All right, everybody. Welcome back to

your favorite podcast, the AllIn

podcast. Today we have a conspiracy

corner episode for you. We're going to

go over the 9/11 inside job. We're going

over flat earth, JFK assassination. It's

going to be all conspiracy all the time

after our amazing blockbuster episode

during Ski Week. We're going all

conspiracy here. Our guest today, Alex

Jones.

>> How many views did it get? Nine views. I

mean, it's tough when you have one out

of four besties. It doesn't Michael

Tracy is on standby.

>> Not true. I can carry an episode for at

least 400,000 views.

>> I mean, you might. You might. I like

your Hey, for people who don't know,

Jimoth has his own YouTube channel. He's

got his escape hatch for when this train

wreck burns to the ground. He started

his own YouTube channel. He's hedging

his bets. Freyberg's working on his solo

project. Everybody's doing solo project.

The band's got a lot of solo projects.

>> The Beatles are experimenting. The

Beatles.

>> They're experimenting. We had a little

Yokoono situation going on here. You

know what the number one topic for this

show was by the all-in AI bot sacks.

>> What's up?

>> The number one was Daario versus Hegs,

the uh Department of War versus

anthropic was the number one topic

selected by our AI bot as a programming

note for folks. That decision will be

made end of the day Friday when this

podcast comes out. So, we will talk

about it next week. But, let's get to

work. We've got a full docket. The

clawed kill list has expanded and an AI

fanfiction substack tanked your 401k on

Monday. Let's get into it. Anthropics

generational run continues. They're now

three for three in tanking different

market sectors in February.

Congratulations. This is like they they

took the the mantle from Brad Gersonner

uh tanking the market.

>> The Enthropic list.

>> It is February 3rd. Anthropic announces,

hey, we got a legal plugin for Claude

Co-work, Thompson Reuters, Lexus, Nexus,

Legal Zoom, all down at least 10% since

February 3rd. Then on February 20th,

Claude Code Security is announced in a

limited research preview. Stocks tank

again. Crowd Strike, Cloud for Octa, all

down. Then February 23rd, Anthropic

announces Claude can modernize Cobalt

databases. If you don't know Cobalt,

that's the like oldest coding language

in the world. That's where Sachs learned

code when he was in college in the 70s.

It's used for banking, payroll,

government,

>> healthare.

>> Healthcare runs 95% of ATMs in the US

and it powers social security payments.

85% of all coal code runs on IBM

machines. So IBM decided they would tank

13% on Monday, their worst day since

2000. 31 billion in market cap losses.

So let's stop here before I get into the

fanfiction piece.

What's your take here of what's

happening in the market, Shmath? Is this

simply people are looking for an excuse

to trim their positions because things

have been top ticking all-time highs and

people are just looking for an excuse or

is this reality? Is this the go forward

reality that AI is going to compress

these kind of stocks because it solves a

lot of problems?

>> I'm going to give you two explanations.

I don't know what percentage I would

allocate

across the two, but I think one is

tactical and one is much more strategic,

but I think both are happening. The

tactical one is that we are at a moment

in time where a lot of the smart money

hedge funds are starting to massively

degross. And what that means is they're

trimming a lot of positions and they're

just taking on a lot less risk. Why? I

don't exactly know. It could be

motivated by the second thing that I'm

going to talk about. But the point is in

a deg

risk and making your position sizes much

smaller. So the longs become less long,

the shorts become less short and you

just shrink. And so there's just general

downward pressure. That is a clear

behavior right now. But I think the

structural change is the more important

one. And this is sort of what I talked

about this morning. In a normal

functioning market,

what we are always debating is when a

set of cash flows go from becoming

highly confident to less highly

confident. It's a when conversation. So

when will Coca-Cola's cash flows be

impacted? When will Eli Lily's cash

flows be impacted? When will Meta's cash

flows be impacted? And the answer to the

when

gets translated by the public markets

into three things. Your price to

earnings multiple where if you invert

that number what that is equivalent to

is the yield on the money that you get.

Okay. So if you you know 20 times PE

that's a 5% yield.

The second is a revenue multiple. And

the third is what's called your weighted

average cost of capital. Which is to

say, if you look at the next 20 to 30

years of earnings and you want to figure

out what that is worth today,

you have to discount all of these back

and you have to assume

a percentage of interest effectively

that it takes to get there. And the

basic math of this is that when you have

a high whack, it's called, you're

massively discounting these cash flows.

When you have a low whack, you're

assuming that these things are very

durable. Okay. So, what is happening?

We used to debate when this is no longer

a when moment. The market is very much

in an if mode.

Are these cash flows durable at all?

>> Could they fall off a cliff in year

three? Is there some AI model that's

going to come around the corner and

obliterate this business without me

knowing it? And because they've shifted

into this if mindset,

your risk becomes totally different. You

have this event risk that you don't know

how to price. And whenever the market

shifts into that mode, what you see are

that the holders of those equities want

a massive margin of safety. What does

that mean? They have to take pees way

down. If you used to trade at 40, you

should trade at 20. If you used to trade

at 20, you should trade at 10.

They take revenue multiples down. You

used to trade at 10 times revenue. Now

you're going to trade it three times.

You take the whack way up. Used to be a

6% discounted weighted average cost of

capital. You know what? I'm taking you

to 12 or 13. That's the market's way of

saying, I'm now debating

if these things will even exist and so I

need to give myself a huge buffer to own

this stuff.

>> That's what's happening right now. It

has a lot of ripple effects that we can

talk about. Freeberg and I have talked

about this a lot. The most obvious

impact is how these tech companies

recruit and retain talent because the

biggest thing that it starts to eat into

are the cash flows of a business which

really directly tied to stockbased comp

and all this other stuff. But let me

just stop there. So we are we have moved

away from a when

>> to now an if and I think that that is a

very smart question to be asking. The

answer may be from any of these

companies that they will survive, but we

don't know how long. And until that

becomes clearer, you have to give

yourself room to be wrong.

>> You said when, then if. Did you mean if?

>> No, no, no.

>> To when?

>> We we've always debated when. When will

these cash flows disappear? Now it's

like

>> will they even exist?

>> Got it. Okay. So the second part of the

story Friedberg and Sachs is that a

Substack post fanfiction

uh taking place in the fictional 2028 uh

global intelligence crisis went mega

viral. 28 million views on X. It was

posted Sunday night. It made the market

tank on Monday. In this fictional

Substack post, the author said there's

going to be essentially a death spiral

that happens because of AI. How does

that work? Well, first, companies

embrace AI. Everything goes right.

They're able to cut staff. Their margins

go up, similar to how Amazon has, you

know, trimmed their white collar staff.

Then they're so successful at this that

they lose their customer base because

consumers don't have discretionary

funding to spend. Then it creates a

death spiral where the companies keep

deploying AI to try to hit the margins,

cutting staff, and the entire economy

collapses. Dr. Doom level stuff.

Unemployment's at 10%, S&P goes down

from 38% highs. After this piece came

out which speculated that agents would

get rid of all the 3% interchange fees

and move everybody to settle

transactions on stable coins. All the

financial stocks got hit on Monday. Amex

down 8%, Capital 1 down 8%, Mastercard

6%, Visa 4%, yada yada. Finally, this

piece got a lot of push back. There was

a silly piece in it or a section in it

where they said AI agents would vibe

code their way to displacing Door Dash.

And uh that's kind of silly if anybody's

run a networkbased business knows. Sax,

I assume you read this piece or at least

saw the fallout from it. What's your

take? And then we'll go to you Freeberg.

>> Yeah. Well, I I know that this uh

Catrini article got passed around like a

join at a Grateful Dead concert, but I'm

starting to question how legitimately

viral it really was. There's some

information that just came out that the

attribution of the article has been

amended, meaning the co-authors have

been amended to include a short fund

that was shorting some of the names

mentioned in the article. This is

according to another post that just came

out. According to this post, the

authorship attribution attributed to

market moving was changed after

publication of the co-author is the

managing partner of a $262 million SEC

registered hedge fund who confirmed

short positions in the companies the

report named. So I think that's point

number one is I just wonder did this

article truly go viral or did the

authors do anything to kind of amplify

it and we just don't know the answer to

that question. But regardless of that,

let's just take the arguments on their

face. I think one of the best responses

to it was by another writer named Derek

Thompson who wrote a article called

Nobody Knows Anything, which I think is

a reference to a famous take by

legendary Hollywood writer William

Goldman.

>> Yeah.

>> In any event, what the article says is

no one really knows what's going to

happen with AI in two years, never mind

20 years. And so they resort to science

fiction writing masquerading as

analysis. And the author here, Derek

Thompson, says that the conversation

about AI is really just a marketplace of

competing science fiction narratives.

And he says, "That's not to say I think

the technology is a parlor trick, but

rather that the level of uncertainty is

so high and the quality and supply of

real world real-time information about

AI's macroeconomic effects so poultry

that very serious conversations about AI

are often more literary than genuinely

analytical." So in other words, what

he's saying is, look, this guy is

writing very compelling science fiction,

but there's no real analytics behind it

to defend it. And yes, this could

happen. Here's a prediction market on

whether people believe the Catrini

report's going to come true. Something

like 12% believe the Catrini scenario is

going to happen. But the truth is, no

one really knows. I mean, there's other

dueling science fiction narratives where

AI is going to create such a world of

abundance that we're not going to need

for anything. And just by the way, Derek

Thompson is one of the abundance guys

with Ezra Klein.

>> This is why the market's getting

whacked. I think that you're right,

Saxs, nobody knows. So, if you can get

5% for owning government bonds, why are

we taking excessive risk here?

>> Yeah. Let me just build on your point

about SAS. So the reason why there's so

much uncertainty around SAS is that SAS

used to be such a easily modeled and

predictable category and you know I saw

as a VC we saw the same story play out

across many many different categories of

software. You'd have this initial period

where there'd be this experimentation

phase you have a bunch of different

products that come to market. There'd be

a battle and then the market would

eventually settle and they'd be a

category leader and they would capture

most of the market share and the vast

majority of the market capitalization

and they would have very very

predictable metrics. It was very easy to

grade a SAS business. You look at ARR,

you say annually recurring revenue. You

look at the net dollar retention you

want to see depending on the phase

>> RPO RPO revenue under performance.

>> And so you know these things began to be

seen as like a annuity with growth right

because

>> they were rock solid. Yeah.

>> Yeah. Because a good net dollar

retention would be something like 120%.

Which means that your sort of cohort of

existing customers on balance would all

renew the next year and actually they

would renew at 120% of the previous

year's contract values. And the reason

you got that extra 20% is they would buy

more seats or there'd be additional

products or features they would upsell.

It got to be very very predictable. And

so when people were buying software

companies at I don't know 13 times ARR,

they thought they were buying a growth

annuity. And now all of a sudden you got

to factor into that. Well, wait a

second. What if AI disrupts the whole

market? What if it doesn't eliminate? I

don't think AI is going to get rid of

Salesforce, but it could eat into their

growth opportunity. We just don't know

what if it changes the pricing model. I

mean, it just creates a whole lot of

unknowns. And I I actually don't believe

in the Catrini or or the doomer take on

this, but I can see why the market would

feel this level of uncertainty

>> 100%.

>> Given how predictable a category SAS

used to be just say a year ago.

>> Yeah. Well, chaos is a ladder, Freeberg,

and this means opportunity. So, if we

look at this and SAS has headwinds, then

is there a winner? Is open source the

winner? Or is this all deflationary in

your mind, Freeberg? And we just make

less money and the earnings of these

companies get compressed, the size of

them gets compressed. How do you think

about it? I think fundamentally if

you're driving productivity with AI,

you're driving leverage on human time

and leverage on capital.

The question is how quickly can you

drive that up? And that's a function of

how much consumption there is, how much

capacity there is for consumption. So on

the one hand, I'll just speak broadly. I

think like humans have this desire to

improve their livelihoods by roughly 10%

every year. Meaning like your income and

your ability to purchase stuff that's

new relative to where you were last year

has to go up by 10% for you to be happy.

If it's less than 10%, you're probably

unhappy.

>> Is that that's your anecdote or that's

like

>> that's just like an anecdote. Like I

think I think that's sort of like my

rubric for thinking about like why are

people unhappy? You're happy. So if your

earnings are the same but things are

getting more expensive, you're not

happy. If your earnings go up by 10% and

things stay the same price, you got 10%

more than you had last year. You're

you're going to be happy. I just think

like all humans are driven by this need

to consume more each year than they did

last year. So I think for me that's like

the lower limit on consumptive capacity

in the world.

The question that we're now facing which

we've never faced in human history

before is there a upper limit

>> on consumptive capacity because AI

creates such a profound shift in

productivity and in leverage that

normally you would say hey when we get a

new tool or we get new leverage in a

system we build a new technology we can

make more with less. Therefore, everyone

gets access to more things for the same

price or the cost of things that they

consume come down by a certain price.

But there may be a situation now where

the ability to make stuff exceeds the

capacity to consume stuff. And that is

something that I don't think we've faced

before. And I think that's sort of where

a lot of the models start to break. Just

general economic models, just general

productivity models, and general social

models. And this goes to the point about

like what is everyone going to do? In

the same way that I think we've argued

that maybe SAS was a transitory business

phenomenon that existed between the

foundation of the internet and the era

of AI. It may be the case that knowledge

work in general is also a transitory

phenomenon that only existed between the

foundation of the computer or computing

tools and the existence of AI generally

speaking. And if all of that goes away

very quickly and all of those people can

be redistributed and recast into doing

other higher level, more creative

things, their productivity goes up by

100x.

Is there really a consumer on the other

end of all of that productivity? Is

there really enough consumptive

capacity? And I think that's the

profound question that we all face. I

don't think that there's any limit.

>> Is that your way of saying that SAS goes

to zero or that's your way of saying

these companies go to zero? I'm just

saying knowledge work in general like

the the like what is the implication

>> is this just another dueling science

fiction take I mean or what's your

evidence for this

>> I think it's fine to have a sci-fi take

intuition I think is data because I can

show you some data that I think

contradicts what you're saying

>> and I have some firstirhand sort of

>> in the sense that there's more leverage

stacks that people are able to actually

>> well Jake I want to hear what you have

to say because I know you're

experimenting with this but let me just

show you a few data points real quick um

because I think this is relevant. So

we're really talking about the

disruption caused by coding assistance,

right? This is like the first big killer

app of AI. I mean I guess after writing

and research for chat bots and we'll

have agents later, but really it's all

about coding assistance, right? And the

ability to more easily create code.

That's what's creating the disruption to

the SAS category. Well, so let's just

focus on the data we see right now

around that. And there are a lot of

people who are pointing this out that

Enthropic right now has a job listing

for a software engineer on their website

right now for $570,000.

And a lot of people are kind of pointing

out, okay, so wait, so what Anthropic is

saying is they're still trying to hire

software engineers at a very high wage,

but somehow they think these jobs are

going to be eliminated.

>> Timoth might apply for that job. is.

>> Yeah. Austerity measures sounds pretty

good to me.

>> That's a lot of money.

>> Jim might take that job and then just

have AI do it for him.

>> No, I'm I'm I'm worried like I hope my

8090 team doesn't see that offer. That's

a

>> that's a big number.

>> Our equity is way higher, but our

salaries are not that high. I mean, you

look you put these things together, it's

like that equity is money good. The

reality is like those guys are doing 5

to6 billion structured secondaries every

year now or they're starting which means

that they will. That's like cash

compensation. So for for me to match

that, I need to be 3x higher than that.

>> Right? And I think a lot of people are

kind of pointing out, well, this is a

contradiction. Anthropic doesn't really

seem to be practicing what they're

preaching if they're paying enormous

amounts still for software engineers

even as they claim they're obsoleting

the entire category. Something doesn't

quite add up. Citadel Securities did a

new report that rebutts that Catrini

report and they show a couple of stats

here which I think are really

interesting. So, job postings for

software engineers are rapidly rising.

They're showing, I think it was roughly

a 10% year-over-year increase in the

demand for software engineers. On a

related note, they also show that

company formation is also rapidly

expanding and that may have something to

do with AI making it easier to start a

business or to get leverage to your

point, Freeberg. So look, there's a

couple of competing effects going on

here. And I think Aaron Levy had a

really good explanation of why you might

see something very counterintuitive

happening. And again, it all goes back

to Jeban's paradox. But what Aaron says

is that when you lower the cost of

something that was previously supply

constrained, demand for that thing goes

up. Software engineering is just one of

the easiest examples to contemplate, but

there are going to be many other jobs

like that. But think about software

engineering. Even among startups in

Silicon Valley, which I think are

probably some of the most attractive

places for software engineers to work,

there's always been a chronic shortage

of them. Then you've got the Fortune 500

companies, non- tech companies, which

have always had an even harder time

hiring technical talent. So, you have

this massive unfilled need for software

engineers across the entire economy.

Now, you're going to be able to get a

lot more leverage out of software

engineers. It doesn't mean they're going

to get fired. It just means that now

maybe you can have a lot more 10x

software engineers and they're getting

those jobs are now being spread

throughout the whole economy. You know,

I also think just to put some numbers on

this, I think the cost structure of the

average Fortune 500 business is

something like 5% it includes all of

their IT, not just their software. You

know, what should it be? What should the

percentage of software be in an

enterprise cost structure? Elon

describes companies as cybernetic

organisms that are part software, part

human.

>> If you think about the current Fortune

500 company being one or two percent

software, maybe they should be 50%

software. I think what Aaron is saying

here is the market for software and

software engineers was so constrained by

the lack of availability

that even if we 10x or 100x the

productivity of software engineers, the

demand will be there to absorb this new

supply. And so it could lead to this

explosion in productivity without the

massive job loss.

>> I think you're right. I think the the

thing that I would look at is I would

expect OPEX as a percentage of revenue

to fall off of a cliff but within that

opex the percentage of it that you

allocate to technology and technology

related things probably goes way way up

than what it is today. Okay, Jason, the

batch of people that are applying for

launch,

has SAS stopped? Has software stopped?

>> It's AI first companies obviously and

people

>> are they rebuilding traditional SAS

tools just cheaper?

>> Basically, everybody's building the

great, you know, as we talked about at

the all-in summit like some of these

companies are trying to build the best

pilot in the world or Whimo's trying to

build the best driver in the world.

People are now trying to build the best

SDR in the world, the best salesperson,

the best executive coach. And so we have

been like obsessed with claude co-work,

but mainly OpenClaw. And so what we did

was and and I think it's not developers

that are going to do all this work, it's

knowledge workers. So we had we have 20

people in our firm. We had 15 of them

come in this weekend and they all got

trained over like six or seven hours had

to have their own openclaw agent and we

started building it. Every piece of

software that we wanted to buy or build

over the last 10 years that we never got

to my people are building in the last 30

days. As an example, you know, when

you're selling ads for a podcast, you

want to check all the other podcasts and

what advertisers they have. We trained

an agent to go take the top 100

podcasts, look through the transcripts,

figure out who the advertisers are,

check those advertisers in pipe drive,

tell us when the last time we contacted

them and put it into the sales room.

That was an SDR job that we wanted to

fill and software we wanted to build.

Then we wanted people to have

>> hold on that was a that was a human that

you were paying money and now you've

replaced with software or that human

still exists but now they just do it in

a better way.

>> Redeploying that human. We had a human

doing it. we're going to redeploy them

to do other things and the consistency

of this chimoth and the accuracy and

then it's doing it all night long. So we

have like seven of these agents in these

kind of roles. The next piece we did was

we gave my agent which is like the

ultron root access to Gmail, calendar,

zoom, notion, slack. And what it's doing

is it's giving each person here's what

you got done this week with their

manager. Here's the emails you sent.

Here's the meetings you took. Here's the

contacts. here the threads you were

involved in and then it's helping manage

those people and so we are

>> okay but all that all that to me says

you Jason despite all your dumerism

seems like you're growing and you're

going to be hiring more people and

you're more productive am I getting this

wrong

>> I'm not dumerous what I think's going to

happen in this position is

>> but you're growing and you're going to

be hiring more people

>> no no we're not going to add more people

definitely not adding people we have are

becoming 10 or 20% more efficient every

week Because the software we would have

paid for or built from another vendor if

we had the time or we wanted to build

custom software we had 10 engineers it's

being built by our openclaw agents. As

an example when we make clips for this

podcast other podcasts we have it go and

look at like uh this weekend startups

episode from 10 years tell us the three

best moments and it makes the clip it

puts the subtitles on it and then it

puts the clip into the Slack room. That

was something that was going to be a

full-time job. So, we're getting 10 20%

more efficient. Then I started doing it

at home. So, I had to take our

Instacart, pull out the last 10 orders

we did, and then tell us what we order

most of time. And then it's going to

automatically build a car for us. Every

single knowledge work job is being

automated right now. And you can take it

and if you're a business process head,

where you know how to like do a business

process and you can structure it and

write it with an agent, it'll just run

it every day, every week. We did another

agent, how do you make better

thumbnails? And we said, every Saturday

in your skills, so when you build an

open claw, it has like a soul file and

it has a skills file. In the skills

file, we told it sax every week go out

and look for people discussing how to

make better thumbnails on YouTube, how

to make better titles. It found this

week, Chimath, somebody at Mr. Beast

company talk about how they're using

heat maps. It was an article I would

have never known. It added it to its

skill and now whenever we post a

thumbnail, it tell tells us based on its

skill that it refineses every week how

to make that thumbnail better. And it's

starting to make the thumbnails. This is

becoming recursive. So you keep the same

number of people, but they get 10 or 20%

more efficient. I don't know what this

means for the larger economy. All I know

is it's the most exciting time I've had

online since the web came out, since the

internet came out. It is so much fun to

automate all this stuff. The big

question that I am thinking about that I

haven't gotten a good answer about so I

don't I don't know what you guys think

is

all these businesses are going to need

to batten down the hatches and give

themselves room to figure this all out

right like if you take Sax's point like

if you take your point Jal which is the

young nimble companies like yours are

going to be rapidly experimenting the

bigger larger companies are going to

slowly onboard themselves to start

experimenting All of that means we're

going to get much clearer answers to all

of this. But what it also means is that

you're going to have to have time so

that you can figure this all out.

>> And

if you want to buy yourself time, you're

going to need a ton of cash. And if

you're going to think about saving cash,

the one place tech companies literally

incinerate cash is how they do

compensation.

And so I kind of think like at some

point the next shoe will drop and all of

these tech companies have to really look

at stockbased comp because they

literally incinerate most if not all of

their free cash flow fighting the

delilution from stockbased compensation.

So if you want five or six years to just

be in the arena on the field figuring

this out, you're going to want to kind

of be very cash flow generative and

really conservative in how you spend

your money. Yeah, Saxs, the people who

embrace this, I think, become five or

ten times more valuable than the people

who are not. That's where I think the

opportunity in the economy is. So,

unless you think humanity is going to

run out of problems to solve, I think

it's going to be boom. It's going to be

boom town. And I think people are going

to start more companies because the the

barrier to start a company is no longer

three or four million dollars. You can

just have two or three people and you

start setting up these agents and man

you can

>> make software, you can do sales, you can

do PR, everything is getting faster and

faster and faster. So the time between

like conceiving of a product and

publishing it and finding a developer,

you don't even need a developer, you can

just publish software, the the wakeup

moment for me was we were talking to our

agent about, hey, we want to get this

functionality out of Slack. And it's

like, "Yeah, Slack doesn't have that,

but have you considered Matterpost?" I'm

like, "What's Matter Post?" Like, "Oh,

it's an open source project. I can spin

it up this weekend. Export your Slack

instance and put it there." And I was

like, "Oh, don't do that. We're only

spending 6K a year on Slack or 10K a

year." But the software is building CRM

systems for us. It's building agents for

us, and it wants to just build all the

software stack. So you could when you

renegotiate with Slack or HubSpot or

whatever company you're working with,

you're going to be able to say to them,

hey, we could roll our own and uh when

you want to upsell us on this latest

thing like you talked about SAS,

upselling is such a big part of SAS.

You're like, I can actually build that

software myself internally. I don't need

you to do it.

>> Ryan Peterson just posts on XC Claude

for legal seems to work just as well as

Harvey by the way. Now it's the SAS

apocalypse is going after private

companies now too.

>> Well, I think for a while now there has

been a question of which layer of the

stack is going to capture all the value.

>> So is it going to be the model companies

or could it be the applications that are

built on top of the models or you know

if there's a lot of competition at both

those layers of the stack did the chip

companies get it all? I think it's a

unclear question but

>> totally

>> yeah I think you know for any given

vertical application you do have to

defend why you think your value prop

will be sustainable as the underlying

foundation models get better themselves

>> and it's open source like this week we

put up Kimmy 2.5 it can do about 80 85%

of the jobs so we lowered our token

bills massively when we stood that up

all right listen this is TBD We got a

lot more to think about on this topic.

>> Just on this point of a lot of these

debates about AI are dueling science

fiction narratives. I just think that

the doomer narratives are inherently

more appealing to people. I mean, I

think it's partly just you look at most

sci-fi movies are dystopian, not

utopian. In addition to that, I think we

have a bunch of heristic biases in favor

of the dumer narrative. So, one of them

is the scene versus the unseen. It's a

lot easier to see the jobs that already

exist that could be obsoleted than it is

to imagine the new jobs and the new

business models that haven't been

created yet. And that will likely take

some great innovator or a genius to

think of in order to create. So we have

that huge heristic bias of not being

able to see the creation that's coming.

It takes way less creativity to think

about the potential destruction. And

then finally I think you know the other

heristic is just the whole fixed pie

fallacy. Most people do tend to think of

the economy as a fixed pie. This is why

you see so much anger against you know

millionaires and billionaires is because

of this idea that if someone's getting

rich it must be at the expense of

someone else. That's not actually the

case. The economy itself could be

growing larger as a result of someone

inventing something new that increases

production. A really good line from

another article that was written just a

couple weeks ago was the economy is not

a a pie, it's a garden and technology is

rain. So again, you know, all of this

technological innovation is going to

increase the growth rate of the garden.

It's not a fixed pie. And just because

you see an expansion and productivity in

one part of the economy does not mean

that you're going to see job loss in

another part of the economy.

>> Yeah. I think the job people are not

seeing but I'm seeing right now is the

person who creates agents, manages them

and is the maestro of the agents. The

person who can take the business

process, explain it and train the agent

to do it. And there are certain people

in business who are just really good at

operations. You were one of them Sachs

running companies and like that person

who can fire up an agent, train the

agent and figure out how to manage them

and figure out how to increase

>> with any new technology. Great job. and

it's not a developer.

>> Look, with any new technology, there's

always a huge change management aspect

with enterprises because it's hard for

them to adapt and change. And the people

in the organization who can lead that

change management are the ones who are

going to create an amazing career

opportunity for themselves. But it's

hard to do and that's going to slow down

the rate of change just the amount of

inertia in the economy. And also one

other constraint is going to be that at

some point here we may be token

constrained, right? I mean, we may not

have enough energy like we've talked

about, even though the chips are getting

so much better, that tokens per second,

tokens per watt, and tokens per dollar

are all increasing very fast, but we're

still going to probably be constrained

in the next couple of years on some

dimension, whether it's land, power,

shell, or just energy production or

maybe chip production. There are real

world constraints on just how fast we

can scale the infrastructure and that

will mean that these like hyper utopian

or hyperdystopian narratives will be

wrong. I don't think there's time in the

next few years for the whole economy to

change in the way that the extremes

would present.

>> I think you're right. I think you're

going to see a 10xing in

the demand for tokens, but I also think

you're going to see a 90% price

reduction in the cost of an output token

probably by the end of this year. So, I

think that to your point, like it's it's

going to just create an enormous upswell

of demand because we're going to be able

to cut the prices of an output token so

dramatically. And I think by the way

>> that discussion we had Shamath last week

when we talked about co the tokens

outpacing the employee salary and just

where are these tokens all going to come

from that was our most viewed clip or

one of the most viewed clips in the

history of this podcast. So people are

actually really focused on this.

>> I had my team at 89 we we redid our cost

model and now we have that as a line

item. When we think about fully burdened

cost of employees, we now factor that in

because we're we're at a place where

some of our engineers are just racking

up ginormous bills and then separately

just general runs that we do for general

purpose stuff that we need to just run

our product is it's so expensive. So I

am waiting with baited breath for what

Zach said which is like we need an

explosion in the capacity that's

available because I do think that the

the silicon solutions are coming that

will cut the cost but we need a large

block of land power shell ready to then

turn all of this stuff on so that we can

actually take advantage of it.

>> Rumors the new Mac Studio is coming will

have an M5 chip in it and will be

language model ready. So that's the

rumor is that they're building it for

models. So that could be an incredible

turn of events. Everybody's desktop

running the local model. Sax, you want

to have the final word here? Uh Free or

Freeberg before we

>> just to go back to what Jamath was

saying there. I mean, you've got

political forces that want to stop the

construction of all data centers in the

United States. So

>> if that gains steam, then that's going

to be a huge constraint on any change

whatsoever.

>> Can I tee this up for you, Jal? So I I

went back this weekend

and I looked at the number of data

centers that have faced local opposition

and whether there were patterns. And I I

posted it on X. So Nick, maybe you can

put this up, but

it was really a a very small

behavior which was pushing back on data

centers and getting them cancelled. We

had about 25 projects total of which

20 were just in Q2 alone. There are 100

data center projects right now that are

facing some form of local opposition.

>> So interesting.

>> If you take that 40% number and you

apply this and then you multiply by the

number of megawatts that they have

announced. Last year we lost almost 5

gawatt

in terms of cancel projects.

This year coming in 26 we have about

seven that could be cancelled if you use

this math. If then you flow that through

open AI Sarah Frier said this that every

gigawatt for her for open AAI is about

10 billion of revenue. So if you if you

assume that that's roughly accurate plus

or minus a billion here or there. What

that means is that 2025 the industry as

a whole lost

50 billion of revenue

and this year if 7 gawatt gets canceled

it's about 70 billion. Now you're

talking about 130 billion of lost

revenue over these two years that'll go

forward in time that we miss out on. I

think that that's really bad. We need to

figure out a way to nip this in the bud.

>> So confounding because we were sitting

here 5 years ago, 10 years ago, local

municipalities were fighting and giving

discounts to try to get these data

centers open to get the jobs and get the

revenue. And now we've got people trying

to stop them. This is a perfect

transition for the State of the Union.

Before we get there, two important

programming notes. All-In is going to

host two events in 2026. One of them,

liquidity, May 31st to June 3rd, uh, in

Yonville, uh, up in Wine Country.

Chimath has taken control of the event

and he has set a standard for who gets

on stage.

>> None of you mids can control the

programming. I just

>> That's it. Chimath came in and he

dropped the hammer. Who do you got so

far? You want to tease a couple of

people who you invited to come speak?

>> I'll tease two. The first is an

incredibly dear friend of mine,

>> the axe of axes,

Dan Loe, who founded Third Point, who is

an unbelievable investor in literally

every domain, private credit,

public equities, private tech.

He's he's just a he's

>> a beast. So, he'll be doing a really

important keynote. He has not done one

of these public speaking slots in a very

long time. And then the second is the

CFO of OpenAI, Sarah Frier.

>> Oh wow.

>> Unbelievable start. And we're going to

double click into the entire business

model of OpenAI on stage in front of

everybody.

>> So uh go to allin.com and then for those

of you who plan ahead for travel,

>> more coming more coming every week.

>> If you are an All-In Summit fan, I can't

believe it. Freedber, we're going to be

in our fifth year September 13th to

15th. only gets better. Gets better

every year. I could have some good

parties, too. I mean, that Back to the

Future and the Bladeunner parties, those

were epic.

>> allin.com/events. Hey, can I give a plug

to friend of the pod,

>> Bill Gurly? He's got an amazing new

book, Running Down a Dream. Please,

>> wait, wait, wait, wait. Before we start,

>> before I start,

>> there it is. Running down a Dream, I

just want everybody to just stop the

pause the podcast. I want you to buy

three copies, give it to two young

people and a parent. You know,

>> this book is incredible.

>> It's a great book. It's a great book. It

It really is. inspiring for kids and uh

Bill Gurly, friend of the pot. He always

shows up for us.

>> Jal, do an impression for us of what it

would be like if you and Bill Gurley

started a podcast together.

>> All right, everybody. Welcome to the

JCBG podcast. I'm your host, Jason

Calakanis. and I'm Bill Gurly and we're

here in Texas at Terry Blacks where

we're getting some beef ribs and we're

going to discuss investing in

marketplaces

as well as my new book running down a

dream which will teach your kids how to

not be fuckups and if your kids are ups

you can hit them in the back of the head

with the book

Texas style.

One of the big topics uh and I think

something you're working on with

President Trump's acts is uh this energy

pledge. I've been seeing uh rumblings

about this. Explain what's going on in

terms of getting the country in sync

around these data centers and energy.

Well, the president announced in the

State of the Union last night that he

supports a rateayer protection pledge

which requires uh the major tech

companies to provide for their own power

needs for AI data centers so that

residential consumers do not see their

rates going up. I think this makes total

sense. I think Chamas, to your point,

this is the reason behind a lot of the

opposition to new data centers is that

the local residents fear that their

electricity prices are going to go up

and that shouldn't be the case. And so

the president has said that he's

committed to not allowing residential

rates to go up as a result of data

centers. It's pretty straightforward.

You get the big tech companies, the

hyperscalers to pay for the increase in

the electricity cost or you let them set

up their own power behind the meter. The

president's been talking about this for

over a year that our biggest AI

companies would also become big power

companies because we would let them uh

stand up their own power generation

behind the meter. So these data centers

don't even have to connect to the grid.

They could just do collocation

themselves. But also, I think that with

this rateayer protection pledge, what

you're going to see is that it could

actually bring down consumer prices

because what happens is that when these

data centers then set up their own power

and connect to the grid, they can give

back the excess to the grid. Also, they

will make investments in scaling the

infrastructure. So, although electricity

is priced at a metered rate, the costs

to generate it are not all variable.

There's a lot of huge fixed costs in

there. So when you increase scale then

you can actually reduce the the metered

rate. So again you know this is really I

think the rebuttal to Bernie Sanders who

just wants to stop all progress

whatsoever.

I saw a funny post calling it bananas

which is build absolutely nothing

anywhere near anyone. So this is the

>> bananas is replacing the new nimi. So

you just can build absolutely nothing. I

think the president's approach finds a

very good balance here, which is look,

>> we can have progress. Just don't make

residential consumers pay for it. Let

the big tech companies pay for it

themselves. And I think you'll see more

coming out about this from the White

House next week.

>> Quite a deaf move. Freeberg, how should

America be thinking about this great

data center buildout, energy usage, you

know, if you expand it out over the

coming decade? And how do you sell that

to the backdrop that you talk about the

socialist movement? You got a great

interview coming out with Ray Dalio and

the all-in interview program next week.

How do you think about those competing

forces? You've got the socialists saying

bananas, nimi, slow down, del, and then

you've got this incredible race we're in

for efficiency and this opportunity and

abundance. How would you sell it to kind

of bring these two sides together? Or is

it just

impossible. The data coming in and out

of data centers moves at roughly the

speed of light. So you could put them

anywhere. And I think that our policy

makers need to be very cognizant of that

fact. You have and we do connect the

internet using high-speed cable,

high-speed

fiber optic throughout the world. And so

theoretically if we don't embrace and

allow the economic development of the

data center industry and it will

fundamentally be an industry because it

is almost like the new sort of oil.

Where are the oil rigs going to go?

Where are the railroads going to go?

Where are the telegraph lines going to

go? Where are the factories going to go?

If we don't put them here, someone else

will put them on their shores. Someone

else will put them in their country.

Someone else will put them in their

jurisdiction. And a lot of the economic

value that arises from the people that

will build those facilities, the energy

that will be installed to produce power

for those facilities, and then all of

the second and third order industries

that emerge as a result of those

installations, that value will acrue

elsewhere.

>> Such a good point.

>> So,

>> yeah,

>> it's not going to like just go away. The

the demand is there. The economy is

moving forward. AI is moving forward. We

live in a world with 196 countries and

data centers do not take up a lot of

space. They're very small relative to

the economic value that they produce. If

you zoom out on the map of the world,

all the data centers in the world fit

under the tip of a pin. And so this is a

very small footprint and if we're going

to give up hundreds of thousands of jobs

and many billions of dollars of economic

value creation, we're being pretty silly

and pretty obtuse in our view of the

world. I would just like encourage the

system that I think is the right system

and we talked about this last time where

provided data centers are producing

their own electricity. That means that

you're taking electricity consumption

off the grid because they otherwise are

not being used on the grid and that will

reduce the cost of electricity for other

residential and industrial users. So,

it's silly to think that we need to put

a moratorium on data centers. As soon as

you do that, the companies that use data

centers are not going to slow down.

they're going to go put them somewhere

else and we're going to miss out.

>> And it's such a good point, Chimamoth,

because you were recently in the Middle

East and I've been there a bunch in

Saudi, UAE. These are the folks who

built a large portion of those oil

refineries. And they are savvy to this.

And what are they doing in Saudi, UAE,

Qatar, all of these regions? They're

doubling down. They're 10xing their data

center builds. So to your point,

Freedberg, either we build them or

they're going to go somewhere else. And

there are people who are willing to

underwrite these and they're willing to

take out the red tape

from the process here and move quicker

than us. So we I think this is a pretty

deaf move by President Trump to say,

"Hey, you guys should all just guarantee

that consumers don't get impacted." The

water thing is a total hoax. Like the

water is recirculated. That's a hoax. I

think this is really smart. I think that

what the president's doing and what Sax

is doing is really smart. The thing to

keep in mind is that there's still a

risk that prices go up and it has

nothing to do with these data centers

and it has everything to do with the

business model of being a utility

because what happens is in order to get

a license a monopoly license in an area

to provide energy to generate energy for

a community.

The exchange works in the following way.

You go and you present a capex plan to

the public utilities commission. That's

effectively your budget that says here

are the lines I'm going to upgrade. Here

are the generators I'm going to upgrade.

Independent of data centers. The reality

is the draw the electricity consumption

of individual Americans is going up

because we have more devices, we have

cars, we have all of these other things.

So what we also have to do is we have to

look at how utilities's business model

actually incentivizes them to increase

prices by making all kinds of

investments. So we have to do a good job

of making sure we hold everybody

accountable because otherwise what you

could see is that the data centers

taking on the burden for themselves but

price is still continuing to escalate

because a utility says I need to spend a

billion dollars this year to upgrade my

infrastructure. And what that allows

them to do is take that billion dollars

and essentially invest it for a return.

That's the business model of utility.

And this is really happening in blue

states. Micron has a hundred billion

dollar mega fab in New York. And there's

a lawsuit by six 1 2 3 4 5 citizens.

>> That's shameful.

>> And the project has taken 12

>> 1200 days. 1,200 days

>> between their announcement and the

groundbreaking. And they spent 612 days

on the environmental impact study.

People wake up. Just go to Texas. Elon

built his factory here, the Gigafactory,

in under like 18 months. This is the

great state of Texas. Come here. We'll

build it for you and you'll be done.

>> Yeah. I don't know why anyone bothers

with the blue states anymore. They make

it too hard to build.

>> It's It's so dumb. It's such a

self-owned, too. Like, what? Don't you

want to be part of the future? You're

literally ankling the entire country to

scratch the odd.

>> By the way, there are a lot of people in

New York who want to work. This is not a

case actually of this new fab being

unpopular.

The majority of people in the area

actually want this plant being built.

They want the jobs that are going to

come there. A lot of people say data

centers don't create a lot of jobs. This

is actually a chip fab. So, it will

create a lot of jobs. A lot of good high

paying jobs. People want it. But six

people can stop it with a lawsuit after

it's already been through a two-year

environmental review.

>> It's not blue and red states. These are

nonprofits that get organized to create

this kind of chaos. I remember looking

at a massive lithium investment in

Nevada. And the whole point was to

domesticate

lithium production. And what was

interesting is this enormous deposit

that's just sitting there ripe for

development right before they were about

to get environmental approvals or right

after there was a lawsuit by people who

wanted to protect the upper land grass.

It's seared in my mind that the upper

land grass of Nevada is the reason why

we do not have domestic national

security around lithium.

And you have to ask yourself why is this

possible? And it's possible because you

have these environmental nonprofits that

can go and create this chaos with

absolutely no risk to them. Zero. They

can fund raise around it and they can

create this chaos. I mean, Nick, to this

point, this is an example of Greenpeace.

And specifically here, they were pushing

back on an oil pipeline to such a degree

and they created so much chaos that they

were sued. And a North Dakota judge just

said that he's going to order Greenpeace

to pay damages. That should total almost

$350 million in connection to those

protests.

>> And it should not be the case that six

people can slow down a hundred billion

investment package. That's not right.

Well, I think there's and I just want to

highlight this important point. There's

not a lot of logic and reason.

You guys are right. But I do think

there's a lot of emotion and there's a

huge aversion to big tech, a huge

aversion to wealth creation by select

individuals, select companies, a huge

aversion to economic growth that doesn't

benefit everyone. There's a fundamental

kind of underlying left behind emotion

that drives a lot of this. And I've said

it before, but I think unless there's

systems or mechanisms that get folks to

come along with the value creation ahead

and and help them connect their own

lives to the value creation that's being

realized, they're not going to be

supportive because there is this kind of

diametric opposition towards big tech,

towards the wealth gap, towards value

acrruel to a select few companies or

select few individuals and this fuels

and feeds that. So I think fundamentally

maybe it's not just about giving the

data centers their own power capacity

but there's got to be mechanisms and

tools that helps the broader population

understand or recognize or get some

benefit from it as well where they're an

owner in it or participant in it because

they have the power as we're seeing they

have the power to stop it. Therefore

they want to have some benefit for

providing authority to do it. And these

six people are concerned about housing

costs, worker exposure to toxic

chemicals, pollution in air and water,

greenhouse gas emissions, energy

consumption, flooding of the wetlands,

all these things that obviously could be

mitigated. All right, let's keep moving

here. We got a lot more docket to get

through. State of the Union came in at

108 minutes

and it's the longest in 60 years.

actually the longest since they started

tracking this. The theme of President

Trump's State of the Union this year,

America at 250, strong, prosperous, and

respected. Trump took a bunch of victory

laps, inflation, jobs, closing the

border, all those have gone really well.

But this comes to the backdrop of

Trump's approval rating being super

challenged. He started his first year at

plus 11.7%. Now he's negative 14 14.3%

26 point swing. Economy started plus 3.4

down to 18.2 and trade started at 5.9%

and we'll talk about the tariff stuff

later and went down to 22.7.

So let's call balls and strikes here,

gentlemen. Favorite moments. What were

your favorite moments from the State of

the Union and just general impressions

of 1 hour and 45 minutes of Trump going

to town?

I thought it was great.

>> Favorite moment? Favorite moment or two?

Well, I had a couple.

One was the

Elon Omar Rashida Tlay death stare and

them just like losing their minds and

and screaming. I just thought it was so

unamerican. The second was when he was

calling for law and order where and

focusing and prioritizing on American

citizens and

>> illegal uh aliens

>> and none of the Democrats stood up. I

thought that was kind of foolish. It was

like obvious things and the Democrats

wouldn't applaud but this time they did

like they did for the hockey team which

I thought was like the right thing to

do. And then the fourth thing is just a

a shout out to our friend Brad Gersonner

who got a big shout out from the

president. I don't know Sax if you

engineered that or not but that was

>> that was fantastic.

He got like a double shout out. It was

like a double tap.

>> Yeah, that was really cool.

>> That was surreal.

>> Our group chat group chat went crazy. It

was really That was really cool.

>> Those are my four highlights.

>> Great. Here's your uh here's your clip

of uh yeah, Democrats not standing for

Americans uh over illegal aliens. 20

seconds.

>> If you agree with this statement, then

stand up and show your support. The

first duty of the American government is

to protect American citizens, not

illegal aliens.

>> Why wouldn't you stand for that? That's

an easy one to stand for. Doesn't make

any sense.

>> Would you stand for it, Chico?

>> Yeah. I mean, I I'm I'm pro I can be

anti-ICE, but I'm pro-American and I'm

pro reasonable immigration like 90% of

the country is. So, it just doesn't make

any sense. Uh, do you have any

highlight?

>> Do you think American citizens should be

prioritized over illegals?

>> Well, of course, of course. Yes. Of

course. Yes. And then I I also think

there should be a path to citizenship

for people who have been here for a

while. And I think that's what the

majority of the country thinks as well.

>> Your point is I can hold two thoughts in

my head. I would have stood if he asked

me.

>> Yes, obviously we should take care of

American citizens first. Yes. And we

should deport violent criminals. We've

been over this like a million times

here. This is like consensus.

>> But what do you what do you think is

going on in everybody else's head when

they're like we got to we cannot stand

for this?

>> These two sides I mean I think it's like

the tariff thing. It's like the ice

thing. These two sides cannot work

together. It's just the most polarized

it's ever been. Trump is not like the

kind of guy to reach across the aisle.

the Democrats are now digging in. So, we

just have a dysfunctional government

where, you know, in a more functional

time period, like under Clinton, let's

say, or Bush, people would have gotten

together, and I'm I'm jumping ahead to

the tariff discussion. And they would

have said, "Yeah, of course, tariffs are

done in Congress. That's the law.

Whatever. What are your thoughts, Mr.

President? How can we support your

tariff program?" But now it's like, "Oh,

well, we don't work together. We don't

actually have discussions anymore.

There's no bipartisan,

you know, collaboration. All these

politicians are disgraceful descriat

across the board. They should be working

together for the American people. If the

president wants to do tariffs,

>> they should be reasonable about it and

give him the power to do reasonable

tariffs and he should be reasonable and

say, "Hey, I understand that's your

power. Let's get together and we'll

we'll chop it up and let's have dinner

together." But they're just too

polarized. It's just disgraceful where

this country has gotten to. I blame both

parties.

Whenever the Democrats get smoked out as

being radicals and extremists, you

always want to basically say a pox on

both your houses and blame the

Republicans and Democrats equally. The

fact of the matter is the president said

to the audience, to the members of

Congress, hey, if you agree with the

statement, stand up. And of course,

every single Democrat sat there

stonefaced and refused to applaud or

acknowledge what he was saying. This was

a very easy test for the Democrats to

pass.

>> What I just said,

>> in fact, it was what I said.

>> In fact, it was a political risk for the

president because it was so easy for the

Democrats to demonstrate that they're

operating in good faith and that they're

willing to be bipartisan and they're not

extremists and they're actually common

sensical and logical and they completely

failed the test. And by the way, it

wasn't just on that one. I mean, let me

just tell you some of the other ones

where they refused to applaud. So they

refused to applaud the grieving families

of innocent American women and children

murdered by criminal illegal aliens,

including the mother of Ireina

Zeritzkaya.

>> That was very sad. That was sad.

>> That was unbelievable. They refused to

applaud for securing our homeland and uh

ending the invasion of criminal illegal

aliens, killers, rapists, gang members,

and traffickers. They refused to applaud

for unifying against political violence.

So, the president mentioned the

assassination of Charlie Kirk. They

would not even do a polite clap for

Erica Kirk and unifying against

political violence. They refused to

applaud for keeping violent criminals

locked up. They even refused to applaud

for lower prescription drug prices for

millions of Americans because it was

President Trump who orchestrated that

policy. And there were so many other

examples like that. And you know, I

think the reason why this speech was so

effective, and by the way, it's not just

me saying it. something like twothirds

of the people that CNN pled, so

twothirds of CNN watchers said it was

highly effective and something like

threearters of CBS news viewers said it

was highly effective is because the

president laid out 8020 issue one after

another, right? Or even 9010 issues or

955 issues. I mean, these were all

issues where the overwhelming number of

Americans, I think, agree with the

policy the president laid out. And in

every single case, the Democrats

supposed to wouldn't even give it

applied applause. And that is different

than than in the past. And you can say

that's because of hyperartisanship and

polarization, but it's also because of

another thing. It's because the

Democrats have become a party of

radicalism and extremism. And the

viewpoints that they expressed through

their aesthetics the other night, they

do express those things in policy and in

speeches all the time. So it's not just

like a oneoff or you know somehow like

we have a misconception of who these

guys are. I think you know the big line

of the night was when Trump just sort of

said these people are crazy. I mean he

said it in like almost mournful and

regretful way. He doesn't want them to

be crazy. He wants them to be rational

so he can work with them. I mean,

>> but I think that point re I'll I'll

still point the other side, which is

this has been going on for a couple of,

>> you know, state of the unions here

across this. The Republicans didn't

stand for the Democrats often and uh

it's a bit of showmanship. But the truth

is Trump is the divider and chief chief.

He always is attacking people. He's

always mocking people. So, they don't

want to play ball with him. So, I do

think you can both choice in politics.

You got to counter punch.

>> Uh no, I don't think so. That's actually

the that's actually the problem with the

that philosophy, Trump's philosophy of

we have to counter punch, we have to

attack, we never have to apologize, we

never have to be reasonable. That's part

of what's broken down in our politics

and these two sides should work

together. We should go back to a

bipartisan.

>> Are you going to work with Helen Omar

when he is when the president going to

be easy, but she is the mirror. Hold on,

I'll finish my statement. You asked a

question. I think Trump is the mirror of

that. He has been hostile towards these

Democrat. He doesn't give them an inch.

they should be more collaborative. That

that's what the balance of power between

the executive branch, you know, and and

these uh you know, congressmen and and

the Congress and the Senate. Like this

is how it's supposed to work. And these

two sides need to learn how to get back

to listening to each other,

understanding each other's positions,

and then finding a middle ground. And

that's why the Democrats lost last time

because they didn't have the common

sense to say, "Hey, everybody wants the

border closed." To your point, it's a

90% issue. and Kla Harris was too dumb

to just say, "Yeah, we should have

closed the border. It's closed now." And

uh we've got it. Anyway, the whole thing

is a mess. I understand you got to fight

for your team. I don't like the

>> count. You just actually made the key

point. You made the key point which is

underlying the optics and the

polarization. You have issues and on

those issues, President Trump is on the

side of the American people. the issues

where 80% of the American people agree.

Some huge percentage, I don't know

exactly what it is, thinks that the

Somali daycare fraud in Minnesota was an

outrage. And the president is right to

point that out. And what's the

Democrat's reaction? You've got Ilan

Omar screaming from the audience at him.

>> Yeah, she's alone. I mean, at the end of

the Democrats are not that different.

You did have you did have Elizabeth

Warren stand for uh stopping Nancy

Pelosi from trading stocks and that gave

Trump his best oneliner of the night.

That was his best oneliner clearly and

they stood for Iran too and stopping

Iran from being a nuclear.

>> I give Elizabeth Warren credit for that.

>> There you go. You don't have to punch

her back.

>> Stop insider trading act without delay.

>> Yeah. See, that's something bipartisan.

Look at that, Zach. That's what you need

to get the country back to. But that

hold on. But this this disproves the

point you were making before. You said

that it was polarization.

>> You stood up for that. I can't believe

>> can't believe Nancy Pelosi stand up if

she sing pal. Good job.

>> That's why he's so good is he's in the

moment and he's reacting to what's

happening in the chamber. He's not good.

He's not just reading from a

teleprompter. And he nailed it. But

look, that moment disproves what you

were saying, Jal, because this is not

just about polarization. On that issue,

Elizabeth Warren was willing to stand

because she actually, to her credit,

wants to ban insider trading by members

of Congress. Yes. But on the rest of

those issues, like securing the border,

she did not stand. Why? Because she does

not agree with the president on that

issue.

>> We just have to get back to these sides

working together. That's my personal

feeling.

uh Freeberg, any thoughts on the uh

theatrics and uh Trump's first year at

large and you know the sort of back and

forth and is there any hope that these

two teams could collaborate at some

point on something like say the

ballooning deficit which Trump has not

gotten under control in his first year

and it's going to be $2.5 trillion

dollars added. What are your thoughts

here on them collaborating on anything

important? Friedberg, that's probably

one thing they can agree on is just keep

the money flowing. Got it. They'll both

give a They'll both give a a standing

ovation for burn more capital and put us

more in debt. Well said my guy David

Friedberg, sultpan of science, it is

your time to shine. The world's greatest

moderator has decided we're going

directly to science corner. This is your

time to shine.

>> Sax's time to drop a deuce.

>> Sax went immediately off camera.

>> Yeah, he has to drop a deuce.

>> What's up?

>> But what do you need me for? This is

very important for you.

>> Freeberg's going to talk.

>> Lightning round for science corner. Go

Freeberg.

>> Wait, wait, wait. Are we doing any more

topics after this or can I just leave?

>> Yes, tariffs.

>> Yes, we're doing tariffs.

>> Wait, why would we do that?

>> Because I want to get the audience to

sleep. I'm not saying Science Corner

doesn't have its audience.

>> Listen, you can go.

>> Why wouldn't we do Yeah, exactly. You're

screaming.

>> Let him do his work.

>> Let him let him cook. Let him cook.

>> Freeberg, tell us about this Harvard

scene.

>> Speaking of science, I think that

there's a very important moment

happening right now. We've talked a

number of times on the show about

Yamanaka factors. These are these four

proteins that were discovered by Shina

Yamanaka that we found later that when

applied to cells, mamalian cells can

actually reverse the age of those cells,

reset the epigenetic clock, reset the

epiggenome, which is the little markers

on top of the DNA that turn genes on and

off back to a youthful state.

extraordinary groundbreaking work that

was done that won the Nobel Prize led to

the foundation of several companies.

There's a Harvard uh scientist named

David Sinclair. He's a bit of a

controversial character. Do you guys

know him? I think you guys one one or

two of you may have met him. Chim, you

ever met him?

>> I I I followed him. I've seen his stuff.

So Sinclair is kind of bemoaned a little

bit by the scientific and academic

community for being a little too

overhypy snake oil salesman as some of

folks have claimed because years ago he

sold a company to GSK saying resveratrol

would reverse aging and you know he made

$720 million on that and it didn't end

up working and he's promoted certain

supplement companies and so on. So, I

want to preface with that before I kind

of underwrite what he's saying with this

next thing, but he's a co-founder of a

company called Life Biosciences, and

they've reached a major agreement with

the FDA to be the first company to treat

humans with Yamanaka factors.

Specifically, what they're doing is

they're going to be delivering these

Yamanaka factors, these are these

proteins

that rejuvenate cells and make them

youthful again into the eye. And so

their their first indication is to

actually inject them into the vitrial

fluid in the eyeball and they'll affect

the retina in the eye to address people

that have gotten blind from glaucoma or

one of these kind of stroke like

diseases that happen in the eye. And the

expectation with this phase one clinical

trial is that the delivery of these

Yamanaka factors into the eye will

rejuvenate the retina, make it youthful

again, and restore vision. If it works,

which it's expected to because we see

this result happen in animal models, it

could be an extraordinary breakthrough,

not just in terms of blindness, but in

terms of the first human application of

Yamanaka factors to reverse aging. The

way they're doing it is they're actually

packaging up DNA that will make these

proteins into viruses, AAV virus that is

delivered into the eye. The virus will

then go into the retinal cells and then

will deliver this payload for this DNA

to make these proteins in the eye uh

cells and it can be turned on and off.

Amazingly they've created a switch

mechanism in it where the protein

production the production of these

Yamanaka factors can be turned on and

off by taking an antibiotic called

doxycyc. So the person that gets the

delivery of this drug takes the

antibiotic turns on the production of

these Yamanaka factors and then

theoretically their eye cells will deage

will get youthful and their vision will

be restored. So phase one clinical

trials underway. First time in human

history we're seeing Yamanaka factors

being delivered into humans. Literally

the tip of the iceberg. There are now

over a dozen startups that are trying to

deliver Yamanaka factors which are these

proteins or some other sort of protein

that can actually reverse aging by

restoring the epiggenome and cells and

make them young again. So this is the

beginning of a wave of what I think will

be the most extraordinary revolution in

human therapeutics and ultimately could

lead to

you know some people would argue the

fountain of youth. Is this just a talk

study? So is it mechanism?

>> They're not. Yeah, they're they're well

they'll see results. They'll see

results, but they're going to they're

going to keep dosing low. But you will

see results.

>> God, that's going to be incredible.

>> It's going to be incredible. By the way,

the number of other folks that are

gearing up for phase one using if not

the Yamanaka factors, other factors that

they've identified or designed as an

alternative to Yamanaka factors again to

rejuvenate the cells. And just to remind

folks, the way this works is it was

discovered that these proteins when they

go into a cell, they take all of those

little markers that sit on top of your

DNA that turn genes on and off and they

create a system that causes them all to

move to the right place. So, it resets

the markers so that those cells will

start to operate like they're supposed

to when they were young again.

>> That's going to be

>> it's going to be incredible. Yeah. Do

you think like No, in all seriousness,

people's knees or joints or what where

do you think it could flow to next in

arthritis?

>> Yep. Um and and by the way, when applied

and if it's distributed in the skin,

they've seen some results in monkeys

where like wrinkles go away.

>> It like literally makes these cells all

work youthful again. And so a lot of the

damage that happens over time is not

damage to DNA. It's damage to the

epiggenome. It's the parts that sit on

top of the DNA that turn genes on and

off. And they get moved to the wrong

place as you get older. And by resetting

them and getting them back to the right

place, boom, the cell is young again,

the organ is young again, and suddenly

you look and act and feel young again.

It's an incredible technology. We're

just at the early stages, the early

innings of turning it into therapeutics.

Again, the discovery goes back to 2006

and now we're starting to see it get

into clinic.

>> All right, let's rejuvenate. Let's

rejuvenate some hairlines on this

podcast. Uh, that would be next up.

>> Speak for yourself.

>> I don't know. You got You got a little

uh You got a little peaks going there,