there's certain

ways you get part of our system and part

of their system because it's like a he

it's a quickly evolving part of of

science right now. How do you cohhere

beams of light to like get distance? How

to use high-owered microwave to like

just drop drones in their tracks? Um

there's lots of different ways to get at

some of these things. Um and and yeah, a

lot of it's ours. uh and a lot of and

some of it's theirs.

>> Yeah. And uh to to the earlier question,

you know, I I am pro-regime change if it

can be done thoughtfully and obviously

isolating a dictator, that's the best

thing you can do. We've done that

successfully with, you know, Putin, Kim

Jong-un, etc. Keep diplomacy up. But if

there is a moment in time where you

could free the people of Iran after 50

years of being subjugated by these

lunatics and dictators, I'm all for it.

And I actually trust President Trump to

make that decision. I know this may

sound crazy. People think like I'm a

libtart or something because of the way

my besties frame me on this program,

which is completely inaccurate. I'm an

independent.

>> You are.

>> I actually I'm completely independent

and I am just based on my voting and I'm

not on either one of these sides. I am

pro President Trump and I trust his

judgment. I think he has more

information than us. I think you have

more information. I actually trust you

guys to do it thoughtfully and there

obviously was a window here. Israel can

have their own, you know, motivation.

That could be the China motivation, but

there's also spreading democracy, which

might be the least of people's concerns

here, but that's on the top of my list.

I would like to see the people of Iran

free. Just to build on your point,

Jason, the thing that Emil said before,

which I think is important as well, is

we have an enormous amount of learnings

about what happened in Iraq. Yeah. We

also have a ton of learnings between the

Iran Iraq war and a ton of learnings in

53 when US and the British deposed Mosad

in the or at least foremented that and

put the sha and then the sha was booted

up.

>> Yeah.

>> If you take those three chapters in

Iranian history or that regional

history, there's a ton to learn. And to

your point, there is a way to affect

what we need to do without creating some

20-year forever war. There was an

incredible tweet. I don't know if you

guys saw this. Somebody said, "So every

war doesn't have to be

>> three decades and trillions of dollars

to your friends in Virginia, Maryland,

and DC. Did you guys see that tweet?"

It's true. These things can be one and

done in and out.

And if President Trump succeeds here, I

just want to also give him some flowers

here. The people of Venezuela and the

people of Iran being free represent

about 5% of the people in the world

living under an autocracy, under a

dictator. If those both flip back to

democracies, he'll have done more for

the spread of democracy than any

president for many decades, perhaps in

our lifetime. This would be incredibly

noble. Incredibly noble, incredibly

just. And

>> would you in the human rights set

>> want him to get the Nobel then?

>> Absolutely. Give him all the Nobels.

Like literally if you can free people,

>> all of them. Give him every prize. Give

him an Oscar.

>> Physics, chemistry, [laughter]

he can have everything.

>> Physics, philosophy.

>> Jay Cal's an independent. When's the

last time you voted for a Republican

presidential candidate? Just curious.

>> Um,

yeah.

>> Say it. Say it.

>> No, no, no, no. Um,

>> Montdale.

>> No, no, I didn't. I would have voted

for, if I was of age, I would have voted

for um I wouldn't have voted for the

Bushes. I voted for the moderates. Um,

uh, uh, obviously Clinton and Obama.

>> Oh, we're playing the would have, should

have game.

>> I would have voted for Reagan in

>> I would have bought Nidia at $4.

>> Well, no. And I I didn't vote for Kamla,

so I'll leave it at that. But I voted

probably

at that. Why don't you say that you

voted for President Trump?

>> Just say you voted for President Trump.

I don't want to complicate things,

>> but you did. So, just say it.

>> I didn't vote for Kla. I'll leave it at

that. All right.

>> It's so weird that you that you'll say

you're a moderate, but you won't say

that you voted for President Trump.

>> I am supporting President Trump in about

60 70% of what he does. Uh, let's leave

it at that. Three, two. All right. Let's

talk economic

impact of oil and insurance. Oil has

rose to $84 a barrel Wednesday

straightfor

basically a standstill at this point.

Here's the clip. You can see the traffic

slowing down and then hey, some of the

dots are even going away. That could be

uh ships were taking out.

Unless the straight opens, 3.3 million

barrels of daily production would be

lost early next week. And then there's

insurance companies. They've all

cancelled

the war risk coverage of vessels in the

Gulf effective March 5th. Super tanker

traffic dropped 94% within the first 48

hours. Trump said the US would provide

political risk insurance for all

maritime trade through the Gulf,

especially energy. Freeberg, your

thoughts on the economic second order

effects that we're starting to

experience here and over the next four

weeks could be um you know intense and

acute.

>> The modern insurance market emerged

specifically to solve the risks of

maritime trade. So in the 17th century,

Lloyds of London, which was a coffee

shop in London, where all the maritime

traders would get together and they talk

about, hey, what's the safest route so

pirates don't get our ship and so you

don't run into weather. That's where

they would kind of have these

conversations and eventually they

started underwriting the risks of the

shipping uh routes and giving each other

guarantees. They said, "Hey, if you make

this route, great. You pay me a certain

amount and if you don't make the route,

I'll pay you the loft value." And that's

how Lloyds of London, which is the kind

of world's biggest reinsurance market,

started today. Lloyds of London has 78

what are called syndicate members. And

these are kind of these pools of

reinsurance that underwrite big crazy

risks like maritime insurance for folks

that are moving oil tankers through the

straight of Hermuz, which the IRGC just

announced they're shutting down. When

the IRGC announced that they were

shutting down the straight of Hermuz,

there's a significant risk of all the

mines going in the straight and the

ships getting attacked and blown up. So

loss of value. The insurance premium

spiked initially from a quarter% so

0.25% of the value of the ship to 1.25%.

So it went up by like 5x and so folks

had to pay a lot more of the value of

their ship in order to continue the

routes and get guarantees that they'll

make it through. And then all of the

markets started to shut down. So once

the conflict got heavier, everyone said,

"Let's shut this thing down." And that's

a obviously a massive risk to energy

prices globally, which drives inflation

and puts US economic security at risk.

And so this is a brilliant move. I would

say the US government stepped in with

the US International Development Finance

Corporation, which was actually funny

enough started a couple of years ago

like in 2019 or something like that as a

kind of output of one of the agencies

that provided credit from USAD. much

talked about USA ID. [laughter]

And so they're they're leveraging the

credit capacity of this old US ID agency

to go out and say to all the shipping

companies, hey, we'll give you insurance

on your routes. And the reason they need

it is the shipping companies are

levered. They take on debt to buy the

ships. And the debtors require that they

have insurance or else they're not

allowed to take the routes because the

debtors are ultimately going to be out

the money. And so the shipping companies

themselves need to have insurance. And

so this provides a market that has now

gone away. Very smart. And ultimately a

lot of people are saying this could

actually reshore or onshore maritime

insurance back to the United States and

create an entirely new insurance

industry here in the US that has

historically been served almost

exclusively by European syndicates and

European partners. And it actually

creates a big economic opportunity as

this war dies down for American

insurance companies and American brokers

to basically be the underwriters and the

guarantors of this sort of insurance and

create a new industry. So that's super

super interesting kind of side story on

what's going on here. All right, some

breaking news here folks via Bloomberg.

The Pentagon has formally notified

Anthropic that it's been deemed a supply

chain risk. This has never happened to

an American company. It has happened to

Russian companies. uh and Chinese

companies Huawei and for background the

department of war cancelled Anthropic

$200 million contract on Friday and said

they would do this. The dispute came

down to two clauses according to sources

and we have one of the principles here.

So we will hear directly from him in a

moment. Anthropic had two concerns.

Number one, fully autonomous weapons aka

murderbots. As we previously discussed,

Daario didn't feel that their technology

was reliable yet and wanted some

assurances. The second thing Anthropic

said was uh they were concerned about

mass surveillance of Americans because

they believe this technology is uniquely

powerful and uh it's can do things

beyond what a series of webcams or a

network of 7-Eleven cameras can do.

Pentagon said they wanted all lawful

use. Dario, you're welcome to come on

the program next week or any time to

give your side of the story, but this

week we have Emil. Emil, your thoughts

and explain to us what happened here and

how this broke down.

>> It's worth a little history, short

history. So,

if you remember the Biden executive

order on AI, which was this crazy

executive order that limited the amount

of compute any model company could do

and was essentially grandfathered in a

few a small number of AI companies that

they were going to designate the winners

and everyone else was out so they could

have more control on what they did. Um,

Anthropic was one of those winners. Um,

and then they were smart. act as a good

sales strategy to sell in to the most

sensitive parts of the US government

like all of our combatant commands sent

central command that's doing the Iran

fight now the Indoaccom command which is

sort of responsible for China several of

the intelligence agencies and they did

forward deployed engineers palunteer

style so they're very got very sticky um

to the workflows and all that and so I

came in and I got the AI portfolio for

department in August and I said, I just

want to see the contracts. You know, the

old lawyer in me and I looked at

contracts. I was like, holy cow, they

say you can't use them for you can't use

them to plan a a kinetic strike. You

can't use their AI model to move a

satellite. You can't There was a a 20

page.

>> You can't do a war game scenario with

it.

>> You could do a scenario, but you can't

like let's suppose you're writing a plan

saying like if this happens, here's what

we would do. and it might involve a

kinetic strike which causes harm to a

human. So like, well, what do you think

these folks do? You know, we use the

Department of War. This is what we do.

And so I said, okay, well, I've got to

number one, have direct relationships

with these companies, not just through

Palunteer, because I want to use it more

broadly. And then number two, I need to

have the terms of service be rational

relative to our mission set. So we

started these negotiations and and took

three months and I had to sort of give

them scenarios about like this Chinese

hypersonic missile example. They're

like, "Okay, we'll give you an exception

for that." Well, how about this drone

swarm? We'll give you an exception for

that. And I was like, "The exceptions

doesn't work. I I can't predict for the

next 20 years what all the things we

might do use AI for." Um, and so so all

lawful use seems like a good thing. If

Congress wants to act, great. We have

our own internal policies like we'll

follow them. We're not knuckle draggers

here. We want we don't want to hurt

people unnecessarily. So, you know, it's

our province to decide how we fight and

win wars um so long as they're lawful.

And I think at some point it turned into

a PR game for them because they were not

going to win this intellectual battle of

well, we're going to stop you. we're

going to use our judgment because we

think Congress is behind and impose it

on the US military. And it became this

like let's find the issues that are most

inflammatory, robot weapons and mass

surveillance. I mean, like we're the

Department of War. We're not the FBI.

We're not Homeland Security. We're not

>> You're not allowed to legally spy on

Americans.

>> Yeah. You're not you're not. So it's so

so you're like and then what it came

down to on that issue just as an

anecdote is they didn't want us to bulk

collect public information on people

using their AI system and they wrote it

in a way that I was like so you're

telling me before we got to bulk collect

if someone types in you know Shimat's at

LinkedIn it's I'm using public available

information that I would be violating

your terms of service like yeah well

okay let's rewrite it. was months of

this like stuff. Um, which which was

sort of interminable and then the

trigger point was after the Maduro raid,

one of their execs called Palanteer who

we buy ourselves through and asked them

uh was our software used in that raid

which is by the way classified

information anyway. So we're trying to

get classified information and implying

that if there was used in that raid that

that might violate their terms of

service. So they wanted to enforce, this

is very important here. Yeah.

>> They wanted to enforce their terms of

service. They went behind your back to

try to collect information to then

>> maybe pull your license for their

technology.

>> But you know, and it wasn't by behind my

back. I don't want to accuse them of

that. Palunteer is the prime contractor

this sub. Um, but it raised enough alarm

with Palenteer who's got a trusted

relationship with the department to tell

me and I'm like, "Holy, what if this

software went down, some guard rail

kicked up, some refusal happened for the

next fight like this one and we left our

people at risk and I had so I went to

Secretary Hath. said this would happen.

And that was like a wo moment for the

whole leadership at the Pentagon that

we're potentially so dependent on a

software provider without another

alternative that has the right or

ability to do to not only shut it off,

maybe it's a rogue developer who could

poison the model to make it not do what

you want uh at the time or sort of trick

you because you have to trick it. I mean

all these things that we know we were

about models or hallucinate purposefully

or do or not follow instructions like

some insider threat stuff. So then that

culminated in the Tuesday kind of

dramatic meeting with Hexath and

Secretary Hexath and me and and Daario

um with the Friday deadline that that

got blown and I never thought they

really wanted to make it. M is is the

model entirely hosted by Anthropic or

just explain to us technically does this

sit in a cloud that Palunteer runs for

you guys? Um is there really technically

a way that employees at Anthropic could

kind of interfere intervene in the use

of the model?

>> Yeah. So they put their model in AWS

GovCloud

>> GovCloud. Yeah.

>> And then Palunteer serves it from there

and they refresh it. They held the

control plane for the model. So, so

yeah,

>> they can change the model weights if

they want. They can do whatever they

want.

>> Yeah.

>> The insight into this thing is

unbelievable. Not just governments, but

now if you're running a company, the

reality is that what anthropics showed,

which by the way is their right at some

level, is that they are going to have a

political perspective and a set of terms

that reflect their philosophy and that

that philosophy can change on a dime.

But what the government did was also

completely reasonable, which is we can't

rely on you if you're going to be

completely unreliable and

disallow things that are reasonable.

I'll give you a different example to

make the point.

There's a state that wants to run some

healthcare program, but they're a

prolife state.

You can't conduct abortions in that

state. Does that mean that the anthropic

engineers can decide, you know what,

we're pro-choice, so we're going to

change the access model and the

capability of that model inside of that

state. Is that allowed? Should that be

allowed? At one level, you'd say, "This

is a private company. They're allowed to

choose." But what that really means is

for the government, for all the states,

for any city, for every company, you

cannot choose to only use one of these

things because it is just a matter of

time until some person inside of one of

these companies goes on some lunatic

moral tirade and then jeopardizes your

business against something that is

nothing about law, but is everything

about subjectivity. That is the huge

thing that this thing tore open this

weekend. So if you're not figuring out

how to be multimodel and agnostic across

these models, you're taking on enormous

business risk after Friday because you

can't tolerate that these folks will do

that. It's too critical of a technology.

By the way, this is deplatforming all

over again. Remember what happened when

you didn't like what was said? Now all

of a sudden you were deplatformed. This

is that times a thousand because this is

not about posting on social media. This

is about using fundamental technology to

either advantage or disadvantage your

business. Emil.

>> Yeah. I mean, I think I described it the

other way the other day as these c the

leaders of these companies say they're

going to cause 50% white collar

unemployment. This is as powerful as a

nuclear bomb. You it's like 50,000

geniuses in a data center. So you could

have a small country coers the world

into its whatever. So you're like, "Holy

cow." All right. So this is a general

substrate of intelligence of technology

that's applicable to a lot of things.

Very generalized. It's not like workday

like HR software we could just use a

competitor. This is going to be part of

our everyday life in so many different

ways and the controlling the like what

whether it has a moral conscience. I

mean anthropic has its own constitution.

It has its own soul. It's not the US

constitution. So you're subject to that

plus whatever whims and how that

changes. And that's a scary thought for

for Americans generally. Um and I think

that did come through a little bit

today. And in the coming years it's

going to be a bigger and bigger deal.

>> So take us through OpenAI software,

Gemini software and Gro software. Have

they push back on any use or are they

like Dell or Apple? They sell you a

computer and you have the computer and

you can use it as you will. Have any of

those given you any push back? So

Grock's all in for all awful use cases

across all classified and unclassified

networks as you'd expect because and you

know Elon's truth seeking. We want truth

and Department of War. We don't want

ideology

>> because ideology will mess with

operational decisions like you you don't

want anyone to anything to be fake or

tilted.

>> We're we're surgeing Google and

>> we have them [clears throat] we have

Google for all lawful use cases on on

classified networks and we're trying to

move them to classified networks. are

just they have to build out

infrastructure because the stuff's

complicated.

>> So they're in compliance in terms of

what you're looking for as a partner.

And then

>> I guess the last one is OpenAI and Sam

seems to be

>> just characteristically playing both

sides a bit trying

to his credit

um I called him and said I need a

solution if this thing goes sideways. I

need multiple solutions. I'd like you to

be one of them. And he's like okay well

what can I do for the country? is like,

I need to get you up running as soon as

I can. And he was he was trying to

protect anthropic to his credit. He was

like, don't do don't call him a supply

chain risk. That's bad for the industry.

Let me maybe I can negotiate terms that

they'll find acceptable. Uh but he's in

the middle because they're they compete

for the same researchers. So, a lot of

this comes down to this thousand

researchers like baseball players that

get traded between these companies.

>> Moneyball. Yeah. These are the best of

the best. It's a very moneyballish sort

of thing and there's not that many of

them and you lose

>> 20% of them and all a sudden, you know,

they launched Claude Code before you

launched Codeex or something like that

and then the numbers changed pretty

dramatically. So, he was being a real

patriot um to his credit and trying to

him, you know, help anthropic while they

were trashing him and recruiting from

his company. And I I am not biased. I

just I want all of them. I want to give

them all the same exact terms uh because

I need redundancy. I want to see if they

diverge or not or did they if they

converge maybe I only need two over time

but we don't know it's too early

>> but why why keep them in the mix? So if

there's clearly like a difference of

operations and philosophy and how they

want to run their business and there's

other models is is their model

particularly good at particular

applications that make it important to

keep it in the mix given that there are

three or four other kind of alternatives

here.

>> Anthropic you mean?

>> Yeah. Oh well because number the number

one reason we were having this

conversation at all was because they

were deeply embedded. So now I have to

unentangle them and the other companies

have not gone as heavy enterprise

enterprise sales forward deployed

engineers government business. So

they're have to catch up not on

necessarily the capability of the model

but just how do you serve the government

>> the Bible is just way ahead on that

>> right

>> but the models themselves you don't

think are uniquely advantaged or do you

have a view on that at this point? I

don't have a view on that. I I don't

think they're, you know, I mean,

certainly cloud code was was innovative

and ahead. That's true. Um, but I do I

believe in 12 months Codeex is not going

to be close. I think it will be.

>> I think you're right. There's an

asmmptoing that's happening. If you just

look at the like the confidence interval

on how overperforming or

underperformance some of the leading

models are, the error bars are

shrinking, right? the confidence

intervals like these things are all kind

of becoming the same eventually they're

all getting access to enough power

enough compute they're generating

similar results it turns out which I

think you would expect so even more

important that you have a complexion of

models the other thing Emil I don't know

if you saw this but they posted about

the revenue ramp of anthropic

and well I have a small software company

called 8090 and I asked the team. Let's

go look at our opex. I posted it because

I was so shocked at these numbers. Our

costs have more than tripled since

November of 25. Between the inference

cost that we pay AWS, which is

ginormous, between our cost with cursor,

between anthropic, we are just spending

millions.

>> So now more per unit and more more in

aggregate

>> both. But the problem is that my costs

are going up 3x every three months. My

revenues are not [laughter]

>> token use is very addicting.

>> Yeah. And by the way, because everybody

has gotten infatuated with what we call

these Ralph Wiggum loops, like just like

send the thing off and like it'll just

go figure something out. A, it never

figures anything out, and B, you just

get this ginormous bill from Cursor. So,

one of the things we had to do was just,

we had to say, guys, you got to

deprecate cursor because you're just

wrapping cloud code and charging us way

too much for these tokens. But I don't

know if you're seeing any of this thing

where like the tool usage, it's so great

to use these tools. Let's be honest,

it's super fun. It's like you feel like

a genius,

>> but then the ROI of these tools are

really important. I'm not sure that

that's as much of an issue for you or

not in in

>> it will be it. It will be

>> for sure.

>> As people find more and more use cases,

the use cases get more sophisticated. So

the next marginal thing you have it do

is likely to be harder and therefore be

more consumptive. Right.

>> Right. Right.

>> Let me just ask Emil, the important

question that I think triggered a lot of

the news this week is why then designate

them a supply chain risk? Why not just

abandon them, move on, use the other

vendors? Like why take this kind of

punitive action?

>> Yeah. So I I don't view it as punitive

and I'll tell you why. It's if their

model has this policy bias, let's call

it, based on their constitution, their

culture, their people and so on. I don't

want Loheed Martin using their model to

design weapons for me. I don't want the

people who are designing the things that

go into the the componentry to come to

me because if that po if you believe the

risk of poisoning threat yes it can

enter into any part of the defense

enterprise

>> but it's just the defense enterprise so

Boeing wants to use anthropic to build

commercial jets have at it Boeing wants

to use it to build fighter jets I can't

have that because I don't trust what the

outputs may be because they're so wedded

to their own policy preferences.

>> I guess a dovetail to that is why

couldn't this have been handled

quietly? Is this anthropic who made this

a public spat or was it the

administration that made it a public

spat or two to tango? I mean, they have

a very good sophisticated press

operation and like really good and

painting us as doing mass surveillance

where where where their issue was like

some commercial database thing that

someone else could buy. They didn't want

us to buy to use it, which I'm not even

sure we buy them except to do recruiting

for soldiers. And you know, we run

schools, hospitals, we do a lot of

things at DoD. We don't just fight wars.

and um and the the way they were able to

characterize these two things which are

genuinely scary to people but were not

the real issues. Um it was really the

you worry I worried about them shutting

off our system at a moment of need or

them messing with our system in motar

>> came to mind is if they are selling you

batteries and you need to use the

batteries or the laptops however you

need to use them lawfully okay that

should be enough for them unless they

are peacenicks and they don't want to be

involved in selling weapons which by the

way was Google's position for many years

they just didn't want to be involved in

it because to your point they want to

recruit talent that is also aligned with

that. So there's just seems to be maybe

this isn't the right partner for the

Department of War.

>> Yeah, you should if you if you don't

want your stuff to be used for

department war stuff, you shouldn't be

selling to the Department of War.

[laughter]

>> Pretty sure it's in the name. It's in

the name.

>> Well, and then also I have to say when

you know you said, "Hey, we don't know

what how we're going to use this thing."

Like immediately came to mind was like

911. you you have to go check with them,

you know, if you find out there's

another 911 unique, you know, black swan

event that's going to occur and you have

to go clear it with them. Like you

That's

>> That was literally the comment. That was

literally the comment when I was Yeah.

So I was in a room of 20 people. So this

is not undeniable if everyone want Daria

wants to deny it.

>> And I was giving these scenarios, these

Golden Dome scenarios and so on. And

he's like, "Just call me if you need

another exception." And you know, I'm

like, but what if the balloon's going up

at that moment and it's like a decisive

action we have to take. I'm not going to

call you to do something. It's like not

rational. And

>> yes,

>> uh so it that was another holy cow

moment of like how they think about it.

>> That just means that what he wants to be

is the secretary of war.

>> That's right.

>> He wants to be the the god king there, I

guess. Yeah.

>> You can't do that. The thing that shocks

me, Emil, I don't know. you maybe you

can't say anything but guys you can

comment on this. It's clear that

Anthropic just lost all the Republicans

but I think that if they think that they

have the Democrats that's fleeting as

well because I think progressive

Democrats fundamentally just hate

Silicon Valley and technology and so

there's no way they're going to let some

god king over here that they don't

control either. And so in both ways, I

think they accidentally may have pissed

off every constituent. The longer term

fallout amongst them and progressives

will come home to roost because as the

progressives want more control and these

guys push back on them, they're just

going to fall into the same situation.

>> Yeah. I mean, it's an interesting

perspective. I think if you don't want

to be involved in war that you're right,

I think you mentioned this like three

times, Jimoth.

Don't sell bullets if you don't want to

be in but you can't call Smith and

Wesson and say can I The other thing is

what the hell was the senior management

and the board talking about over these

last few days because to me it would

have sounded insane. So then the

question is were people just so

breathless to buy this revenue curve?

What is the board doing? What is the

senior management really doing? What do

you change guys? What do you think you

would tell them if you were sitting

inside of the board of

>> Enthrop if you're an investor, you're on

the board, what do you say to Daario

when he says, "Hey, I need to dictate to

Emil and Hexth how they use my tool and

everybody else is just saying lawful use

as the standard." What's your coaching

advice?

>> Well, it's also a very unusual

circumstance because I don't think any

business in history has grown as fast as

they have in the last 90 days. So,

they've added what was it? 6 billion of

ARR.

>> Yeah. in a month or something.

>> I mean, that's absurd. Like, I mean,

absurd. It's absurd. It's a great

product. Open Claw has driven a lot of

this.

>> If you're on the board,

>> you're closing your eyes. Yeah.

>> You're shutting the up. You're just

shutting the up cuz something's

working.

>> You're actually [laughter]

>> I think he's off doing his thing and

they're going to let him do it. And I

don't think that company's worth 350

billion anymore.

God knows what it's worth.

>> Oh. Oh, that's interesting. Where do you

If you get put a block of stock right

now, where do you put a bid in? I'll

tell you where I

>> Oh my god. I had I had this conversation

at dinner two nights ago. It's like you

have to pick between OpenAI at their

current mark,

anthropic at their current mark, or

Google. And it's either multiple from

here or net market value creation from

here because those are actually two very

different conversations.

>> Explain the difference.

>> I think the net market valuation because

Google's already worth three trillion.

So if they double, they've added three

trillion, but I think Google is the bet.

I think Google is the market value

creator bet. But I think anthropic is

the multiple bet. I think anthropic is a

trillion five market cap at the end of

the day.

Unless this blows them up,

>> you're still buying the 5x versus the 3x

kind of thing.

>> You'd buy the 5x instead of the 2x.

>> But if you get put a block of stock now,

do you buy it at the last post or do you

buy it at a discount or do you just say,

"Ah, I just buy it at the last post."

>> Anthropic is worth a lot more than 350.

That's for sure.

>> I I that it's undervalued compared to

chat.

>> They just added six billion in the last

month. And I will tell you anecdotally,

anecdotally,

>> I am everyone I talk to is on co-work.

Everyone is like gone deep on this.

Everyone's amazed and shocked and

actively using it. And everyone's saying

the same thing, which is anthropic, may

actually be fulfilling the promise of

AI. I will also say that it's only going

to take 90 days for Google to flip on a

virtual version of co-work. And once

Google like has this integrated with G

Suite and you have a virtual hosted

version of co-work sweeps the market

with this same competitor. But right now

Coowwork is such an incredible product

and everyone's saying the same thing.

It's like giving Elon giving truth to

AI. Elon said something with respect to

Grock which was that

he expects it to exceed all of these

coding models probably in the May spin

but for sure by June.

So to your point free like what like I

guess my question guys to you is like

what happens okay what do you guys do em

what do you do when all the models

asmtote let's just say by October of

this year let's just say I can guarantee

you just for the thought exercise by

October all the models are the same do

you just take a complexion of them all

and say great we're going to build some

governance layer around it and now we're

indifferent or

>> what do you do

>> I would love to be indifferent because

then I could compete on price, right?

And then then I have and then I have one

one main and one redundant or two mains

and I'd need at least two.

>> Yeah.

>> Anthropic's not going to be one of them

if they continue sort of with their

their sort of posture. So then it would

be three. And if one gets wobbly from a

policy scenario too because they all,

you know, except for Elon's is based in

San Francisco and has that that vibe to

it. So, uh, you kind of want to have two

or three at any given time. And yeah,

then I then you price compete them. I do

think Google has a long-term strategic

advantage, not because of not only

because of their consumer thing, but

because they have their own cloud.

>> So, between them, they don't have the

margin on top of the cloud that

Anthropical have to pass on. So, it's an

interesting economic uh

>> uh proposition from them.

And just to build on your point,

Freedberg, after you finish your uh

insightful comments [laughter]

here, pull this up, Nick. Almost on

quue, Freedberg. You're such an oracle.

Here is the announcement from Google.

Google Workspace is now integrated for

agents and 40 agent skills were included

today. Emilio, you've been great today.

Super honest. Daario's uh position. I'm

going to give you some fast balls here.

Daario says, "The real reason the

Pentagon and Trump admin do not like us

is that we haven't donated to Trump.

While Open AI Greg have donated a lot,

here's Claude's answer to that claim."

Here's nine companies and their

activities with the administration from

the inauguration to attending the

inauguration to the White House CEO

dinner to the Melania documentary. If

you go through and you look at these

nine companies, Microsoft,

Apple, Tim Apple, Nvidia, Amazon, they

have all participated.

There's one company that hasn't

participated and that's Anthropic. Are

is Anthropic being singled out because

they are not genulecting and because

they're not paying the cover charge.

People say this administration is pay

for play. That's the accusation he's

making. I'd say maybe there's a cover

charge. Nobody likes to pay it, but the

other companies have. What do you think

here?

>> I mean, it's literally one of the

dumbest things I've ever heard. I I

[laughter]

truly just because I'm like, I'm in the

Department of War. I need to win wars.

If you help me win wars and I don't have

to waste time transitioning you out, I'm

that makes me thrilled. Um, and it sort

of it's a criticism on me because it's

not like Trump, President Trump dipped

in and he's like, "Hey, Emil, by the

way, those guys didn't get any money.

you can't use them anymore. I mean,

obviously, it's sort of like like

invention in his own mind. It's like I

don't know if people sleep at night if

those thoughts get in there. Um and and

I was trying to work with them. Why

would I spend three months trying to

negotiate with them to get to a simple

standard if I would have just said,

"Okay, guys, you're out. Bye." So, I I

think it's just some internal

psychosis. That's the only way I can

explain that.

>> Okay. It could be on Dario that he's

antagonistic to the administration both

with respect to how he operates

commercially and it's also reflected in

the fact that he doesn't want to support

the administration.

>> I have a different theory.

>> I think that they have a massive

instance of co-work internally that

helps them come up with business

strategy. And I bet you there's like

some element of AI that says, "Yeah, you

should do it. Do it. It just makes

sense.

>> Zig where they zag and get more press."

And so now there's some some

cladbot telling them to basically tell

the department of war to pound sand.

It's gonna turn out to be the stupidest

decision.

>> Listen, if I was chairman of the board

of that company, I pull Dario aside and

I'd say, "Listen, you're obviously a

genius. We obviously have the best tool

in town. This is not a battle you can

win and it makes no sense. You're going

to come across as not being patriotic."

And Tim Cook is showing up for the

Melania premiere. Would it kill you to

support the president? Would he kill you

to show up? Look what happened when

Biden Look what happened when Biden

excluded Elon that ankled him. Show up

for the president. Show up for America

and be a patriot. You don't have to

donate, but be a patriot and show up for

the dinners.

>> That's terrible advice. Here's my

advice.

>> Okay, here's your advice. Okay.

>> Hey Dario, call a meal back right now

and say, "You know what? Sorry, weed up.

We're gonna own this and we're going to

put out a press release that says we

support our customers use of our models

to do everything and anything that's

lawful. Number one, and number two, that

our terms of service are written in

stone and that you can expect solidity

and reliability from us. And this was

just a misstep.

>> Camille, how do you respond?

>> I mean, I would say that's what I've

always wanted. I need a reliable, steady

partner that gives me something that'll