All right, everybody. Welcome back to

the number one podcast in the world, the

All-In podcast. We're back. We're back.

We got the original crew here. It's a

tight foresome with me again. He's

returned from, I believe, the UAE. And

Mina, the one, the only, your chairman,

your dictator, Chamath Polyhapatia. He

puts the dick in dictator. That's what

they all say. How you doing?

>> Good. You?

>> So, you went and you got that. Wow.

What's that beautiful airline that we

all take to the region?

>> Emirates first class. Yeah.

>> Oh, Emirates first class cabin.

>> It's insane.

>> With the wine. Take everybody in cuz I

do business class for 14 dimes round

trip.

>> Emirates is unbelievable. But the

problem is there's like literally a

thousand movies. A thousand. So you have

to like favorite out 30 or 40 of them.

>> There was like 95 different menu

choices. I had probably 8,000 calories.

>> Oh, really? And that was just the wine,

I take it.

>> Yeah.

>> By the way, the wine is incredible. The

wine list like 1996 mantros. And I was

like, is this an air I had never seen an

airline wine list? It was pretty strong.

>> Did you bring your Sier Josh? Was he in

the cabin next to you with his own?

>> I didn't need it. No, I didn't need it.

I

>> like that. I like that. And of course,

your Sultan of science. We got a great

docket for him. It's kind of like the

Super Bowl for Sultan fans this week

because

>> Yeah. I hope I deliver, bro. I mean,

cured autism and you're going to comment

on it. It's a pretty big deal. It's a

pretty big deal.

>> Let your winners ride.

[Music]

>> We open sourced it to the fans and

they've just gone crazy with it.

>> And then of course ah the one, the only.

He puts the bizaar in Zar.

David Sax calling in from his

>> You got backwards. It's It's You put the

Zar in bizaar, not the bizaar in SAR.

>> Yeah, I kind of was. I'm playing with

it. I'm workshopping. It's I've been

trying both ways. Um but yes. And uh

you're calling in. You're echoing which

is great.

>> I'm on the road.

>> You're on the road between meetings?

Well,

>> yeah, basically. Exactly.

>> Are you in a Are you in a motorcade? No,

no.

>> Okay, listen. The topic of the week,

H-1B visas are being overhauled.

Trump administration announced a new

$100,000

fee for all future H1B applications.

It's a onetime fee. There's been a

little confusion about it uh and the

details, but you know, that's how they

they do things in the 47th. Just some

excitement, a big announcement, and then

we we figure out the details. Lutnik

originally said it would be a h 100,000

a year, but then the White House

clarified it will be a onetime fee. This

is a huge jump. The current fee is

nothing. It's like 2 to 5K that you pay

to the government. You might pay a

lawyer, you know, double that or triple

that to to do the work for you if you're

a big corporation. Um but um you know,

this this hits on a lot of the Trump

campaign promises, tougher on

immigration, looking out for US workers.

We've talked before here about the abuse

uh in the H-1B system. I'll give some of

my personal

um you know insights in that after maybe

I throw to you Chimoth. And before I do,

they had an interesting poly market.

Will courts block Trump's 100K H1B by

September 30th? 3% chance in that

happening. So it looks like everybody's

kind of aligned with them with this

program. All right, Sachs. Uh I know

you're on the road, but your your your

fans demand to hear your take on this.

What what's what's your take? I think

it's a good idea to have this $100,000

fee. And I'll tell you the reason why is

because right now there's something like

five times as many H-1B applications as

there are slots. So I think they grant

about 85,000 H1Bs a year and many more

apply for it. And as a result they have

a lottery where they just kind of I

guess they randomly choose who the

winners are going to be. And if you look

over the past decade, roughly half the

H-1Bs go to these like IT consulting

firms. Yes.

>> And the average salary is like $65,000 a

year. So it kind of puts the lie to this

idea that you hear that H-1Bs are for

like high-skilled engineers, AI

researchers, things like that. That's

not in practice what happens. Uh in

practice, what happens is you have this

lottery and a huge chunk of them end up

going to low-end IT jobs. And I think by

putting this $100,000 fee on it, you

encourage the applications to go to the

actual higher skilled, higher paid jobs

where there's actually a shortage of

Americans and you encourage US companies

to try to fill those jobs with Americans

first. And so I think, you know, putting

aside some of the the details, I think

the big picture here is that they're

using market forces to put some scarcity

around that H-1B application. And I

think what that's going to do is

encourage applicants to to actually be

these higher paid, higher skil jobs that

the program is supposed to be for

instead of these lower-end IT shops.

>> Yeah, these are supposed to be for

highly specialized workers. I can tell

you,

you know, when I was in IT in the early

90s, the abuse was happening all the

time and it was indentured servitude. It

was disgraceful. The IT people would

hire uh typically Indians and they would

say stuff to the effect of these guys

are going to work for half as much and

twice as long and they can't say no.

That's the best part of it. They can't

say no when we put them on weekend

coverage. You can't say no if we want to

do a buildout and they have to work 10

days in a row because we can kick them

out of the country and they have 30 days

to find a new job. And so it's it's a

giant scam on the bottom half of these.

I witnessed it firsthand. Every

discussion I've ever had about H1Bs,

you know, in relation to IT and

consulting has always been about saving

money. And the truth is it's been

abused. And I talked about this in 2015

on CNBC Chamath when Trump first started

to talk about it. He's been on this for

a while and uh it's just great to see

them I I had suggested 20K a year and

that's kind of where they wound up. I

additionally think they should do an

auction for onethird of these. Let all

these big tech companies that are truly

trying to get in very unique PhDs from

Oxford in AI, man, let them just put out

how many they want to buy and at what

price. do a reverse auction and fill

onethird of them with I don't know maybe

open AAI or XAI or Microsoft jumps the

fence and pays 100K 200k per person.

What do you think Chimath just broadly

speaking on this and the policy the

abuse everything? I came to the United

States initially on a TN visa which is

the NAFTA visa between Canada and

America and then I switched to an H-1B

and then I got my green card and my

citizenship in

the early 2010s. Elon came in on an H1B.

Sundar Pachaya came on an H1B. Satin

Nadella came in on an H1B. There's a lot

of folks that have done a lot of good

things that have used this specific

visa.

That being said, I think Saxs is right

that

people have found an endound and have

been abusing this H-1B system. There was

an incredibly exhaustive thread by

Robert Sterling.

I think it was about a year ago, but I

wanted to use that as a jumping off

point to explain a couple of reasons why

I think that there's been rampant abuse.

The first thing is the H-1B program is

supposed to be 85,000 visas a year, but

here is the data. And so what you see is

that in many years, including the last

several, it's been upwards of 10 times

that number.

And so there are a lot of people that

are getting shoehorned into this

program.

And when you see this, you can start to

see why a lot of people are saying that

there is wage suppression and that it's

taking away from American jobs. Because

if the program was meant to be for

85,000,

you would think, well, listen, that's a

drop in the bucket. Nobody would feel

that in the American economy. But when

you start talking about almost a million

people a year, 600,000 to a million a

year, that starts to be perceptible and

that is absorbing

a lot of revenue and wages that would

otherwise go to

domesticorn

and legal immigrants that are already

here. So that's thing number one.

Thing number two is there was a myth

that these H-1Bs were these extremely

highly skilled people. And what Robert

found out in the data is that actually

no, it's not really that case. And so I

think the average salary, I just want to

get this exactly right, it's slightly

under $120,000.

Now, if you started to tell me that

these were the best-in-class PhDs in all

of these whisbang industries where the

companies are raising billions and

billions of dollars, you guys already

know that this salary would not pass the

smell test. Most executive assistants at

tech startups make more than $119,000 a

year. So, the idea that some qualified

grad is making this should already sort

of set off alarm bells that maybe where

there's smoke, there's fire. So that's

the second thing. So number one, we've

been overallocating by 5 to 10x. Number

two, these salaries aren't these

incredible salaries that you think of,

which tends to mean that there is the

potential, as Jason you said, in some

form of indentured servitude and wage

suppression. That's not good. And then

the third thing is you would ask the

question, well, who gets these things?

And it turns out, as Sax said, a large

plurality of these visas don't actually

go to American companies that are

looking to hire talent to make this

American business do better. These are

foreign companies that are arbiting

labor and bringing people in.

>> So crazy.

>> Cognizant is not an American business.

Infosys is not an American business.

Tata, we pro.

>> It's not to say that that in and of

itself is wrong. But you need to find

the right visa class to do this under.

>> Yeah, they're hacking it.

>> And so when you put all of this

together, I think the sort of broad

takeaway is from where this started and

what it was intended to do, we've

deviated pretty wildly. And I think that

this is a very important reset. Now, the

last comment I want to make is about the

people that say, "Hold on, we are going

to cut our nose off despite our face."

And it's going to stop an inflow of

incredible talent.

And what I would just remind people is

that it is really important to remember

that when you are in the United States

for a masters or PhD, you already get an

automatic visa. It's called OPT. So you

have multiple years when you graduate

from a useful degree program in the

United States to find a job. I have

several of these folks that work for me

at 8090. These are incredible grads from

Carnegie Melon. they are off thecharts

smart but because they did a masters or

a PhD they come with a couple of years

and you can oftentimes extend that and

that will give us a very good amount of

time to figure out how exceptional they

are and then quite honestly I would

gladly pay the 100,000 to get these guys

on an H-1B program. So, I think if we're

going to try to return this to what it

was meant to be, which is to help

American companies excel, get the best

of the brightest.

These changes, I think, are very good

measures to course correct and get us

towards that.

>> And to just give people the history of

this, this was something that was

started after World War II to get really

specialized people like Polish and

German, like geniuses building out

rockets. And I had a really interesting

discussion. If you could pull this tweet

up, there's another sinister wrinkle to

this. I had um this gentleman uh Colin

on and he went to apply for a product

manager. I had him on this weekend

startup. It's my other podcast and he

applied and sent a resume with the

reference number to the specific job

Freedberg that he wanted at a company

New Relic. And

he did this because in order to have an

H-1B visa,

you have to put the job in a newspaper,

right? So what these companies allegedly

are doing is putting these jobs in these

like obscured newspapers so that

Americans don't see them. They're not

putting them in places, you know, that

you might see them. And there's a group

of Americans who are going and finding

these jobs and saying to Americans, "Go

ahead and apply. Here's the shadow

jobs," I think is what they call them.

And so he put the reference number in

there and they wouldn't even interview

him. And I talked to him and he's kind

of crest falling. He's like, you know,

I'm I would like to apply for this job,

but it's obvious that I can't get into

it. This is like I think just shows the

entitlement of these tech companies. And

I don't know New Relic's position on

this. They can email us and I'll I'll

give it in the next episode, but they're

basically listing fake jobs. and uh

somebody Abby from People Ops over there

just kind of doesn't even let him

interview for the job. The whole thing

is just really dirty at the at the low

end and at the high end it's under

monotized. So Freeberg, your thoughts on

this? I know you have a lot of friends.

You're an immigrant yourself. I'm not

sure how you got here and what visa you

came under, but I think it came when you

were a kid, right? I'm not sure what

your parents came under, but what are

your thoughts on this and the impact it

might have? Well, I think there should

be two separate programs for what we

could call highly skilled workers. What

you were referring to after the end of

World War II, there was a secret US

operation called Operation Paperclip

where we tried to recruit German

scientists and engineers. Between 1945

and 1959,

America recruited, I think, 1,600 of

these scientists. So it was both call it

disabling to an American rival or

adversary but also expansive because

that was when the nuclear industry was

growing and much of nuclear science was

being pioneered in the earlier days in

Germany.

And so the kind of American workforce

expanded but more importantly a new

industry was able to be enabled and

unlocked and grown in the US and then

the the the German state was disabled by

losing these scientists. One could make

the case that a similar sort of scenario

should exist today that we should have a

second operation paperclip and perhaps

it should be a continuing process rather

than necessarily kind of this LZ fair

process that we have today where we

identify some of the top industries and

the top scientists and this top domains

and go after those scientists

proactively with government action,

government support in partnership with

private industry. If you look at papers

being published across mainstream

scientific journals,

the majority of papers today across

nearly every scientific domain are being

published out of China. And this ranges

from physics to chemistry to material

science to biotech. And there's a real

case to be made that perhaps those

scientists would be better off and

America would be better off if they were

doing their research pioneering here

rather than there. Yeah. So I think that

there's a very good strategic case to be

made that perhaps like a more directed

high energy high effort kind of

operation paperclip be undertaken again

around the world. The H-1B program I do

agree has been heavily abused as a way

of kind of compensation arbitrage. And

you know, if you find a high highly

qualified excellent talent, as we all

know, for a high-skilled laborer in

engineering or science today, that

person, if you advertise the H-1B over 7

years at 100K, that application fee,

that's 15K a year, call it, that

certainly seems worth it for the right

sort of talent and it forces the

question about can this person be found

in the United States or not. The

alternative would be to force a higher

salary range such that you as a company

are now basically being forced to pay a

higher salary which means you have to

justify that this person is worth it to

bring them in from ex US and you can't

find the talent locally. I'll tell you a

program where we do this where it

doesn't work in the US is called the H2A

program. This is the immigrant farm

worker program that we use for temporary

labor on farms. And the way that program

is set up today is you have to pay the

farm worker that comes in on an H2A

some amount over minimum wage. And the

amount that you have to pay over minimum

wage is a function of the average wage

in that state across all industry. In

the case of Florida, they're paying5

to$10 over minimum wage for farm workers

and they cannot get any Americans to

work on the farm. and they're being

forced to pay $5 to $10 overage. And by

the way, these farmers and these farm

businesses are being heavily subsidized

by the government. One way to think

about the ridiculousness of what's going

on is the US taxpayer is paying a

premium salary to foreign workers.

What we should be doing is enabling when

there's no workers available in the US,

we should be enabling a free flow of

labor, but only in the case where

there's no workers available in the US.

But there is a downside to that model as

we're now seeing in the in the a

industry. farmers are losing money

across the board and they're having to

pay a premium for foreign workers to

come and work on the farm and they can't

get US workers. There's two sides to the

sword on this is my point. But I do

think this operation paperclipip notion

should be taken on as a separate kind of

strategic mandate.

>> Absolutely. Yeah. And that was a lot of

the Jewish scientists had already fled

Germany. My understanding paperclip was

for the Nazis, the former Nazi

scientists,

>> and they were working on some pretty

dark and cutting edge stuff in chemical

and biological. It just wasn't rockets,

right?

>> Well, it was everything.

>> It was everything.

>> Remember, at this era, we were just

developing quantum theory, and quantum

theory led to nuclear science, which led

to the development of the atomic bomb.

So, yeah, I think Operation Paperclip

was pretty farreaching. But today as an

American, do you really want all of the

cutting edge research in material

science, in physics, in chemistry, etc.

to acrue to China? Or should we be

thoughtful about it's intellectual

talent that's making these

breakthroughs? It's not necessarily

institutional capacity. It's not like

they have better institutions per se

than we do. We have amazing

institutions, amazing capacity, amazing

place to live and so on. So there's a

real kind of mandate that we should

probably think about undertaking here,

not just for extension of our industry

base, industrial base, but also for

disabling what we would consider rivals

or what American might consider rivals.

>> Just on this Operation Paperclip point,

it's interesting that

China, the Chinese government took away

the passports of the engineers at

Deepseek after

>> the launch of that model, or at least it

was publicly reported. I can't attest to

this from firsthand knowledge, but there

are definitely a lot of reports about

this and you can see why. I mean, if we

could recruit or snap up a few hundred

or at most a couple of thousand of these

top AI engineers, that would be a

gamecher

>> totally

>> in the AI race. So, China has start to

see those people as a strategic asset

and they're not going to let them

immigrate, I don't think. But it it

would be something for us to think

about. Certainly on the chip design

front, there's probably just a few

thousand people. That's all we're

talking about. That would be a gamecher

on that side. Although they're largely

in Taiwan, not China. And again, I don't

think the Taiwanese government's going

be too excited for us to snap them all

up and move them to America. But in both

these fields, there are a relatively

small number of people, kind of like in

the space race, who if they were all in

America, it'd be a huge game changer.

>> Here's the thing. We do have a really

rich diversity of people from all around

the world in higher ed institutions in

the United States getting masters and

getting PhDs. We just need to be better

organized about what to do with them and

we need to sort of reach out to those

people, build relations with them, take

advantage of OPT and then we can always

create a different class of visa for

them. We have the ability to do these

things called national interest

waiverss. So all of the infrastructure

exists and I think that if we can clean

the decks on the H-1B stuff, it'll give

people a lot more incentive to support

the national interest waiver concept. I

think the reason why people don't

believe in this entire immigration

conversation is on every

part of the distribution of immigration,

people see problems. They see an open

border on the one side,

>> worried it's going to be abused. Yeah.

Exactly.

>> Exactly. Yeah, it's abuse and and it

feels terrible.

>> There's been too many of these horror

stories where an American is told to

train their H-1B replacement who's

making 25% as much. Look, I shouldn't

even tell this story, but it was told to

me yesterday, and I don't know this to

be true, so I don't want to fan the

flames of speculation here, but what I

was told is that in certain countries,

there are these puppy farms that

essentially get these kids onboarded

into US colleges. They're not the great

colleges, but they are decent enough in

all far-flung corners of America. get

them into M's programs, they pay for

their school, and then these folks have

to then send money back to pay off their

degree. So, if that's happening, then

these kids are being abused as well,

>> right? So, the whole thing has just

completely run a muck, and I think we

need to clean it up. At that point, we

have the chance of rebuilding trust

where then we can propose what Freeberg

talked about and everybody would be

supportive because they see that the

system works as intended. I think

closing of the border I think has made

people feel a lot better about it

because that was so abused that people

just look at immigration in one bucket

and they don't separate it into multiple

buckets. There's compassionate you know

people who are true dissident who we

want to show compassion for. It's a

small number of people. Then you have

all these folks who were being taken

with mules and coyotes over the border

and uh then using that same

compassionate designation and abusing

that. And and when you do see that

abuse, I think people when they hear

Trump come on here and when he was um a

presidential candidate, President Trump

came on and said, "Hey, we're going to

staple a green card right to those

degrees." And then he immediately got

backlash. Well, now I think if things

have calmed down and now President Trump

and the administration have the high

ground. They could say, "Look, we closed

the border. Now we should have a really

thoughtful discussion. We're giving

these people American educations. They

want to start companies. They want to

build our companies. They want to build

products and services. Those products

and services are going to create more

jobs. And look, we're at 4% unemployment

4.x. You know, we're we're in good shape

because we closed the border." And

that's where you had millions of people

coming in. And that was the true

problem. And this isn't the

>> problem. You make a really great point,

Jal. I mean, using the one word

immigration to wrap up all of people

that are coming to the United States, I

think masks the real series of things or

set of things that are underlying people

seeking asylum, people in need, but then

also people that we want to go attract

and bring here actively.

And it's not probably not the right term

to use just the word immigration.

It should have a recruitment and a

qualifier for every term.

>> Yeah. The term is recruitment. What you

described the paperclip mode. That's

recruitment. Then you have dissidence

and that is compassion for true

dissonance. And then there's

>> family and family

>> and family. Great. So you have

compassionate dissonance and family

members. And then you have this big

thing in the middle which is everybody

in the world wants to live here.

Everybody can't. That's immigration. And

so just put it in three buckets. And

then our leaders need to have

discussions, three different discussions

and have it in a thoughtful way, not

muddy the waters and politicize this.

That's what's been causing such a big

problem. Both sides of this argument

have been so charged hopefully now that

the biggest one has been deathly done by

Trump.

>> Trump said it at the UNGA. He said, "You

know how many people have crossed the

border since since I came into office?"

He said, "Exactly zero."

>> Yeah. Yeah.

>> That's incredible.

I mean, we have the greatest military in

the world. We can't close the border to

people who are coming on, you know, with

backpacks across the border. Like, we

should be able to secure the border with

drones and cameras.

>> It was done deliberately. They opened

the border and you know that,

>> of course,

>> because remember when Texas tried to put

up barbed wire

>> to enforce their own border?

>> That's right.

>> The Biden controlled border patrol uh

got rid of it. They removed it.

>> That was a test. No, this this was done

deliberately.

>> Yeah,

>> that was a perfect tell. Like I remember

I remember when we covered that last

year. That was the total tell. Okay,

Freeberg, some major news uh in science

this week. Let's talk about autism and

the press conference that happened this

week with Bobby Kennedy and President

Trump. Here is the chart. Autism has

increased dramatically over the years.

There's a big debate of what's causing

this and there's obviously correlations,

there's causations, there's the testing

of this and maybe we're just testing uh

a little bit too loosely around this,

but we went from 1 in 10,000 in 1970 to

1 in a,000 in 1995 to 1 in 32 in 2022.

the press conference Freeberg was a

little spicy and unique, performative

maybe were some of the criticisms, but

there's a real issue here and why don't

you take us through it and educate us so

we can kind of get to reality because

the press is having a field day with

this obviously on both sides.

>> I think autism just like Alzheimer's

there may be several underlying

conditions that lead to what we would

call the phenotype of autism. That is

what we all observe as autism. You know,

it's considered a spectrum disorder.

There's many different variations of it.

There may actually be many different

underlying conditions or underlying

drivers, biological drivers that are

causing it. One of the drivers that came

up during the press conference and in

the subsequent interviews that Marty

McCary, head of the FDA, has done is

that they've identified and shared

papers that have been out for some time

that there is a receptor that absorbs

folate, a type of vitamin B and that

that folate receptor may be attacked by

the immune system and as a result you

can't really uptake vitamin B and so

those cells dysfunction and when those

cells are dysfunctional you end up

having what looks like what we call

autism.

And so one of the things that they

announced is they're going to work on

getting the label updated for lucavorin

which will resolve for many people the

folate receptor issue. The other thing

they they brought up is a paper

that was done by Andrea Bakarelli who's

dean of the Harvard Thchan School of

Public Health. This paper is is a bit

old

where he took several studies and

analyzed them and showed that across 46

studies.

Nine of them showed no association with

acetaminophen, the main active

ingredient Tylenol, four showed a

negative association, meaning it was

actually protective and good for the

fetus. and 27 had a slightly positive

association which means that it was

having some contributo effect to both

ADHD and autism spectrum disorder when

women would take acetaminophen while

pregnant. And Nick, if you want to just

pull up that image from the paper, this

is the original paper that was published

by Bakarelli. So again, he didn't do any

primary research. He didn't actually go

and study patients. He took the data

from 46 other studies and then he added

it all together to run this kind of

macro analysis. And you can see here

that he showed some risk. There's no

specific way to quantify that risk. But

there's some increased risk of having

attention deficit hyperactivity or

autism as a result of taking

acetaminophen while pregnant. Now I

think autism again one of the

underlyings might be this autoimmune

condition associated with the folate

receptor. What causes autoimmunity is a

whole another conversation and we can

get into the vaccine stuff if you guys

want to because there's obviously a lot

of conversations going on right now

about the immune system being

primed to have kind of an auto antibbody

response but uh there may be other

things contributing to it. So I think

it's pretty clear that our modern world

in the last couple of decades there's a

cumulative effect of environmental

exposures that children are getting.

Whether it's microlastics,

whether it's chemicals in the food,

whether it's just the environmental

exposure in the air related to small

molecules, whether it's related to other

things we're putting in our body. Every

one of these things, the way to think

about it is maybe if it has a positive

effect, it might increase your chance of

autism by 0.05%. And then another thing

might increase your chance by 0.07%. And

so on and so forth. And so when you add

up all the things in our environment,

there may be a cumulative effect that

has a result in different underlying

conditions in our body that may result

in what looks like things that we call

autism. And so none of these are very

specific. There's one shot and one path

and one specific thing and I I think

that's very important.

>> Yeah. Let me just um ask two clarifying

questions really lightning round you

Freeberg. Number one for the audience.

How is autism diagnosed in these

studies? Is there a blood test, a

genetic test or is it just a bunch of

questions? I know the answer but I

wanted you to clarify it for everybody.

And then how does this the geographical

differences in autism just like we saw

with trans kids, you know, there's many

in certain cities and none in others. So

maybe you could talk a little bit about

those two issues which I think many

people have been talking about.

>> So I don't think that there's one

specific diagnostic test for autism as

if it was one disease. Again, these are

phenotypes. These are behaviors that are

being measured that people call autism

spectrum disorder. And so the diagnostic

criteria falls under a set of screening

and behavioral tests that go on. And you

know, one of the things

>> there there's a survey, there's an

observation, and there's a bunch of

things.

>> Is it like a score? Is it a score?

>> Yeah. So it's there's a scoring system.

Exactly. And so then there's different

levels.

>> What did you and Sak score?

>> Yeah. Where are you guys? Cuz we could

we could bet. Hold on before you tell

us. Chimath and I are going to bet on

it. I'm going to say that Sax over by 16

points.

>> Make it over under

>> over under. I think these guys are

>> Well, what's who's got who's highest on

the spectrum?

>> Well, Sachs may have gotten in the 90th

percentile.

>> He's definitely in the 90th framework of

the

>> We need a poly market. We need a What

did Reaper get on the market?

>> By by the way, just to go back on the

acetaminophen study, it's

>> so great.

>> Oh, look. There's the emotional

detachment. Go ahead. Go ahead.

>> No reaction. You and I are laughing.

Well, I mean, I I I'm making an active

choice not to engage. Um, but uh the uh

>> I am making an active choice to repress

my emotions.

>> One thing to note and and one of the

controversies about all of this, the

paper that was published by this guy

Bakarelli from I don't know if I'm

pronouncing his name right, from

Harvard. It's actually been challenged

because in 2023 he was called as an

expert witness in a lawsuit against the

maker of Tylenol. And in that lawsuit,

the judge throughout his testimony is

unreliable because he was being paid

$150,000

uh to give the uh the expert testimony

to work on the case. And so because of

the payment,

>> what side was he on?

>> So this is the guy who published the

paper that linked that showed an

increase

>> on the expert testimony. Was he pro

Tylenol or

>> anti Tylenol? So he was he was an expert

witness for the lawyers that were filing

the claim against Tylenol. I will say in

the last couple of days since this press

conference he has publicly said that we

are not yet certain or sure about the

link and I want to remind everyone that

this association study indicates an

increased risk but that doesn't mean

that if you take Tylenol your child is

going to have autism that doesn't mean

that there's a determinism here there is

a statistical chance that there is a

slight increase and the more

acetaminophen you take the more the

chance and that's what the papers show

let me let me take let let me take the

other side of this

>> here's what we No, we know for sure that

there is this potential autoimmune issue

that you as the mother can express as an

antibbody. There's an antibbody test for

it. We also know that the child can be

tested for it. So, at a minimum, we're

now at a point where we can create a

very thorough well-funded study to get

to the core of this issue. separately.

To the extent that you do test positive,

there will be some doctors and some

parents that may decide to take lucarin

prophylactically

and then also to administer it to the

child before it's clear whether they do

or do not have autism. I have several

friends who have kids on the spectrum. I

talked to them about luccoin. What they

say is that when you have extreme

autism, the drug is very effective.

But when you have kids that are more

sort of mild on the spectrum, then

there's a lot of benefit from behavioral

modifications and behavioral training

and that it's not clear how effective

that drug is. But in in one specific

case, one of my friends is considering

it for their child. Here's the point

though. I think the point is that we

need to test for this. And I think that

some combination of governments and

industry should come together.

Beyond that, the point that I want to

make though is and I think Freeberg, I

don't think you're adding to the

conversation when you say that there's

no determinism because on the off chance

that there is, I would say that we don't

know yet. When you see women taking

acetaminophen

in this performative art way, basically

to like try to like pone Donald Trump

and it's all over Tik Tok and it's all

over X. I just think it's reckless and I

think it solves nothing. you're supposed

to go talk to your doctor about it in

all weather conditions anyways, but then

when you transform it into some sort of

like protest vote without really

knowing, I think is really dumb.

>> Yeah. And this this test by the way,

Chimath, I'll say this folate receptor

anti auto antibbody, there has been a

test available, I think since 2012. This

has been around for some time. In fact,

>> cancer patients take this test, of

course, because

>> and there was a there was a paper

published on this. I'm trying to find

this paper. I I'm not sure how much

follow-up there's been. This was a Sunni

paper where these guys went and found

folks that were scored very high on the

autism spectrum disorder diagnostic test

and they found a high prevalence over

70% had this folate receptor auto

antibbody. This was one paper so I want

to I don't want to give it like a ton of

credence. There's a lot of follow-up

that's happened since then and I'm not

an expert in this space, but I did kind

of do some research on what the history

is of this and so this is a very

well-known kind of correlative effect

and it could be a very big contributor

but obviously like no one should feel

like hey if I don't have auto antibodies

then my kid is fine that doesn't

necessarily mean the case again there

may be several paths to autism and the

thing about acetaminophen just like hey

have a drink or smoke a cigarette the

more you do the higher the risk this is

the case with with anything we put in

our body. And I think that's the point

about like what they've identified in

the in the paper that was published

regarding acetaminophen. And so there's

still a lot to be kind of determined on

how they're going to provide guidance to

women that are pregnant on do you have a

fever, do you take it for pain, what's

the right criteria, we all agree

medicating yourself to make a political

point is

>> hilarious. What are we do that is

absolutely absolutely happy this is true

or it's stupid. Yeah,

>> I think for his next trick, President

Trump should warn people not to snort

rat poison.

>> Yes. Also not a good idea.

>> Somebody was tweeting, "Next, President

Trump's going to recommend not using uh

toasters while you're in the bathtub."

>> Yeah.

>> Just to see what people do.

>> My fellow Americans, in light of recent

studies, I wanted to warn against the

use of toasters in your bathtub or your

shower.

>> Don't do it. Don't put the toaster in

the

>> You know, people are gonna do it if he

tells them not to.

>> Exactly. Exact. I mean, I have such an

inappropriate joke right now. I'm not

going to say it.

>> Let's take Freedber's math when I saw

that and you think maybe there's a 0.05%

chance. Well, guess what? If you stack

that up and it actually turns out to be

true across the thousands of women that

then performatively did this

idiotically, you could actually have an

extra kid or two with autism that didn't

need to have it. What what is going on

in America?

>> Well, look, I think there there were a

lot of people who instantly had a snarky

reaction because it was Trump and Bobby

Kennedy making these claims about

Tylenol and the media played into that.

And look, I don't know what the truth of

it is, but there are

>> even Tylenol tells you to not take it.

They say call your doctor.

>> Yeah, exactly. There are

>> How stupid are these people? There are

plenty of articles establishing this

risk. There's a paper from John's

Hopkins from 2019 called taking Tylenol

during pregnancy associated with

elevator risk for autism and ADHD.

>> Pull this up. This is to your point.

This is CNN's coverage on when these

acetaminophen studies came out

historically. And you can see that when

um it was announced at the Trump

conference yesterday, they said Trump

links autism to acetaminophen used

during pregnancy despite decades of

evidence it's safe. And then if you read

back, so this is 2017, 2016,

acetaminophen during pregnancy may

increase risk of hyperactivity. Studies

link acet.

>> So when Trump says it in the headline,

in that no in the headline they dismiss

it. But every other time, every other

time they've taken the paper and they've

published a news article on the paper

itself.

>> I just couldn't believe this. All this

like CNN. Yeah.

>> They ignore all their previous reporting

on the subject. I mean, that's that's

what's kind of crazy about it.

>> This super cut was hilarious. Check out

the uh this is the super cut of Trump

saying Tylenol. It was hilarious.

>> Don't take Tylenol. Don't take it with

Tylenol. Don't take it. Don't take it.

Don't use Tylenol. Don't take Tylenol.

Don't take Tylenol. Fight like hell not

to take it. I think you shouldn't take

it.

>> It's just hilarious how he presents

information. Just don't take Tylenol.

Don't take Tylenol. Great week for

Motrin, though. So, I heard sals are up

for that.

>> No, because it's also been established

for a very long time. You don't take

ibuprofen aspirin.

>> Yeah, you definitely don't think worse.

>> Ibuprofen is terrible if you're

pregnant.

>> So, wait a minute. Why why is it is it

specifically that this one mechanism of

action was completely inoculated and

every other mechanism of action for

things like pain relief and headaches

are known to be pretty bad for women and

babies? Come on guys.

>> Yeah. Uh Freeberg, explain to us the

disparity in different regions of the

world and autism. Would you think that's

the surveys and maybe people in the

United States are a little more Again,

I'm not an expert in this stuff. Jal, I

I can opine on kind of what I've read

and I've done some studying, but think

about my like level of knowledge being

in the range of hours compared to yours,

which I Yeah, but I would say

>> I'm a complete expert on this because

I've watched all seasons of Love on the

Spectrum

>> and I love that show. Have you seen

that? Love on the Spectrum.

>> What is it? Oh, watch it with Nat. It's

She'll love it. It's great. I do agree

with the general notion that we have a

cumulative uh effect. Like many studies

that are done, by the way, are very

organized around short duration, high

exposure when it relates to novel

molecules in the environment and how

they're and how we're exposed to them.

>> Yeah. the cumulative long-term effect of

these things as we learned recently with

respect to like the amount of

microplastics and the endocrine

disrupting nature of microplastics where

they can actually bind to specific

receptors and as a result block the

expression or binding of other proteins

which can have a systemic kind of effect

on you. We didn't realize that until

recently after we've been making

plastics for 70 years. And then we

didn't realize these plastics were

breaking down and cumulatively kind of,

you know, growing in our environment, in

our water supply, as a result in our

food, in our balls, in our brains, in

our hearts. And so what are these

molecules doing as they accumulate in

our body? And that's now needs to be

studied and understood. And then we have

this big challenging industrial question

of what do we do about it? But that's

true for nearly every novel molecule

we've developed over the past hundred

years on Earth. Some of them, by the

way, we could make the case. We can show

deterministically they break down. They

don't persist. They're fine. And then

some of them we could say like, look,

there's a cumulative effect as more of

these molecules enter our body and some

of them stay in our body. they over time

increase the probability of things like

DNA breaks resulting in cancer or things

like endocrine disruption resulting in

metabolic effects or things like we

might be seeing now with folate receptor

auto antibbody presentations that drive

autism spectrum disorder. So, I think

that there's a lot to be said generally

speaking about the cumulative effect

about a lot of the stuff we put in our

environment. And as much as I could

disagree with things that Bobby Kennedy

might say, I can tell you asking these

questions is critically important. As

scientists, we have to constantly

interrogate and this cannot be just a

political point. I'm not like going to

sit here and say I agree with the

statements that might be made by the

president when he says never take copen.

I think it's a little more nuanced than

that, frankly. But I do think that the

idea that we should be asking the

questions and interrogating for answers

is very very important. And so

>> I think that's an important takeaway

because if you talk to people who have

been impacted by this and people in the

community, the reaction was we're glad

we're getting a lot of attention. Yeah,

that was a weird press conference on the

margins, but we're glad that this is a

focus now. And I think people are also

glad about vaccines. Again, I don't

think we should be banning vaccines, but

but I do like the idea that we're

questioning all these things and we're

not just giving the medical industrial

complex a complete pass on this and that

we're spending money and investing in

it. So, let's go on to our next story

around censorship. How much money do you

think is spent in the USA annually on

autism?

>> Gosh, do you think it's enough to fund a

longitudinal

trial?

Yeah, I mean that's I I don't have the

data to know and then I guess you would

on a societal basis you would be

thinking is there a better use of

capital, right? We but we're a rich

country. We have the ability to fund

some of this stuff and there's private

companies who

>> well

too, right?

>> I bet you we're wasting money in all

kinds of random places where finding a

few billion dollars to run this trial is

a good thing.

>> Yeah, that totally makes sense. All

right, we've got a lot of news in the

censorship space. So, this is this week

in censorship. So much to talk about.

First story up. Jimmy Kimmel is back on

the air. Earlier this week, Disney

announced that ABC would resume airing

Kimmel show. And I think that was

Tuesday night. Disney explained why they

suspended Kimmel last week to avoid

further inflaming a tense situation at

an emotional moment for our country. And

they called Kimmel's comments illtimed

and thus insensitive. He came back and

had a massive amount of reach,

but Nexar and Sinclair's affiliates,

they decided to not air it. And that was

60% of the market. So interesting. Poly

Market had Jimmy Kimmy Kimmel canled by

September 30th. It was nearly 80% after

Kimmel was suspended last week, but

that's plummeted to 1% since then.

Was quite emotional. I'm I'm guessing

everybody watched it and I did not. I

did not watch it.

>> Oh, you didn't watch it. Okay. Well,

we'll play a clip here. It was I felt

heartfelt and Yeah, it was incredibly

heartfelt and deaf in terms of its

execution. It was sincere. And here it

is.

>> I don't think what I have to say is

going to make much of a difference. If

you like me, you like me. If you don't,

you don't. I have no illusions about

changing anyone's mind. But I do want to

make something clear because it's

important to me as a human. And that is,

you understand that it was never my

intention to make light of the murder of

a young man. I I don't

I don't think there's anything funny

about it. I I posted a message on

Instagram on the day he was killed

sending love to his family and asking

for compassion and I meant it and I

still do. Uh nor was it my intention to

blame any specific group for the actions

of what it was obviously a deeply

disturbed individual. That was really

the opposite of the point I was trying

to make. But I understand that to some

that felt either illtimed or unclear or

maybe both. And for those who think I

did uh point a finger. I get why you're

upset. If the situation was reversed,

there's a good chance I'd have felt the

same way. I have many friends and family

members on the other side who I love and

remain close to. Even though we don't

agree on politics at all, I don't think

the murderer who shot Charlie Kirk

represents anyone. This was a sick

person who believed violence was a

solution. And it isn't it ever.

>> Yeah. And he uh references later in this

apology

of sorts. I think it was pretty pretty

clear he was apologizing his own faith,

his Christianity, and um just how

beautiful it was that the widow of

Charlie Kirk had forgiven the shooter

and he got broken up about that as well.

He then went on to do a bunch of jokes

and have a normal show. It was massive

ratings. Obviously, everybody was tuned

into it and

>> we'll see. He didn't apologize. I didn't

hear an apology.

>> Um,

>> okay.

>> Did he apologize?

>> Do you know what that means?

>> In the English language.

>> My understanding, if you look at Twitter

and stuff, was that there was not

technically an apology.

>> Okay.

>> He didn't apologize and he didn't say

what he had done wrong. I guess what he

said is that I didn't mean to make light

of my situation.

>> Yeah. Wasn't my intent. Yeah.

>> It wasn't his intent.

>> An explanation more than an apology.

Okay. Nobody was accusing him of making

light of the murder. What he did and

what people were upset about is that he

lied and said that the shooter was MAGA

and he did not hit the nail on the head

in terms of addressing that and he's

being called out for that. Now look, I

still think that his statement there,

let's call it an apology, was

constructive and positive because at

least he is showing empathy towards the

other side. He obviously feels bad for

Erica Kirk and for Charlie Kirk and in

the current overheated political

environment is expressing empathy for

the other side is a positive statement

and I think he definitely brought the

temperature down and I think later in

the statement he also makes an important

point about he says you know just

selfishly I have threats on me and what

he's basically saying is look we don't

want to get into a civil war here. We

don't want to get into a cycle of tit

fortat retaliation. Let's not play

Hatfields and McCoys. This is my words.

He didn't say this, but that was sort of

the intimation of what he was saying.

And I think that is a good thing to say.

I mean, no one here should want a civil

war and this thing can go off the rails

really badly. So, look, I think that his

statements were positive and and and

welcome and they showed empathy for the

other side, but he did not fess up to

what he really did wrong here, which was

to claim that the shooter was MAGA. That

was the thing that was deeply offensive.

>> Yeah.

>> And hold on. And and the reason why he

did that is he was not the only one

doing it. In the early days of this

shooting, of this assassination, it was

a talking point on the left that this

shooter could be right-wing. And the

reason why people on the left were

saying that is it was exculpatory. It

was basically to put the blame on the

other side instead of looking in the

mirror and hopping to the fact that

there is this rise of left-wing

political violence and assassination

culture. As we demonstrated on the pod

last week by looking at all the data and

all the numbers, there really is this

poisonous ideology

that is on the left, and yes, there's

some of it on the right, but way more of

it on the left, that political violence

can be used to solve problems. And the

left really does need to look in the

mirror and rid itself of that ideology.

And by not admitting that this assassin

was motivated by that ideology, they are

ignoring that opportunity for

self-reflection and for progress.

>> That last part is important. I think the

point is that when you say that somebody

is mentally deranged, what most normal

people do is then say, "Oh, it was an

aberration. It was an outlier." And I

think that that is a dangerous way to

try to sweep under the rug

what is something that's more virulent

and is increasingly acceptable in

society.

>> This guy might have been crazy in the

sense that he was willing to use murder

to achieve his objectives. I think we

can all say on some level that's crazy.

It doesn't mean he wasn't animated by an

ideology that lots of people believe.

And I think the proof of this was the

celebratory reaction to the

assassination of Charlie Kirk. You saw

it on Tik Tok. You saw it on Blue Sky.

You saw it on the corners of social

media. You definitely saw it on Reddit

where you had thousands, maybe hundreds

of thousands of people celebrating the

death of Charlie Kirk and basically

buying into this idea of political

violence as the solution to their

problem and to the idea that it was

acceptable to use violence against

people they hated. And so again, this is

the problem with the random nut theory

is that it really ignores all the

evidence we have about the larger

reaction to the Charlie Kirk

assassination. And this is a thing that

the left really doesn't want to

confront. It does not want to look in

the mirror here and say that we have a

problem on the left with this

assassination culture. And we talked

about this last week. And if you look at

polling, they just did polling around

this and there's still millions of

people on the left who believe that the

shooter was MAGA. And Jimmy Kimmel

helped foster that belief with this

disinformation that he put out there.

And he really should have hit the nail

on the head in terms of saying that he

got that wrong, that it was wrong to say

that. And he he could have been a little

bit clear about that. I'm not dismissing

the positive things he said because I do

think it was good for him to show that.

I mean, I'm gonna give him credit for

getting emotional. I know I know a lot

of people on the right think that it

wasn't sincere. I think that it probably

was sincere. I'm going to give him

credit for that. I think his comments

were constructive, but he did not

apologize for the thing he actually did

wrong. And in fact, he just replaced

that original lie with a new form of

left-wing spin, which was the random nut

theory.

>> And I think, yeah, let me stop there.

But the but the point is that really we

need to come to grips with the fact that

there is this toxic political ideology

now that's mostly on the left that does

need to be confronted.

>> I'm going to go ahead and say, you know,

we we should clean up a little bit here

or I'm going to clean up. He should

have, I think, made it clear that this

wasn't a MAGA person, but I'm just going

to repeat the quote. We hit some new

lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang

desperately trying to characterize this

kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as

anything other than one of them in doing

everything they can to score political

points from it. Now, he should have said

that turned out not to be true. It was

actually a liberal and I think it was

not that he said the guy was MAGA. He

said people were speculating he was

MAGA. That actually was true. So, just

to be clear here, he never said the

person was MAGA. Wait, who was

speculating? The the bag bag of people

were speculating. Hold on. Charlie

Kirk's fans, his loved ones, his

co-workers weren't speculating about

this. It was people on the left. Hold

on. People on the left of which Jimmy

Kimmel was one were trying to plant the

story

>> that this assassin could be MAGA.

>> Well, I mean, this is done deliberately.

Hold on. That was done deliberately as

disinformation to take the blame off of

the political ideology.

>> Yeah. I don't I don't think anybody No.

>> And the culture of political

assassination that's been rising on the

left.

>> Okay. So, over that weekend, there was

definitive speculation that this might

be a Groper, one of Nick Quentis' fans.

There was also significant speculation.

And this is why people shouldn't

speculate in a breaking news environment

because you'll frequently get it wrong.

And people had gotten it wrong because

they assumed that this individual was

MAGA because his parents were. And then

when it turned out it wasn't true,

that's when the record got corrected.

But this was one of these instances

where people actually were speculating

and they were wrong. And that's why you

should always wait in a breaking news

environment.

>> Well, you're using a lot of passive

tense in order to avoid who said what.

>> How so?

>> You said there was a lot of speculation.

No, there was

>> talking about social media speculation.

There was an effort to create a

narrative, a false narrative that

somehow

MAGA was to blame for this. And Jimmy

Kimmel was one of the leading people who

did that. We covered last week

the rundown, the timeline of what was

known at the time that Jimmy Kimmel said

that. And Megan Kelly did an excellent

job summarizing everything we knew. We

knew what was written on the bullet

casings. We knew what the parents had

said. We knew what the friends had said.

Megan's tweet on this is very

exhaustive. So, you're acting like there

was a legitimate basis for Jimmy to say

what he said and there wasn't. And I

don't know why you're covering for him

right now.

>> No, no, no. I'm not covering for

anybody. I'm clarifying a factual error.

He did not say the person was Magnet. He

said there was speculation that weekend,

which that weekend there was speculation

that this was a Groper and that the

family was Maggie. And I'm just

>> on social media everybody was

speculating about this. That's and I

think the the problem here is that we're

saying that the left wants to

assassinate people. The left has

assassination culture. I know many

people on the left, I don't know

anybody, I haven't talked to a single

person on the left who is in favor of

what happened or in any way supports it.

And it's quite the opposite. Every

single person I know on the left, every

single person, you know, who is a

high-profile person on the left, with

the exception of maybe one or two really

dark people,

they have all said that this is horrible

and tragic and there is no place in

civil society for violence. So, I'm

trying to actually balance this down and

say this wasn't the left. This is not

the left strategy. The strategy does not

want to murder people. That that is

absolutely false. And the left is not

pro assassination culture. All the

leadership on the left,

>> you certainly changed your tune because

last week we showed you plenty of data

showing that there was three times as

many people on the left who are

celebrating or endorsing political

violence. You didn't object to that

then. You didn't show me data on the

opposite. You're just saying that no one

you know Well, I'm glad that no one you

know is celebrating political murder.

The only person I and the only leader I

saw was Ilhan Omar who was just saying

like Charlie Kirk's got a terrible

legacy etc. like inappropriate comments

there obviously but every other person

uniformly condemn this. Now I know

there's tons of surveys out there and I

think if we're going to talk about

political violence the right also has a

political violence problem and that they

need to do. We saw on January 6th MAGA

and all of these people beat police

officers and destroy the capital. That

is also political violence. It's not an

assassination. It's obviously distinctly

different, but they were beating cops.

Okay? And the price they paid for that

was they were all given pardons for

beating police officers. Okay? So there

needs to be better leadership from the

Democrats and the right on this. And

everybody needs to calm this down and

say this is not acceptable. Whether

you're beating cops up on January 6th,

assassinating somebody, threatening

people to that they have to fight, this

is all terrible. Everybody has to calm

everything down. And that's an example

I'm trying to make here on this program

is to have productive dialogue even

though we disagree about things. Every

person I know who's on the left, every

person I know was absolutely believes

this is abhorrent and they would never

condone it. Period. Full stop. and every

leader with the exception of like one or

two people who I don't understand why

they would ever criticize, you know, a

Christian who was murdered in cold

blood. I I'm sorry. It's that's totally

unacceptable.

But anyway, that's my position on it.

>> Look, I understand this is a heated

issue. Let me just make one final point.

I I know that both sides have their

quote unquote nut cases, violent

extremists who engage in horrific crimes

and they should all be denounced

equally. The difference here that I

think we saw with the Charlie Kirk

assassination is that you saw thousands,

maybe even upwards of a hundred thousand

people on the left on social media

rejoice and celebrate his assassination

or downplay it and minimize it on the

grounds that somehow he deserved it for

the things he said. And I just have to

say I don't think we've seen that

behavior before on the part of the

right. whenever there's been some

horrific crime. I don't remember anyone

on the right ever celebrating that. It

was not something that was mainstream

discourse by any means. I certainly do

not see thousands of videos and Reddit

posts celebrating that. And I think what

you see in the polling data is that yes,

there are some people on the right who

feel that political violence is

acceptable or solution, but that number

is three times greater on the left. I'm

glad Jal doesn't know any of those

people. That's reassuring, but

nonetheless, it's there in large amounts

of data. And I think that we need to

address that problem without minimizing

it or both sidesing it or else we're

never going to make progress as a

country.

>> Okay, Jal and Chimoth both had to run.

We started late today and we ran a

little bit too long for both of them.

Sax and I are going to wrap it up with a

quick conversation on AI. Saxs, I don't

know if you saw, but there were two

papers that were published this week,

each of which on their own, I would say,

were were pretty kind of important. I'll

highlight the first one and Nick if you

could just pull this first one up. This

is the MIT paper. So this paper is

called teaching LLMs to plan and

effectively what this uh team did and

again they were out of MIT in

collaboration with a scientist at

Microsoft AI in Mountain View. They

basically created an instruction tuning

framework that teaches LLM to do

symbolic planning which basically means

that the LLM think about step by step or

chain of thought in a smarter way by

making them generate explicit state

action state chains and then they

trained that model by giving them

feedback

with an external plan validator which is

effectively going to be a human or or a

software tool that says, did this series

of steps make sense to do the thing

you're trying to do? If not, here's what

you did wrong, here's what you should

have done better. And they were able to

achieve planning accuracy of up to 94%

on some standardized benchmarks that are

used for chain of thought, reasoning,

and planning using LLMs. This is a 66%

absolute improvement over baseline

models. And so this is pretty

substantial. They took Llama 3 and they

were able to increase the performance

from 1% to 64%. The outcome of this

basically is that this sort of a system

can be used to train LLMs to do better

reasoning and better chain of thought in

such a dramatic way that LLMs will look

like they are starting to reason. And so

by training them effectively on the

steps in planning on how to reason, the

LLM get better at looking like they're

doing reasoning using this kind of

symbolic planning method that they then

built a tuning framework around. That

sounded a little bit complicated, but I

think ultimately what it translates to

is they figured out a method to get AI

to act in a more reasoned way in

developing step-by-step plans and

execute against those plans. And the

results and the benchmarks are

incredible. So this was a big

breakthrough I would say this week.

Sachs, I don't know if you spent any

time looking at this paper from MIT or

talked with your team about it.

>> I haven't seen it, but what what exactly

is the symbolic framework they're

talking about exact you know what

exactly is that that I mean I understand

chain of thought but what is it that

that improves accuracy?

>> There's an old language called PDDDL or

planning domain definition language.

PDDL is kind of a uh an attempt to

standardize AI planning languages. So

it's been around for a long time. I

think it's been around since like the

late 90s and it's effectively a series

of symbols that define planning. What

they were then doing is basically using

PDDL

to try and set a series of steps that

the LLM would use to reason and get to

an answer on doing a task or or running

an action. And then they tuned the PDDDL

using this tuning framework that they

developed, giving it feedback. And then

they also fed it good plans and bad

plans and said this is a good plan, this

is a bad plan. And so overall the LLM

was then run in such a way that it

actually had a better set of steps that

it would use to solve a particular

problem. And so this can then lead to

all of the underlying machinery of an

LLM being better utilized to solve a

bigger problem to solve kind of a a

chain of thought or to solve some

reasoning problem that requires several

steps or planning. I think it was a very

good breakthrough. The benchmark data

that they shared was pretty impressive

and it's getting quite a bit of

attention this week. That was one I

think really interesting paper that came

out this week. The other one and Nick

maybe you can pull this one up. So this

one's really impressive sachs. This

comes from a team in Germany. This paper

was published in the journal Nature

Computational Science. These folks took

a GPU and for each token typically

you'll have the entire key value chain

transferred from high bandwidth memory

to cache memory. So this means that

you're moving a lot of data between one

type of memory and another type of

memory. And what they were able to do is

they were actually able to reduce the

physical memory size that's needed to

run the attention window. As a result,

the energy and the total token cost to

run inference went down significantly.

I'm trying to simplify this down as best

I can, but what matters is the the end

data that they provided. Their

architecture led to a speed up of 7,000x

compared to the Nvidia Jetson Nano, 300X

compared with Nvidia RTX 4090, and then

100x compared to the Nvidia H100. And

the energy was reduced by 40,000x

compared to Jetson Nano, 90,000x

compared to RDX490,

and a 70,000x

energy reduction for the same outcome

over an H100.

So I think that this mechanism, if it

scales, this new kind of technique can

have a pretty dramatic effect on the

energy consumption needed to run AI. And

importantly, because you need far less

memory, you can actually move a lot of

AI inference to the edge of the network.

Meaning you could put, for example, a

very high-owered LLM model that could be

run in a robot or in a piece of

equipment or in a computer or on your

phone that historically you'd need to

run in a data center because you needed

a very highowered GPU chip stack. And so

this architecture, I think, could be one

of these big architectural

breakthroughs. We've spoken with Sergey

Brin and Eric Schmidt and Sundar and

Demis about the big architectural

breakthroughs that are coming in AI that

could ultimately lead to many orders of

magnitude reduction in the energy cost

needed to run inference and to run AI

models. Again, if this scales, then all

of our assumptions about the data

center, about the energy can start to

kind of be thought about under this new

kind of architectural framework, which

might actually result in much much lower

need states. We'll see. But it was a

really, I think, important paper and

folks are going to look up this paper

and say this could be a pivot point in

how we think about the energy and

infrastructure needs to support AI. I

don't know if you and your team have

reviewed it, but it's definitely worth

spending some time on. Yeah, look, I

think the writing was on the wall that

models are going to get smaller and

smaller and more efficient to the point

where they can run on the edge on local

devices. I mean, that was one of the

implications of Deep Seek. But if you

look more recently at I think the launch

of Llama 4, their smallest model, I

think it's called Scout,

>> runs on a single GPU,

>> right? So, I think we're going to have a

whole range of smart devices that will

have a single GPU running a pretty

decent AI model. And I mean, obviously,

your phone will have one too, probably a

much better one.

>> Have you and your team talked about like

what the energy demand curve looks like

as these better architectures? Like, if

we're talking about 10,000x reduction in

energy to run a token, have you guys

thought about well, you know, does

energy scale as we've projected it to

scale? Does data center need scale like

we've projected it to? Or do you think

that because they're more efficient,

we'll actually have more demand?

>> That just sounds a little too good to be

true right now,

>> right?

>> As between papers and products, I pay a

lot of attention to the launch of

products and I don't pay a lot of

attention to papers,

>> right?

>> I know that some papers end up being

really important. For example, the paper

on the transformer architecture back in

2017 turned out to be enormously

important. But I think that a lot of

papers just don't really go anywhere for

whatever reason. Maybe they're hard to

reproduce or they don't scale or what

have you. So I just don't really pay

that much attention to the academic

literature. I do pay a lot of attention

to product launches. And when someone

launches something

>> revolutionary, then it immediately gets

everyone's attention because you don't

have to speculate about whether a proof

of concept is going to be possible or

not. You actually see it. I guess what

I'm saying is that the proof of the

pudding is in the eating,

>> right? I think we're going to need a lot

more power, a lot more electricity. I

think that's pretty well known. We

haven't even gotten to the robot

revolution yet. That's coming in the

next 5 years. That's going to be energy

intensive. So,

>> if this thing's even close to being

correct, then you could run the most

kind of sophisticated LLMs in a robot

without it needing to be run out of a

data center going forward. And the

robots can simply make a request for

information from the internet that they

need. But all of the actual computation,

the reasoning,

>> uh, all of the base knowledge would sit

locally in that device. It's really

incredible to think about. Like we are

going to end up with these like robots.

It's amazing.

>> Yeah.

>> Well, I think that's right. I mean, I

think that self-driving wouldn't work if

you had to run all the inference on the

cloud. I mean, it's run locally, right,

by powerful

>> AI chips.

And then obviously it can connect when

it needs to. But no, I I would expect

that robots are going to have a local AI

model.

>> Yeah. Okay, cool. Well, that's it. I

mean, those were the two papers I

thought were really pretty impressive

this week.

>> Hey, Freeberg, what exactly happened

with YouTube? Do you have an update on

what happened with our episodes from

Allins Summit that appear to be

>> shadowbanned? Yeah, tell us what

happened there.

>> Okay, so thank you to the folks at

YouTube. They actually worked all

weekend to help us figure out what

happened and there was nothing

nefarious. There was no shadow banning

going on. What happened was, you guys

may recall a couple of months ago, we

stopped bleeping out curse words in our

episodes and we muted them instead. And

when we muted them, the YouTube

algorithm still thought that we were

saying the curse word quietly and it

still showed up in the YouTube

transcript. When you have a curse word

in a video, YouTube marks it as

restricted. So, it's kind of not age

appropriate. And so, that's why it was

getting the restricted mark. When we

went back, the episodes that did get

restricted all had a curse word in them

and we understand clearly what happened.

So going forward, we are going to use

the bleeping again instead of just

muting. It was very benign, not

nefarious. YouTube did a great job

supporting us. We went back and fixed

all the old episodes, so they're all out

of restricted mode and we started

reposting all of our summit videos

again. So yeah, I mean, conspiracy

corner is closed on that one.

>> Well, hold on. Do creators know about

this that if you have fbombs in your

show that you go on to restricted mode?

>> You know, that's a great question.

There's no, and we were talking to the

YouTube product team about this. There's

no easy way for YouTube creators to see

that a video has been tagged as

restricted. And so, they need to fix

that. They're going to fix that. They

told us. And so, I think we should all