All right, everybody. Welcome back to

the number one podcast in the world, the

All-In podcast. After a triumphant week

last week, we had an amazing episode.

Uh, thanks to Larry Summers and Ezra

Klein for joining us for the great

tariff debate number four episode in the

world last week. And uh, man, we got a

banger ready for you today. Before I get

to that, couple of quick plugs. Did you

call the DNC to clean up the roadkill

Jason from last? I'm an independent,

folks. Just I know these guys keep

trying to pin me as a Democrat. I'm an

independent critical thinker for life,

but I do think Ezra is um got a little

PTSD. I haven't heard from have a

roadkill cleanup crew.

You know, it's amazing you have an

episode like that where I thought he

made great progress on dealing with

those issues and and came to some

consensus at the end and then every

single person universally, if they're on

the right, oh my god, Sax and Chimath

destroyed them. If they're on the left,

the left's position was, "Oh my god, Sax

and Chamath finally got destroyed."

Anyway, you decide for yourself. We're

just here to talk about the most

important news stories and uh all in

summit. I think Chimath is right. I

think they sent the same crew that

cleans up the armadillos on the road.

Okay.

All righty. Here we go. September 7th to

9th. Couple armadillos left lying on the

side of the road. All right. Okay.

All-Inummit is going into its fourth

year. yada yada September 7th to 9th.

Apply allin.com/summit.

Pronouns everywhere. Pronouns everywhere

on the highway. Jason, can I get people

just trying to clean up the pronouns?

The shovels weren't big enough for all

the pronouns. Freeberg was on Jeopardy

again. Celebrity Jeopardy. And I don't

want to ruin it for you, but he had an

amazing comeback victory. But really

excited to have on the program today one

of your favorites. He was on the show

pre-election. One of my favorites,

Robert F. Kennedy is with us again. RFK,

how are you doing? I love the glasses.

You're going to make America healthy and

again and uh welcome to the program, RFK

Jr., we found out that autism is caused

mainly by this show and we're going to

have to take action. And we've started

to look at the different causes, but

we're thinking it is the debate between

Ezra Klene and Larry Summers that is the

real villain here.

Let your winners ride.

[Music]

We open sourced it to the fans and

they've just gone crazy with it.

[Music]

Tremendous. Everybody knows RFK is going

to do a great job. He's a little bit

weird, but wife is a smoke show. I mean,

an incredible wife. RFK Jr. Incredible.

Not as good. Not as good. Okay. Well,

I'm trying to land it. Yeah. What am I

supposed to do? I'm up against a

professional, you know. So, uh, welcome

to the program. moderate so that okay

here we go. Don't talk over me. Okay,

you just you you just sit sit down.

Jamal, can you do what you did last

week? Can you do what you did last week?

What's that? What's that? Moderate for

narcissists who all want to add one more

thing. Let the experts talk. Of course,

now here comes Zach. Why can't I talk?

Why can't I talk? I'm so Can you please

pass the ball? Just pass the ball. Let's

pass the ball. Let's welcome our

guest. He's an incredibly funny

comedian. He has a new special, I'm Your

Mother, on Netflix. He's the host of the

awardwinning, now in its 10th year.

Emmy-winning, award-winning.

He's got the Emmy. He's got the Tony.

He's still got to get the Grammy and the

Oscar, the one, the only Tim Dylan of

the Tim Dylan Showers. Thank you so

much. Thank you for having me. I feel

like I'm having a Zoom meeting with Doge

to prove what I've done in the last

week.

This is what, by the way, this is the

last thing someone at the EPA sees. It's

just these four guys. They're just

staring at a guy like Traath going,

"Well, we tested some soil. Uh, I think

we got those numbers back." Uh, that's

what it that's what it feels like here.

I feel like I'm on trial just trying to

justify my stupid job. Would you like 8

month severance or would you like to be

fired today? Which would you prefer

today? You have both options on the

table. It would have been very funny if

we actually were just if if as soon as

Tim said that we had Steve Davis B on

Well, interestingly, I you know, I don't

want to speak out of school or embarrass

our guests, but Tim was supposed to join

us in February. Yes. And like the star

he is, as I mentioned, he's he's got the

Emmy, he's got the Tony, still working

on the Oscar and the Grammy. He was

supposed to be with us and he canceled

last minute and then we found out why.

Yeah. He ditched us. to spend the day

with Steve Bannon and go on the Steve

Bannon podcast. Here they are. That's

true. When you What is this? Look at

that. That's Steve Bannon and Timmy. I

took the 23 and me and they didn't tell

me my ethnicity, but the only thing that

came back was they said that Steve

Bannon was my father. Yes. And here they

are on the cyclone in Brooklyn.

Beautiful. They went out to Little

Italy. Little Italy here. See, by the

way, they've done pretty decent job

wrapping up with a little hookah or I

mean maybe a little bit more in there. I

don't Oh, I mean, do you think Bannon is

uh 420 friendly? You tell us, Timmy.

I think anything I mean, Bannon would

tell you if we could start farming

marijuana in America and the American

working class could share in the

profits, I think he'd be 420 friendly.

He would be 420. Finally, 420. Taiwanese

marijuana though. Nothing, you know,

it's got to be American. Can I

absolutely can I give a quick shout out,

which is 10 months ago, Tim Dylan went

on the Tucker Carlson show. I think the

title is called Disney Boomers and the

creepy corporations that pretend to love

you. Really one of the best pieces of

content I watched all of last year.

Nick, you should put the link in the

show notes. Thank you. It's incredible.

Like, thank you. The whole thing end to

end, two hours well spent. I would

encourage everybody to watch it. It's

timeless content actually. Real good

cultural observation of the moment. It's

really good. Two white guys talking in a

in a in a garage in Maine. Seems he has

a certain way. You know, I I went to and

did it there and he has a way of just

kind of like slipping you into this

state of comfort. All of a sudden, I

just started talking about all the money

I've lost. He's great. He's great at

Where's this guy? Who's GHB? He's great

at it. It's like Megan Kelly's great at

it, too. I just did her thing and um you

know she does it at her house and I I

just show up and she's sitting behind

the desk and she goes hi and you sit

down and you're and then she goes so

your mother's a schizophrenic like

immediately

you start crying to Megan Kelly. They're

just good. They know what they're doing.

They know what they're doing. Let's get

to the docket. H20s banned. The US and

China trade war has been escalating. On

Monday, the White House informed Nvidia

that they were putting an indefinite

export restriction on Nvidia's H20 chips

to China. And so in this filing, uh,

Nvidia said it expects a $5.5 billion

hit to the quarterly earnings. Stock

dropped 6%. For those of you who don't

know, H20 is essentially the weaker

version of the H100. It was designed

actually to comply with uh these export

restrictions on AI chips and allow them

Nvidia to sell something into China.

Nvidia CEO CEO Jensen Hang was visiting

China today. He told Chinese state

media, quote, "The China market is very

important to us." yada yada sax um

you're here. I think you got some uh

official information for us on this.

What What's the story here? Wasn't this

supposed to be the chip that was made

for China in a sense? I mean, there is a

long history to this. Okay, so first of

all, just to be clear, we're not talking

about tariffs. We're talking about

export controls. And the export controls

are designed to prevent certain

sensitive technologies, technologies

that could have a dual use potential

military as well as consumer application

from going to China. And this goes all

the way back to 2019. The first Trump

administration placed a ban on extreme

ultraviolet lithography equipment going

to China. This is the key technology in

the printing of transistors on the

silicon wafer in the semiconductor

manufacturing process. And there's only

one company in the world that makes

these machines. They cost like $200

million. It's called ASML. It's a

company in the Netherlands. In any

event, the first Trump administration

prevented these machines from going to

China, which I think in hindsight was a

really far-sighted decision because if

it weren't for that, China might today

be dominating global manufacturing of

semiconductors and their inability to

get that sort of lithography equipment,

I think, definitely put a dent in their

plans. Subsequent to that, in 2022, the

Biden administration started adding

leading edge chips to the export control

list. like you said, the H100. Nvidia

then designed a new chip that was

basically a version of the H100, but

they reduced the amount of flops or

computational power just below the

threshold so they can continue selling

to China. That was called the H800. The

Biden administration then added the H800

to the export control list in 2023. So

Nvidia developed the

H20 which again is kind of like a Nerf

version of the H100 just has less

computational

power. I think the issue is that flops

isn't the only criteria by which you can

measure the power of a chip. There's

also now memory bandwidth and in the new

paradigm of reinforcement learning and

and test time compute memory bandwidth

actually matters more than the amount of

flops. And if you look at the memory

bandwidth on the H20, it actually has

20% more memory bandwidth than the H100.

So I think there's a view that this chip

is just frankly too good. And the

response I'd have to people who don't

think we should be restricting this is

are you against export controls in

general or you just think that we're

drawing the line in the wrong place

here? Because, you know, I've heard

folks like our friends like Bill Gurley

and so forth say that yeah, I was about

to um yeah, pull that we're making a

mistake. But I think the question for

those people is would you sell them

everything? I mean, if China wanted to

buy the latest Nvidia chip, the GB200,

would you sell that to them? Would you

sell them a million of those? Would you

sell them 5 million if they're willing

to pay a premium? It seems to me that at

some point you have to say that some

technologies are just too sensitive to

be sold to China. And so then the

question is just are you drawing the

line in the right place? Let me bring

Freeberg in on that. Freeberg uh friends

of the pod like Gavin Baker said these

tariffs and these type of bans are going

to essentially guarantee that America

will lose AI because and Gurley as well

has this position that we're now going

to make China force them to make their

own chips. Now, you know, necessity will

be the mother invention and it's going

to escalate and we'd be better off just

selling them these instead of the latest

ones. What's your take on that? that you

know this will be the I think this is

the inspiration for them to build their

own Nvidia. It's an important question.

Last year China announced and began a 37

billion dollar investment in developing

their own 3nanometer uh chimp

technology. So you know the EUV

lithography systems that Sax is

referencing

um require these wavelengths of light at

about 13 and a half nanometer which is

you know the previous technology was

like 200 plus nanometer. So it's very

very small wavelengths of light that you

have to be able to manipulate very in a

very kind of discreet way to print

circuits that are just 3

nanometer scale. And so uh it turns out

that last year China made a claim that

this investment they had made was

starting to pay off and they had

developed their own EUV system and their

big semiconductor companies called the

semiconductor manufacturing

international corporation or SMIC in

China. They launched a a chip a 7

nanometer chip with Huawei in their Mate

60 Pro which is sort of like their

iPhone competitor in China. And so

they're proclaiming that they've already

got this EUV technology. From what I

understand, and Sax would know better

than I, it sounds like there was a lot

of reverse engineering and workound of

existing technology in order to deliver

that system, but they may now already be

investing in and developing their own

system. So JCAL, I think they're doing

it either way. I think that they're

going to invest and build their own EUV

and chip manufacturing capacity either

way. And the question is, does this slow

them down or limit their ability on the

application or the AI layer to kind of

be held back for some accelerates it

because they have no choice but to

accelerates their commitment to it. So

Tim, you've been talking about these EUV

technologies and the 200 nanometer one

specific. It's my entire It's my entire

It's a little crazy that you rip me off

like this. My entire special is about is

about the lithograph and that's that's

the hour that I do. You know, I'm of the

mind if you give a man a chip, he makes

one semiconductor or a few. But if you

teach a man to make a chip, he makes

multiple semiconductors and invades

Taiwan. So that's where I am with this.

You know, it's uh I think we should keep

them dependent. Keep selling it to them.

Yes. Keep selling it to them. treat you

understand how this works. You know, if

you if if somebody becomes addicted to

the good stuff, then they come back. You

don't want to give them too much. A

little you you backdo the technology

with a a little surveillance and stuff.

Have some fun. Have some fun. You know,

that's been done before. Abs. Sure. Back

doors all the time. Back door the

technology, a little surveillance

capability. You slip it in there. Yeah.

Chimoth, what's your what's your

thoughts coming around the horn here?

you were sort of talking about uh I

think publicly and obviously you've got

Grock and so you're you're you're you're

in the space with chips. Does this net

net end of the day slow them down or

slow them down short term speed them up

long term? I think that the technology

that they need is extremely non-trivial

and I do think that it actually slows

them down quite a bit if they don't have

access to it.

Can I just take a step back and uplevel

this? I think it was in 2017, the State

Council of China published this plan and

they were incredibly transparent and

honest. They said, "This plan is for

China to become a global leader in AI by

2030." Okay? And it said, so this is in

2017, and they said, "By 2020, we need

to have made iconic advances. By 2025,

we should be a major engine of the

industry. And by 2030 they should occupy

the commanding heights they said in AI

tech. Okay. So why is that important? To

be honest with you, I think the real

problem that we have is that Nvidia is

not doing what is in the best interest

of the United States. Oh, David

mentioned this. When the US banned the

sale of the topend GPUs, the A100 and

the H100, they quickly introduced the

A800 and H800. What does that mean?

Well, all it was was just a chip that

was basically the same. It slightly

reduced the data transfer speed so that

it went under the export control

threshold, but it was still really

usable. Then late last year, they

introduced this thing called this H20

that was explicitly designed for China

and to be compliant with US rules at the

time, which again gives these guys

substantial performance. Okay. So, what

do you have? You have a 2017 plan that

they've been executing against, which is

to say, "We want to dominate this

space." And you have an American company

that has been working around the

guidelines at every turn to try to land

silicon into the hands of China. So then

you would say, "Well, maybe there's not

that much going into China." Nick, can

you just throw up the chart that I sent

you about Nvidia's revenue composition?

So, let's just call a spade a spade,

guys. I think we can all do the math.

about

47% of all of Nvidia's revenue goes to

China and Chinese

related countries. And I think when you

peel back this onion, I think what you

will find is a whole raft of

companies that were stood up to buy

these Nvidia GPUs to essentially act as

a way station for China. And I think

that is the big problem because it

doesn't mean that it was just these

chips that David and his colleagues put

on an export control list. It was every

kind of chip. And now it explains every

single time we have an advance in the

United States. How is it that Alibaba

shows up with something incredible, Deep

Seek shows up with something better? At

every turn and at every step of AI, they

are at the same rate or one step ahead.

And I suspect it's because that these

chips are being used in very

sophisticated ways behind the scenes.

And I think that's the issue that we

need to address. Just to be clear, the

insight you have here, the prediction is

people are selling these to Taiwan.

They're selling them in Singapore. I

think it's more Hong Kong it's a group

that are zipping them over to China

mainland or letting them use them. I

don't know if you saw, but I I believe

there was a report that there was a

couple Singaporeans that were arrested

for actually trying to bring the chips

into China. I don't think it's

necessarily that. I think what happens

is you have some entity that springs up,

you know, acme corp.com. They show up in

Bhutan or Cambodia or Vietnam or

Singapore and they provide a PO, a

purchase order to Nvidia, 300, 500, $800

million. What do you think Nvidia is

going to do? They're going to think,

well, this is a legitimate Singaporean

entity. I'm going to sell them the

chips, whatever they want. It's it can

it checks all the boxes. and they look

away. And what we need to now figure out

is what happens once those chips get

delivered. It is the only explanation

for this. You you don't have this

requirement for this number of GPUs for

those end markets. There is only one

market. That's an explosive

allegation. Saxs, what do you think of

this theory more broadly? I think it it

is a fact that there have been both

legal and illegal attempts to evade the

US export controls. That is true and

there's a number of companies that have

done it. For example, last year there

was a case where TSMC was discovered to

have produced something like 3 million

chips that went into the Huawei

Ascend 910C chips. I think there's like

3 million dyes or something that went

into the Huawei Ascend chips. And I

think they're being fined for that. And

again, this is all public information.

Now they claimed that they thought it

was for a company called I think Sofco.

It's basically a Bitcoin like AS6

company but nonetheless this did happen.

So there have been attempts to set up

shell companies to circumvent the export

controls and it is a very big problem.

Tim, what's your what do you think more

broadly about what Trump is doing with

this trade war in China? any takes on

China, Taiwan, and just how Americans

should look at, hey, maybe we have to

buy some more high quality products.

Maybe we don't get things on Teeu as

cheap with these, you know, $850

exemptions, etc. I think roughly Trump's

instincts are correct. I think the the

way that the tariffs rolled out seem to

be incredibly chaotic. I think that's a

huge problem with a lot of what the

Trump administration does. They seem to

have the correct instincts, but you they

have like a very sloppy roll out, right?

Like everything's a hard launch.

Everything's incredibly I don't know

that things are messaged the right way.

The whole Doge thing was is a little bit

of a fiasco because the messaging seemed

off like nobody was out really talking

about what they were doing and why they

were doing it. Um, you know, I I don't

know how well this works. You know, I

mean, you have a very integrated global

economy. You guys know more about that

than I do. Are you able to unwind that?

And if you do, you have to unwind it in

certain areas. And certain areas you're

going to have to allow to probably

remain relatively stable and consistent,

right? I mean, if you listen to Ray

Dallio, he talks about like a disaster

coming for with monetary policy, right?

The whole unwinding of these economic

and political structures kind of

happening at once. I don't know. I think

I think Americans do overconume a lot of

crap. I think cheap goods aren't

necessarily the highest

um organizing principle of life. I think

people have been sold the idea that

cheap goods are more important than

having a stable functioning job and

family. I think the gig economy has been

sold to Americans as a way to offer them

uh freedom and and really in chaos at

the expense of the stability that used

to come with, you know, a job with

benefits that you stayed in for, you

know, but the other component to that

is, you know, we we have to make sure

that like, you know, we don't have

skyrocketing prices that completely

decimate people either. So, I think you

need to find a balance. I want to see my

friends work in factories. I want them

to get hurt. I want to release the

safety standards. I want child labor.

Children are terror terrorists, many of

them. Um they start fights in malls.

There's they have flash mobs. They run

around Chicago trying to kill people

that are just trying to have shellfish

towers on the river. So yes, children

should work. My friend should work in a

plastics factory. Um, Door Dash is a

horrible job. Get your You lose a finger

at a factory, it's a story. Delivering

burritos is a hell. Driving Uber, all

these horrible, degrading things we make

people do. Yes. And then tell them it's

great. And then we look, you know, you

should destigmatize being an

electrician, a plumber, a contractor.

All these things that when I was told,

you know, when I was growing up, they'd

point to a guy doing construction and

go, you're going to do that if you don't

do your homework. And then the people

that did their homework are are all, you

know, bankrupt. And that construction

guy, you know, is is killing it. He's

doing pretty well. And so what? He went

to January 6. He went there peacefully.

But the whole thing is like I think you

need to figure out um you know, how to

kind of reintroduce the idea that this

gig economy where people surf from one

unfulfilling nightmare to the next

should be rethought. Yeah. Yes. better

to be in a factory losing a finger. Can

I ask you a question? Who in in in

David's estimation when you're talking

about these companies that are set up to

get these chips that evade export

controls? You think is that the Chinese

government doing that? Is that a

intelligence agency doing that? Who

would be setting those companies up? Is

it people that are interested purely in

profit and that are then selling those

chips? That's super interesting.

Well, I think you have to ask the

question queono. I mean, who benefits? I

think clearly the shell companies, the

front companies are set up by either the

Chinese government or entities in China

to evade the export controls because

ultimately they want the chips. However,

I think there is also a problem that

Lenin described as the the capitalists

will sell us the rope with which to hang

themselves. And I do think there are a

lot of Western companies that will look

the other way or turn a blind eye and

just haven't been enforcing the rules as

religiously as they should because it's

profitable not to. And this is where I

do think that the US government has to

be pretty tough. I mean, if we're going

to have export controls in the first

place, and I know there's some people

who don't think we should have them, but

I do. I mean, I don't think we should

let China have access to our leading

edge AI technology. We have to make sure

that the export controls are effective

and that means there has to be some

cracking down in order to to make that

happen. Part of the crackdown is we have

to define the boundary lines in a more

effective way with fewer loopholes so

that companies can't legally take

advantage of those loopholes. But also

we're going to need more monitoring,

more inspection, and more enforcement.

And this is one of the few areas of the

government that I actually think needs

more resources. I think that Elon and

Doge have identified many areas of the

government that are massly overstaffed,

but this is one area. There's an agency

inside the Department of Commerce called

BIS that actually has to do all of this

monitoring and inspections and

enforcement. And I I actually think

they're understaffed relative to the

importance of this particular task.

Let's have a thought starter for a

second, guys. Do you guys think that if

47% of all of the AI capability and

horsepower is being shipped to three

Asian

countries, where do you think the apps

that require that amount of horsepower

live? Is there a cursor of Bhutan that

we did not know? Is there a great

shopping app in Cambodia that's come out

of nowhere that's AI powered? I think

the answer is no. So we already know

what the answer is. The question

is this is a case where you have

plausible deniability, right? I sell

something to a Singaporean registered

company. Plausible deniability. What

what am I supposed to do? You can't

expect me to audit it. I think that's

what Nvidia's answer will be to this

question. But what is the real

expectation? Let's flip it on its head.

Last week, China in retaliation for

tariffs constrained the supply of rare

earths outside of China, right? Leaving

China. You had certain factory lines

that just had to stop on a dime, right?

So, they're clearly in a position to

understand their supply chain, who

benefits or who doesn't benefit and can

be hurt by constraining supply and

they're able to affect that. At a

minimum, the United States should have a

mechanism to understand it. Whether they

do it or not should be up to, you know,

powers that be that are bigger than than

the four of us or the five of us. But

that that's my point which is that it is

implausible that if you did one or two

layers of work, you would not find that

most of this traffic is being used by

Chinese organizations. That may be okay

and that's a decision that the United

States government should make. But it's

something that that should be disclosed

to them somehow. And I think if you look

at the composition of revenue for

Nvidia, it is inconceivable that there's

a bunch of Asian AI apps that are just

crushing it so hard. No, no, I mean it's

so obvious what's happening there. Um I

think we Yeah, I we don't need to guess.

Taiwan and Vietnam do not have the need

for that many domestically. They're

obviously flipping them to someone,

right? It's a it's a it's a given some

percentage of those are being uh resold.

Hey, uh Freeberg, you were on Jeopardy.

Freeberg went to the next round. Wait,

this is the outro to that. I wanted to

get Tim in on on the on the Jeopardy

thing. You should have done like a more

broadly accessible topic like No, the

chips are good. I like the chips. You

like that, Tim? I learned something. The

plausible deniability is interesting.

It's like the Banks that dealt with

Jeffrey Epstein. And I know it's a sore

topic because he was the fifth man on

this show and RP if you miss him.

But let's be honest, he would have been

phenomenal on the show. Let's just say

he would have been good on this show.

Yeah. and he would have been good on the

show. But no, that was a very

interesting topic. I've never been on a

podcast where a topic's been handled and

I'm gonna go on Joe Rogan tomorrow and

just say everything Chimoff just said.

I'm going to go I'm going to go what did

he say? Can we level this up or

something? Can we high level this? Let's

say Yeah, we'll level up. Can we Can we

uple it? That's interesting. I say that

at Chili. I go, can we uplevel this for

a minute? Yes. 199 extra if you want. If

you want the extra jalapenos to me. So,

what's going on? Harvard. Are we selling

that to China? I'm for that. Yes. Well,

there's been a Donny book, if you will,

Tim. Yeah. Between Trump and Harvard.

Too smart to buy Harvard. They know it's

a scam. That's a good point. Here we go.

I just spoken like a true Stanford guy.

On March 31st, three federal agencies

announced they were reviewing 9 billion

9 billion in multi-year federal grants

and 256 million in contracts. It went to

Harvard, three agencies, education,

health, and the GSA. This past Friday,

April 11th, the group sent a letter to

Harvard's president and the head of

Harvard Corporation laid out a series of

changes. The White House is demanding

merit-based hiring and admissions staff,

admission students, all that good stuff.

Cancel all your DEI programs. No more

die. Reform international admissions. No

more admitting students that are quote

hostile to American values. Increase the

different um viewpoints on diversity

across all departments. and abolish

admission practices that served as an

ideological litmus test. Harvard's

president, Alan Garber, said he would

not comply. Later that day, the White

House responded by freezing 2.2 billion

in grants, 60 million in contracts. They

now want to take away the White House

the taxexempt status of Harvard, which

would be absolutely insane. It's

happened actually once before in 1970s.

Bob Jones University in South

Carolina was doing outwardly racist

stuff and uh the IRS according to the

CNN is looking into this. Your thoughts,

Shim?

Well, it's more than the IRS is looking

into it. They're thinking of revoking

their tax exempt status. Yeah. How about

I tee this up slightly differently. Tim,

you brought up something that I think is

really important, which is what is the

American dream for all these people that

are cascading between half jobs and half

measures. That's right. That's a really

important question. And right now, if

you look at the top of the educational

hierarchy, Harvard, what have we seen

over the last few years? They are at the

absolute bottom of the rankings with

respect to free speech. They have lost

all of these cases all the way up to the

Supreme Court about how they do

admissions. Harvard doesn't just have a

front door. It's got a bunch of side

doors, got a bunch of back doors, and

they

discriminate. And what is the opposite

of discrimination? It's meritocracy. And

I think with 20 plus years of

discrimination, what Harvard did was

made it fashionable for other schools to

discriminate. And if you compound that

for 20 years, it doesn't just touch the

universities. It starts to touch the

high schools and the middle schools.

Where we live at the beginning of CO, we

had some morons at the board of

education decide to take away AP

calculus and AP math because it made

people feel bad. It's absolutely

ridiculous. And then we pound these kids

with ADHD pills. And what happens is

what you described, Tim. So what is the

point of fixing Harvard? It's really

important because the opposite of what

they do, what they do is

discriminate is a meritocracy and we

need to make that fashionable again. And

the the biggest reason goes back to

again I'll just go back to the the chip

conversation. The Chinese are so well

organized. If you look at the Chinese

and the Indians together, those are 2.5

billion people swimming in a

meritocratic soup from the day they're

born. That's the only way they climb out

and it's eaten or be eaten. And then

when they graduate from an education

system that is purely meritocratic, you

know what they do? They enter a

workforce that's also meritocratic. So

it's compounded into their psyche that

you just have to perform. Whereas what

we do is we do all of these fake things

that make people feel really bad about

themselves. They look at other people

that think that shouldn't deserve to be

in places get places. And so we have to

turn that tide. And so whatever it

takes, the most severe and extreme

measures must be undertaken to fix this.

That's my point of view. Tim, your

thoughts on uh Trump wanting to take

away the nonprofit status? I went to the

um I went to one of these

encampments during the protests. I

wanted to see it for myself to see what

was going on. I do I I did like there

was a lot of you you'd see a non-binary

uh Asian dressed up like a Hamas. And I

think that's fun. I think it's college.

So I think that people are going to

express views that are often, you know,

probably anti-American. I don't think we

can you can't shield yourself from that.

I don't I don't like deporting people

that are, you know, critical of Israel,

for example, unless they've committed

crimes. And you can provide they're

providing material support. You know, if

you can prove they're providing due

process. Due process. says, "Well, you

need to provide, you know, if they're

providing material support to Hamas or

something like that, that's a different

story. But if they're here on a legal

resident visa, they should be allowed

the space to, you know, express

themselves as any other American citizen

would." Now, that being said, it is

impossible to look at higher education

in America right now and not be

embarrassed. Truly, truly, the word is

embarrassment. These should be the

shining example of, as Shamath was

saying, institutions that prepare people

for the real world. But what they really

are, they've all been captured in this

quasi religious cult of insanity where

people are elevating

uh different types of characteristics

outside of intelligence and merit as the

most important things to be considered

for admission. Uh you know, to to be

given academic achievements and things

like this. It's kind of embarrassing.

And I think if these institutions are

going to follow that path, they're going

to have to live and die on their own.

They're not going to be able to be

taxpayer subsidized and funded. They

have massive endowments from

multi-billionaires whose families all

go, but like Jamas said, they do engage

in discrimination. And and frankly, you

know, again, I'm not for drawing

ideological lines, and I'm a big free

speech guy, but I do think that you

don't find much ideological diversity on

any of those campuses. certainly not in

the faculties at all. And it doesn't

prepare anybody for a world and all the

politics are are very aesthetic. Meaning

all these people are out there, you

know, showing off, exhibiting their

virtue, but at the end of the day,

they're still getting a very cushy

internship and a nice job and, you know,

they're going to summer in Marthy's

Vineyard. You know, for

example, I I was lucky enough to go to

the Kennedy compound this summer. I went

sailing with their family and they're

really great kids. And a lot of the kids

there were Figure or The Rock. Where are

they? No, they're on, you know, Hyannis,

whatever the famous thing. And I went

there and a lot of their young their

young kids, RFK's kids are young. They

went to Harvard and a lot of these

Harvard kids are all good kids, but you

know, some of them are very interesting,

right? Cuz they they said to me, they

said, "You own a house in the Hamptons."

I said, "Yeah." They go, "Do you ever go

out during the winter?" I go, "Yeah,

sometimes I do. It's quiet, nice, you

can write, you can work on stuff." They

go, "Yeah, well, you know," they go,

"It's kind of depressing to come to the

Cape in the winter cuz all these people

here are on drugs." And it's like, yeah,

cuz you shipped their jobs away. So, it

just is stunning. And these are Harvard

kids. They're very smart kids, but you

have these chasms where they, you know,

where where you would think it would be

completely obvious to people at at this,

you know, amazing academic institution

that, yeah, of course, the people are on

drugs. They're embracing pathological

behavior. They they don't have a future.

But these schools have become these

really insular bubbles where these

people have these really well-meaning

aesthetic politics which says we don't

care about your economic circumstances.

Here's a trans Batman. And I don't think

that that that seems to be the ethos of

higher education in America right now.

And it's it it's it's very hypocritical.

And I I think it's why the Democratic

Party no longer connects because they're

too closely associated with like that

type of, you know, that type of vibe

identity politics. Yeah. Freeberg,

what's that? Should the IRS revoke or

threaten to revoke here uh their

nonprofit status? Is that a uh fair

technique here? Because uh they won't

acquies and uh do exactly as instructed.

What And what do you think is going to

happen here? this possibly result in

them losing their IRS status.

Harvard's endowment is

53.2 billion. Huge. Assume they make 7%

return. You know, they're making 4

billion a year in income generated from

those investments in that endowment. I

think there's a couple of two really

important questions. One is should the

role of the federal government be to

give out money equally to institutions

or should the role be to give money to

the institutions that are going to

provide the highest ROI for America or

is the goal to redistribute wealth and

is that the the point of federal

spending and federal expenditures? So,

you know, you could kind of think about

Harvard, MIT, and a few other

institutions that have truly great

research institutions embedded within

them as being the best ROI for America

from a grant perspective. When you're

giving out research grants, that's the

best place because it it just like any

other great technology company, it

accumulates capital because it

accumulates talent and that has a

network effect. and now you've got a few

institutions that have a monopoly on

highquality talent and as a result it's

the best ROI for America. Is that what

the federal government is investing in?

Or is should the federal government be

trying to support universities all over

the place that are more in need,

particularly a university that has 53

billion of capital? Do they really need

the federal funds? So then the next

question I think is like what is the

limit on the government's ability to

influence whether or not an institution

gets their capital? Is it statutory? Is

it mandated by law? Or does it become

politically motivated, socially

motivated, etc. Because in other parts

of how we're seeing decisions being

made, we're saying Chevron doctrine was

thrown out. And when Chevron doctrine

gets thrown out, we can't rely on the

regulatory scrutiny of the

administrators of the capital. We have

to rely on the law. And is there a law

that they're relying on? And I think

that's the key question is to have the

administration point to the laws that

they believe are being violated to to to

kind of make I would say a strongly

defensible argument about why they would

withhold the capital to make sure that

they're compliant with the law and

whatnot and have it not be kind of you

know just we we would prefer to see you

do things differently because we think

it's socially better. So I think those

are kind of the two key points whether

or not these institutions deserve

nonprofit status. I don't know why an

institution that has 53 billion of

capital and is making probably four or

five billion a year shouldn't pay taxes

on that

income. That income is being used to in

a variety of ways to build nice

buildings and there's IP that's held by

these institutions. That IP is used to

startups. They get equity in the

startups. They have income streams on

their IP. I mean they really do operate

like technology development centers. So

you know what is the the original kind

of reason for saying that they should be

tax exempt. The majority of the capital

is not being used to educate students.

The majority of the capital is being

used to reinvest to make new capital.

Sax your position on uh Harvard losing

its tax exempt status potentially

because they will not uh stop their DEI

programs or they want to I guess better

stated would be that they want to make

their own decisions about this and not

have the federal government make those

decisions. Let's get to the nitty-gritty

of the legal issue here. In 1983, there

was a case called Bob Jones University

versus the IRS in which the IRS

challenged the taxexempt status of Bob

Jones University because Bob Jones had

this bizarre and reprehensible policy

banning interracial dating on campus and

interracial marriage based on a strange

interpretation of scripture. At least

that's what they said it was. In any

event, Bob Jones lost that case and they

lost their taxexempt status. As far as I

know, they kept the policy and they

continued to operate as a private

university. But the Supreme Court found

that if you enshrine a racially

discriminatory policy in violation of

the civil rights laws, then you cannot

get tax exempt status. So that was the

precedent. Fast forward to 2023, we have

the case Students for Fair Admissions

versus Harvard. This is the Supreme

Court case a few years ago that said

that affirmative action policies that

use race as a factor in emissions are a

violation of the 14th amendment's

protection against racial

discrimination. So Harvard lost that

case. They were found to be racially

discriminating in admissions. Now, what

Harvard did in the wake of that is that

they claimed that they

removed access to information about an

applicant's race from the admissions

process so that the admissions readers

don't know what race a student is. This

is their claim. But at the same time

that they did that, they updated their

application, replacing the long form

essay, you know, that all of us filled

out decades ago when we went to school

with five shorter questions asking how

applicants will contribute to a diverse

student body. It's suspiciously similar

to these DEI statements where

prospective professors who are applying

for jobs these universities get asked,

you know, how will you contribute to

diversity on campus? Things like this.

and it's used as a way to discriminate

against conservatives or people who just

think that race or diversity should not

be a factor in teaching on campus.

Anyone who answers that question, I

believe in judging people based on the

content of their character, not the

color of their skin, they're they're

going to get weeded out, right? I mean,

or someone who says, well, I'm going to

contribute to diversity on campus by

contributing intellectual diversity.

Those are the types of applicants who

get weeded out by these DEI statements.

And we see that in another part of what

the government is claiming uh is that

Harvard has is engaged in viewpoint

discrimination against conservatives.

And you can see this in polling of the

the Harvard faculty. More than 80% of

surveyed Harvard faculty identify as

liberal. So my point is

this. These DEI statements have been

used in faculty hiring to discriminate

on the basis of viewpoint and to use

race as a factor in hiring. I think in a

similar way, they've now updated their

admission application to make all the

essays about race. So, I think this idea

that they're not playing a game here and

they're not trying to engineer the

student class around race, it's hard to

believe, right? Right. I mean, these are

people who have not changed their

ideology. They believe what they were

doing before that 2023 case was trying

to engineer the percentages of each

student class to match the percentages

of each race in the American population,

right? And these are people who are

doctrinire about that ideology. So the

idea that they're not still doing it, I

think, is hard to believe. Now, of

course, of course. So, we all know what

they're doing. And the alternative to

the administration saying just get rid

of DEI is that every year or two we're

going to have new litigation where

there'll be some whistleblower and it'll

come out that Harvard's still engaging

in racial discrimination and then you

know Harvard will be found guilty like

they were in that 2023 case and they'll

change their policy and they'll

manipulate it and they'll play some new

game and there'll be a new court case

and we'll keep going back and forth with

them or we can just say stop it right

now. Stop the DEI nonsense. actually

abide by both the letter and spirit of

the Supreme Court decision, Students for

Fair Admissions versus Harvard, and stop

engaging in racial discrimination. And

this is why I think the administration

is correct here in pressing Harvard on

this. Now, look, if Harvard wants to

keep playing these games, they can. No

one is saying that they have to get rid

of DEI. They just have to give up their

federal funding the way that Bob Jones

University did. But the problem is the

problem is that Harvard wants to have

his cake and eat it too, right? They

want to basically keep engaging in

racial discrimination through these DEI

policies, but they want federal funding.

And you can't have both. Do you think

that these universities or universities

in general that receive federal funding

have become

more

ideologically call it liberal I would

call it a little bit more kind of

socialistoriented because they're

dependent on federal funding. Do you see

what I'm saying? Like is it the case

that this ideology acrru over time when

you are much more dependent on the

government? You mean there's no market

feedback that that keeps you in check?

There's no private market. There's

nothing that ultimately translates

into a system where you're necessarily

needing to be competitive for capital,

competitive for talent, like like the

accumulation of federal dollars over

time makes you say, "I deserve federal

dollars." And the people that think that

you deserve federal. You're making

You're making a really good point, and I

think you could be right, Nick. Can you

please throw up the chart that I sent

you which is the the amount of research

between China and America? Okay, first

look at this. So again you make these

plans and you're like where are we going

to put the money? Okay, China says guys

we are going to learn how to catch up to

America in terms of spending on science.

This is gross domestic expenditures on

science. And what you see is China from

basically nothing in

2001 is now neck andneck with the United

States spending half a trillion dollars

a year on core fundamental science

research. So what happens as a byproduct

of that? Okay. So you spend more on the

way in. So China is listening to the

market feedback. Freeberg let's go and

explore this idea that there is no

market feedback in America. What are the

long run implications? And you see it on

this chart, which is this is a simple

chart that says what

percentage of all of the foundational

research comes from the United States

versus comes from China. And what's

crazy about this chart is right around

2019, China passed the United

States. This chart, by the way, only

measures research that is published in

English. Okay? So if you added in the

research that China actually publishes

in Chinese, they would have run away

with this a decade

earlier. So then you think about, okay,

well what is the implication of this?

Well, the implication is obvious. These

guys are inventing things. We're playing

catchup. Meanwhile, we're bumbling

around talking about pronouns. We can't

get our act together. This is why we

need to be decisive. What is important

here? So for NIH grants, this was

published by the NIH by the way a few

weeks ago on their Twitter account. So

this is an image they put out and on Feb

15th or thereabouts, the NIH said any

grants we give to universities now, so

so today if you're a researcher, you're

a scientist at a university like

Harvard, I don't know if people realize

this, the way you get funding for your

lab is you will apply for a grant.

Someone has to give you that capital to

run your lab. And many grants come from

the NIH. So they go to the NIH, they

file for a grant. If the grant gets

approved, they get $3 million, let's

say. But what happens is that at the

institution that they run that lab at,

that institution can now bill the

government for some negotiated

percentage of the grant amount to cover

administrative overhead. So at Harvard,

you know what the administrative

overhead was up until Feb 15th? 69%.

Wait, no, wait a second. that you're

saying $69 of every hundred go to

administration. It's an incremental $31.

Yeah. Well, it's actually an incremental

$69. So, the way it works on top the lab

gets 100 and then Harvard bills the

government $69. That's insane. That's

insane. And this is true. And and the

average is around 30% today across

universities and other institutions. So

there's also this very fundamental

question that's being asked in science

right now, which is are universities

even the right place to be doing

fundamental scientific research in the

United States. There are different

models. Most of our research is done

either at a private company, which is a

small amount of research. And remember,

I've I've talked about this a lot. The

big companies that have a market that's

telling them you have to have a positive

return on invested capital, that have

the scale to invest, have the most

incredible returns for America. like

Google that put out the transformer

model that launched everything that we

see today and and invested in Whimo for

many years and drove the self-driving

car revolution and all the work that was

going on at Bell Labs up until we said

Bell Labs a monopoly and we broke them

apart and they got destroyed and so we

largely aim to destroy large private

research institutions in this country

because we claim that they're

monopolistic because of the way they

source capital which is through

activities in the marketplace. So the

question today that's being asked is

should we be doing fundamental

scientific research at universities

given that over time the administrative

overhead has grown and they're basically

creating administrative workloads and

employing people without necessarily

having a market incentive. Can I tell

you a crazy story? This is a story I've

never told but a friend of mine is an

incredibly wellrespected banker on Wall

Street. Very senior guy. Works at one of

the big mainline banks. And a few years

ago, this is about 18 months ago, 2

years ago, he had always wanted to work

in government. And they tried to get him

to join the Federal Reserve. And it was

for a role that was very specific and

narrow. It was to manage a very specific

part of the interest rate mortgage

market. It's a really important role.

It's a little bit in the weeds, but it

was like his dream job. you know, he did

his PhD thesis on it, the whole the

whole nine yards, whatever kind of

thing. So, he goes through these

interviews and he sits with Jerome

Powell, goes through that interview,

sits with, I think, La Brainard, you

know,

everybody. And it was time for the final

interview. And right before the person

that was his kind of like shepherd says

to him, "You really need to play up your

Indianness cuz what we really want is

somebody who can help us tell a diverse

story." He goes, "Well, my diversity is

that I know this market better than

literally anyone else in the world. Like

nobody knows this. I know it. I've

studied it since my PhD." And he was so

offended. He was like, "You know what?

I'm not going to go through with this."

And we lost him. We meaning the American

taxpayer who supports all this. If you

think of that example in all of the

different places where we have not been

hiring the right

people, you get this slowdown in

innovation, you get a slowdown in

research, you get a slowdown in well

functioning organizations and

institutions and it's like a slow

malaise. So how do you stop the rot? You

have to stop it at the top and you have

to do something that is meaningful. And

if it

requires us to at least

threaten Harvard, and by the way, look,

let's be honest. It's called Harvard

Corporation for a reason, right? It's

run like a corporation. It is an asset

manager that may happen to have some

educational things that they do on the

side, which increasingly are not what we

need it to do. And more

importantly, it doesn't set the vanguard

for how everybody wants to copy. And

everybody used to want to copy Harvard

and now what they're copying are not the

things that help us. So we have to find

a way of waking them up and saying guys

you have a responsibility for

America and I maybe this is what it

takes and I and I hope they take the

medicine and listen. Well, the Coulson

brothers told us on a previous episode

they were just funding researchers and

letting them pick their own research to

a certain extent. Tim, how would you

play up your Indianness with Jerome

Powell?

I asked him is the best thing I've heard

all week. I I've I've asked him. He was

told to play up his Indianness and he

was like, "Well, what does that mean, my

Indianness?" And they were like, "Well,

you know, talk about your love of Indian

dance and Indian food." And he was like,

"Are you are you are you kidding me?

Like is is this a serious conversation?"

Jerome Powell sitting there and go, "We

were on the fence about you, but you

showed up with this uh butter chicken,

the chicken mochney. I was going to

bring it up. He came in here with Sag

Paneer and he was like a sitar. He

starts playing the sitar in

the chai masala. Who's that guy showing

up at a rick show? It's the chairman of

the mortgage market. It's absolutely

worked out. Hey Tim, if you were in

charge of this because we do have some

ends with the administration. Maybe you

should be directing some of this

research. What would you If I wanted to

study anything at Harvard, it would be

Breijgit Mcronone's gender. But I think

we do have to focus on disease to an

extent. But here's here's what I would

say to add to that conversation. I would

say that like these schools exist for a

multitude of reasons. But one of them is

to create a consensus among you know the

wealthiest and obviously people that are

expected to be the most powerful in

society and to create a consensus about

the values that are important to America

at any given time. And I think the

question should be why are these values

so important and to whom? I don't think

that this is altruism and it's about

helping uh the working class or helping

minorities or helping people get more

economic justice. It actually seems to

me quite a transparent attempt for

certain people to keep positions of

power and certain structures to stay in

place while offering people this idea

that there's a lot of change because

there's a few

ceremonial optical choices made where

we're putting in a a female CEO of color

or someone who's Indian, but the

internal structure stays the same. And

if you just look at a school like

Harvard, you go, "Oh, they're yes,

socialist in some respects, but in some

respects

actually, you know, if you challenge the

Ukraine war, if you challenge aspects of

the American Empire, if you challenge

certain look at all the wars, all of our

wars are being sold with social justice.

A lot of our wars are being sold

because, you know, if we don't see a

national security interest in it, we're

told that, well, people in that country

are are not being treated well. That

country has uh values that we don't have

in the West. And that may be true, but

in many cases, it's it's not worth going

to war over. And most Americans would

say that. So, who exactly is benefiting

from these programs and these values

being instituted? It isn't lowincome

people in the inner city. It isn't. It

seems to be kind of a lot of it's the

opposite of inclusion instead of It's

the opposite of inclusion. It's the

opposite of inclusion. What has

happened? the establishment trying to

preserve itself by shutting out certain

ideas and certain people and you know

giving very ceremonial nods to you know

play up your Indianness, play up this,

play up that but you know it's like when

you CIA goes and you she goes uh I'm the

first female drone pilot and a lot of

Americans are going what exactly is our

national security interest in a drone

strike in whatever country and do we

need to be doing this and should the

money be better spent somewhere else?

But instead of having that conversation,

it's always ends up being hijacked. So

this DEI to me just seems like a way for

a lot of the same establishment people

to keep their power and influence by

offering these very optical

uh advancements to people that may, you

know, pay lip service to certain ideas,

but when it comes down to it, they're

very loyal to the same power factions

that, you know, have always kind of

driven the narrative in our country.

Completely agree. What happened during

comedy to you Tim and and and your

cohort during that like peak DEI peak

cancellation? It felt like the Overton

window was closing pretty harshly on you

guys. There was a lot of attempted

cancellations of comedians. People

trying to secretly record you. You got

those yonder what I don't know what

those are called. Those bags that you

put you put the phones in. What was that

told by countless executives to play up

my Indianness and I tried? But it was

just in bad taste. Yes. It was in

terrible taste when I came in and I

tried to be Indian and and it it just

wasn't good. No, I think here's what it

was. I started, you know, you having

more of a career in let's say 2016,

2017, 2018 and then we were kind of on

this path where you'd go have a meeting

in in Los Angeles with people about

doing a show or whatever and they would

start all of these words and verbiage

would creep in and they go, "We're

really interested in marginalized

voices, elevating voices that haven't

been heard. were interested in

empowering and these are LA executives.

They're monsters. They care nothing

about anything and that's why they're

good at their job, right? The only

reason you can be good at your job as an

executive in the entertainment business

is to really not look at human beings as

humans. You have to look at them

as what you do. Manipulate pawns on the

chessboard. It's what it is. You know

what I mean? If I called my agent today

and said, "I'm really tired doing

everything I'm doing." He'd say, "Have

you tried drugs?" Like they Right. This

would be a I was wondering about that

because you have such high energy. I

don't know why you're not embracing the

cocaine. I don't need it. I don't need

it yet. But if I do, and by the way, if

I do, they'll provide it to me. Here's

the deal. The way that town works is you

have a bunch of people that believe in

nothing and they can't. They can't and

be effective. They have to go whichever

way the wind is blowing. So when you

have these people pulling up in Porsches

with their houses in Malibu and they're

coming and they then have a sudden

interest in empowering people. These

people were throwing women off into the

Santa Monica Canyon for years. So it was

this weird time where you had the worst

people in the world trying to convince

you that they had an interest in

marginalized voices because they thought

there was money there. Well, guess what?

Turns out Americans don't really like to

be patronized and they they were never

making TV that minorities wanted to

watch. They were making TV that guilty

white liberals wanted to watch and it

didn't make any money. Nobody really

liked it. A lot of it kind of faded

away. And as soon as it stopped being

profitable, all the executives in

Hollywood that supposedly cared so much

about the marginalized voices

rediscovered the profit motive. They

rediscovered the idea that they had to

make entertaining stuff. They

rediscovered viewership. They

rediscovered numbers. They they

rediscovered all these business

fundamentals that they had ignored

because they thought there was going to

be a pot of gold at the end of all this

elevating and empowering. But there

wasn't because it was rejected largely

by people. They didn't want to watch it.

They were cancelling all of you guys.

They were cancelling uh well they were

trying they were trying they were tried

didn't work because people at the end of

the day realize that people are flawed

fallible and human and that's what makes

them entertaining. You don't want a

perfect person doing anything because

that person is not going to be terribly

interesting. You want someone who has

flaws and has problems obviously within

reason you know. So I think that Tim can

I ask you a question? Let's say let's

say that you are I support Harvey

Weinstein. Go on. I'm sorry. I didn't

know if that was No. Let's say that

Let's say that you were in charge of

education in America. Yes. Okay. What

would you do? Where would you start?

What would you if I was in charge of

education in America? Number one, I

would I would try

to assert the idea

that higher education itself needs to be

for a purpose and that there needs to be

more of a purpose driven from middle

school through high school. We need to

start getting kids to think rationally

about their skill set and their ability.

And I don't think it's a good idea for

these kids to take out hundreds of

thousands of dollars worth of loans to,

you know, go away for four years, not

have a solid plan and not execute and

then graduate mired in debt without

really a pathway to paying any of it

back and spending their 20s and maybe a

good part of their 30s incapable of

owning a home, uh, incapable of owning

anything with no real investments. So I

think this idea that like you should

follow your dream, which is this toxic

American idea that I don't subscribe to.

I think people have natures, they have

skill sets, and they actually have to do

something within the realm of that. And

it requires being honest with children,

which no one wants to do. Um, and I

would try to re-engineer education to be

a more practical place where you you

would apply some of the skills that you

actually had. And I'm not saying people

shouldn't be able to experiment or have

freedom, but I do think that we've told

a lie to people, which is that they can

be anything they want to be and do

anything they want to do. And and by the

way, and here's a bunch of loans to do

it. Here's hundreds of thousands of

dollars worth of debt. So now you can go

into debt without any plan or any

logical sense of what you want to do. I

think we should start putting people

into a more realistic mindset in high

school about what needs to happen.

Otherwise, they're taken advantage of

and abused by these systems of higher

education where they graduate mired in

debt and without any type of standing in

society. Oh my god. I want to I want to

add Jamas. Go ahead, Freber. And then I

got a breaking news story. Go I want to

just address this because I think it's

there's a moment

here that I think will

define a very different future for

education, which is kind of a movement

away from the current model of a school.

AI is such a profound tool. the ability

for AI to get to know your personality

and just like teach my kids the way they

want to be taught through conversation,

through engagement, through dialogue,

knowing that some kids want to ask

questions and some kids want to just be

told stuff. Some kids work at one pace,

other kids work at another pace. And I

know this idea of personalized education

using computing has been around now for

decades. But we really are in this

moment where the idea of spending, you

know, your first 18 years of life in a

classroom where you're being told stuff

that is quote the truth versus learning

how to engage with the world, ask

questions, explore your world, find and

identify things that are interesting to

you, have it delivered to you in a very

personalized, meaningful, rich way that

also makes you excited about certain

things and helps usher you on to the

next phase of your life of what do you

want to do with this? and get kids out

of this idea that you've got to go get

the degree in order to get the job. And

then I think that the workplace will

adjust to that. I I forgot who it is,

whether it was Palunteer or someone just

started doing they just um a program

where they're like, "Skip college, come

come and do your basically your

apprenticeship here. So instead of going

to college, you'll you'll you paid

you'll continue your education here,000,

you'll work on projects, you'll make

money, and you'll continue to have your

development be done while you're

learning a valuable skill." So I do

think like as AI kind of takes over

education, I do expect that the

workplace will change Tim and we will

start to see more of this integration

between education and workplace enabled

by this AIdriven kind of you know

development system which is which is

going to be radically different than

what we have today. You with this AI Tim

you like comedians do they get with it?

No. I'm a little skeptical of the tech

people I talk about on my show. Of

course, not you guys, but the other

ones.

You know, you guys seem, you know, I I

think it's great. Palunteer goes skip

college. Come get involved in advanced

weapons technology. Sure. Go right. I

think that's a phenomenal idea actually.

It's like go to college. Come be a drone

here at Palader. Absolutely. But uh I

like using my brain at the moment, but

if it starts to fail, I imagine it will.

I will I will use AI. I know people that

do use AI. My producer might use AI. I

don't know. He probably won't tell me.

But I do think that listen, have you

used it to learn? Tim, have you used it?

Have you ever done any of the chat apps

where you can talk to it and like, hey,

you want to learn or get smart on

something or get caught up on something?

You can literally just ask questions and

have a conversation with We've done it.

Listen, we've done We did it on the

show. We had an AI bot do a deliver rant

in the style of me. It got pretty close.

not good enough yet, but it was pretty

close and pretty interesting to

see how advanced it is right now and

then how advanced it's going to be. You

know, I worry a little bit about what

you're going to do with all of these

people once AI starts taking a lot of

these jobs.

The cashiers, the the the Uber drivers,

Door Dashers, all these jobs. Five years

ago, I was a tour guide on a double, not

five years ago, but seven or eight years

ago, I was a tour guide on a

double-decker bus in New York City while

I was learning how to be a comedian and

I was showing people the Empire State

Building and like all the 911 memorial,

whatever. And these are the types of

jobs I was making $13 an hour and I was

obviously, you know, it wasn't well

paid. It wasn't an amazing job, but it

offered me the freedom to get good at

something else. But I was taking a lot

of risk to do it and I tolerated that

level of risk because I believed what I

was doing was the right thing, the right

course of action. But it's jobs like

that that allow some of the most

interesting

uh, you know, like weird lives that

people should be able to live if they

want to. I don't think everybody may

want or need to have a full-time job.

There are people that have retired and

go, I'd like to be a tour guide or I'd

like to work at a at a museum a few days

a week. Did you find your your standup

was being on the double-decker bus? You

know, were you able to put oneliners in

there? I was able to do all kinds of

stuff like that. So, to me, it's like

those jobs, right? Yes. Some of those I

don't think the entire economy should be

the gig economy, but I do think some of

those jobs that are going to be

eliminated by AI are the jobs that allow

people to get good at other things while

they're doing them. So, people that are

in entertainment and music and stuff

like that, we want them to be able to

support themselves while they enrich us

culturally and other ways. A crazy

breaking news story right now. Um,

sorry, Sax, I didn't mean to have this

blindside you here, but uh, and I know

you know you're with the administration.

You don't speak for the administration

necessarily on this issue, but uh looks

like the Federal Reserve has a new

chairman. It's just breaking news here.

So racist. It says hot off the word.

Trump is named Shimath as to the Federal

Reserve. I think all these fundraisers

worked out for you. But uh there is a

note they asked Chamath to be more Sri

Lankan. So if you can to the extent you

could be more Sri

Lankan President is Chimath Sri Lankan.

Is he really Sri Lankan? I have I have

but that's literally Shiron. I mean I

read a great book about the Tamil Tigers

many years ago. Do you remember them?

Yes they they invented suicide bombing.

They did. Listen be proud. Be proud of

stuff. Even if it's saying Tim that the

great export of Sri Lanka was suicide

vests. I'm saying be proud of stuff.

That was the ethnic minority that was

fighting for a homeland. I was part of

the ethnic majority. You were you were

the one trying to avoid the suicide

necess. No, my dad was the one that

spoke out against the war. That's why we

we had to scadaddle and claim refuge.

Potato potato. I support both. I'm the

only person with the moral courage to

say I support Israel and Hamas and

Russia and Ukraine. You can just want to

see a good game. You can want to see a

good game. You don't have to take over

time. If there's a lee change, you like

a lead change. I it really depends in

Beverly Hills who I'm having lunch with

and and and what type of uh Middle

Eastern they are because I can go either

way on that and I think it's important

you don't want to be too rigid in this

economy. You need to be able to move

into things and I will read the

audience. I see both sides. I've read

the Israel stuff and the Palestine

stuff. They're both right. So guess

what? That's right. So at the end of the

day, what's right for Timmy's career is

an approach you could take. What's right

for me? What's the easiest lunch? What's

the easiest afternoon for me? What you

know that's the least resistance. That's

the move for me. Always all the time,

you know. Right. So, you know,

absolutely. Absolutely. I don't did what

Putin did. Was it right? No. But do I

like the idea of the oligarch, the furs,

the boats, the kind of lifestyle? Yes.

The kind of tra Yes. That to me has

always spoken to me. Somebody said to me

once, "I'm you're you're spiritually

Russian." So, I think I I have that in

me, so I just can't ignore it. So, where

how would you rank your dictators? Are

you are you It sounds like you're a

Putin guy or you has a lot of class.

Whether you like him or not, he has a

lot of class. And number one, people do

fall out of windows in London. It does

happen actually. So, it's it's not

always, you know what I mean? It's like

sometimes somebody does take a spill.

And it's not always him. Um I like him.

I I like uh Kim. I think it's Jong-un in

North Korea. I like him. He has style as

well. Don't forget Zinski.

Sinsky. I don't know. He's kind of new.

He just extended military. But can you

imagine not bring up Ukraine?

So be careful. He just extended martial

law. There's no I like By the way, I

like Sachs on this. And I think when Nay

told Putin that a comedian was now the

president of the Ukraine, Putin probably

said, "Listen, are they serious? Are

they are they even trying anymore?" He

goes, "Is the CIA even trying anymore?

Are you serious? Wait, the guy who

played the president in a TV show is now

the actual president." Yes. And Putin's

getting this information sitting there

in his palace. Like I mean, so I mean,

listen, all wars tragedy. It's all

terrible and bad, but you know, we also

I think David's done a phenomenal job,

by the way, of looking at how you get to

certain places.

Absolutely. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And and I

think the the do a lot of private shows.

Yeah. You do a lot of private shows,

Tim. The the private shows with the

dictators, the death bots, the

monarchies, they pay what? Three to one,

four to one. They want to laugh. These

people, they want to laugh. Uh you know,

I mean, it's Duterte likes to laugh. go

and you know these people want to laugh

and I'm not here NBS wants to laugh. I'm

not here to pass judgment on the

audience. I'm here to bring Well, it's

actually funny. I did like one private

gig. I don't get booked on a lot of

private gigs, but I got one big Bitcoin

guy in Romania had me go to his birthday

party and it was just this older

oligarch type guy and they all spoke

Romanian and it was very hard and they

paid me $100,000 to do 20 minutes and

they didn't really understand anything.

And then one guy just stood up and I

guess he recognized me. He started

yelling

Joe and then sat down. So I am open to

I'm open to performing for anyone really

truly. Can anyone I mean I you could

just Kim Jong-un just send it. Hey is

the money. Is the money green over

there? The money's not clean but that's

got to be that dangerous. I mean all I

hear now every day is Iran's coming to

kill everyone. Is that true? I don't

know. I I I'm okay. Are they invading?

Is Iran landing building nukes? Maybe

want to wipe out one or two countries. A

little genocide

wish fulfillment. How far are they along

on those nukes? We don't know. 80% of

them. You think 80%? They're they're

perpetually at 80%. We just keep

knocking out the last 20. I think the

approach the uh I just don't think we

need on the ground there. I don't think

we need to do this again. The two of you

are the living embodiment of ADHD. Yes.

Well, should we speaking of ADHD, do we

want to go ADHD or science? Tim Jal

falls for every pro-war narrative there

is. He's like he's like I'm against war,

but then he falls for every single

narrative they Absolutely. Absolutely.

And what a great job you guys have done

ending the war in the on day one of your

administration. Congratulations. At

least he's trying to actually accomplish

something. Can I actually defend the

administration? We've actually ended it

spiritually. We've ended it spiritually.

We have. We no longer believe in it. it

we we're it's actually happening in the

physical world, but actually spiritually

the war is over. Yes. So, you're

manifesting the end of the war. Well,

it's over for me. The Ukraine war is

fully over for me. God Zilinski refuses

to make a deal. You saw what happened at

the White House. I mean, if only we had

a dealmaker to help with this. You know,

Jason, you know how you would know this

for sure? Cuz I I my intuition tells me

that what Tim just said is totally right

is the number of Ukraine flags that were

taken off of profile photos. Absolutely.

with the pronouns. It's No, even though