微软百亿投资 OpenAI 与生成式 AI 热潮

Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:00): Is anybody else seeing a half a second lag with Jacob or, like, a second lag? Test test test 1212? From, like, the way his mouth moves? David Sacks (00:00:07): Well, that always happens. Jason Calacanis (00:00:09): Oh, got it. Here it comes. David Friedberg (00:00:10): His mouth never stops moving. Jason Calacanis (00:00:12): Black sex. Relax sex. David Sacks (00:00:16): Are we going recording? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:17): You're ready to go? Go listen. David Sacks (00:00:19): Go listen. It's a plus material. Jason Calacanis (00:00:21): Go to hot stacker. Let's go. David Sacks (00:00:23): This is Chapelle at the punch line. Jason Calacanis (00:00:24): go. Let's go. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:25): I'm ready to go. Jason Calacanis (00:00:28): The way your winter ride. Rainman David Speaker 5 (00:00:32): Sanders. And Speaker 6 (00:00:35): I said We open source Speaker 5 (00:00:36): it to the fans and made discoveries. Jason Calacanis (00:00:37): Love you. Alright, everybody. Welcome to episode Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:47): 111 of the world's greatest Jason Calacanis (00:00:49): podcast according to Slate The podcast that shall not be mentioned by the press, apparently. You know David Sacks (00:00:55): what I mean? They just did a profile on us. Jason Calacanis (00:00:57): Well, they did. This is the conundrum. It's so much of a phenomenon that we're the number one business and the number one tech podcast in the world hands down that the press has a hard time giving us any oxygen because they want to hate us They want to cover it. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:01:17): You're saying they take the ideas, but not the -- They don't wanna cite it. They don't wanna cite it. Jason Calacanis (00:01:22): They don't wanna cite it. But, anyway, shout to slate. Yeah. David Friedberg (00:01:25): What I thought was interesting was the guy pointed out that we don't wanna subject ourselves to independent journalists asking us independent questions. therefore, we go direct and that that's kind of the the thing nowadays. When everyone says they wanna go direct, it's because they don't wanna be subject to independent journal Jason Calacanis (00:01:41): one might ask themselves why subjects don't want to go direct. David Sacks (00:01:45): Yeah. Exactly. David Friedberg (00:01:45): You mean don't wanna go to journalists? Jason Calacanis (00:01:47): Yeah. Because there's a there's a specific reason why principles, the subject of stories do not want to have the press interpret what they're saying is because they don't feel they're getting a fair feel like we're Chamath Palihapitiya (00:01:58): -- David Friedberg (00:01:58): The challenge is the challenge is that then we avoid independent scrutiny of our points of view and our decisions. There David Sacks (00:02:03): we go. They're constantly writing hit pieces about us. the the question is when we want to present our side of it, do we need to go through their filter or not? Why would you go through their filter when it's always gonna be a hit piece. David Friedberg (00:02:17): Right. Jason Calacanis (00:02:17): Well and David Sacks (00:02:17): also They have a class hatred of, basically, of technology, entrepreneurs, Jason Calacanis (00:02:24): and investors. -- just use Saxx, the quite way I think. I know. I don't use sex. No. Speaker 5 (00:02:27): No. No. No. No. No. David Sacks (00:02:27): You're right, Jake. How? They don't hate you because you genuflect to their local biases. You see, Jason Calacanis (00:02:32): if if if you do if you David Sacks (00:02:35): do what SPF did, which is basically agree with all of their biases, then, yes, they'll treat you better. That's the deal. That's how it works. David Friedberg (00:02:44): And when you say they Chamath Palihapitiya (00:02:45): -- David Friedberg (00:02:45): Do you see that? -- specific large media outlets. Right, Saks? Jason Calacanis (00:02:48): she's not referring to Fox Parker. David Friedberg (00:02:51): Nobody. You David Sacks (00:02:52): can name 1. I'll trade you. I'll tell you what. I'll trade you Fox for MSNBC and CNN and the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Atlantic magazine and on and on and on. You get a lot of mileage out of being able to name Fox. The fact the matter is Chamath Palihapitiya (00:03:05): Megyn Kelly? Mhmm. David Sacks (00:03:07): That's a podcaster. She's independent now. Jason Calacanis (00:03:09): That's true. She is David Sacks (00:03:09): You can name 1. I mean, literally, one outlet that is not part of this, you know, mainstream media. And they all think the same way. There are very small differences in the way they think. Jason Calacanis (00:03:21): It's all about clicks. It's all about clicks at this point, and it's all about advocacy journalism and advocacy. It's it's that combination. What you David Sacks (00:03:29): what you're calling advocacy is bias. And activism. It's activism. Jason Calacanis (00:03:33): It's that's what I'm talking about. Activism. Yes. David Friedberg (00:03:36): I think Draymond also highlights a really important point, which is know, he started his podcast. It's become one of the most popular forms of sports media, and he can speak directly without the filtering and you know, classification that's done by the, you know, journalist, and it seems to be a really powerful trend. The audience really wanna to hear direct, and they wanna hear unfiltered raw points of view. And there and maybe there's still a role for, I think, the journalism separate from that, which is to then scrutinize and analyze and question and Chamath Palihapitiya (00:04:08): -- David Sacks (00:04:08): It's not journalism. It's just activism. They're just activists. But there are why does anybody David Friedberg (00:04:13): There are also journalists out there sex. Right? So David Sacks (00:04:15): Actually well, it it depends what the topic is and what the outlet But but I I I actually, I would argue that most of these journalists are doing what they're doing for the same reason that we're doing what we're doing, which is they wanna have some kind of influence because they don't get paid very much. Right? But the way they have influence is to push a specific political agenda. I mean, they're activists. They're racist Speaker 5 (00:04:36): party actors. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:04:37): -- Jason Calacanis (00:04:37): become advocacy journalism. Yes. That's a term I coined for it. It's advocacy. Do you Chamath Palihapitiya (00:04:41): guys see this Brew where mathematically Sius wrote this article about the Fed and about the debt ceiling. And through this whole multi100 word, 1000 word, Tom, he didn't understand the difference between a percentage point and a basis point then Jason Calacanis (00:05:00): you don't calculate the interest rate. Speaker 5 (00:05:02): Yeah. Yeah. David Sacks (00:05:02): I did see that. Yeah. Jason Calacanis (00:05:04): Wow. So wait a second. You're saying the Fed's raising Chamath Palihapitiya (00:05:06): 25%. Jason Calacanis (00:05:08): Yeah. Like, I mean, Chamath Palihapitiya (00:05:09): that dip David Friedberg (00:05:10): that's a huge difference between a Jason Calacanis (00:05:11): fee income. -- 25 percent. Between a principal David Friedberg (00:05:14): and an outside analyst. Right? Like, a principal has a better grasp typically of the topics of the material. But, you know, the argument from a journalist, the argument Jason Calacanis (00:05:22): of our journalist is something that Chamath Palihapitiya (00:05:24): -- David Sacks (00:05:24): Within the journalist's circle, he's considered the conventional wisdom. David Friedberg (00:05:27): I get it. But the argument from a journalist is that by having that direct access, that person is also biased. because they're an agent, because they're a player on the field. They do have a point of view, and they do have a direction they wanna take things. So it is a fair commentary that journalists can theoretically play a role, which is they're an off field analyst. And that don't that necessarily bring bias. David Sacks (00:05:47): I would argue they're less educated and more biased. than we are. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:05:50): That may or may not be true what the 2 of you guys are debating, which is a very subjective take. But the thing that is categorical and you can't deny is that there is 0 checks and balances when something as simple as the basis point percentage point difference isn't caught in proofreading, isn't caught by any editor, isn't caught by the people that, you know, help them review this. And so what that says is all kinds of trash must get through because there's no way for the average person on Twitter to police all of this nonsensical content. This one was easy because so numerically illiterate that it just stood out. But can you imagine the the number of unforced errors journalists make today in their search for clicks that don't get caught out that may actually tip somebody to think a versus b. that's, I think, the thing that's kind of undeniable. Right. Speaker 5 (00:06:42): Yeah. Jason Calacanis (00:06:43): If you only need stone article Chamath Palihapitiya (00:06:44): -- Jason Calacanis (00:06:44): There's a very simple test for this. If you read the journalists writing about a topic you are an expert on. Whatever the topic happens to be, you start to understand, okay. Well, on that story I'm reading, That they understand about 10 or Chamath Palihapitiya (00:07:00): 20 Jason Calacanis (00:07:00): or 30 percent of what's going on. But then when you read stories that you're not involved in. You know, you read a story about Hollywood or, I don't know, pick an industry or or a region you're not super aware of. You're like, okay. Well, that must be a Chamath Palihapitiya (00:07:12): 100% Jason Calacanis (00:07:13): correct. And the truth is, journalists have access David Sacks (00:07:15): to 5 to Chamath Palihapitiya (00:07:16): 1 Jason Calacanis (00:07:17): there is a name for it. Yeah. David Sacks (00:07:18): It's called the gel man amnesia effect. You just plagiarize Michael Creighton who came up with that. Jason Calacanis (00:07:22): Yeah. So you yeah. David Sacks (00:07:24): That is exactly right. But I think it's worse than that. It's because now the now the mistakes aren't being driven just by sloppiness or laziness or just a lack of expertise, I think it's being driven by an agenda. So just to give you an example on the slate thing, The state article actually wasn't bad. It kinda made us seem, you know, cool. The sub headline was a close listen to all in the infuriating, fascinating, safe space, for Silicon Valley's money men. Okay. But the the headline changed. So I don't know if you guys noticed this. The headline memo is Elon Musk inner circle is telling us exactly what it thinks. First of all, like, they're Jason Calacanis (00:08:00): trying -- -- for clicks. David Sacks (00:08:01): It's it's it's -- So they're trying way too hard to, like, describe us in terms of Elon, which, you know, is maybe 2 episodes out of a 110. But before inner circle, the word they used was cronies. And then somebody edited it because I saw cronies in, like, one of those tweet, you know, summaries. Mhmm. You know where, like, it does a capsule or whatever? Jason Calacanis (00:08:23): Yeah. Speaker 5 (00:08:24): Yeah. Yeah. David Sacks (00:08:24): So and then those get frozen in time. So, you know, they were trying to bash us even harder, and then somebody took another look at it Speaker 5 (00:08:30): and turned Jason Calacanis (00:08:30): it down. Here's what happened. The the I'll tell you what happens in the editorial process. whoever writes the article, the article gets submitted, maybe it gets edited, proof read, whatever. Maybe it doesn't even in some publications. I don't have the time for it because they're in a race. Then they pick there's somebody who's really good at social media. They pick 6 or 7 headlines. They AB test them, and they even have software for this. where they will run a test. Sometimes they'll do a pay test. They put $5 in ads on social media, whichever one performs the best. That's the one they go with. So it's even more cynical. And because people who read the headlines, sometimes they don't read the story. Right? Obviously, most people would see the headline. They interpret that as a story. That's why I told you when they did that new republic piece on you with that horrific monstrous monstrosity of an illustration Don't worry about it. People just read the headline. They know you're important. Nobody reads the story anyway. David Sacks (00:09:22): No. I but it wasn't about article It Jason Calacanis (00:09:24): was it was well written, actually. I was in shock. I was like, who is this writer that actually took the time to write some prose that was actually decent? David Sacks (00:09:31): Yeah. He had listened to a lot of episodes clearly. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:09:33): That was a really good moment, actually. That was great advice because you gave it to him and you gave it to me because both of us had these things. And Jason said the same thing. Just look at the picture. And if you're okay with the picture, just move on. And I thought, this can't be true. And it turned out to mostly be true. David Sacks (00:09:47): Yeah. But my picture was terrible. Jason Calacanis (00:09:50): Yeah. But it's close to reality. So maybe it's gone up. Here's another one. Oh, jeez. I mean, I And that just shows how ridiculous. there was Peter TL, poor poor Speaker 5 (00:10:01): Peter. David Sacks (00:10:01): But that just shows how ridiculously biased it is. Right? Jason Calacanis (00:10:05): The manager wasn't might look like Hugh Hugh Grant. Elon, let's pull that up one more time here. Elon looks like Hugh Grant. I've just kind of Chamath Palihapitiya (00:10:12): -- David Friedberg (00:10:12): He does. Jason Calacanis (00:10:13): Kinda not bad. Kinda looks like Hugh Grant in, like, Notting Hill. David Sacks (00:10:17): I knew that article was gonna be fine when the first you know, item they presented as evidence of me doing something wrong was basically helping to oust Chase a Boudin, which was something that was supported by, like, 70% of San Francisco Chamath Palihapitiya (00:10:31): -- David Sacks (00:10:32): Yeah. -- which is a 90% democratic city. So not exactly evidence of some, you know -- Let's look at the whole right wing movement. Jason Calacanis (00:10:38): Look at the headline. The quiet political rise of David Sachs, Silicon Valley's profit of urban due. I'm just letting you know people don't get past the 6th word in the image. Yeah. It's 99% of people. We're like, oh my god. Congrats on the, you know, republic article. It could have little bit Laurel. What do they call them? Laurel Ipsoms. You know? Like, it could've just been filler words from their second graph down, and nobody would know. David Sacks (00:11:00): Yeah. But now, apparently, if you notice that San Francisco streets look like, you know, Walking Dead that apparently you're a prophet of urban dude. I mean, even more so out touch. I mean, they can't even acknowledge what people can see with their own eyes. Jason Calacanis (00:11:16): That's the bias that's gotten crazy. And I don't know if you guys saw this really horrible dystopian video of the art gallery owner who's been dealing with owning a storefront in San Francisco, which is challenging. and having to clean up feces and, you know, trash and whatever every day. And I guess the guy snapped and he's hosing down a homeless person who refuses to leave the front of his store. Oh, I saw Chamath Palihapitiya (00:11:44): that. I Jason Calacanis (00:11:44): saw that. The humanity in this is just insane. Like, really, like, you're hosing a human being down. It's terrible. Who is obviously not living a great life in his, you know I can feel for both of David Sacks (00:11:58): them, Jay Cal. I can feel for both of them. I agree that it's not good to Jose human being down. On the other hand, think about the sense of frustration that store owner has because he's watching his business go in the toilet because he's got homeless people living in front of him. So they're both, like, being mistreated. The homeless person is being mistreated. The same more more about the Jason Calacanis (00:12:17): store owner. Same more. David Sacks (00:12:19): The the homeless person's being mistreated. The store owner's being mistreated by the city of San Francisco. Jason Calacanis (00:12:23): Yeah. Same more about the store owner. David Sacks (00:12:25): person's not in a privileged position. That person probably the store owner. The store owner, he's probably fighting to stay in business. I'm not saying I'm I'm not saying that's right, but No. No. I think Just Chamath Palihapitiya (00:12:35): I'm laying the rope. No. Jason Calacanis (00:12:36): It's not. I just want I Chamath Palihapitiya (00:12:38): don't care. Jason Calacanis (00:12:39): I'm just saying. David Sacks (00:12:40): This is just a lie to anybody. What you're trying to do is oh my god. Look at this this homeless person being horribly oppressed. No. That store owner is a victim too. Jason Calacanis (00:12:49): Yeah. There's no doubt. David Sacks (00:12:50): It's and horrible to Chamath Palihapitiya (00:12:51): run a business. David Sacks (00:12:52): What is that person supposed to do? No. Jason Calacanis (00:12:54): Wait. This is this is symbolic of the breaking down of basic society. Like, these both of these people are obviously, like it's just a horrible moment to even witness. It's like it's like it's something Chamath Palihapitiya (00:13:08): -- Jason, do you have equal empathy for the store owner and the homeless person or no? Jason Calacanis (00:13:13): Under no circumstances should you hose a person down in the face who is homeless. Like, it's just horrific to watch. It's just inhumane. This is a human being. Now but as a person who owns a store, yeah, my dad grew up in the local business. If people were abusing the store, you're trying to make a living, and you gotta clean up, you know, whatever excrement every day, which, unfortunately, is horrific. Speaker 5 (00:13:33): Yes. And this this thing is disturbing. Yeah. David Sacks (00:13:36): In that moment, the empathy is not equal. I think you have more empathy, obviously, for the person on the receiving end of that host. Okay? But in general, our society has tons of empathy from those people. We spend 1,000,000,000 of dollars trying to solve that problem. You never hear a thing about the store owners who are going out of business. So on a societal level, you know, not in that moment, but in general, the lack of empathy is for these middle class store owners who may not even be middle class, working class, who are struggling to stay afloat. And you look at something like, what is it? Like, a quarter or a third, of the store fronts in San Francisco are now vacant. Speaker 5 (00:14:15): I would be shocked if this person Jason Calacanis (00:14:16): is running the the the shocking thing is, like, this person is running an art gallery store front in San Francisco? Like, why would you even bother? Why would you bother to have a storefront in San Francisco? I mean, everybody's left. David Friedberg (00:14:27): It's just Chamath Palihapitiya (00:14:27): -- What do you mean? Why do you bother if you've spoken to stores. So what are you supposed to start to code all of a sudden? Jason Calacanis (00:14:32): Well, no. I mean, you would shut it down at some point and find an exit and do what? Well, the store David Sacks (00:14:37): has large cost. Right? So he that made made an investment he made 10 years ago. Jason Calacanis (00:14:41): Exactly. At some point, you have to shut down your story at San Francisco second you can get out of Chamath Palihapitiya (00:14:46): -- The solution to everything, JKEL, isn't go to coding school online, and then, you know, I don't want Jason Calacanis (00:14:50): to go to Google Google. But moving into another city is a possibility. Slow true. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:14:54): A lot of folks in Silicon Valley, I think in this weirdly fucked up way, do believe the solution to everything is learn to coat. David Sacks (00:15:01): It's fun. -- Uber driver. Jason Calacanis (00:15:02): Or yeah. David Sacks (00:15:03): Learn to coat. Massachusetts. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:15:04): Gotta Get a gig job. Get a gig job. David Friedberg (00:15:06): The guy the guy the guy spent years the guy spent years building his retail business. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:15:09): I mean, the thing David Friedberg (00:15:10): is -- -- all this person camps in front. And the homeless and he calls the police. The police don't come and move the homeless person. The homeless person stays there. He asks nicely to move. Customers are uncomfortable going into Chamath Palihapitiya (00:15:19): the tourist result. David Friedberg (00:15:19): Yeah. I stopped going to certain stores in my neighborhood because of homeless tents being literally fixated in front of the store, and I go to the store down the road to get my groceries or whatever. Like, I mean, It's not a kind of uncommon situation for a lot of these small business owners. They don't own the real estate. They're paying rent. They've got high labor costs. You know, everything's inflating. Generally city population's declining. It's a brutal situation all around. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:15:43): I think if everybody learns to code or drives an Uber, The problem is that in the absence of things like local stores and small businesses, you hollow out communities. You got these random detached places where you kind of live, and then you sit in your house, which becomes a prison while you order food from an app every day. I don't think that is the society that people want. So I don't know. I kind of want small businesses to exist, and I think that the homeless person should be taken care of. But the small business person should have the best chance of trying to be successful because it's hard enough as it is. The the mortality rate of the of the small business owner is already 90%. Jason Calacanis (00:16:21): It's impossible in San Francisco. Let's just be honest. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:16:24): Like, the run short for instance. reflecting Jake House. Jason Calacanis (00:16:26): I'm not trying to push people to listen. David Sacks (00:16:27): I you are because here here's Wait. Speaker 5 (00:16:29): How am Jason Calacanis (00:16:29): I trying to deflecting? I'm saying the guy I'm just shocked that the guy even has a sore front. I would have left a Speaker 5 (00:16:34): long time ago. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:16:34): -- David Sacks (00:16:34): a tweet that's a moment in time, and you're not showing the 10 steps that led up to it. Jason Calacanis (00:16:39): Oh, a thousand steps. David Sacks (00:16:40): The five times he called the police to do something about it. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:16:43): -- David Sacks (00:16:43): stopian -- The the lost customers the stuff that Freeberg and Chamath were just talking about. David Friedberg (00:16:47): And maybe there was physical conflict that we didn't see in that, you know, and he's resolving it. Speaker 5 (00:16:51): It's it's not. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:16:52): -- David Friedberg (00:16:52): knows, man. really hard to look at these videos and know what's going on. It's awful to see, but, man, we don't know. It's awful. And and, David Sacks (00:16:58): actually, you wanna know another reason why we can't solve this problem. is the language we use around it. The fundamental problem here is not homeless. Jason Calacanis (00:17:04): Okay? It's addiction. David Sacks (00:17:05): It's addiction. So Speaker 5 (00:17:06): you know this, David Sacks (00:17:07): and it's mental illness. Shellenberger's done the work. It's like he said 99 percent of the people he talks to. It's either mental illness or addiction, but we keep using this word homeless to describe the problem. Speaker 5 (00:17:18): Right. David Sacks (00:17:18): But the issue here is not the lack of of housing, although that's a separate problem in California. But it's basically the lack of of treatment. totally. So we should be calling them treatmentless. David Friedberg (00:17:27): And mandates around this because Chamath Palihapitiya (00:17:29): -- Jason Calacanis (00:17:29): And enforcement. You you you can't have a superdrug be available for a nominal price and give people, you know, a bunch of money to come here and take it and not enforce it. You you have to draw the line. That's at fentanyl. I am sorry. Fentanyl is a superdrug. David Friedberg (00:17:45): There's 3 alternatives. There's mandated rehab, mandated mental health, or jail, or you know, housing services. If you're not breaking the law, you don't have mental illness, you don't have drug addiction, and then provide those are the 4 paths of outcome here of success. And If all four of those paths were both mandated and available in abundance, this could be a tent attractable problem. Unfortunately, the man the mandate I mean, you guys remember that Kevin Bacon movie where Kevin Bacon was locked up in a a mental institution, but he wasn't, like, He wasn't mentally ill. It's a famous story. It's a famous it's what's that? Speaker 5 (00:18:23): It's a David Friedberg (00:18:23): famous story. I think you guys someone's probably gonna call the idiot for for for messing this whole thing up, but I think there's a there's a story where mandated mental health services, Speaker 5 (00:18:34): like locking people up to take care of them when they have mental mental health issues like David Friedberg (00:18:42): this, became kind of inhumane, and a lot of the institutions were shut down and a lot of the laws were overturned. And there are many of these cases that happened where they came across as, like, torturous to what happened to people that weren't mentally ill. And so the idea was, like, let's just abandon the David Sacks (00:18:57): entire process. You think about what we wanna cook this past? David Friedberg (00:19:01): Yeah. Well, that's another one. Right? And it's unfortunate, but I think that there's some you know, we talk a lot about Nuance in gray areas, but there's certainly some solution here that isn't black or white. It's not about not having mandated mental health services, and it's not about locking everyone up that has some slight problem. But there's some solution here that needs to be crafted where, you know, you don't let people suffer and you don't let people suffer both as the the victim on the street, but also the talking about the Chamath Palihapitiya (00:19:26): 5150, Jason Calacanis (00:19:27): I think, like, when people are held Chamath Palihapitiya (00:19:29): -- David Sacks (00:19:29): But but but just Chamath Palihapitiya (00:19:30): -- -- they're a danger Jason Calacanis (00:19:31): to themselves or others kind of thing? David Sacks (00:19:33): Right. But, Jacob, see about the power of language here. If we refer to these people as untreated persons instead of homeless persons, And that was the coverage. 247 in the medias, this is an untreated person. The whole policy prescription would be completely different. We'd realize there's a shortage of treatment, we'd realized there's a shortage of remedies related to getting people in treatment as opposed to building housing. But why why Chamath Palihapitiya (00:19:57): -- David Friedberg (00:19:58): And laws that mandate it that that don't enable it? Because if you don't mandate it, then you enable the free rein and the free living on the street and the open drug markets and all this sort of stuff. Jason Calacanis (00:20:07): But it is a really easy test for this. If it was if it was yourself and you were addicted or if it was a loved one. It's one of your immediate family members. Would you want yourself or somebody else to be picked up off the street and held with a 5150 or whatever? code involuntarily against their will because they were a danger. Would you want them to be allowed to remain on the street? Would you yourself if you were in that dire straits. And the answer, of course, is you would want somebody to intervene. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:20:36): -- David Friedberg (00:20:36): policy per on this, Jake House. So let me ask you as our our die hard liberal on the show. Jason Calacanis (00:20:40): No. I'm not a die hard liberal. No. David Sacks (00:20:42): No. He's an independent and only votes for Democrats. please. Get it right. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:20:45): 70 5 Jason Calacanis (00:20:46): percent of the time I voted democrat, 25% republican. David Sacks (00:20:48): Independent votes are Democrats. Jason Calacanis (00:20:50): k. 25 percent Republicans. David Friedberg (00:20:51): Does it not your individual liberties are infringed upon if you were to be, quote, picked up and put away? Jason Calacanis (00:20:57): You know, my position on it is if you're not thinking straight, your and you're high on fentanyl, you're not thinking for yourself. And you you could lose the liberty for a small period of time, 72 hours, a week You know, especially if you're a danger to somebody, you know, yourself or other people. And in this case, if you're on fentanyl, if you're on meth, you're you're you're a danger David Friedberg (00:21:16): to society. I mean, if more I think if more people had that if more people had that point of view and have that debate as Saks is saying in a more open way, you could get to some path to resolution on -- Just Jason Calacanis (00:21:26): not in San Francisco. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:21:27): it's not how it happens. So you guys know this. We won't say who it is, but someone in my family -- Yeah. -- has some pretty severe mental health issues. And the problem is because they're an adult, you can't get them to get any form of treatment whatsoever. Right. Right. The only have the nuclear option and the nuclear option is you basically take that person to court and try to seize their power of attorney, which is essentially saying that, you know -- David Friedberg (00:21:56): Individual liberties are gone. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:21:57): Yeah. And by the way, it is so unbelievably restrictive what happens if you lose power of attorney and somebody else has it over you, it's just a huge burden that the legal system makes extremely difficult. And What's the rule Jason Calacanis (00:22:13): of law as a backstop? You know, if the person's committing something illegal like camping out or doing fentanyl math, whatever. You can use the law as the backstop, you know, against personal law. All that Chamath Palihapitiya (00:22:24): person can do is really get arrested. Even that is not high enough bar to actually get power of attorney over somebody. The other thing that I just wanted you guys to know I think you know this, but just a little historical context is A lot of this crisis in mental health started because Reagan defunded all the psychiatric hospitals, he emptied them in California And that compounded because for whatever reason, his ideology was that these things should be treated in a different way. And when he got to The presidency, one of the things that he did was he repealed the mental health. I think it's called the Mental Health Systems Act, m h s a. which completely broke down some pretty landmark legislation on mental health, and it's and I don't think we've ever really recovered, and We're now 42 years onward from 1980, but or 43 years onward. But just something for you guys to know that that's that's David Sacks (00:23:14): Well Chamath Palihapitiya (00:23:14): That Reagan had a lot of positives. David Sacks (00:23:16): Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:23:16): But that's one definitely negative check-in my book against his legacy is his stance on mental health in general. And what he did to DeFi mental health. David Sacks (00:23:24): Well, let me let me make a 2 points there. So I'm I'm I'm not defending that specific decision. There were a bunch of scandals in the 19 seventies and epitomized by the movie, one flew over the cuckusnesto Jack Nicholson about the conditions in these mental health homes. And that did create a ground swell to change laws around that. But I think this idea that, like, somehow Reagan is to blame when he hasn't been in office for 50 years, as opposed to the politicians who've been in office for the last 20 years, I just think it's letting them off the hook. I mean, Gavin Newsom 10, 15 years ago when he was mayor of San Francisco, declared that he would end homelessness within 10 years. He just made another declaration like that as governor. So I just feel like -- I'm Chamath Palihapitiya (00:24:07): not saying it's Reagan's fault. I'm just saying this Speaker 5 (00:24:10): is yeah. Jason Calacanis (00:24:10): It's just interesting historical moment. Any -- I David Sacks (00:24:12): think it's letting I think it's letting the ball to door. Jason Calacanis (00:24:14): Society needs to start thinking about changing priorities. David Sacks (00:24:17): we didn't have this problem of massive numbers of people living on the streets 10, 15 years ago. It was a much smaller problem. And I think a lot of it has to do with fentanyl, the power of these drugs has increased -- Yes. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:24:28): -- David Sacks (00:24:28): massively. There's other things going on here. So In any event, I mean, you can question what Reagan did in light of current conditions. But I think this problem really started in the last 10, 15 years Chamath Palihapitiya (00:24:40): -- Speaker 5 (00:24:40): Yes. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:24:40): -- David Sacks (00:24:41): in like in in an order of magnitude bigger way. Jason Calacanis (00:24:43): These are super drugs until people realize, like, these are a different class of drugs, and they start treating them as such. it's gonna just get worse. There's there's no path. David Sacks (00:24:52): Oh, as far as I know, Reagan didn't hand out to these addicts. $800 a week to feed their addictions they can live on the streets of San Francisco. No. No. No. That is the current policy of the city. Jason Calacanis (00:25:02): I hear all the policy. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:25:04): All I just wanted to just provide was just that color that we had a system of funding for the mental health infrastructure, particularly local mental health infrastructure. And we took that back, and then we never came forward. And all I was saying is I'm just telling you David Sacks (00:25:20): where that decision is. I think that's part of the solution here is, yeah, we're gonna have to basically build up shelters. We're gonna have to build up Chamath Palihapitiya (00:25:27): -- David Friedberg (00:25:27): And to support your point, Chamath Palihapitiya (00:25:29): The problem now, for example, is Gavin Newsom says a lot of these things and now he's gone from a massive surplus to a $25,000,000,000 deficit overnight, which we talked about even a year ago because that was just the law of numbers catching up with the state of California. and he's not in a position now to do any of this stuff. So this one, this problem may get worse. David Sacks (00:25:51): Well, they did they did appropriate. I forget the number. It's, like, 10,000,000,000 or something out of you know, huge budget they had to solve the problem of homelessness. I would just argue they're not tackling it in the right way because what happened is there's a giant special interest that formed around this problem Right. Which is the the building industry. Who gets these contracts to build the quote, you know, affordable house Zoom or Jason Calacanis (00:26:14): the -- -- almost industrial complex. David Sacks (00:26:15): The homeless industrial complex. And they end up building 10 units at a time on Venice Beach, like, the most expensive land you could possibly build because you get these contracts from the government. So there's now a giant special interest in lobby that's formed around this. If you really want to solve the problem, you wouldn't be building housing on Venice Beach. You'd be going to cheap land just outside the city. Totally. And you'd be building scale shelters. I mean, shelters that can house 10,000 people, not Chamath Palihapitiya (00:26:47): 10. David Sacks (00:26:47): And you'd be having also have to get Jason Calacanis (00:26:49): treatment. Yes. Yeah. David Sacks (00:26:50): Yeah. But when treatment built into them. Right? Yes. Be solving this problem at scale, and that's not what they're doing. Speaker 5 (00:26:56): By the Chamath Palihapitiya (00:26:56): way, do you like do you guys wanna hear this week in Drift? Jason Calacanis (00:27:00): Sure. We're all in. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:27:01): That's a great example of Drift. I I read something today in Bloomberg that was unbelievable. There's about $2,000,000,000,000 of debt owned by the developing world. that has been classified by a nonprofit, the nature conservacy in this case, as eligible for what they called nature swaps. So this is 2,000,000,000,000 of the umpteen trillions of debt that's about to get defaulted on by com countries like Belize, Ecuador, Sri Lanka, seashells, you name it. And what happens now are the big bulge bracket Wall Street Banks and the nature conservancy. goes to these countries and says listen. You know, you have a $1,000,000,000 tranche of debt that's about to go upside down. and you're gonna be in default with the IMF. We'll let you off the hook, and we will negotiate with those bondholders to give them 50¢ on the dollar. But in return, you have to promise to take some of that savings and you know, protect the rainforest or protect a coral reef or protects some mangrove trees. All sounds good. Except then what these folks do is they take that repackaged debt. They call it ESG they market back up, and then they sell it to folks like BlackRock who have decided that they must own this in the portfolio. So It literally just goes from one sleeve of BlackRock, which is now marked toxic, emerging market debt, and then it gets into someone's 401k as ES G debt. Is that unbelievable? Jason Calacanis (00:28:34): So you could merge your signal and buy some ESG to make yourself feel good. Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:28:38): $2,000,000,000,000,000 David Sacks (00:28:40): is just -- -- know about ESG is that Exxon is like the number Chamath Palihapitiya (00:28:44): 7, David Sacks (00:28:44): like, top ranked company according to ESG, and Tesla is even on the list. Jason Calacanis (00:28:48): Disastrous. Right. David Sacks (00:28:50): How crazy is that? Jason Calacanis (00:28:51): It's it's Chamath Palihapitiya (00:28:52): a complete game. Jason Calacanis (00:28:54): That's it. Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:28:55): All of those we've said this many times, but each of those letters individually mean so much. and should be worth a lot to a lot of people. But when you stick them together, it creates this toxic soup where you can just hide the cheese. Jason Calacanis (00:29:07): Yeah. I mean, governance is important in companies. Of course, the environment is important. Social change is important. I mean but why are these things grouped together in the It just perverts all over Chamath Palihapitiya (00:29:18): the industry, Jay Cal. It's an industry of consultants. David Friedberg (00:29:20): I understand. Absolutely. Jason Calacanis (00:29:21): Alright. Speaking of graphs, Microsoft is gonna put $10,000,000,000 or something It's a Chat GPT. G Generate AI, as I'm calling it now, is the hottest thing in Silicon Valley. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:29:34): The technology is incredible. I mean, you you can question the business model maybe, but the technology is pretty. Jason Calacanis (00:29:39): Well, I mean yeah. So what I'd say is a 29 $1,000,000,000 for a company that's losing a $1,000,000,000 in Azure credits a year. David Friedberg (00:29:45): That's one way to look at it. That's also a naive way to look at a lot other businesses that ended up being worth a lockdown on the road. I mean Chamath Palihapitiya (00:29:52): -- David Friedberg (00:29:53): Sure. -- you can model out the future of a business like this and create a lot of really compelling big outcomes. You know? Jason Calacanis (00:30:00): Potentially. Yeah. So Microsoft is close to investing 10,000,000 in OpenAI in a very convoluted transaction that people are trying to understand. it turns out that they might wind up owning 59 percent of OpenAI, but get 75 percent of the cash and profits back over time. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:30:18): 49%. 49%. Jason Calacanis (00:30:20): Yeah. Of OpenAI, but they would get paid back the $10,000,000,000 over some amount of time. And this obviously includes Azure credits and chat GPT. As everybody knows, this just incredible demonstration of what AI can do in terms of text based creation of content and answering queries. is taken the net by storm. People are really inspired by it. Sacks, do you think that this is a defensible real technology? Do you think this is like a crazy hype cycle? David Sacks (00:30:55): Well, it's definitely in the next VC hype cycle. Everyone's kinda glomming on to this because VC really right now needs a savior. look at the public markets, everything we're investing in is in the toilet. So we all really wanna believe that this is gonna be the next wave. And just because something is a VC hype cycle doesn't mean that it's not true. So as I think one of our friends pointed out, you know, mobile turned out to be very real. I think -- Mhmm. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:31:21): -- David Sacks (00:31:21): cloud turned out to be, I'd say, very real. Social was sorta real in the sense I did lead to a few big winners. On the other hand, web 3 and crypto was a hype cycle. It's turned into a big bust. Jason Calacanis (00:31:36): VR falls into the hype cycle within Venus. David Sacks (00:31:38): Probably a hype cycle so far. No one can even explain what web 3 is. In terms of AI, I think that if I had to guess, I would say the hype is real in terms of its technological potential. However, I'm not sure about how much potential there is yet for VCs to participate. Because right now, it seems like this is something that's gonna be done by really big companies. So OpenAI is basically a It looks like time of Microsoft proxy. You've got Google. I'm sure we'll develop it through their deep mind asset. you know, I'm sure Facebook is gonna do something huge in AI. So what I don't know is is this really a platform that starts to be able to benefit from. I will say that some of the companies we've invested in are starting to use these tools. So I guess I guess where I am is I think the technology is actually exciting. I wouldn't go overboard on the valuations, so I wouldn't buy it to that level of the hype. Jason Calacanis (00:32:41): But you think there could be hundreds of companies built around an API for something like jatgbdolli. David Sacks (00:32:48): Maybe. Yeah. I don't I don't think startups are gonna be able to create the AI themselves. Mhmm. But they might be able to benefit from the APIs. May that's Speaker 5 (00:32:57): that's the David Sacks (00:32:57): thing -- Okay. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:32:58): -- David Sacks (00:32:58): that's the thing that has to be proven out. David Friedberg (00:32:59): Free. There's a lot of really fantastic machine learning services available through cloud vendors today. Right? So Azure has been one of these kind of vendors and Obviously, OpenAI is building tools a little bit further down on the the stack, but there's a lot of tooling that can be used for specific vertical applications. Obviously, acquisition of InstaBeat by BioNTech is a really solid example, and most of the big dollars that are flowing in Biotech right now are flowing into machine learning applications where there's some vertical application of machine learning tooling and techniques around some specific problem set. And the problem set of mimicking human communication and doing generative media is a consumer application set that has a whole bunch of really interesting product opportunities. But let's not kind of be blind to the fact that nearly every other industry And nearly every other vertical is being transformed today, and there's active progress being made in funding and getting liquidity on companies and progress with actual products being driven by machine learning systems. And there's a lot of great examples of this. So, you know, the fundamental capabilities of large data sets and then using these kind of learning techniques in software and statistical models to make kind of predictions and drive businesses forward in a way that they're not able to, which just human knowledge and human capability alone, is really real, and it's here today. And so I think let's not get caught up in the fact that there's this really interesting consumer market hype cycle going on where these tools are not being kind of you know, validated and generating real value across many other verticals and segments. Jason Calacanis (00:34:41): Shmoth, when you look at this Microsoft open AI deal, and you see something that's this convoluted, hard to understand. What does that signal to you as a capital allocator and company builder? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:34:52): I would put deals into 2 categories. 1 is easy and straightforward, and then 2 is, you know, cute by half or you know, the 2 hard bucket. This is clearly in that 2nd category, but it doesn't mean -- Why Jason Calacanis (00:35:05): is it in that category? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:35:07): Well, it doesn't mean that it won't work. In our group chat with the rest of the guys, one person said there's a lot of complex law when you go from a non profit to a for profit. There's lots of complexity in deal construction. The original investors have certain things that they wanna see. There may or may not be, you know, legal issues at play here that you encapsulated while in the last episode. I think there's a lot of stuff we don't know. So I think it's important to just, like, give these folks the benefit of the doubt. But, yeah, if you're asking me, it's in the too hard bucket for me to really take seriously. Now That being said, it's not like I I got shown the deal, so I can't I can't comment. Here's what I will say. The first part of what Saks said, I think, is really important for entrepreneurs to internalize, which is where can we make money? The reality is that well, let me just take a prediction. I think that Google will open source their models because the most important thing that Google can do is reinforce the value of search And the best way to do that is to scorch the earth with these models, which is to make them widely available and as free as possible. That will cause Microsoft to have to catch up and that will cause Facebook to have to really look in the mirror and decide whether they're going to cap the betting that they've made on a r v r and reallocate very aggressively to AI. I mentioned this in the I did this Lex Friedman podcast, but that should be what Facebook does. And and the reason is if Facebook and Google and Microsoft have roughly the same capability in the same model. There's an element of machine learning that I think is very important, which is called reinforcement learning. And specifically, it's reinforcement learning from human feedback. Right? So these RLHF pipelines. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:37:01): These are the things that will make your stuff unique. So if you're a start up, you can build a reinforcement learning pipeline, how you build a product that captures a bunch of usage We talked about this before. That data set is unique to you as a company. You can feed that into these models, get back better answers, you can make money from it. Facebook has an enormous amount of reinforcement learning inside of Facebook. Every click, every comment, every like, every share. Twitter has that dataset, Google inside of Gmail and search, Microsoft inside of Minecraft and Hotmail. So my point is, David's right. The huge companies, I think, will create the substrates. And I think there'll be forced to scorch the earth and give it away for free. And then on top of that is where you can make money, and I would just encourage entrepreneurs to think Where is my edge in creating a dataset that I can use for reinforcement learning? That I think is interesting. That's kind of saying, I buy the ingredients from the supermarket, but then I can still construct the dish that's unique. And, you know, the salt is there, the pepper is there, But how I use that will determine whether you like the thing or not. And I think that, you know, that is the way that I think we need to start thinking about it. Interestingly, as Jason Calacanis (00:38:24): we've all pointed out here, OpenAI was started as a nonprofit. The stated philosophy was this technology is too powerful for any company to own Therefore, we're going to make it open source. And then somewhere in the last couple years, they said, well, you know what? Actually, it's too powerful for it to be out there in the public. We need to make this a private company and we need to get $10,000,000,000 from Microsoft. That is the the disconnect I am trying to understand. David Friedberg (00:38:51): That's the most interesting part of the story, Jason. I think if you go back to 2014, it's when Google bought DeepMind. Speaker 5 (00:38:58): Yeah. David Friedberg (00:38:58): And immediately, everyone started reacting to a company as powerful as Google, having a toolkit and a team as powerful as deep mind within them, and that that sort of power should not sit in anyone's hands. I heard people that I'm close with that are close to the organization, and the company comment that they thought this is the most kind of scary threatening biggest threat to humanity is Google's control of deep mind. And that was a a naive kind of point of view, but it was one that was close that was deeply held by a lot of people. So Reid Hoffman, Peter Till, Elon Musk, a lot of these guys funded the original kind of OpenAI business in 2015, and here's the link. So I'm putting it out here. You guys can pull up the original blog post. Jason Calacanis (00:39:39): Do all those dough people who donated get stock in David Friedberg (00:39:42): So what happened was they were in a it was all in a nonprofit. And then the nonprofit owned stock in a commercial business now. But your point is interesting because at the beginning, the idea was instead of having Google on all of this will make it all available. And here's the the the statement from the original blog post, In 2015, OpenAI is a nonprofit AI research company. Our goal is to advance digital intelligence in the way that is most likely to benefit humanity as a whole unconstrained by a need to generate financial return. Since our research is free from financial obligations, we can better focus on a positive human impact. And they, you know, kinda went on and the whole thing about Sam, Greg, were Elon Reade, Jessica, Peter Thiel, AWS, YC are all donating to support OpenAI. including donations and commitments of over a $1,000,000,000, although we expect that to only be a tiny fraction of what we will spend in the next few years. which is a really interesting kind of if you look back, historical perspective on how this thing all started 7 years ago and how quickly it's evolved as you point out, into the necessity to have a real commercial alignment to drive this thing forward without seeing any of these models open sourced. And during that same same period of time, we've seen Google share alpha fold and share a number of -- Transfer cloud. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:40:57): -- David Friedberg (00:40:57): predictive models and and tool kits and make them publicly available and put them in Google's cloud. And so there's both kind of tooling and models and outputs of those models that Google has open sourced and made freely available. And meanwhile, OpenAI has kind of diverged into this deeply profitable profit seeking kind of enterprise model. And when you invest in OpenAI in the the round that they did before, you could generate a financial return capped at a 100 x. which is still a pretty amazing financial return. You put a $1,000,000,000 in. You can make a $100,000,000,000. That's that's funding a real commercial. endeavor at that point. Jason Calacanis (00:41:34): Well and then to Chamath Palihapitiya (00:41:35): -- David Friedberg (00:41:35): It is the most striking question about this whole thing about what's going on in our AI. And it's one that Elon talked about publicly, and others have kind of sat on one side or the other, which is the AI offers a glimpse into one of the biggest and most kind of existential threats to humanity. And the question we're all gonna be tackling and the battle that's gonna be happening politically and regulatory wise. And perhaps even between nations in the years to come is who owns the Who owns the models? What can they do with it? And what are we legally gonna be allowed to do with it? And this is a a really important part that's right. Yeah. Jason Calacanis (00:42:10): To build on what you're saying, I just put in PyTorch, people don't know. That's another framework, p y t o r c h. This was, you know, largely built inside of Facebook. And then Facebook said, hey. We want to democratize machine learning, and they made and and I think they put a bunch of executives. They may have even funded those executives to go work on this. open source project. So they have a huge stake in this, and they went very open source with it. And then TensorFlow, which you have a an investment in Chamath, TensorFlow was inside -- I I I don't Chamath Palihapitiya (00:42:44): I don't have it. investment in TensorFlow. We know Jason Calacanis (00:42:47): TensorFlow, the public source came out of Google, and then you invested in another company. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:42:50): But we we're building Silicon for machine learning. That's different. Right. Jason Calacanis (00:42:54): But it's based on TensorFlow. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:42:56): No. No. No. No. It the the the founder of this company was the founder of TensorFlow. Jason Calacanis (00:43:01): Oh, got it. Okay. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:43:02): Oh, no. Sorry. Not of TensorFlow. Pardon me. Of the of TPU, which was Google's internal silicon that they built to accelerate TensorFlow. Right. If that makes sense. Jason Calacanis (00:43:13): And so that's the you know, I don't I don't mean to be cynical about the whole project or not. just the confounding part of this of what is happening here. It reminds me I don't know if you remember this, Chamath Palihapitiya (00:43:24): the big opportunity here. The biggest opportunity here is Facebook. I mean, they need to get in this conversation ASAP. I mean, to to think that, like look. PyTorch was like a pretty seminal piece of technology that a lot of folks in in AI and machine learning were using for a long time. TensorFlow before that. And what's so funny about like Google and and Facebook is they're a little bit kind of like They're not really making that much progress. I mean, Facebook released this kind of, like, random version of alpha fold recently. It's not that good. I think these companies really need to get these products in the wild as soon as possible. It cannot be the case that You have to email people and get on some lists. I mean, this is Google and Facebook, guys. Come on. Jason Calacanis (00:44:12): Get -- This is the, I think, the big innovation of OpenAI Sachs to bring you in the conversation. They actually made an interface and let the public play with it to the tune of $3,000,000 a day in cloud credits or cost. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:44:28): Which by the way, just on that, my my son was telling me, he's like, hey, dad. Do you want me to tell you when the best time to use Chamath GPT is? I'm like, He's like, yeah. My friends and I, try we're we're we've been using it so much. We know now when we can actually get resources. Jason Calacanis (00:44:43): Oh, wow. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:44:43): And it's such an interesting thing where, like, a thirteen year old kid knows, you know, when it's mostly compute intensive that it's unusable. and when to come back and use it. Jason Calacanis (00:44:52): When's the last time Saks, the technology became this mainstream and captured people's imagination this broadly? Let's check you if you David Sacks (00:45:01): can watch. I don't know. Maybe the iPhone or something. Yeah. Yeah. Look. It's it's powerful. There's it's there's no question that's powerful. I mean, I I'm of 2 minds about it because whenever something is the hype cycle, I just reflexively wanna be skeptical of it. But on the other hand, we have made a few investments in this area. And I mean, I think it is powerful, and it's it's gonna be an enabler of some really cool things to come. There's no question about it. Jason Calacanis (00:45:24): I have two pieces of more insider information. 1, I have a chat and gpt i o s app on my phone, one of the nice folks at OpenAI, included me in the test flight. And it's the simplest interface you've ever seen, but, basically, you type in your question, but it keeps your history. And then you could search your history. So it looks Sax like you're an iMessage, basically, and it has your threads. And so I asked them, hey. What are the best restaurants in Jantville? Yeah. It's in a town near Napa. And then I said, which one has the best duck? And it literally, like, gave me a great answer, and then I thought, wait a second. Why is this not using a Siri or Alexa like interface And then why isn't it? Oh, here's a video Speaker 5 (00:46:04): of it. Jason Calacanis (00:46:04): I gave the video to Nick. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:46:06): By the way, Jason, this what you're doing right now is you're creating a human feedback reinforcement learning pipeline for Chad GPT. So just the fact that you asked that question. And, you know, over time, if Chad GPT has access to your GPS information and then knows that you went to restaurant a versus b, it can intuit it. And it it may actually prompt you to ask, hey, Jason. We noticed you were in the area. Did you go to Bottega? If you did, how would you rate it 1 through 5? That reinforcement learning now allows the next person that asks what are the top 5 restaurants to say, well, you know, over a thousand people that have asked this question, here's actually the best answer versus a generic rank of the open web, which is what the first dataset is. That's what's so interesting about this. So this is why if you're a company that already owns the eyeballs, You have to be running to get this stuff out there. Jason Calacanis (00:46:57): Well and then this answer, and, you know, cited Yelp. Well, this is the first time I've actually seen Chat CPT site. And this is, I think, a major legal breakthrough. It didn't put a link in. But if it's gonna use Yelp's data, I don't know if they have permission from Yelp, but it's quoting Yelp here. It should link to French Laundry Pottega and Bouchon. Bouchon actually has the best duck confit. for the record. And I did have that duck. So I asked this afterwards to see, you know, in a scenario like this, but it could also if I was talking to it, I could say, hey. Which one has availability this afternoon or tomorrow for dinner and make the phone call for me like Google Assistant does or any number of -- I was thinking about -- -- next tasks. This was an incredibly powerful display in a 1.0 product. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:47:41): I was thinking about what you said last week, and I thought back to the music industry in in the world of Napster. And what happened was there was a lot of musicians I think metallica being the most famous one famously suing Napster because it was like, hey. Listen. Like, you're allowing people to take my content, which they would otherwise pay for. There's economic damage that I can measure. That legal argument was meaningful enough that ultimately Napster was shut down. Now there are other versions of that that folks created, including us at Wynnamp, we created a headless version of But if you translate that problem set here, is there a claim that Yelp can make in this example that they're losing money? that, you know, if you were going through Google or if you were going through their app, there's the sponsored link revenue and the advertising revenue that they would have got that they wouldn't get from here. Now that doesn't mean that chat GPT can't figure that out. but it's those kinds of problems that are gonna be a little thorny in these next few years that have to really get figured out. This is Jason Calacanis (00:48:50): a a very But if you were David Sacks (00:48:51): if you were a human reading every review on Yelp about duck, then you could write a blog post in which you say many reviewers on Yelp say that Bushan is the best duck. So The question is, like, is GPT held to that standard? Or is Chamath Palihapitiya (00:49:06): it Exactly. David Sacks (00:49:07): Or something different? And and it's linking to it it's linking to it enough. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:49:12): This is the question that I'm asking. I don't Jason Calacanis (00:49:13): I don't know. It should be because I'll log you. It should be. Because if you look at the 4 part test for fair use, which I had to go through because blogging had the same issue. We would write a blog post, and we would mention Walt Mosberg's review of a product and somebody else And then people would say, oh, I don't need to read Walt Mossburgs and need a Wall Street Journal subscription. And we say, well, we're doing an original work. We're comparing 2 or 3 different you know, human is comparing 2 or 3 different reviews, and we're we're adding something to it. It's a you know, it's it's not a It's not interfering with Walt Mosberg's ability to get subscribers in The Wall Street Journal, but the effect on the potential market is one of the 4 tests and just reading from Stanford's quote on fair use. Another important fair use factor is whether you're used to primes the copyright owner of income or undermines a new potential market for the copyrighted work, depriving a copyright owner of income is very likely to trigger a lawsuit This is true even if you are not competing directly with the original work. And we'll put the link to Stanford here. This is the key issue, and I would not use Yelp. In this example, I would not open the Yelp app, Yelp would get no commerce, and Yelp would lose this. So Chamath GPT and all these services must use citations. of where they got the original work. They must link to them and they must get permission. That's where this is all gonna shake out. I think permission. David Sacks (00:50:32): But forget about permission. I mean, you can't get a big enough dataset if you have to get permission in advance. Right? You choose to go Speaker 5 (00:50:38): out and negotiate with them. Jason Calacanis (00:50:39): It's it's gonna be the large datasets. Quora, Yelp, the App Store reviews, Amazon's reviews. So there are large corpuses of data that you would need, like Craigslist has famously never allowed anybody to scrape Craigslist the amount of data inside Craigslist as but one example of a dataset would be extraordinary to build chat GPT on, ChatGPT is not allowed to because you as you brought up robots dot TXT last week, there's gonna need to be an AI.txt. Are you allowed to use my data AI and under and how will I be compensated for it? I'll allow you to use Craigslist, but you have to link to the original post. and you have to note that. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:51:20): The other gray area that isn't there today but may emerge is when section 230 gets rewritten. Because if they take the protections away for the Facebook and the Googles of the world for the basically, for being an algorithmic publisher and saying an algorithm is equivalent to a publisher. What it's essentially saying is that an algorithm is kind of like doing the work of a human in a certain context. And I wonder whether that's also an angle here, which now this algorithm, which today David, you you you said the example. I read all these blog posts. I write something. But if an algorithm does it, maybe can you then say, no. Actually, there was intent there that different than what if a human were to do it. I don't know. My point is very complicated issues that are gonna get sorted out And I think the problem with the hype cycle is that you're going to have to marry it with an economic model for VCs to really make money And right now, there's just too much betting on the comes. So to the extent you're going to invest, it makes sense that you put money into OpenAI because that's safe. Because the economic model of how you make money for everybody else is so unclear. Right? Jason Calacanis (00:52:26): It's clear, actually. I have it for business. I just signed up for Chamath GPT Premium. They had a survey that they shared on their Discord server, and I filled out the survey, and they did price discovery survey, Friedberg? What's the least you would pay? The most you would pay? What would be too cheap of a price for Chamath JPT pro? and what would be too high of a price. I put in, like, 50 bucks a month was would be what I would pay. But I was just thinking, imagine chattyBT allowed you, Friedberg, to have a Slack Chamath. called research, and you could go in there. Or anytime you're in Slack, you do slash chat or slash chat GP, and you say slash chat GP, tell me you know, what are the venues available in which we did this, actually, for I did this for venues for all and subrights. What are the venues that seat over 3000 people in Vegas, and it just gave us the answer. Okay. Well, that was the job of a of the local Event planner, they had that list. Now you can pull that list from a bunch of different sources. I mean, what would you pay for that? A lot. David Friedberg (00:53:28): Well, I think one of the big things that's happening is all the old business models don't make sense anymore. in a world where the software is no longer just doing what it's done for the last 60 years, which is what is historically defined as information retrieval. So you have this kind of hierarchical storage of data that you have some index against, and then you go and you search and you pull data out, and then you present that data back to the customer or the user of the software. And that's effectively been how all kind of data has been utilized in all systems for the past 60 years in computing, largely what we've really done is kind of built an evolution of application layers or or software tools to interface with the fetching of that data, the retrieval of that data, and the display of that data. But what these systems are now doing, what AI type systems or machine learning systems now do is the synthesis of that data and the representation of some synthesis of that data to you, the user, in a way that doesn't necessarily look anything like the original data that was used to make that synthesis. And that's where business models like a Yelp, for example, or like a web crawler that crawls the web and then presents web page directories to you. Those sorts of models no longer make sense in a world where the software, the signal to noise is now greater. The signal is greater than the noise. in being able to present to you a synthesis of that data and basically resolve what your objective is with your own consumption and interpretation of that data which is how you've historically used these systems. And I think that's where there's, you know, going back to the question of the hype cycle. Jason Calacanis (00:55:10): I don't think it's about being David Friedberg (00:55:11): a hype cycle. I think it's about the the investment opportunity against fundamentally rewriting all compute tools. Because if all compute tools ultimately can use this capability in their interface and in their modeling, then it very much changes everything. And one of the advantages that I think businesses are gonna latch on to, which we talked about historically is novelty in their data in being able to build new systems and new models that aren't generally available. Jason Calacanis (00:55:39): Example. David Friedberg (00:55:40): In Biotech And Pharma, for example, having screening results from from very expensive experiments and running lots of experiments and having a lot of data against those experiments gives a company an an advantage in being able to do things like drug discovery. We're gonna talk about that in a minute versus everyone using publicly known screening libraries or publicly available protein modeling libraries and then screening against those, and then everyone's got the same candidates and the same targets and the same, you know, kind of clinical objectives that they're gonna try and resolve from from that output. So so I think novelty and data is is one way that advantage kind of arises. But, really, you know, that just kind of you know, where is there an edge? But fundamentally, every business model can and and will need to be rewritten that's dependent on the historical On the legacy of kind of information retrieval has the core of what computing is is used to do. Jason Calacanis (00:56:37): Sachs, on my other podcast, I was having a discussion with Molly about to legal profession. What impact would it be if Chamath GPT took every court case, every argument, every document, and somebody took all of those legal cases on the legal profession. And then the filing of a lawsuit, the defending of a lawsuit, Public defenders, prosecutors. What what data could you figure out? Like, if and, like, just to think of the recent history, you look at Chesapeake, You could literally take every case, every argument he did, put it through it, and say, you know, versus an outcome in another state, and you could figure out what's actually going on with this technology. What impact did this have on the legal field that you are a non practicing attorney? You have a legal degree. David Sacks (00:57:25): I I never practiced other than one summer at a law firm. But no. I think -- Did David Friedberg (00:57:29): you pass the bar? David Sacks (00:57:30): What's that? I did pass the bar. Yes. Yeah. Yes. I could try. Yes. Of course. Christopher. David Friedberg (00:57:34): Of course. Yeah. Come on. You gotta be kinda dumb. Jason Calacanis (00:57:36): Look, it took its tax rolling his sides. Yes. David Friedberg (00:57:38): I went this effort, Chamath Palihapitiya (00:57:39): dude. I I'm rated 18 David Sacks (00:57:41): saying? Come on. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:57:42): I may not have passed the bar, but I know a little shit enough to know that you can't David Sacks (00:57:46): be -- Look. I I I I would be curious in terms of a very common question that a an associate at a law firm would get asked would be something like, you know, summarize the legal precedents in favor of x. Right? And that you can imagine GPT doing that, like, instantly. Now I think the the question about that I think there's two questions. One is, can you prompt GPT in the right way to get the answer you want? And I think, you know, Tremoth, you shared a really interesting video showing that people are developing some skills around knowing how to ask GPT questions Chamath Palihapitiya (00:58:22): in your David Sacks (00:58:22): way, he's at prompt engineering. Why? because GPT is a command line interface. So if you ask GPT is simple question about what's the best restaurant in, you know, Napa. It knows how to answer that, but there are much more complicated questions that you kinda need to know how to prompt it in the right way. So it's not clear to me that a command line interface is the best way of doing that. I could imagine apps developing that create more of, like, a GUI we're an investor, for example, on CopyAI, which is doing this for copywriters and marketers, helping them write blog posts and emails and So, you know, imagine putting that, like, you know, GUI on top of Chamath GPT. They've already been kinda doing this. So I think that's part of it. I think the other part of it is on the answer side, you know, how accurate is it? Because in some professions, having 90 or 95 or 99% accuracy is okay, But in other professions, you need six nines accuracy, meaning Chamath Palihapitiya (00:59:20): 99.999 David Sacks (00:59:22): percent accuracy. Okay. So I think for a lawyer going into court, you know, you probably need I I don't know. It depends on on the the brain part Jason Calacanis (00:59:32): of the question. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:59:33): -- Jason Calacanis (00:59:33): versus a murder trial is 2 very different things. David Sacks (00:59:36): Yeah. Exactly. So is 99% accuracy good enough? Is 95% accuracy good I would say probably for a court case, 95% is probably not good enough. I'm not sure GPT is at even Chamath Palihapitiya (00:59:47): 95% David Sacks (00:59:48): yet. But could it be helpful? Like, could could could the associates start with chat GPT, get an answer, and then validated? Probably. Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:59:58): If you had a bunch of associates bang on some law model for a year, again, that's that reinforcement learning we just talked about. I think you'd get precision recall off the charts, and it would be perfect. By the way, just a cute thing. I don't know if you guys got this email. came about an hour ago from Reed Hoffman, and Reed said to me, h m o f i a I created fireside chatbots a special podcast mini series where I will be having a set of conversations with Chat GPT. So you can go to YouTube, by the way, and and see read having and he's a very smart guy, so this should be kinda cool. And by the way, ChatGPT will have an AI generated voice powered by the text to speech platform play.ht. Go to YouTube if you wanna see read, have a have a conversation with Jason Calacanis (01:00:50): I mean, Chamath, we have a conversation with the 2 Davids every week. What's the difference? We know how this is gonna turn out. David Sacks (01:00:57): Hey. But, actually, synthesizing Jamas point about reinforcement learning with something you said, Jake Allen, our chat, which I actually thought was pretty smart. Jason Calacanis (01:01:06): Well, that's your first. David Sacks (01:01:07): Yeah. So I'm gonna give you credit here because I don't think you've said it on this this episode, which is you said that these open AI capabilities are gonna eventually become commoditized or certainly much more widely available I don't know if that means that they'll be totally commoditized or there'll be 4 players, but there'll be multiple players that offer them. And you said the real advantage will come from applications that are able to get a hold of proprietary datasets and then use those proprietary datasets to generate insights. And then layering on what Chamath had about reinforcement learning. If you can be the first out there in a given vertical with a proprietary dataset, And then you get the advantage, the mode of reinforcement learning, that would be the way to create, I think, a sustainable business. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:01:51): Just to build on what you said, This week is the JPMorgan conference. Friedberg mentioned it last week. I had dinner on Wednesday with this really interesting company Basin Zurich. And what they have is basically a library of ligands. Right? And so these ligands are used as a substrate to deliver all kinds of molecules inside the body. And what's interesting is that they have a portfolio of, like, a 1000 of these But really what they have is they have all the nuclear medicine about whether it works. So, you know, they're they target glioblastoma, glioblastoma. And so all of a sudden, they can they can say, well, this ligand can actually cross the blood brain barrier and get to the brain. They have an entire dataset of that and a whole bunch of nuclear imagery around that. They have something for soft cell carcinoma. So then they have that dataset. So to your point, that's really valuable because that's real work that Google or Microsoft or OpenAI Won't do. Right? And if you have that and you bring it to the problem, you can probably make money. You know, there's a business there to be built. Jason Calacanis (01:02:57): Just building on this conversation, I just realized, like, a a great prompt engineer is gonna become a title and an actual skill, the ability to interface with these Chamath Palihapitiya (01:03:06): Here you go. Jason Calacanis (01:03:07): Oh, hey, Chamath Palihapitiya (01:03:07): eyes. Codeing school 2.0. Well, no. Jason Calacanis (01:03:10): A prompt engineer. Somebody who is very good at talking to these, you know, instances and and and maximizing the result for them and refining the results for them just like a detective who asks great questions, The that person is gonna be 10 or 20 times more valuable. They could be the proverbial 10 x engineer in the future of as a as in a company. And as we talk about austerity and doing more with less and the 80% less people running Twitter now or Amazon laying off 18,000 people, Salesforce laying off 8000, Facebook laying off 10, and probably another Chamath Palihapitiya (01:03:44): 10,000. Jason Calacanis (01:03:46): What catalytic effect? Like, could this have? We could be sitting here in 3 or 4 or 5 years. And instead of running a company like Twitter with 80% less people, maybe you could run it with 98% less people look. David Friedberg (01:03:57): I think directionally, it's the the right statement. I mean, you know, I've I've made the statement a number of times, and I think we moved from this idea of creator economy and narrator economy where historically was kind of labor economy where humans used their physical labor to do things, then we were knowledge workers. We used our our brains to to make things. And then, ultimately, we kind of, I think, resolve to this narrator economy where the the way that you kind of can state intention and and better manipulate the tools to drive your intentional outcome, the more successful you're gonna be. And you can kinda think about this as being the artist of the past DaVinci was what what made him so good was he was technically incredible at at trying to reproduce a photographic like imagery using using paint. And there's these really great kind of museum exhibits on how you did it using these really interesting kind of, like, split mirror systems. And then the the better the artist of the 21st century, the century was the best user of Adobe Photoshop. And that person is not necessarily the best painter. And the artist of the 22nd century isn't gonna look like the photoshop expert, and it's not gonna look like the the the painter. It's gonna look like something entirely different. It could be who's who's got the most creative imagination in driving the software to drive new outcomes. And I think that the same analogy can be used across every market and every industry. However, one thing to note Jay Cal, it's it's not about austerity because the the the luddite argument is when you have new tools and you get more leverage from those tools, you have less work for people to do, and therefore, everyone suffers. The reality is new work emerges and new opportunities emerge. and we level up as a species. David Friedberg (01:05:42): And when we level up, we all kind of fill the gaps and and expand our our productivity and our capability set. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:05:47): I thought what Jay Kal was saying was more that Google will be smaller, didn't mean that the pie wouldn't grow. It's just that that individual company is run differently, but there would be hundreds of more companies. or 1000 more or 1,000,000 Jason Calacanis (01:05:59): more money. That's sort of I I have an actual punch up for you. David Friedberg (01:06:02): Yeah. Jason Calacanis (01:06:02): Instead of narrative, it's the conductor economy. It's you're you're conducting a symphony -- Oh, a punch up. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:06:09): -- Jason Calacanis (01:06:09): punch up there, but I do think, like, we're gonna there's gonna be somebody who's sitting there like, remember Tom Cruise in minority report, as a detective was moving stuff around with the interface, the in Chamath Palihapitiya (01:06:19): -- Jason Calacanis (01:06:19): Yeah. -- you know, with the gloves and everything. This is kind of that manifested. You could even if you're not an attorney, you can say, hey. I I wanna sue this company for copyright infringement. Give me my best arguments. And then on the other side, say, hey. I wanna know what the next three features I should put into my product is. Can you examine who are my top 20 competitors? And then who have they hired in the last 6 months? And what are those people talking about on Twitter? You could have this conductor, you know, who becomes really good at that. So massive amounts of tasks, Yeah. David Friedberg (01:06:48): The leveling up that happens in the book Ender's game, I think, is a good example of this where the guy goes through the entire kind of ground up. And then, ultimately, he's commanding armies of spaceships in space, and his orchestration of all of these armies is actually the skill set that wins the war. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:07:04): Yeah. you predicted that there would be like all these people that create these next gen forms of content. But I I think this Reed Hoffman thing could be pretty cool. Like, what if he wins a Grammy for his, you know, computer created podcast mini series. That's -- That's David Friedberg (01:07:19): what I'm saying. The thing I'm really excited about, when's the first novel gonna get published by a major publisher. I think it happens this year. When's the first AI symphony gonna get performed by a major symphony orchestra? And when's the first AI generated screenplay get turned into an AI generated 3 d movie that we all watch? And then the more exciting one I think is when do we all get to make our own AI video game? where we instruct the video game platform, what world we wanna live in. I don't think that's happening for the next 3 or 4 years, but when it does, I think everyone's got these new immersive environments that they can live in. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:07:48): I have a question. When -- Jason Calacanis (01:07:49): When I David Friedberg (01:07:50): say limit, I mean video game wise. Yeah. Sorry. Go ahead. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:07:52): When you have when you have these computer systems, just like to use a question of game theory for a second, there These models are iterating rapidly. These are all mathematical models. So inherent in, let's just say, this the perfect answer. Right? Like, if you had perfect precision recall. If multiple models get there at a system wide level, everybody is is sort of like they get to the Game theory optimal. They're all at NASH equilibrium. Right? All these systems working at the same time. Then the real question would then be, what the hell do you do then? because if you keep getting the same answer, if everybody then knows how to ask the exact right question and you start to go through these iterations where you're like, maybe there is a dystopian hellscape where there are no jobs. Maybe that's the Elon world, which is you can you can recursively find a logical argument where there is no job that's possible. Right? And now I'm not saying that that path is the likely path. But I'm saying it is important to keep in mind that that path of outcomes is still very important to keep in the back of our mind as we figure these things out. Jason Calacanis (01:08:58): Well, Friedberg, you know, you were asking before about this. Like, you know, will more work be created? Of course, artistic pursuits at podcasting is a job now. Being an influencer is a job. yadayada, new things emerge in the world. But here in the United States, in 1970, I'm looking at Fred dot I'm looking at the same with Fred. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:09:16): 1970, 20 0.4% Jason Calacanis (01:09:19): of the country was working in a factory, was working in manufacturing. You wanna guess what that is in Chamath Palihapitiya (01:09:26): 2012? David Friedberg (01:09:27): Sorry. What percentage? Jason Calacanis (01:09:29): It was 26% in 1970. And in 2015, when they stopped the percentage in manufacturing, and I say it's they discontinued this. It was a Chamath Palihapitiya (01:09:37): 10. Jason Calacanis (01:09:38): So it's possible we could just see, you know, the concept of office work, the concept of knowledge work is going to follow pretty inevitable the path of manufacturing, that that seems like a pretty logical of the area or no? David Friedberg (01:09:54): I think we should move on. But yes. Okay. Jason Calacanis (01:09:57): So how would we like to ruin show now. Should we talk about Biden and the the documents and ruin the show with political dog, or should we talk about since it's been such a great episode so far. What do we wanna talk about next? I'll get a couple David Sacks (01:10:12): choices. -- don't wanna talk about. Jason Calacanis (01:10:16): As long as they don't work, you guys are talking about productivity. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:10:19): Give it to him. Give it to him. David Sacks (01:10:20): We we see all. We I know we all Jason Calacanis (01:10:22): know just buyback. air glasses. Speaker 5 (01:10:24): Hold on David Sacks (01:10:24): a second. We we all know Jay Kal, that according to you, when a president Chamath Palihapitiya (01:10:28): -- Here we go. -- David Sacks (01:10:29): is in possession of classified documents in his home Yes. That apparently have been taken in an unauthorized manner, basically stolen. He should have his home raided by the FBI. Jason Calacanis (01:10:40): Almost. Close. Close. Yeah. If so, anyway, the Biden as of the taping of this has now said there's a 3rd batch of classified documents. This group I guess there was one at an office, one at a library. Now this third group is in his garage this Corvette. Certainly not looking good. And it depend David Sacks (01:11:02): They say they say that in his defense, they say the garage was locked, meaning that you could use a garage door opener Speaker 5 (01:11:08): to -- -- door opener. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:11:09): -- David Sacks (01:11:09): to open and close that. That's what it was locked when it when closed. Jason Calacanis (01:11:12): So pretty much as secure as the documents at Marlago. Same equivalency. David Sacks (01:11:16): No. No. No. I would actually, I mean, just to be perfectly fair, the documents in Mar a Lago were locked in a basement. The FBI came, checked it out, say we'd like you to lock those up. They locked them up. So -- Got it. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:11:27): -- David Sacks (01:11:27): a little safer than being -- Be Jason Calacanis (01:11:28): a little David Sacks (01:11:29): safer than in the trunk Jason Calacanis (01:11:30): of your Corvette. David Sacks (01:11:31): But, functionally, the same. Functionally, the Jason Calacanis (01:11:33): same. The only difference here would be what sex when you look at these 2 cases? David Sacks (01:11:39): Well, that in one case, Merrick Garland appointed an independent counsel to investigate Trump, and there's no such a special counsel or investigator appointed to the gay Biden. I mean Chamath Palihapitiya (01:11:49): -- David Sacks (01:11:49): Yeah. -- these things are fun Speaker 5 (01:11:50): to say. Did you Jason Calacanis (01:11:51): put somebody on it though? Wait. They they put David Friedberg (01:11:53): They put No. Jason Calacanis (01:11:53): I don't I David Sacks (01:11:54): don't think they've appointed a special counsel yet. David Friedberg (01:11:56): No. They did. As of an hour ago, a special counsel was appointed. Jason Calacanis (01:12:00): Okay. David Sacks (01:12:00): Did that just happen? David Friedberg (01:12:01): Yeah. 1 hour ago. Robert Hur is his name. David Sacks (01:12:03): Okay. I guess there are real questions to look into here. The documents were apparently removed twice. Why were they moved? Who ordered that? What was a classified document doing in Biden's personal library? What do the documents pertain to? Do they touch on the Biden families' business dealings in Ukraine and China? So there are real things to look into here. But let me just take a step back. Now that the last three presidential candidates have been ensnared, in these classified document problems. Remember, it's Biden now and then Trump and Hillary Clinton before Trump. I think it's time to step back and ask, are we over classifying documents? I mean, are we fetishizing these documents? Are they all really that sensitive? It seems to me that we have an over classification problem, meaning that ever since Foya was passed, the freedom of information act the government can avoid accountability and and prying eyes by simply labeling any document as classified. So over classification was a logical response by the permanent government to the Friedberg of information act. And now has gotten to the point where just about everything handed to a president or vice president is classified. So I think I can understand why they're all making this mistake. And I think a compounding problem is that we never declassify anything. There's still all these records from the Kennedy assassination Jason Calacanis (01:13:31): that's crazy. They they and they're supposed to have declassified these. The CIA keeps filibustering on the release of the JFK assessmentation documents, and they've been told they have they they have to stop. And they have to release them, and then they keep redacting stuff, which is making it I mean, I hate to be a conspiracy theorist here, but What are they trying to cover up? I mean, this is a long time ago. David Sacks (01:13:58): That's the only way to interpret it. But even for more mundane documents, there are very few documents that need to be classified after even, say, 5 years. You could argue that we should be automatically declassifying them after 5 years unless they go through a process to get reclassified. I mean, I'd say, like, just you guys in business. I know it's not government in business. How many of the documents that you deal with are still sensitive, are trade secrets 5 years later. Jason Calacanis (01:14:26): Certainly 20 years certainly 20 years later, they're not. Right? Like, in almost some cases. David Sacks (01:14:30): to say, like, 5 years. I mean, The only documents the only documents in business that I think I deal with that you could call sensitive are the ones that pertain to the company's future plans. Right? Because you wouldn't want a competitor to get those. Yeah. That's a handful of things. Jason Calacanis (01:14:46): Right? -- issues. Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:14:48): Even CAFD was not that sensitive because by the time you go public, it's legally has to be public. David Sacks (01:14:52): Yeah. It's on card. Like, there's a hundred people who have that. I mean, it's Exactly. So it like in business, I think our experience has been there's very few documents that stay sensitive that need to remain secret. Now look, if Biden or Trump, whoever, they're reviewing the schematics to the javelin missile system or to, you know, how we make our nuclear bombs or something. Obviously, that needs to say secret forever, but I don't believe our politicians are reviewing those kinds of documents. Jason Calacanis (01:15:21): Well, we we both I I David Sacks (01:15:22): don't really understand what it is that they're reviewing. Jason Calacanis (01:15:26): Why are they keeping needs David Sacks (01:15:27): to be classed 5, 5 years late. Speaker 5 (01:15:28): And why Jason Calacanis (01:15:29): are they keeping them was the issue we discussed previously? We actually agreed on that. I think they're just keeping on that dose. Speaker 5 (01:15:34): I I think there's a simple explanation for why David Sacks (01:15:35): they're keeping them, Jason, which is that the that everything is more classified, and there's a zillion documents. And if you look, like both Biden and Trump, These documents were mixed in with a bunch of personal effects and Mementos. My point is, if you work in government and handle documents, they're all classified. So, Amit Chamath Palihapitiya (01:15:57): -- Jason Calacanis (01:15:57): If the National archive asks for them back or you find them, you should just give them back. I mean, that is that's gonna wind up being the David Sacks (01:16:04): rugby ones. Jason Calacanis (01:16:04): Trump didn't give them back. and -- Fair enough. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:16:06): -- Jason Calacanis (01:16:07): I did. So that's the that's the only difference here. Speaker 5 (01:16:09): Well, no. David Sacks (01:16:09): No. No. Hold on. The FBI went to Trump's basement. They looked around. They said put a lock on this. They seem to be okay with it initially. then maybe they changed their minds. I don't know. I'm not defending Trump. Speaker 5 (01:16:17): Well, it's Jason Calacanis (01:16:18): pretty clear that he wouldn't give them back in. David Sacks (01:16:20): The point I'm making is that now that Biden Trump and Hillary Clinton have all been ensnared in this, is it time to rethink the fact that we're over classifying so many documents? I mean, just think about the incentives that that we're creating for our politicians. Okay? Just think about the incentives. Number 1, never use email. Remember Hilli Clinton in the whole email server? Jason Calacanis (01:16:42): Yeah. David Sacks (01:16:42): You gotta be nuts to use email. Number Chamath Palihapitiya (01:16:44): 2, David Sacks (01:16:44): never touch a document. Never touch a document. What? Never let anyone hand you a document. Jason Calacanis (01:16:49): Flushed them down the toilet. David Sacks (01:16:52): Never let anyone hand you a document. Jason Calacanis (01:16:53): You mean, fluff your documents out in the toilet. David Sacks (01:16:55): If you're a politician, an elected official. Speaker 5 (01:16:58): Yeah. David Sacks (01:16:58): The only time you should ever be handling anything is going to a clean room. Jason Calacanis (01:17:02): Right. David Sacks (01:17:03): You know, make an appointment, go in there, read something, don't take notes. Don't bring a camera and then leave. I mean, this is no way to run a government. Jason Calacanis (01:17:11): It's crazy. David Sacks (01:17:12): Who does this benefit? Speaker 5 (01:17:13): Hold on. Jason Calacanis (01:17:13): Who does David Sacks (01:17:13): this benefit? doesn't benefit our elected officials. It makes it almost impossible Speaker 5 (01:17:18): for them David Sacks (01:17:19): to act like normal people. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:17:20): That's why. David Sacks (01:17:21): It benefits the insiders, the permanent government. Jason Calacanis (01:17:23): you're missing the most important part about the sex. This was, if you wanna go into conspiracy areas, this was a setup Biden plant of the documents. Here we go. So that we can create the false equivalency and start up Biden versus Trump 2024. This ensures that now Trump has something to fight with Biden about, but and this is gonna help Trump Chamath Palihapitiya (01:17:44): -- Oh, you're saying? because they're both tainted, equally tainted, on the same source. Jason Calacanis (01:17:49): They are David Sacks (01:17:49): they are equally tamed out, but I Jason Calacanis (01:17:51): just tried that. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:17:51): -- Jason Calacanis (01:17:51): in the new cycle. David Sacks (01:17:52): No. I think I think it's the opposite. I think Merrick Garland now is gonna have to drop the prosecution against Trump for the stolen documents or at least that part of what they're investigating him for. They might still investigate him over January 6 or something. They can't investigate from her documents now. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:18:08): -- Jason Calacanis (01:18:08): seems more sticky. Yeah. I agree with that, actually. I think it's gonna be hard to do. David Sacks (01:18:12): But my point is, just think about look. Both sides are engaged in hyperparcels and ship. The way right now, the that the conservatives on the right, they're attacking bite in now for the same thing that the left was attacking Trump for. My point is, like, just take a step back. And, again, think about the incentives we're creating about how to run our government. You can't use email, and you can't touch documents. Jason Calacanis (01:18:35): And everything's in investigation the second. You got in the office. David Sacks (01:18:38): And and the way, if you're don't ever go into politics, if you're a business person, because they'll investigate every deal you ever did prior to getting into politics, Jason Calacanis (01:18:49): What are you gonna do when you try to get your your treasury position? Speaker 6 (01:18:52): What's gonna happen? Speaker 5 (01:18:52): You gotta David Sacks (01:18:53): be nuts. You gotta be nuts to go in Jason Calacanis (01:18:54): a government. You're not gonna take a position in My point is that David Sacks (01:18:58): that the that the Washington insiders, by which I mean, the permanent Washington establishment, i. e. the deep state, they're creating a system in which they're running things And the elected officials barely can operate like normal functioning humans there. Jason Calacanis (01:19:12): Interesting. David Sacks (01:19:13): Yeah. That's what's going on. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:19:15): I heard a great rumor This is total gossip mongering. Jason Calacanis (01:19:18): Oh, here we go. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:19:21): That, you know, one of Ken Griffin's best out is to get DeSantis elected so that he can become treasury secretary. I mean, Ken Griffin would get that if he wanted it. and then he would be able to divest all of Citadel tax free. So he would mark to market like $30,000,000,000, which is a genius way to go out. Now then it occurred to me, oh my god. That is me and Saks's path too. I'll bet a lot less money, but David Friedberg (01:19:50): let's say that. Jason Calacanis (01:19:52): Why would it be tax free? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:19:54): When you get appointed to those branch those senior posts, you're allowed to either stick it into blind trust or you can sell with no capital gains. What? Jason Calacanis (01:20:04): Yeah. What? David Sacks (01:20:06): Well, because they want you they want you to divest anything that could Yes. Anything that presents a conflict they want you to divest. And so the argument is if you have if you're forced to divest it to enter a government, you shouldn't be forcibly Jason Calacanis (01:20:19): talking about it. -- mayor of San Francisco or Austin or David Friedberg (01:20:21): federal federal federal federal government. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:20:23): -- David Friedberg (01:20:23): secretary of transportation, Jay Kal, you can do that. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:20:26): Oh, I'm qualified for that. Jason Calacanis (01:20:27): That's my I've take the bus. I got an electric bike. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:20:30): To answer a Friedberg point, I think Citadel Securities, there's a lot of folks that would buy that because that's just a securities trading business. And then Citadel hedge fund, probably something like a big bulge bracket bank or Blackstone. Probably Blackstone, in fact, because now Blackstone can plug it into a $1,000,000,000,000 asset machine. It's a I think there would be buyers out the door. Jason Calacanis (01:20:50): This is a this is an incredible gift. Now I know why Saks. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:20:53): It's not a gift at all. It's a it's an incredible -- Oh, Jason Calacanis (01:20:56): come on, man. A cabinet position for no cap gains? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:20:59): Well, that's not a grift. That's, like, those are the loss. they force it to sell everything. Real scripted abuse. And then you do public service. Speaker 5 (01:21:06): I think Chamath Palihapitiya (01:21:06): you're I think you're misusing the word to continue to genuflect to the left wing. Jason Calacanis (01:21:10): No. I'm not joking. I'm making Chamath Palihapitiya (01:21:12): European a little David Friedberg (01:21:13): defensive because you see Chamath Palihapitiya (01:21:14): this as a bad bat or you're dumb? Jason Calacanis (01:21:17): I'm not stupid with you. That's what Chamath Palihapitiya (01:21:19): I see. Jason Calacanis (01:21:20): You take a cabinet position. David Friedberg (01:21:21): Sex, when you don't have -- Would you be sitting behind Jason Calacanis (01:21:24): the spreadsheet? Where does that exist? David Friedberg (01:21:26): Yes, Zach. If you were asked to serve David Sacks (01:21:28): Look. Any normal person who wants to serve in government, you can't use email and you can't touch a document and every deal you've ever done gets investigated. Why now would you wanna do it? Speaker 5 (01:21:37): That's a yes. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:21:38): Why would you wanna David Sacks (01:21:39): do it? I mean, offsetting that, you get to divest tax free. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:21:42): Me think thou Don for Testeth too much, David Tsai. Jason Calacanis (01:21:45): The fact that YouTube know this rule, And 4 meters, and I don't. David Friedberg (01:21:50): No. I know. I know it. It's like a well known Chamath Palihapitiya (01:21:51): -- I know. -- really positive. -- Jason Calacanis (01:21:52): know this rich people -- No. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:21:54): I I looked up grift. Everyone's doing this. it means that to engage in a petty or small scale swindle, I don't think selling a $31,000,000,000 entity. No. It's not small combination of BlackRock and Black Stone would be considered a petty small Speaker 5 (01:22:08): cell phone. David Friedberg (01:22:08): Did any of you guys watch the Madoff series on Netflix? No. Is it good? No. Oh my god. It is so so depressing. I gotta say, like, just that mat that Madoff series, there is no glimmer of light or hope or positivity or recourse. Everyone is a victim. Everyone suffers. It is just so dark don't watch it. It's so depressing. Jason Calacanis (01:22:32): The main off line. David Friedberg (01:22:34): The main is so depressing. It's so awful. Jason Calacanis (01:22:36): Kill themselves and die. They kill him, like, all David Friedberg (01:22:38): the -- No. One guy that Chamath Palihapitiya (01:22:40): -- -- one guy that did cancer. -- David Friedberg (01:22:42): pick hard. I didn't realize all this, the trustee that went and got the money. He went and got money back from these people who were eighty years old and retired and had spent that money decades ago, and he sued them and took their homes away from them. And no one and and and they had Chamath Palihapitiya (01:22:55): no one -- No one. -- David Friedberg (01:22:55): they were part of cam. No one no one won. It was a brutal awful whole thing. Yeah. The whole thing was like that. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:23:01): Yeah. By the way, that's gonna be really interesting as we enter this SPF trial Speaker 5 (01:23:05): because that Chamath Palihapitiya (01:23:05): -- -- Jason Calacanis (01:23:05): absolute. I represent. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:23:07): That that is the that that is what happens if you got -- And that's David Friedberg (01:23:10): why the southern district of New York said that this case is becoming too big for them. because all the places that s SPF said money, all those packs, and all those political donations -- -- before. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:23:20): -- David Friedberg (01:23:20): they have to go and investigate where that money went and see if they can get it back, and it's gonna open up an investigation into each one of these campaign finance and election and kind of interfering Chamath Palihapitiya (01:23:30): -- Jason Calacanis (01:23:31): Wait. Not pulling it up. ProPublica. Sorry. ProPublica. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:23:34): Yeah. On the other end of the spectrum, I did watch this weekend Triangle of sadness. Have you guys Jason Calacanis (01:23:39): seen this? -- too. Who's great? My god. Okay. Haglen sadness is great. It's so dark. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:23:44): To the David's listen. This is one of the it I thought it was it didn't pay off the way I thought, but this is one of the best setups you'll see in a movie. So, basically, it's a bunch of people on a on a luxury yacht. So you have a bunch of rich people as the guests. Then you have the staff that interacts with them And this is, like, mostly Caucasian. And then in the bowels of the ship, what you see are Asian and black workers that support them. Okay? So the the in in some ways, there's a little bit of a microcosm of the world. Jason Calacanis (01:24:17): Oh, are they gonna say Chamath Palihapitiya (01:24:18): a microcosm of something else? And then and then what happens is there's, like, a shipwreck, basically. Right? Jason Calacanis (01:24:24): I don't spoil it. Come Speaker 5 (01:24:25): on. Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:24:25): Okay. Spoil it. So but no. But I'll just tell you. So so the the plot is you have this Caucasian Patriarchy that then gives flip sides upside down because after the shipwreck, the only person who knows how to make a fire and catch the fish is the Filipino woman who is in charge of cleaning the toilets. So she becomes in charge. So now you flip to this immigrant matriarchy. Jason Calacanis (01:24:47): Pretty great meditation on class and -- Unbelievable. It's it's it's pretty well done. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:24:52): He didn't end well, I thought. I thought. Yeah. Yeah. That's good. Jason Calacanis (01:24:54): Well, it's hard to wrap that one up. Well, you know what they say, boys. Still a little and they throw you in jail. Still a lot, and they make you king. Famous Bob Dylan, quote, There you go. Alright. Well, this has been a great episode. It's great to see you besties. Austerity menu tonight, Chamath? What's on the austerity menu tonight? What are we doing? Salad, some tuna sandwiches? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:25:15): No. I think I think Kirsten is doing I think Derad Jason Calacanis (01:25:20): Drod. Yeah. That's yeah. David Sacks (01:25:22): That's a good fish. Speaker 5 (01:25:22): Jake and I once had a great Drod in -- Venice. David Sacks (01:25:28): in Venice. Venice. Jason Calacanis (01:25:29): The the the dorog from there. That's what Speaker 5 (01:25:30): the best David Sacks (01:25:31): meals you've ever had. Am I right? Jason Calacanis (01:25:32): So good. I agree. When it's done Chamath Palihapitiya (01:25:34): well, the dorog kicks us. David Sacks (01:25:35): There's only one way to cook a dorog. Do you know what that is? You gotta you gotta it's the way they did in Venice. You gotta cook the whole fish. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:25:44): Yeah. Yeah. David Sacks (01:25:44): Yeah. She's Chamath Palihapitiya (01:25:45): doing that. David Sacks (01:25:45): And then after you cook the fish, then you debone it. Right. And -- Right. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:25:50): -- David Sacks (01:25:50): that's that's the way to Speaker 5 (01:25:51): do it. Jason Calacanis (01:25:51): That was back when Saxon and I used to enjoy shows this company. Because podcast made us into mortal enemies. Take out. David Sacks (01:25:59): I'm a little disappointed. You couldn't agree with my take on this document scandal. Instead of dunking in a partisan way, I tried to explain why it was a problem of our whole political system. Jason Calacanis (01:26:09): I like your theory. I I I I think you know, you you keep making me different Biden. I think Biden's a grifter. I told you these guys are grifting. Just ignore just think your party grift's a little bit more. But, yeah, compare your grip. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:26:24): Are we gonna play Saturday after the wildcard game? Are you guys and playing Saturdays well because I got the hot pass. I can I can do a game on Saturday. Jason Calacanis (01:26:32): I don't know. I have to check with my boss. David Friedberg (01:26:34): Who's going to are you guys all going on? Sachs, are you gonna come to play poker at that livestream thing for the day? Did I wait? David Sacks (01:26:42): I doubt it. No. Jason Calacanis (01:26:44): He doesn't wanna interact with humans. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:26:46): That does not play well in confirmation hearings. Speaker 5 (01:26:49): No. The last time I did one David Sacks (01:26:51): of those, Alan Keating De destroyed me on camera. Like, I was like Chamath Palihapitiya (01:26:54): -- Speaker 5 (01:26:54): That's true. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:26:55): -- David Sacks (01:26:55): I had 2 feet. And every time he bluffed our folds and every time he had the the nuts I called, it was brutal. Jason Calacanis (01:27:02): That's true. Now you do it. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:27:03): That was a bad part. A shellacking. Jason Calacanis (01:27:06): A classic sacks. David Friedberg (01:27:07): So the edge saving thing, is that what's going on here? David Sacks (01:27:09): No. no. Preserving? No? Speaker 5 (01:27:11): Okay. No. David Sacks (01:27:11): I just -- No. Jason Calacanis (01:27:11): But it has to do with the cabinet positions. He doesn't need to be seen recklessly gambling. It's a bad flow. If you could take David Friedberg (01:27:17): any cabinet position, Zach. Which one would it be? State Jason Calacanis (01:27:22): treasuring. David Friedberg (01:27:22): State's a lot of travel. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:27:24): Say the Speaker 5 (01:27:24): word sex. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:27:24): -- David Friedberg (01:27:24): a lot of travel. You never stayed at home. You're always on a plane. David Sacks (01:27:27): I'll tell you because Chamath Palihapitiya (01:27:28): of him. David Sacks (01:27:28): I don't -- That's what he's looking for. Speaker 5 (01:27:30): I David Sacks (01:27:30): don't know that those, like, cabinet positions are that important. I mean, they run these giant bureaucracies that, again, are are permanent. You can't fire anyone. So if you can't fire a person, do they really report to you? David Friedberg (01:27:42): Right. This is, like, some idea some idea was, like, put a bunch of hard line CEO type people in charge, have them blow up these things and make them more efficient. It didn't really work. Did it? David Sacks (01:27:52): Yeah. Well, you know why as CEO is actually in charge like Elon. He walks in. If he doesn't like what you're doing, he'll just fire you. You can't fire anyone. How do you manage them? when they don't have to listen to anything you say. That's our whole government right now. Our cabinet heads are figureheads for for these departments, for these giant apartments. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:28:13): Is that a no, or is that a yes you'd still take state? Jason Calacanis (01:28:17): Look at that. See. Well, I I think I have another deal. -- on that. Please do it for the ambassador ship first. What is the best ambassadorship? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:28:24): Well, you can't you can't divest anything, France. Historically David Sacks (01:28:28): is you you can tell which ambassadorship is the best one based on how much they charge for it. Yeah. So -- I think I think London is the most expensive. I think that one's just 15,000,000. -- 1,000,000 for London, 10 to Chamath Palihapitiya (01:28:38): 15 -- David Sacks (01:28:38): Yeah. 10 to 15,000,000. Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:28:40): 10, 15,000,000. Jason Calacanis (01:28:42): That's that's when Saks's 4th least expensive home cost. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:28:47): No. No. No. You have to spend that every year to run it, Jason. You only got you gotta fix -- -- Jason Calacanis (01:28:51): for him. You could be Chamath Palihapitiya (01:28:52): the ambassador to Guinea or the ambassador to the UK. You get the same budget. David Sacks (01:28:56): Actually, what's kind of funny is I know two people who serve as ambassadors under Trump. And it was really cheap to get those because no one no one is important to be part of the Trump administration. Jason Calacanis (01:29:06): But -- Oh, they were a fire sale. 2 for Chamath Palihapitiya (01:29:08): 1. David Sacks (01:29:08): They were on a they were on fire sale after because of Trump. Speaker 5 (01:29:11): But -- Who Jason Calacanis (01:29:12): wants to be tainted? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:29:13): But by the way, one of them, and you can just beep out the name. was telling me it was the best thing because he ended up selling the already they have the all time eyes Jason Calacanis (01:29:21): to take the job. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:29:22): He was like, I gotta get out of all of this stuff. David Sacks (01:29:24): No. But listen. Let me tell you. The the impostor ships, it was it was a smart trade by those guys because Ambassador is a lifetime title. So you're ambassador, whatever. No one remembers what president when you were ambassador, no one care. Jason Calacanis (01:29:36): So you are going for the ambassador? David Friedberg (01:29:37): No. No. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:29:38): I think it's fair Speaker 5 (01:29:39): to say. Jason Calacanis (01:29:39): I think he's going Speaker 5 (01:29:40): for the ambassador. Jason Calacanis (01:29:40): I'm not David Sacks (01:29:40): I'm not interested in ceremonial things. I'm interested in making an impact. And the problem with all these positions, I mean, being a cabinet official is not much different than being an ambassador. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:29:53): So you're gonna you're gonna enlist in the navy? Jason Calacanis (01:29:56): No. What what would what has a bigger impact? Swing on all in clubs or being an ambassador. Who's influential. Saks on the all in pod or beep as the ambassador of Sweden. David Sacks (01:30:08): Being on all in pod, actually. Jason Calacanis (01:30:10): All in pod is more Impactful. David Friedberg (01:30:13): By the way, this is why I take issue with your statement about the term mainstream media because I think you have become the mainstream media. More than most of the folks have No. David Sacks (01:30:21): We're independent media. We're independent media. Jason Calacanis (01:30:23): Trust me. It's independence. Things hang around by a thread. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:30:26): And stop Jane, you're flexing. Jason Calacanis (01:30:29): Oh, it's independent. We Do I just what knows if this thing's gonna last another 3 episodes? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:30:34): I just like saying the word genuflecting. Jason Calacanis (01:30:35): You like genuflecting. I know. because -- That David Friedberg (01:30:37): is the top word Chamath Palihapitiya (01:30:38): of 2023 so far for me. Jason Calacanis (01:30:40): Oh, is that is somebody doing an analysis with Chat JPT of the words used here? No. But Saks brought Chamath Palihapitiya (01:30:45): that word up. It was just a it's a wonderful word. It's it's not used enough. Jason Calacanis (01:30:50): Alright, everybody. We'll see you next time on the all in podcast. Comments are turned back on. Have added you animal Love Chamath Palihapitiya (01:30:56): you guys join. Bye bye. Jason Calacanis (01:30:57): Love you besties. Bye. Speaker 6 (01:31:00): We'll let your winners ride. Jason Calacanis (01:31:03): Rainman, David Sanders. Speaker 6 (01:31:07): And it said We open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it. Speaker 5 (01:31:15): besties our Jason Calacanis (01:31:16): call. -- on 13th. That is my Speaker 6 (01:31:24): driveway. We Jason Calacanis (01:31:30): should all just get a room and just have a big you, George, because they're all just useless. It's like this, like, sexual tension, but they just need to release that mountain. What? You're the bee What? David Sacks (01:31:41): Pure feet. Jason Calacanis (01:31:43): What? What? Where did you get Murphy's arms at?