科技巨头财报炸裂、鲍威尔的衰退警告、实验室培育肉、肯尼迪搅动选情

Speaker 1 (00:00:00): can't wait to talk about Lop Gromit. I have been trying to get people to -- Jason Calacanis (00:00:08): No. Oh, please. Don't let's not get canceled. With the 4 of us functional again, we'd each other. We enjoy. We look forward to doing the show again. Everything styled in. David Sacks (00:00:20): Is your lab grown meat? Does it use hormones? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:23): My lab grown meat was a little Jason Calacanis (00:00:26): Let me ask you this about your lab grown meat. Do you have a At this age? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:34): No. No? No. No. You know, I was told that my lab grown meat was a little I've injected some flavors of tobacco, black cherry. Some notes? Some notes. David Sacks (00:00:48): Barsimmons. personally. I'll let your winter ride. Rainman Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:58): David Sanders. David Sacks (00:01:01): And I said, we open source Chamath Palihapitiya (00:01:03): it to the fans and make discoveries. Love US Ice Cream Jason Calacanis (00:01:09): So let's go to Big Tech Earnings. Google stock is up Speaker 1 (00:01:13): 5%. Jason Calacanis (00:01:14): You have to be beating on the top line and bottom line. some high level takeaways. Google announced a Speaker 1 (00:01:18): $70,000,000,000 Jason Calacanis (00:01:20): stock buyback plan and that their cloud unit was profitable for the first time in its history. So we mentioned last week, Sundar officially announced that deep mind was merging with brain. This is kinda controversial because It's really hard according to some sources for Sundar to get all his lieutenants to work together and row in the right direction. Google's q one search revenue up year over year, 2%, down 5% quarter over quarter, just kinda to be expected because of seasonality and because we're in a down market right now, obviously, with the recession. YouTube down 2.5% year over year, down 16% quarter over quarter. Other bets, which is like Nest and some other products down 35% year over year. net income, Speaker 1 (00:02:08): $15,000,000,000. Jason Calacanis (00:02:11): Any thoughts? Friedberg on what is a mixed quarter by Google? And I guess the wider macro environment. David Friedberg (00:02:20): What was so striking about the earnings call is not necessarily what was presented but what was not presented, which was a stronger voice and a strategic plan going forward. for dealing with 2 major issues at the company. 1 is the operating cost model, and the second is the AI strategy and the response to this evolution in AI. I've heard from a lot of folks that the AI strategy, in particular, it's almost like Google already has this in the bag but they just haven't kind of let it out of the bag. It's like they've got a Tasmanian devil, and they're they're ready to go with it. And there's from from my read, an incredible amount of confidence that there's something that's gonna happen. And a set of things that are gonna happen that are gonna be very profound and powerful, I even heard some anecdotal stories about, hey. You know, We don't have this feature in this product, but chat GPT does, and then people basically showed up to this meeting, and there was all this debate about well, we can't let it out because we're not sure, you know, that the classic kind of, like, we're scared of doing doing wrong versus leaning forward and and taking risk. Jason Calacanis (00:03:21): Don't be evil you're referencing? David Friedberg (00:03:23): No. It was just more about regulatory concern and getting things wrong and making a mistake. And so there's this total fear of, like, again, you know, regulatory and fear. someone kinda slammed the table and said, let's just put it out. The next day, they put it out. So there's definitely a cultural change happening internally, is what I've heard anecdotally. But what was really missing which is what Wall Street needed to hear. What investors and shareholders needed to hear is what's the strategy there? How are you gonna compete? How are you gonna resolve? What's gonna go forward? And secondly, what are you gonna do about the cost structure of the company. Because everyone else, you know, in contrast to Meta being up 11, 12% after hours with their cost cutting model and demonstrating that they're gonna start pulling cash out of this business. Google's top you know, kind of top story was, hey. We're stopped serving peanut M and M's in the cafeteria or something ridiculous. And know, that doesn't really address the real structural question. So I think the stock buyback, the $70,000,000,000 stock buyback is an authorization to repurchase. It's not a plan to purchase. So it's unclear if when or how that capital does actually get deployed in the market to buy back stock. And so there is also this big kind of shareholder sentiment of being let down that there isn't an improvement in either cash coming out of the business or in cash being used in a smart way with the business. And it was the the the silence in the earnings call that I think really stunned a lot of people, which is why you didn't see a lot of stock movement despite the actual business numbers being better than expected. And so there's a lot that Google I think still has to catch up to with respect to their peers both on a product and strategy point of view, but also on a cost cutting and a communication of that cost cutting point of view to the market and to the street. Otherwise, shareholders are gonna start to lose faith if they're not already and are gonna start to put their capital with other folks who they feel are better leading and leaning into this new evolution of technology like Microsoft and Apple and Meta, which is really where those big capital allocators end up picking stuff to go. One final thing I'll say, it's extraordinarily important to note that I think Google has such an incredible AI advantage over Microsoft. And, you know, Microsoft is almost solely dependent on OpenAI. David Friedberg (00:05:30): This small startup company and all of BingChat is powered by it. And Microsoft hasn't built out the the infrastructure, the team, the rigor, the depth, the models, that Google has. And Google made a few strategic blunders. You know, they shouldn't have been as open with the transformer work that they did and shared that publicly. certainly enabled OpenAI and others to compete. But Google certainly has an incredible set of tools and capabilities that is leap years ahead of Microsoft They're in a position to really compete. They just have to have the will and the leadership to do it, slam the table, say, here's where we're gonna stop wasting money. we're gonna start leading and driving this this this industry forward. And this this could be a quick turnaround story for the stock and for this company. And and I I hope it'll happen. Jason Calacanis (00:06:15): Chamath, what are your thoughts on Google's leadership specifically? Is Sundar the right person to run the company going forward? Does he have the founder authority to get the ship and to get the lieutenant's all kinda rowing in the same direction? Does it need to be a leadership change, which is the big discussion of topic in Silicon Valley right now. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:06:33): I think he's very capable. That's in a Morpheus organization of so many different competing interests. The thing that doesn't add up about the Google earnings release, but then also what Freeport just mentioned is There was this article that kind of tried to paint Sundar as sort of a caretaker CEO, right, where Larry was the actual shadow CEO. Well, if that's true, you know, Larry has more incentive than anybody else to kind of force change. And there was all these kind of, like, gripes and complaints that were articulated. And I don't put much stock in all of this stuff. I think that he is the right person for the job And I think what they have to do is just do the simple basic things. Like, it doesn't take a CEO change. for a board of directors to have the emotional wherewithal to authorize a 15 or 20% reduction in force. for a company that is so profitable that clearly is not yet humming on all cylinders. And so you don't need to go through all of this drastic change to do these simple obvious things. My takeaway across all of these 4 big companies is we are in a really unique moment to observe something that may sound controversial or hurt people's feelings that like these companies. But I think we're now well past peak Big Tech. Their valuations may still go up because they generate such an enormous amount of cash flow. But these are exactly those kinds of businesses now. They are x growth, large cash flow businesses. Jason Calacanis (00:08:16): blue chip, you might say? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:08:18): Well, they were always blue chip, but the way that they grow is not through innovation. If you look at Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and Apple, and ask yourself when was the last hugely disruptive thing that they've created. Your heart pressed to find something that was even done in the Speaker 1 (00:08:34): 2010. Jason Calacanis (00:08:35): Yeah. Actually, that's a good thought. I mean, the iPhone for Apple Speaker 1 (00:08:38): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:08:38): iPhone was 2007. Yep. Speaker 1 (00:08:40): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:08:40): Microsoft was in the 19 nineties. Google was in 1998 with Course Search. Maybe there was maps in Gmail in 2 in the Speaker 1 (00:08:48): 2000. Jason Calacanis (00:08:49): Chrome. Android? They bought some of that. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:08:52): Facebook, it was the core service that we built in the 2000, and then they acquired brilliantly. Right? So I'm not saying that they didn't acquire well. Yeah. My point is that core organic innovation hasn't been there for a long time. So this is a moment to just be reflective of the fact that these are some incredible companies with ginormous cash flows. But now you've had this foundational platform shift which exposes the fact that they really aren't good at innovating. And at times when they've tried to organically innovate, they've massively misallocated capital. Jason Calacanis (00:09:27): Either through a list would be the example of David Friedberg (00:09:29): my management. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:09:29): through a bloated balance sheet, so someone claimed that Google overspends or through just pure misallocation by starting projects that just are not large, but consume large amounts of cash. That would be the Facebook VR example. But in all of this, I think when you cut staff and expenses as a way to meet and beat, And top line growth is in the low single digits. It's an important moment to recognize that these companies have now transitioned to being cash cows. And if you look at sort of how financial markets value cash cows, they're very valuable. but it's not where you look for growth. And so in a world where rates eventually get cut and we start to come out of recession, It tends to be that other people get rewarded. So that's an idea that's Jason Calacanis (00:10:18): worth And adding to your point here, they're not allowed to acquire these Microsofts Chamath Palihapitiya (00:10:22): acquisition. -- thing dead. Dead. Jason Calacanis (00:10:24): So they're not gonna be allowed to buy stuff, so then you're right. What is the growth here? they're not able to innovate. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:10:30): I think these companies are x growth, which is why they use their cash flows to do, what, borrow money cheaply to buy back stock to manipulate their equity. Right? You can manipulate and overcome dilution. You can manipulate earnings per share. You can manipulate the number of shares outstanding. And so just by the nature of that whole game, a bunch of passive investors will end up buying more, which helps the active investors who own that stock So it's a game. So if we're not in the world Jason Calacanis (00:10:59): Financial Engineering would be the I mean, the most charitable way to say it. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:11:03): We're in the fan. engineering phase, which is fine. And by the way, you can make a lot of money. Facebook's up 90%. So there's a Jason Calacanis (00:11:09): lot of there's a Chamath Palihapitiya (00:11:10): lot of meaning just this just this year. Jason Calacanis (00:11:12): Oh, yes. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:11:13): so there's a lot of room for financial engineering, but it's not where you need to look to figure out where these big improvements and uses of this next generation platform technology are gonna come from most likely. Jason Calacanis (00:11:26): Saks is this a fair assessment in your mind looking at you know, the the major tech companies, the FANGs. David Sacks (00:11:31): Yeah. I mean, their growth is down to single digits. So I think Microsoft had 7% year over year revenue growth Google was at Speaker 1 (00:11:38): 3%. David Sacks (00:11:39): I think Facebook was -- 4%. -- sales rose. Yeah. 3%. from a year earlier. But at least that was an improvement because it's actually gone down for 3 straight quarters. So yeah. But you're down to, you know, single digit year over year growth rates. Nevertheless, most of these companies beat expectations. So Microsoft Shares rose Speaker 1 (00:12:00): 9%, David Sacks (00:12:03): meta jumped 12%. It might be up more now. And I guess Google got a little bit of a bounce. And and they all gave a pretty upbeat forecast. The only one that wasn't upbeat was Google, where the CFO Ruth Poorat said, that the outlook remains uncertain. But all the other ones seem to indicate that things were gonna get better. So I think what's interesting about that is just the mismatch that we have between how well these companies did in this quarter versus how uncertain the rest of the economy is looking right now. Jason Calacanis (00:12:35): And maybe the Fed's behavior? David Sacks (00:12:37): Yeah. So maybe this is the flip side of what Jomont is saying is they're not growing very fast. but they are profitable machines generating a lot of earnings. And they seem to be pretty immune from what's happening in the economy right now, or at least that's what they're saying. Now you're right. In a parallel track, there was an interesting interview that Powell did So Jerome Powell gave an interview. It was actually kind of like one of these hoax calls where a couple of people were pretending to be Silinski, engagement, and interview. Jason Calacanis (00:13:08): Oh my god. That was crazy. You can't even explain that reference. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:13:11): They're like, oh Jason Calacanis (00:13:12): my god. What is happening? David Sacks (00:13:13): They've done this a number of times or they've gotten, you know, major leaders. I think they did this to Macron and some other people where they pretend to be Zelensky and they do an interview. Jason Calacanis (00:13:21): It's like Ollie G. David Sacks (00:13:22): Yeah. But they played it straight. I don't care that he was fooled into giving the interview. It's like who cares? But some of the things he said were really interesting. I mean, number Speaker 1 (00:13:29): 1, David Sacks (00:13:31): Powell said that the economic outlook for the year was looking pretty uncertain, and he said the most likely scenarios were either sub 1% growth. So staying out of recession, but just barely. Or he said going into recession. So he thought that was roughly about equally likely. He admitted that we had the worst inflation of 40 years, and that's why interest rates weren't necessary. And he said that it was necessary to slow the economy in order to combat inflation. And he then even went further and said that it was necessary to cool off the labor market and even to cool off wages specifically because that's how you combat inflation. That's the only thing we know how to do in a situation like this. So I think this is certainly a political mistake for Powell to say that his objective here is to hurt the wages of the American people and to basically cause a recession. But that is his view apparently. And I think that we are headed for it seems like a recession. I'm a little surprised that the earnings reports from these tech companies are so good because or at least their forecasts are so good. Jason Calacanis (00:14:31): Well, they can cut spending. And we talked about this last year when we were trying to predict what would happen. I remember saying, well, I I think Tremata and I were talking about this and I said, well, Chamath was saying, hey. Earnings are gonna go down, and there's a PE. And I said, well, what if they just stop spending or they make a lot of cuts? Well, here we are. People are just saying, you know what? We're gonna cut our way to and do stock buybacks, and that's another way of financial engineering to route around the Fed, right, and to and to make the stock go up. Worked incredible for Facebook. I mean, my lord, they were at $91 a share, and now they're over Speaker 1 (00:15:06): 200. David Sacks (00:15:08): Right. But just to bring it back to the economy. Jason Calacanis (00:15:10): So look, David Sacks (00:15:10): I think we agreed that these tech companies seems to be pretty immune. They've got a large cushion in terms of their ability to continue generating earnings because of all the bloat that that actually gives them, like, a margin of error where they can keep cutting to prop up earnings. I'm a little surprised that they think their revenue forecasts are gonna be so positive because, again, they were guiding upward generally. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:15:30): Mhmm. David Sacks (00:15:30): So they seem to think they're not gonna be impacted by the recession, and maybe they won't be. Again, I think what was interesting from Powell is the way that he seemed to think that the only thing we know how to do, this is basically what he said. The only thing we know how to do in this situation with inflation is to kill the economy. It's to slow the economy and specifically to kill jobs and wages. And that was pretty remarkable too because there are other things we could do. Jason Calacanis (00:15:55): such as. David Sacks (00:15:56): Okay. Well, one thing is that you don't have to print so much money. Jason Calacanis (00:16:00): Cut spending, austerity. David Sacks (00:16:01): So, yes, our fiscal policy remains completely out of whack. We're running $2,000,000,000,000 annual deficits right now past COVID. So he could have said, listen, we could get off this reckless fiscal policy and be more restrained, but he didn't wanna go there. The other thing he could have done was address the supply side. One of the ways that you can reduce it's not just to kill demand, you could actually affect supply chains. So like cost of energy, for example, energy is a huge input into the economy. And one of the things that happened at the beginning of this administration is they made it much harder to drill for oil and gas. And I think Biden sort of reversed course on that. At the state of the union, remember he had that line where he said, we can't get off oil and gas for 10 years, and the audience started laughing. in any event, the point is just that it's too little too late. They could have done more on energy to keep costs low. And then there's a whole bunch of other critical input the economy besides labor. And what you could do is I think you could go category by category and say, how do we get the price of these key inputs into our economy down? How do we resolve supply chain bottlenecks? How do we make it, you know, easier to get access to whatever the key commodity is. And I think there's things they could do if they're just willing to work at it. Maybe this isn't the Fed's job. This is more the administration. what you could do is say, listen, we're gonna make it easier for people to produce and create supply. And if you have a a higher supply of goods and services, then you will start to bring inflation down. Because inflation is just the amount of money in the system divided by the amount of goods and services. And when the amount of goods and services hasn't gone up, but the money supply has gone up tremendously, you're gonna have inflation. that's why I think it's a little bit misplaced to be killing demand the way they're killing it is because fundamentally, the problem here is they flooded the economy with money both through government stimulus and through quantitative easing. And then also they made it harder on the supply side to produce, certainly with energy. So it seems to me that the approach they're taking for us to get out of this is like taking a meat cleaver to the economy or a sledgehammer, really, And it's the most violent possible way that they could solve the problem they previously created of too much inflation. Jason Calacanis (00:18:12): Any other thing, obviously, is jobs. We're still sitting here with close to 10,000,000 job openings. And the thing I'm hearing from the streets is that unemployment hacking is become a a high art. And so labor force participation remains well. it's nowhere near the historic highs. We have been very permissive during COVID for good reasons to to give people very extended benefits. People have now learned is my understanding, and this is something that's happening on a on regional level, state by state level. People are learning how to hack unemployment and not going to work, and people just not taking the jobs that are open, which are service industry jobs. Americans don't wanna work them. We don't wanna let people into the country. We gotta wreck the load people coming into the country. It seems to me that would be a much more productive way to do this. Right? David Sacks (00:19:01): It's actually just Yes. I think it's an excellent point because yeah. Exactly. What you're doing there is addressing the supply side, which is you're unlocking supply of a key put input into the economy, which is all this unused labor. It's all these people aren't working. You're right. The labor force participation rate is still much lower than it could be. if you get more people into the economy, then that helps alleviate the cost of of labor. It helps fill these jobs. But it doesn't kill the economy. So it would be a much more positive way to address this. So I just think it showed a lack of creativity for him to say that the only thing we can do in this situation is not just to raise rates. You did say that but but to go further and cool off the job market increase unemployment and cool off wages. I mean and that's gonna be a very unpopular thing to say, I think. Because what you're basically saying is you're gonna hurt the wages of the American people. Who wants that? Jason Calacanis (00:19:54): Here's the chart for job openings. We thought this would collapse. It went down certainly as we, you know I don't wanna obsess over macro stuff. David Friedberg (00:20:01): but it's still way up there. Jason Calacanis (00:20:03): And so the fact that we can't get people to take these jobs I don't know, Jamath, what what do you think about the employment and participation sit situation and how that might unlock things I also wanted to know from each month, this Chamath Palihapitiya (00:20:15): concept of Jason Calacanis (00:20:15): the Fed is reacting to data just so slowly, and then you have these companies that maybe are more nimble and they have better data than the fed. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:20:25): I think that that's a truism. And I don't think anything about that is gonna change. I mean, I think we talked about how these folks calculate non farm payrolls or how they calculate CPI. It's incredibly outdated. Right? It's people with clipboards walking around talking to people and checking boxes and filling out forms. Can that change probably It could. Will it change? It probably won't. And so they're gonna focus on the most simple but most powerful measure that they have, which is controlling the money supply, kind of what Saks talked about. So they're gonna manipulate the money supply to either put more liquidity in the system in which case markets go up and asset prices go up, but then inflation goes Jason Calacanis (00:21:07): up or constrain Chamath Palihapitiya (00:21:10): liquidity. which then causes markets to go down, asset prices to go down, and inflation eventually to go down. The thing that we're facing today when you look at this labor market chart is a couple of things that I think we've talked about before, and I just wanna reiterate them, which is you have to remember that we are in this new world order, which is the ex China world order. And in that, there is no more unitary economy that can do things cheaper, faster, and better globally around the world. Right? So we're going to near shore or onshore all kinds of things that used to be done by the Chinese. They'll sit in Mexico or they'll sit in Central America. Maybe in some cases, they'll sit in Canada, and all of that will feed into the United States. The problem with all of that is that that will keep costs higher because it'll be naturally more inefficient. It will naturally take more money And that will naturally cause the prices of those things to be higher which means that terminal inflation I think is just roughly higher. As a result, I think that more power, if you will, goes to labor. So in this constant tension that we have in an economy between labor and capital. The people that own the factories or the businesses and the people that run them and work inside of them, we've been in this position where the pendulum has swung so far towards capital, the owners, the shareholders, that all this financial engineering has tremendous upside. Right? That's why companies engage in it. But when you show that chart, Jason, what it means is it's just really hard to find people. And so the only way you're gonna get people off their butt to go into work, to sit in a chair, to do a job that you need them to do is to pay them more. And in finding that wages will have to go up. The counterbalance of that is what AI will do, which I think we all agree it. Jason Calacanis (00:23:02): to say that is the key Speaker 1 (00:23:03): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:23:03): Yeah. -- which is massively deflationary. So that is gonna be the tension that we're in now for a really long time as we explore this. I don't know if you guys saw it today, but Sequoia led a $20,000,000 round in this thing called harvey.ai. The legal yeah. Which is like a legal super wizard for law firms. Jason Calacanis (00:23:20): Yeah. We knew that was coming. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:23:21): And my partners and I were debating it. And What we thought of was, well, how much do you pay out of the 800 or $1000 an hour that you charge? to harvey.ai. Maybe you're willing to pay 5% or 10%. But then the reality is that one of the most powerful things it does is is able to go into Westlaw Find all these cases and say, yeah. This is germane to the thing that you're working on right now. That's a very useful thing. But the n plus 1st law firm will also use that tool. And instead of charging $800 an hour, they'll say, well, we'll charge 600 bucks an hour, and we're still willing to give you 5 or 10 percent. So I just don't see a world where on the one hand physical labor will continue to be more expensive. they'll demand more and more money to do the job that they're asked to do. And the knowledge work will become increasingly more deflationary because so much it will be automated by AI, that those folks will charge less and less. And there's gonna be attention there, and I don't exactly know what's gonna happen. Jason Calacanis (00:24:21): I did a couple of experiments. This week, I've been rolling up my sleeves and playing with these tools. It's pretty amazing. And I've been trying to use them for actual tasks in our companies Chamath Palihapitiya (00:24:33): What have you learned? What did you do, and what have you learned? Jason Calacanis (00:24:35): So I got on the open AI plug ins. Greg, thank you. I sent him my email, and he and he got me onto that. and you can connect it to Zapier. So I have 2 projects I'm working on currently. One of them, I was since I'm raised so watchfront 4 and I'm actually going out to people not just taking inbound. I was like, hey. Can I get the names of all the major LPs and start doing some research there, put in a table, stuff that's that when he does blog post. But then I started connecting it with finding people's Twitter handles, finding their LinkedIn profiles. And then the next piece I'm working on is automatically following them, DM ing them on Twitter, let's say, or following the month and doing an in message saying, hey. We haven't met. Here's the deal memo for my next fund. We'd love to, you know, get together. This is sent from Jason's AI script. I was gonna, like, actually tell them, but here's my real email if after you read the summary of the next fund you wanna meet. And then I was I'm gonna pair that and this is a piece I'm gonna probably need a developer to do with our internal LP database to not email people who are already duplicates. And then inside with newsletters, I have it building a database of every newsletter we've ever sent, the writing style, and then I'm having it go find in real time news stories that we should be including in the newsletters, which I think will make the writers right now a third more productive. But these are things that would cost 40, 50 bucks an hour, 30 bucks an hour for, you know, college educated Americans and Canadians. And I have already figured out and I'm not a developer anymore. I had to script them. And I'm actually thinking about learning to code again just so I can do this myself. And so on Saturday, I'm gonna do a little coding with a friend of mine and get back up to speed on that. I think about 30% of what knowledge workers do right now is possible. So I put every single person at both companies on Chamath PT4 and the sand the playground. About 30% of what knowledge workers that both firms can do currently is doable if you can figure out and this stuff is not perfectly scripted yet. Jason Calacanis (00:26:43): So I've been doing some stuff in travel as well playing with the kayak. interface, Expedia interface, etcetera, to look at travel planning, and it's pretty good as well. So it's It it's this is the real deal, folks. I I think by the end of this year, 30 percent of knowledge work could be done by this. And then, additionally, on Monday, I went back to work in person, and I went to I hosted our accelerator in person, and then I hosted founder University in person, in the city. The city was absolutely dead, but we had a hundred people fly in from around the world for our founding university, and a lot of them were working on AI projects And what's very interesting is, like, there's this big debate going on, Friedberg, between is this gonna be built into Chat JPT 4 or Bard or you know, Po or whatever it is, or should I even bother so should I bother building, you know, a verticalized app? And it turns out, like, I think you should do the verticalized app, and you're gonna be able to put together multiple of these AIs that have different specialties. So I'm super stoked about it. But I do think if you're not using this if you hear my voice right now and you're a white collar worker, a knowledge worker, and you're not using this this year in getting up to speed on it, I think you'll be out of a job within the next two. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:28:07): Geez. Wow. Jason Calacanis (00:28:08): I just don't think they'll compete. It would be like trying to compete without knowing how to use Microsoft Office 20 years ago. Right? Like, could you work and not know email? Remember when we came into the workforce 30 years ago and some people knew office and email and web research, and then other people didn't? Those other people retired. They were phased out. If you didn't know how to use a computer and type and use an Excel spreadsheet or do a PowerPoint, you were done. David Sacks (00:28:33): I think there's 2 possible ways you can interpret what you're saying. So in terms of the economic impact, so one is that you could say, well, AI is gonna do 30% of the knowledge work. Therefore, 30% of the knowledge workers are gonna be put out of work. I think the a different way to put it would be every knowledge worker can get 30% more work done. Jason Calacanis (00:28:52): Correct. David Sacks (00:28:52): So if that's the case, then they're more productive. And we're just talking about the problem of how do you increase real wages in the economy without having inflation. Well, The way to do that is for every worker to be more productive. So if every worker is 30% more productive, in theory, their wages should be able to go up by up to 30%. That's how you get wage growth. Now maybe there will be some companies that don't need all those employees because now they're able to get, you know, whatever a third more done. But there'll be other companies who can hire them. They can go off and do other jobs for other companies, especially when you've got this backlog of, like you said, 8 or 10,000,000 you you know, jobs that are Jason Calacanis (00:29:29): unfilled. Those jobs are all service, though. You know? They're not -- You're David Sacks (00:29:32): actually more like how you're gonna have this big group of knowledge workers where there's just nothing for them to do. Oh, no. I just don't Jason Calacanis (00:29:38): agree with you, but I think there's gonna be a group of knowledge workers who do not embrace this and do not make the transition because it is it's gonna require an upscaling. Like, I think you're actually gonna need to know how to do some basic programming and coding to really take advantage of these, at least, like, scripting levels up. David Sacks (00:29:54): I don't know. It's pretty easy to use. I agree with you. There'd Jason Calacanis (00:29:57): be -- Right blog posts. But the date the example I gave of, like, taking the LP database, sorting it, You know, it's not quite there either it will be. David Sacks (00:30:05): This is like a chatbot. Jason Calacanis (00:30:08): It it is. Like, I think it takes, like, level 2 programming skills. David Sacks (00:30:11): No. It doesn't. You don't have to know how to program. You just have to know how to prompt it in natural language. It's the opposite of need to learn how to code. The thing about the thing that makes coding hard is that you have to learn the specific commands. It's like a its own language. You have to learn a new language. With this, you don't. In fact, one of the cool things about some of these open AI APIs is that you just tell it what you want it to do. There's not even like a scripting language. A lot of it's a natural language. And that makes it incredibly easy to use even for developers. So I don't think this is a hard technology to use. I agree with you there may be people who are resistant to it because there's always people who are resistant to change and you technology. And you're right. If they don't adapt, they're gonna be dinosaurs. But I don't think this is a hard technology to to grok how to use and get benefit from. Jason Calacanis (00:30:57): You might be right. I mean, I right now, it it's so new that the glue between systems is just not there yet, and maybe you'll be able to talk to Chamath EBT 4 and it'll connect your database on Notion. It will take a type form and a survey monkey and put it all together and figure that all out for you. Oh, yeah. That's the whole David Sacks (00:31:16): game right now is pure connecting all these Jason Calacanis (00:31:18): And that and that's what I'm talking about. And, like, it that's kinda not there yet, but in the auto GPT stuff, you need a developer right now. But, anyway, I'm deep in it. And I am more excited right now. This feels to me like 2005 to Speaker 1 (00:31:31): 2012 Jason Calacanis (00:31:33): period. when you just saw Ajax and the web and speed, just all coming together so quickly. And the rapid iteration is just unbelievable. I I every day I find a new use for it, I have made my default web page opening Like, when I open a new page on my PC, it just opens chat to PT 4 now just so I am forcing myself to use it for every possible task. And the people who work for me, some of them are doing it, most of them are not, and I'm just trying to drag everybody along. And then you have at the same time the this remote work thing happening where salaries I'm finding are starting to normalize not a across cities but across countries. So, you know, hiring somebody in Canada, Estonia, Sampolo, and then you add this AI to it, the cost to do things is this is like I don't know. I think everything's gonna cost about Speaker 1 (00:32:32): 10 Jason Calacanis (00:32:32): all this knowledge work is gonna be 10% as expensive to do. I I don't think it's 10% less Chamath or the you know, I think it's, like, Speaker 1 (00:32:40): 90% 10¢ Jason Calacanis (00:32:42): on the dollar. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:32:42): Ten cents on the dollar. I agree. I agree. Jason Calacanis (00:32:45): And I I it's not this is not a 5 year, 10 year predictions. It's like, 5 quarter, 10 quarter commission. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:32:51): We said that the first organizations to use this like the canary in the coal mine would be the consulting organizations. And today, when Harvey got announced, one of the things that that right on the heels of that, PricewaterhouseCoopers announced like a $1,000,000,000 investment into AI. Which makes sense because as a consulting organization full of lawyers and accountants and IT folks, those are the services jobs that you get tremendous leverage. if you were to use these tools. Freight, any thoughts? David Friedberg (00:33:17): I don't know. I mean, I think we kinda beat this horse to death. Right. We've talked about it for a couple months and I think we just keep repeating ourselves. Jason Calacanis (00:33:25): Are you doing anything in your first hand? Are you playing with it yourself, Trevor? Look. I tell us about that. David Friedberg (00:33:30): By the way, one thing I will say we all talk about cost reduction and then, oh, you know, knowledge work is dead, and we're gonna save money and all this stuff. What what that is always the first way into any new point of leverage realized from some novel technology. The second is suddenly people start doing things that use that leverage to do things that they couldn't have done before. So it's not just about dropping costs, it's about enabling new things that does a hundred times more or or unimaginable things prior. And I think the next phase of this AI shock wave that that kinda hit us and hit the world and you know, kinda hit enterprises is gonna be the evolution of integrating those tools in a very unique way with other tools to drive very novel things forward to create new things, new projects, new progress that was unfathomable before. So it's not just about cost savings. It's gonna be about new stuff I shared a link on Twitter yesterday. There's some guy I wanna quote him correctly Name is McKay Riggley. So it shut out to McKay. On his Twitter page, it says that he didn't know how to code In Speaker 1 (00:34:44): 2019, David Friedberg (00:34:45): he learned how to code for the first time. He taught Chamath Palihapitiya (00:34:47): himself, and he put David Friedberg (00:34:47): together an object recognition tool with ChatGPT. Jason Calacanis (00:34:56): I saw this video. It's crazy. David Friedberg (00:34:58): With his webcam. And, basically, he holds up, like, a Diet Coke, and he's like, you know, me how many cal what is this and how many calories are in it? And it's like, oh, there's no calories in it. It's a Diet Coke. And he does this three different times with 3 different objects, and he this thing together in a couple of hours. That is a product that was, like, theoretically unfeasible or, you know, kind of very, very difficult to kinda see how you would put that piece together quickly and easily with one person in a room in a few hours. a year ago. And here, you see a demo of of this person who didn't know how to code not too long ago putting it together and creating this product that would have been such a profound startup Imagine if you went to VCs 18 months ago and were like, look, I've got this thing and I hold stuff up in front of it. It tells me all about it, and it talks to me. And I literally use my voice to talk to it. And he basically strung together a Text to Speech, Chat GPT, an object recognition tool, all of this stuff completely open source, and a a a a plugin that does web browsing. And the whole thing is basically like your own interactive visual robot. It's it's an incredible product demo. And I thought it was so amazing. And profound, I sure it's a prototype, and it's and it's kinda janky. But it was done in a few hours on almost a no code base It's incredible. So what's gonna come from that is a whole set of new products and ideas and things that we are certainly not thinking about today, but in 6 months, is gonna become almost mainstay, and many new categories of products, many new industries, many new businesses are gonna emerge that we're not even thinking about. So the luddite argument of, oh, this is gonna destroy jobs and destroy the economy and drop costs by 90%. Lawyers are gonna get cheaper, etcetera, etcetera. I think that doesn't even matter. David Friedberg (00:36:38): It's the tip of the iceberg What's more exciting is all the new evolutionary stuff that's gonna hit the market that's really gonna transform the things that we can do. that we didn't realize we could do. Jason Calacanis (00:36:48): Just give me a critical analogy for this because what you're really talking about is more people being able to use tools and be creators. And what happened in the eighties nineties when the NBA started playing exhibition games around the world was more people around the world started playing basketball, and then you started seeing people like Luca or before him, Yao, Matumbo. You start to have people from around the world who had never been exposed to basketball, just incredible, just incredible talents emerged because you just had more people playing with the basketball. I think you're gonna have more people playing with code and building products So you're gonna have incredible amounts of creativity from people who maybe you didn't expect because they didn't go to school for coding. or have that opportunity. Hey. I mentioned I was in Faidai, and I was at a family office in the Wilson, Cincinnati's. offices to law firms, being a law firms in the the financial district in the Marketero. It was an an absolute ghost town. And when I say ghost town, I mean, like, serious ghost town, like, weird. Like, this is still, like, being in some dystopian science fiction than we were the last man on earth, And then we saw in the group chat today, 350 California Street was worth $300,000,000 four years old. That's a twenty two two story glass and Stone Tower. It's a picture of it. It's going up for sale. And they believe, according to The Wall Street Journal, That bids will come in at Speaker 1 (00:38:19): $60,000,000. Jason Calacanis (00:38:21): An 80% decline and we talked about this. Commercial Real Estate would have this moment, a lot of the banks, the small regional banks own this debt. Sachs, what do you think is gonna happen here? Who is the person who would buy an office tower in downtown even at an 80% discount knowing that you have to pay all those carrying costs And there's so much vacant office space, and it's only increasing. David Sacks (00:38:51): Right. Jason Calacanis (00:38:52): What's your who who buys this? David Sacks (00:38:54): It's called land banking. Jason Calacanis (00:38:55): Okay. Explain. David Sacks (00:38:56): So in other words okay. What I mean is you're right. There's 30% of vacancy in San Francisco right now, maybe going up even more in the next few years as leases roll and people take less space. You may have a countervailing effect in terms of new companies moving back because of AI or expanding. So it's possible you start to see some growth in the office market in San Francisco. But the bottom line is 30% plus vacancy is gonna take years years of growth in order to absorb. So you're right. This building they can slash its rent, but they still probably can't fill it. I mean, there's just no there's just no demand. So you're gonna be sitting on that property for 5 years, 10 years, before the market comes back the way that you need it to. David Friedberg (00:39:40): But there's some value. Right? David Sacks (00:39:42): Oh, it's gonna trade way below its replacement cost. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:39:44): Right. If you David Sacks (00:39:45): were to build that building today, it would cost you many times what they're gonna pay for it. The problem is you can't finance that purchase with debt because the bill is not gonna generate enough revenue. So that's what I mean by land banking. It's gonna have to be an equity investor who's willing to think long term and say, I'm gonna buy this at a super distressed price, and I'm just gonna sit there and hold it and wait. Carry it. Like you said, bury the carrying costs until the market comes back. David Friedberg (00:40:11): But, Jake, hell, I wanna say something. I I think that it's a great analogy because public growth stocks have declined 70 plus percent, right, since the the market started to decline. And we've talked a lot about the statistic that I've shared a a bunch publicly on how 70% of publicly traded companies that have gone public since 2020 are trading below their total cash invested since since founding, which should translate to an estimate that, call it, Someone in the order of 70 percent of private companies are probably worth less than their preference stack. And so they're not worthless companies. They just have a capital structure that is upside down. Those companies are making products for customers. Those product those customers are paying money for those products. There's value there. There's real value there. The value has just been reset. And so it's interesting. It's not just the asset class of growth stocks and the asset class of private companies or private tech. It's also, you know, in commercial real estate, we We try and treat each of these as if they were in isolation. But the problem is many of these assets were funded with some degree of leverage. Pre preferred stock is leverage, and, you know, it is a form of debt because it has a preference over the shareholders. They are the common shareholders, the equity holders. And the same is true with this commercial real estate market that there was a certain amount of debt So the availability of low cost capital securitized against some asset in the form of debt or in the form of preferred stock in a private company, has the same effect, which it allowed the valuations to balloon on the equity. And now that the market has rerationalized, the price is down 70 plus percent across all three of these connected, but, you know, somewhat disparate asset classes. You're kind of having this big reset moment. And funny enough, the other statistic is The cell phone traffic down 70% in downtown SF. David Friedberg (00:41:56): Right? So it's funny all four of these numbers are pretty much on track. Jason Calacanis (00:42:00): Yeah. This this chart is crazy. It's literally, like, you have some cities that have more cell phone traffic than they did last year or a couple of years ago. David Friedberg (00:42:09): And -- This is downtown, by the way, not Jason Calacanis (00:42:11): the whole city. But yeah. Yeah. And Sam I mean, the wider Bay area is is, I don't know, say booming, but it's vibrant. Yeah. I said on last week's show, I was looking for a place to host the accelerator in San Mateo area. I got dozens of people contacting me hundreds of locations and offers at 25% of what their carrying cost is or like the not the carrying cost. The the rent was. And people offering me major companies offering me free space just because they would like to have founders hanging around. And there was one project that I would like to purchase, like, I'll give it to you for whatever just because I wanna get more people to Downtown San Mateo. So that that does sort of prove the point that there is a what I and I saw this in New York City during the the nineties. When things were so cheap, people just got creative with space. It inspired people to say I'm gonna create an art gallery. I'm gonna create a performance space. And I don't know when that happens in San Francisco with these spaces, but feels like it's gonna be a a while. I don't know what you when do you think there would be demand for this SpaceX? If you had to pick a year over and give us an over under David Sacks (00:43:21): I mean, 5 years plus. I mean, the just to give you some numbers, I think, a healthy vacancy rate and an office market 5 to 10%, a high vacancy rate in a city was considered like 15%. Like, you wouldn't wanna be an office investor in a market that had 15% vacancy. 5 to 10% was sort of the normal range. If you were under 5%, it was a super hot market, and then 10 to 15 was sort of a not great market from an investor standpoint. So they're at 30% plus. And like I said, it could get worse before it gets better because as leases roll, people are gonna shed more space. So that that they might not already be subleasing. So the real number might be like Speaker 1 (00:44:01): 40%. Jason Calacanis (00:44:04): So it's like a decade. Yeah. David Sacks (00:44:06): I think it's like a yeah. It doesn't seem like a decade. Jason Calacanis (00:44:08): It's like a decade. Speaker 1 (00:44:08): -- David Sacks (00:44:09): a decade assuming that San Francisco gets this house in order and companies come back Speaker 1 (00:44:14): -- Jason Calacanis (00:44:14): Speaking of that. Speaker 1 (00:44:15): -- David Sacks (00:44:15): new companies are created and they don't completely wreck it. It's not clear to me that, like, things will go in the right direction. Jason Calacanis (00:44:21): I mean, speaking of that, do we wanna bring up this horrific bear spray attack now? You wanna queue that up socks? I mean, We're we're like in full on Gotham City now. Now we have vigilantes. David Sacks (00:44:33): There was a story of a of a fire commissioner named Don Carmagnani, who was beaten with a metal pipe by a a gang of homeless addicts who were encamped in front of his mother's house. And apparently, They were harassing her, and they were doing drugs, smoking drugs or whatever right in front of not not pod. It was like Speaker 1 (00:44:53): -- Jason Calacanis (00:44:53): Fentanyl, whatever. Speaker 1 (00:44:54): -- David Sacks (00:44:54): fentanyl or meth, or crack, swimming like a hard drug. And so what we know is you went down their head words with them, bada beep, bada boop, You know? And they bash him upside the head with a pipe. And now it turns out that he was accused by the defendant's lawyer, the one who assaulted him. So we don't really know what's true here of using Bear Spray on them first so the DA dropped charges. The lawyer for the defendant in that case is saying that he apparently was the perpetrator of these bear spray attacks on on homeless people going back a number of years. I guess, there's a, like you said, pretty gnarly video of Jason Calacanis (00:45:36): of that. I don't know if that comes in. David Friedberg (00:45:38): don't know that David Sacks (00:45:39): since But, obviously, the d a thought something was kinda inky because they dropped charges against the the guy who assaulted him. Jason Calacanis (00:45:47): Shouldn't the person who sprays the bear spray and the person who beat somebody with a pipe shouldn't both people? David Sacks (00:45:53): Yeah. Yeah. Are you arrested? Yeah. Of course. Listen. There's video of somebody bear spraying homeless people and that's clearly wrong. However, that was from a couple of years ago. The one that was released is from 2021. We have video from the night that Carmagnani was assaulted that they were chasing him down Jason Calacanis (00:46:11): They're chasing him down. Yes. David Sacks (00:46:13): With them out pipe. And even if even if they were acting in self defense, you can't go chasing the guy to Speaker 1 (00:46:18): -- Jason Calacanis (00:46:18): That's not self defense. Speaker 1 (00:46:19): -- David Sacks (00:46:19): more damage on it. Exactly. That's vengeance. that's not self defense. Yes. So they took it out of that zone of self defense, and they were chasing after him. And if you saw what he looked like after the attack. Jason Calacanis (00:46:31): But they David Sacks (00:46:31): were using deadly force. He could have been killed. And, you know, if Donna had gotten killed by the metal pipe, I don't think it'd be a defense that he bear sprayed them first. Jason Calacanis (00:46:41): No. It just deactivated. David Sacks (00:46:42): It would have been an excessive use of force. So Yeah. But in any event, I mean, where the DA ended up on this, it was just a drop charges from that night. Jason Calacanis (00:46:50): But -- I don't really know that they're gonna drop those charges. I think that that's gonna be untenable. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:46:54): You know, David Sacks (00:46:54): they already they already dropped the charges. Jason Calacanis (00:46:56): They have to I mean, justice has to be blind. Correct? I mean, you're you're you're a a trained lawyer here. We we have to apply the law equally to the sadistic and sane person who and wait a second. They arrested the guy who hosted the person down. Didn't they arrest them as well? I remember seeing a perk walk Talking about that in the future. Anyway, it's Gotham City folks. This has gone David Sacks (00:47:17): to pure insane level. This disproves anything. I mean, again, what they're trying to say now is that because of of the actions that Don took that San Francisco is safe and there's nothing to worry about. And these -- Addicts. Speaker 1 (00:47:28): -- David Sacks (00:47:28): people who are encamped on the sidewalks doing drugs, doing hard drugs, there's nothing to worry about because somehow they were provoked by Carmen Yani. And I just think I agree with you that this is part of an overall pattern of chaos and lawlessness in the city. It is like Gotham City. So, you know, it doesn't make me feel a lot better about what's happening on the streets. Jason Calacanis (00:47:49): It's nuts. Chymouthi, you wanted to add something? I want Freeport to -- Oh. -- riff on. Yes. Well, there was actually a story about this. I guess there's 2 types of lab there's 2 types of mock meats. I've had the Impossible Burger. Yeah. I've never craved an Impossible Burger. There's so many great burgers you can get out there. Shake Shack 5 guys in and out. Why would I go to get this Impossible Burger unless I was doing like, vegan stuff. But then there was also supposed to be 3 d printed meats. And this stuff seems to be taking forever. Where is this at? because there was a story in The Wall Street Journal that how poorly this is apparently going? So there's 3 categories David Friedberg (00:48:23): of these alternative proteins to traditional animal protein. The first is these, call it, alternative Proteins where you use things like soy protein or p protein. Beyond burger is a good example. They have a p protein based burger. And so That category was kind of hot for a minute where everyone is like, oh, it's a it's an eco conscious decision people will make the shift. And, you know, Beyond Meat had this massive IPO and the stock went crazy, and I someone said it was the biggest return ever for Kleiner Perkins, but it really was just taking plant protein processing it and trying to make it sort of mimic the texture and flavor and taste of animal protein. And it's more expensive. So I've generally been fairly negative on whether that really moves the needle. Right? The the the needle for me is can you replace animal proteins traditionally? and stop using all this land and putting all this carbon into the atmosphere and all this water and all these resources that we use to make all these animal proteins which I think is both kind of ethically incorrect, but also extraordinarily environmentally costly. Sorry. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:49:31): Can I ask a question? Qualified question. Do you think it's also important for it to not just replace natural products despite all of those externalities you talked about with artificial products, with chemicals and sugar. David Friedberg (00:49:44): So first of all, everything is a chemical. So the the you know, the I think the the categorization of, you know, all chemicals are bad. It's silly because everything is made of chemicals. I think it's a question of are there bad things that are being put in there that's not good for your health to make it flavorful or or whatever. And that that may or may not be the case. It's really dependent. I don't think it's a good generalization. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:50:05): But do you so you think when I eat a salad, I'm just eating chemicals? David Friedberg (00:50:09): It is chemicals. Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:50:10): Got it. Jason Calacanis (00:50:11): But -- But happy ones. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:50:12): Right. Healthy chemicals are in the salad. David Friedberg (00:50:14): There's good, and they are bad. Yeah. For sure. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:50:16): And then bad chemicals are in, like, sugary cereal? David Friedberg (00:50:18): Yeah. Like, refined sugar is bad for sure. Right? That's a bad chemical. And -- But I no. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:50:22): I'm just I just wanna understand how you just viewed it as a spectrum of chemicals, some goods and bad. David Friedberg (00:50:26): yeah, there's things that are good for you. Yeah. There's good fats. There's bad fats. There's there's, you know and even in the category of sugar, some people say all sugars are bad. Some people say some sugars are better than worse, others. as measured by the glycemic index. There's a lot of ways to kind of look at this stuff. Jason Calacanis (00:50:40): Is Beyond Meat and these P1s, they're all processed, highly processed They got a lot of salt. They got a lot of fat. Right? They're they're not good for you. David Friedberg (00:50:49): So the way that Beyond and Impossible and others have tried to make taste good for people as they've added a lot of, you know, saturated fats, which is a a way to drive the mouthfeel and make it taste good. But then a lot of doctors at the American Heart Association came out and said that those fats are really bad for your heart, and you shouldn't eat them. And, also, there's been a general kind of consumer sentiment shift. So a couple years ago, these were the hottest products. It was like all the food ingredient companies were shifting to plant based proteins, and they were building plant based protein business categories, and it was this big hot thing. And then they came out and they're like, wait a second. This isn't going as we thought. What happens is people try them out, and they're like, yeah. That's a cool thing. I wanna do good for the planet. But would I rather pay five bucks for do good for the planet burger? That kinda doesn't taste that good. or would I rather pay 3 bucks for a burger that tastes really good? And what happens is Chamath Palihapitiya (00:51:40): b. b. I have choose option b. David Friedberg (00:51:42): Yeah. And so to most people. Right? And so almost all people and that's a point I view. I've always shared. I said it's just it's not gonna win the hearts and minds of the world unless it's cheaper and it tastes better and healthier. It's identical. Yeah. And it doesn't damage your health. It doesn't make you worse. Exactly. So the more challenging technical solution is the other 2 categories. The second category is can you synthesize animal proteins using recombinant DNA? So this is where you take the DNA that codes for the protein whether it's the milk protein or the egg protein or the cheese protein, and you put it in a bacterial cell or a yeast cell that are used to ferment. that we used to make wine, that we used to make beer. And they eat sugar, and then they spit out a product. And in the case of wine and beer, they eat sugar from grapes or for from malt or whatever, and they spit out alcohol, ethanol. And Genentech was the 1st company to really pioneer recombinant DNA at a mass scale They basically used recombinant DNA to make insulin. So they took the DNA from humans that that codes for insulin, the gene for insulin. They put an e coli bacteria, Then they put the E. coli bacteria in a big tank and the E. coli start to duplicate, and they make all this insulin. And that's how we make all the world's insulin today. It's using that biomanufacturing process. And it's how we make all of biologic drugs. All antibody drugs are made this way. It's a $300,000,000,000 year market just in biologic drugs. So when CRISPR kinda came about, in 2012. Suddenly, the toolkit to go in and do a much better job and a much cheaper job of editing the genomes of the little microbes to make them more efficient. at making these proteins became standard. And everyone said, let's go use this new category of what's being called synthetic biology or synbio. to make all these animal proteins that we use animals to get today. So more Speaker 1 (00:53:23): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:53:23): Can I just ask a question? Is the idea that if you use recombinant DNA in this process, it would taste better and David Friedberg (00:53:29): be healthier and all this chemically identical. So it's the exact same protein as you look at Speaker 1 (00:53:34): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:53:34): I under I understand it'd be the exact same under a microscope or whatever, Would it taste the same? David Friedberg (00:53:39): Taste exact same. Totally. Exactly. So that's the whole point. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:53:42): Do we know that, or was that that was the guess? David Friedberg (00:53:45): No. We know that. It's the same protein come up. So whether you get the protein from cow where you get the protein from the Chamath Palihapitiya (00:53:50): yeast cell Speaker 1 (00:53:50): -- David Friedberg (00:53:50): So what's the issue? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:53:51): It's too Jason Calacanis (00:53:51): expensive to do this process because Speaker 1 (00:53:53): -- David Friedberg (00:53:53): So the key metric in that second category is Productivity grams per liter per day. How well can you get that little microorganism to make that protein? The more protein it makes per day, the cheaper the price per protein, and we're still a a far ways off from getting this to be price competitive. So that's a a a a a challenge category right now. There's a lot of I'm I'm invested in a couple of companies in this space. We're we're trying to make it faster and cheaper to do that grain engineering to edit the genome upfront and make them make those little cells more productive to bring the price per gram down. and hopefully make it compete ultimately with the traditional market for eggs, cheese, milk, etcetera. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:54:29): But what is the constraint? Is it an energy constraint or isn't natural biological incapability in it? David Friedberg (00:54:35): No. So the the great thing is on a first principles basis, the biophysics indicates that this should make proteins cheaper, and that is good for the planet. It's good for human health. It's good for everything. We should be able to make eggs, cheese, milk, all this stuff exactly the same as what you get from an animal without the animal because the biophysics of a single cell making it is better than the biophysics of a whole animal. Think about a chicken. It grows feathers. It clocks. It walks around. It has energy. It heat. So the the chicken as a system is not that energy efficient. But a little cell that just eats sugar and it's programmed to do one thing and one thing only. Each sugar make protein. Each sugar make protein and spit as much of it out. You theoretically can make it way more efficient. Exactly. Now we're making great progress but we're not there yet. We're not a commodity price point. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:55:18): Why? I'm trying to ask why. Where's the failure point? David Friedberg (00:55:20): There's 2 failure points. Sorry. I should I should say there's 3. The first is strain engineering, which is you wanna shuffle all the other genes in the organism to stop doing things like growing a bigger cell wall, or, you know, taking your time to duplicate, you wanna change the genome of the cell to get it to do stuff faster. The 2nd stage is process engineering. When you put that cell in a tank, You're changing the sugar, the methanol, the c Speaker 1 (00:55:43): 02, David Friedberg (00:55:43): the oxygen, the pH, everything about that tank and the condition of the tank has to be adjusted. So there's about 60 variables. and those 60 variables all need to be tuned and tweaked before you optimize the performance of production. The 3rd category is the hardest, which is scale manufacturing. There's about a Speaker 1 (00:55:59): 100,000,000 David Friedberg (00:56:01): liters of biomanufacturing capacity on Earth today. Speaker 1 (00:56:04): 95,000,000 David Friedberg (00:56:05): liters is owned and operated by companies that use and when I say biomanufacturing capacity, I'm talking about big stainless steel tanks. You pour water. You pour sugar. You pour your your cells in. They make copies, and they make your stuff. Of that 100,000,000 leaders, 95,000,000 is owned and operated by companies. 5,000,000 is available for rent. Of that 5,000,000 leaders, Speaker 1 (00:56:24): 4,000,000 David Friedberg (00:56:25): is rented for its entire lifespan by some company, usually a biologic drug company because very little of this is being done in food today. So there's only a million leaders left to rent. And there's 200 Syn Bio Startups trying to make animal proteins, and they've all competed for this this capacity. So the capacity cost has gone up by about fourfold. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:56:41): But it sounds like the the latter Speaker 1 (00:56:44): 2, Chamath Palihapitiya (00:56:44): you can overcome with capital. But the first one is really bounded by science. David Friedberg (00:56:48): It's more engineering because what you crack is kind of what's called the tighter curve, which is grams per liter. And the more experiments you do, the higher that number goes. And so if you can increase your experimental rate. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:56:58): And the few grams that it does produce today when a normal person tastes it, they're like, yep, this tastes the same as a Speaker 1 (00:57:07): a Wagyu rib eye? David Friedberg (00:57:08): No. So remember, I'm talking about proteins right now. I'm not talking about cellular meat. I wanna talk about cellular meat last. which is the hardest category, which is what you're talking about. I'm talking about taking that protein and then using it to make a product like a like a cheese or, you know, using it as an egg replacement or that kind of stuff. It's the same protein as what you would get from eggs or milk or what have you. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:57:27): This all just sounds so hard David Friedberg (00:57:29): world's a big problem, and it's a lot of money. So is that a problem? Eggs alone are $200,000,000,000 a year. I mean, the methane or from cows is one of the largest contributors to global warming. It's a it's a real problem. Jason Calacanis (00:57:41): Also, we're gonna need to solve this, Jamach, if we're there's David Friedberg (00:57:43): a lot of resource constraints. Jason Calacanis (00:57:44): We're gonna colonize Uranus. we're gonna need to get food there. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:57:47): I just asked a question. Like, if you if you go after the high emission categories first, do you give yourself room to leave these things because you're doing so much already. David Friedberg (00:57:57): Just a question. Animal Agriculture emissions are 1 of the largest and, unfortunately, one of the big drivers, because as people's GDP per capita increments, the first thing they spend money on is personal. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:58:08): I get it. I'm saying something different, which is if we just invented better heat pumps You'd have industrial heating and cooling, which represents like almost a third of all greenhouse gas emissions. You get that off. And you give yourself a lot of time and space and room and maybe you'd let the cows roam and belch and burp because the meat just taste better and you don't have to spend a bunch of time and effort. David Friedberg (00:58:28): I don't think it's an or. I think it's an enchima I think we should be doing all these things. And I think that I I'm a big believer as you guys know in markets. So I'm not a believer in transition for the sake of, you know, carbon saving because people aren't gonna pay a premium as we've seen with the kind of alternative meat market. Speaker 1 (00:58:45): $15 Jason Calacanis (00:58:46): sub par hamburgers are not worth it. Speaker 1 (00:58:48): -- David Friedberg (00:58:48): want cheaper, cheaper, cheaper. So if you can make proteins cheaper, it's also a great ROI. You can make money doing this. and the market will buy it because it's cheaper protein. Have you had Jason Calacanis (00:58:57): so -- Sorry. David Friedberg (00:58:58): Look. I just wanna I just wanna hit on this because we Chamath Palihapitiya (00:59:00): keep -- Okay. Speaker 1 (00:59:00): -- David Friedberg (00:59:00): sidetrack a little bit. The 3rd category is the one that the article was about, which cellular meat. So cellular meat is where you're trying to make your wagyu or your shrimp or your fish. You're trying to make cells, not just proteins, but entire cells, And those cells stick together, and they look and cook and feel and taste like cellular meat, like like muscle, like what you eat when you eat fish or or beef or whatever. And the problem there is you're trying to take a cell and cells normally grow on, you know, bones and on tissue, and so there's scaffolding and all these systems that hold all the cells together. And so to get cells to grow in a tank and stick together and replicate without other cells signaling them, turns out to be really expensive. There was an executive at Merck I spoke to a few months ago. And he said, we're gonna sell fetal bovine syrup, which is basically like this liquid that they get from the fetuses of cows. And this is how cellular meat started. They took a cell from a cow, and they put in a tank with fetal bovine serum, and the cells started to replicate and duplicate. And then they could take those cells and try and turn them into a beef, into a burger, and sell it, or or try it. That was the $1,000,000 burger if you remember that a couple years ago. And fetal bovine serum market has gone through the roof because so many companies are trying to make cellular meat. And the Merck exec was like, we're gonna sell a $1,000,000,000 of fetal bovine serum, and then we're gonna sell 0. no one's gonna be able to make money doing this. It's just impossible. You're not gonna sell $500 burgers. So the technical challenge there is you have to edit the cells to get them to duplicate You have to get them to grow in suspension, meaning in a tank instead of growing on bones and growing next to each other and scaffolding. And then you have to change the feedstock so that you're creating all these other proteins and signaling factors and hormones that you pour into the tank that trigger those cells to grow. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:00:39): Is there any chance that after all this, it's it actually just tastes slightly different or better? David Friedberg (01:00:44): It may. Yeah. It may, but likely not. I mean, let's be honest. These are You're taking a a cow cell or a or a salmon cell Speaker 1 (01:00:51): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (01:00:51): No. The reason I say this is that David Friedberg (01:00:53): I don't know if you Chamath Palihapitiya (01:00:53): I mean, you don't eat meat, so maybe you don't know this. But depending on where the water that they drink, the actual grass that they eat, the meat does taste different. And that's part of the Speaker 1 (01:01:05): -- David Sacks (01:01:06): Whether the cow is massaged, Chamath Palihapitiya (01:01:08): I mean, look at the acorn fed cows that beef that we used to have at poker. Jason Calacanis (01:01:13): Before our sturdy measures, life was so good in Speaker 1 (01:01:15): 2021. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:01:16): Well, that's that no. We can't get it anymore. Jason Calacanis (01:01:19): Yeah. I know. We're on a budget. I get it. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:01:21): No. Not us. We can't get it anymore because they sell it through one channel. But, yeah, like, I think the base is so good. Yeah. David Friedberg (01:01:28): The variation you're talking about is is obviously at a at an echelon and a class of eating Chamath. It's probably not mainstay. Like, you know, the $30,000 a year McDonald's burger and chicken nugget eater is probably happy to take a burger with -- I disagree with you. Chicken nugget that Chamath Palihapitiya (01:01:42): tastes good. I disagree with you because if you go into Whole Foods and you to buy like a USDA top sirloin, there's a certain taste that it has that things that are not USDA don't have. So even even at, like, the most basic layer of the food pyramid, you can differentiate on taste based on the same this is why I'm saying, I think it's just a very complicated, long drawn out process, and I just wonder if the people that are in these businesses, if they actually love food or not. I understand why they love the science. I get it. and why they would love to save the planet. I get that too. But unless some of these people are also food lovers, they're gonna miss, I think, the thing where it all dies anyway. David Friedberg (01:02:20): just wanna restate again for the final time. These are these are identical cells and identical proteins to what you're getting from the animal. So they are not, like, we talked about in that first category where you're trying to get other stuff to sort a taste like meat, you're literally trying to create the meat and create the protein using these systems. Jason Calacanis (01:02:41): And I'm Chamath Palihapitiya (01:02:41): I'm just trying to tell you that salmon two pieces of salmon can taste totally different depending on where it's swam. David Friedberg (01:02:46): Right. I and I guess what I could say is Speaker 1 (01:02:48): -- David Friedberg (01:02:48): Same protein. Yeah. You could probably adjust the conditions in the tank if needed to change the the the characteristic. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:02:54): This is my point. Like, you don't even know where to start. How? Is it the fucking kelp in the Atlantic Ocean? Like, what are you changing? David Friedberg (01:03:00): Look. I don't know what kelp effects on the salmon. I don't know if salmon Speaker 1 (01:03:04): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (01:03:04): But this is my point. Nobody does. Speaker 1 (01:03:06): -- David Friedberg (01:03:06): Atlantic Ocean. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:03:07): This is why we pay so much for the acorn fed beef. David Friedberg (01:03:09): I get it, but most beef is not Kelp from the Atlantic Ocean fed salmon. It's animals grown in very large feedlots fed corn and water. That's it. Let me just say that again. Speaker 1 (01:03:19): 90%, 95% David Friedberg (01:03:21): of animal protein consumed is cows, pigs, and chickens grown in feedlots fed corn and soybeans and water and that's it. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:03:29): Right? But if you if you go to different countries and taste the meat that's fed in that exact same way, it tastes different. for example, if you go to Argentina, the most beautiful thing Speaker 1 (01:03:37): -- David Friedberg (01:03:37): I I appreciate what you're saying. But the point I'm trying to make is you can recreate whatever the system is that you're talking about. So I wanna just get back to the unit economics. The cost per kilogram or the pot cost per gram of the protein, we are still many orders of magnitude away on cellular meat. So the problems you're laying out are really down the road problems of optimization. Right now, we've got more fundamental problems on how do you actually get this stuff to be cost competitive. Now fortunately, the Hools of CRISPR. And since CRISPR Cas9 came out 10 years ago, there are now hundreds of variants that are open source, IP free, royalty free, and used very broadly and generally, and DNA sequencing costs continue to decline. Those are the 2 basic tools that are being used by biochemists and engineers to do rapid Evolutionary iteration needed to produce the recombinant production of proteins to produce the new cells, to produce the feedstock for those tanks, And there's a cost curve that we're trying to get over. It's not happening overnight. 100 of 1,000,000 of dollars, and in several cases, 1,000,000,000 of dollars have gone into these systems, And it's very likely that these companies may need several more years and several $1,000,000,000. We are gonna get there. The technology is progressing. The rate of progress is a little slower it's a little more challenged, I think, than the first round of investors had hoped. But I do think that, scientifically, in 1st principles, it is absolutely feasible It's a function of engineering our way there. To giving Chamath and everyone else that eats burgers and chicken nuggets, everything that they want, hopefully, at a lower price. Jason Calacanis (01:05:01): If you put it on the curve of self driving cars. You know, we have crews doing some automated taxis in, like, a very constrained area in San Francisco, but we don't have it everywhere. Where do you put this on the curve David Friedberg (01:05:12): that's issuing? Great question. So so what's happened, by the way, as we've gotten down the cost curve, we are unlocking new markets. So new products are being produced existing proteins that are come from animals. So it's a good example of a product called Pepsi. It's it's extracted from pigs today. It's very expensive, similar to how we used to make insulin. And we're replacing the sourcing of that product. We replaced insulin, which we used to get from pig spleens. We now make it recombinantly. We're now replacing Pepsen. We're replacing the the rennet that's used to make cheese. So as we move down the Costco of these high what are called high value proteins are the first to fall. Those markets collapse because we now make them recombinantly. They were sorry. They collapse in price. because they're now cheaper using recombinant systems instead of taking them from animals. And eventually, we'll get to that cost curve where they're ubiquitous for all proteins. or for all types of cells. In the meantime, they're pretty sizable markets to go after. These are multibillion dollar markets that are getting knocked down. We don't talk about it every day. It doesn't show up in the news. But it's really profound and interesting to see that this technology is working. It's overturning multi $1,000,000,000 markets. It's making progress. And, you know, hopefully, it'll it'll get to the point that, you know, everything from the chicken nugget to the kelp fed salmon can Speaker 1 (01:06:25): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (01:06:25): Have you guys tried a beyond burger or an impossible burger? Jason Calacanis (01:06:29): I've had it. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:06:29): I've tried them a long time ago, but I've not tried them recently. Jason Calacanis (01:06:33): They're like it's like eating something mushy that's 60% of average hamburger, it's not worth paying double for, certainly, for somebody who's a hamburger eater. So while we were talking, by the way, Amazon's results came out. They crushed it. Earnings per share of 31¢. versus 11. And stock is up Speaker 1 (01:06:57): -- -- 10%. 10% Jason Calacanis (01:06:59): off hours, and it was up 4% today. for the insider traders who makes sense. David Friedberg (01:07:04): How do you feel about your recession prediction? David Sacks (01:07:07): I'm sticking by it. I think we're still gonna have a recession. But it is an interesting paradox here. So I think there's only a couple possibilities. Either tech is sort of immune or they forecast down so much They were so conservative in their forecast thinking, we're gonna be in a recession that it was easy to beat. Or look, I could be wrong about the recession, but Powell is saying it. And Powell is saying if it's not a recession, it's gonna be less than 1% growth. It's gonna be a rounding error to recession. Jason Calacanis (01:07:35): So He's not credible. David Sacks (01:07:37): So I'm not revising my forecast. Well, I I think Powell is credible when he's giving us bad news because their incentive is always to fluff it up and make it better than it is. So when he's telling you things look bad, maybe they're looking really bad. Jason Calacanis (01:07:52): I don't know, man. David Sacks (01:07:53): But it look. It's at Taylor Two Cities right now. I mean, the Big Tex companies seem to be doing really well. So it's it's definitely a paradox. Jason Calacanis (01:08:01): Yeah. Alright, everybody. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:08:02): Well, David Sacks (01:08:02): the whole RFK thing. David Friedberg (01:08:04): Okay. That's a good topic. Yeah. Great topic. Jason Calacanis (01:08:06): Go ahead. David Sacks (01:08:07): I think we should tell people, like, what he's about. Jason Calacanis (01:08:10): Where are all yours? David Sacks (01:08:10): I think he gave a terrific announcement speech. Jason Calacanis (01:08:13): k. David Sacks (01:08:13): And just to give you some background for the younger viewers who may not know So Robert F Kennedy his father ran for the democratic nomination in 1968 after his brother, John F Kennedy had been president and sasinated as we know in the early 19 sixties. What happened is, at this time, before the 1968 election, Lyndon B Johnson was the incumbent Democratic president. And everyone thought that he'd be the party's nominee, and he was gonna get reelected. And he was brought down by an extremely unpopular war, the Vietnam war. And it was RFK Junior's father who who was a great critic of the Vietnam War, and he ran for the Democratic nomination. And I think he very likely would have gotten it. On the night that he won the California primary, he was assassinated. By sir Hanran, Yeah. If you go back and look at the things that he was saying in that campaign, he really was saying a lot of beautiful things that are in his son's add that I think would be worth playing here. But I I think you have maybe the setup for a similar situation here. You've got an incumbent Democratic president, who is sort of not that popular. He's sort of old and out of it and incoherent. He's presiding over a war that is rapidly becoming a debacle You don't hear so much about the spring counter offensive anymore. These new Pentagon papers that were leaked show that the Ukrainian casualties t's are at least five times greater than they've been publicly admitting. It looks like Russia is certainly not losing the war the way they used to be. They've captured 90% Bak Mohit, which has been the most violent bloody battle of the war. And Biden, at this point, has no strategy to bring that to an end. In fact, he's rejected multiple attempts at a peace deal. And so now it looks like it's the Chinese who are in the driver's seat, potentially putting together some sort of automatic settlement. So I think, listen, if the economy ends up going into recession and this war ends up becoming the fiasco that it's increasingly looking like, you could have a setup like 1968. David Sacks (01:10:07): where people are wondering why the hell is this guy our nominee? And let me tell you, RFK Junior is already polling at 19%, which I think is pretty good considering he just came out of the gate, and people don't even know the substance of his campaign yet. Marion Williamson's at 9%. So if she dropped out, you'd be at 28% for the alternative. And I think he could go up from here. And I think if you if you watched the speech he gave, I thought there was a lot of really Beautiful sentiments in there. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:10:35): It's very good. David Sacks (01:10:36): He said that Biden is made Ukraine a pawn in a geopolitical battle that has put the flower of Ukraine's youth into an avatar of death in order to exhaust Russia. He channeled America's anti war traditions. He quoted John Quincy Adams, that America should not go abroad in search of monsters to Troy. He quoted Martin Luther King Junior. There is a direct link between poverty and violence and oppression at home and war abroad. He talked about the role of CIA during his uncle's administration where he said that, John F Kennedy eventually realized that the purpose the CIA had become to create a steady pipeline of wars to feed the military industrial complex And he talks about how JFK came to distrust the CIA and realized that it was lying to him. And the biggest applause line of his speech was when he quoted JFK approvingly saying that he wanted to take the CIA and shattered it into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds. And this very same week that he gave the speech, we found out that 5 former CIA directors had participated in a giant hoax on the American people by claiming that this Hunter Biden story was Russian disinformation. They knew it was not. They knew it was not. The information on the hard drive was real. It showed that Hunter Biden received multimillion dollar payments from foreign governments, including China and Ukraine. Okay? And regardless of what you think of that story, it should not have been suppressed by social media, and it certainly should not have been suppressed in a psyop by 51 former intelligence officials, including 5 former directors of the CIA. And if that's the way they're gonna behave, if they're gonna meddle in American politics that way, I think we do need to start over. We do need to ask what's going on with the security state. They're not supposed to be meddling in American politics that way. So I think if this is the way they're gonna act, I say shatter away. Scatter that thing into a thousand pieces. Jason Calacanis (01:12:31): Hey. It's Catholic. I'll vote for him. David Sacks (01:12:34): and he's called out the insanity of COVID lockdowns and mandates. Jason Calacanis (01:12:39): That's the thing that he's I I guess that's the big controversy is his anti he's an anti vaxxer. I guess that's the the one thing they're trying to position him as Speaker 1 (01:12:47): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (01:12:47): And he does a David Friedberg (01:12:48): little bit of conspiracy theories. Perfect. Speaker 1 (01:12:50): -- David Sacks (01:12:51): women. so listen. If you go back and look at his record, he was an environmental activist for most of his career. Jason Calacanis (01:12:55): He did the worship project in New York where they they basically bought the land along the Hudson. I remember I've had some events for it. They wanted to clean the Hudson up, and they just bought the land and didn't people donated the land and they bought it. They raised money. And the Hudson today has, like you know, it's it's it's flourishing amazingly, and he and he's directly responsible for Chamath Palihapitiya (01:13:16): that. David Sacks (01:13:16): He was a big critic the way that corporate greed could lead certain big companies to engage in environmental pollution. And at a certain point, he realized that Big Pharma had a similar incentive. Now I don't know if he is right about those vaccines, but I do know that he's right in the case of COVID. They had an incentive to push this dubious r m r and a shot on us so that we get boosted a zillion times. And he's right about that. He was right about the fact that this should never have been mandated. We shouldn't have the lockdowns. And you know what? In his nomination speech, or his declaration, the word vaccine was only mentioned once. So this is not what his campaign is about. Jason Calacanis (01:13:50): He'll look forward to having him on. Yeah. David Sacks (01:13:53): And and to be honest, I mean, look at all the other things that were deemed to be conspiracy theories. That ended up being true. Jason Calacanis (01:13:58): Oh, yeah. Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:13:59): I mean, listen. It's monster. David Sacks (01:14:01): Not that. David Friedberg (01:14:02): It could go either way. Jason Calacanis (01:14:03): It could be another server where it could be embarrassing. Let me ask you this, Sax. If it was him versus Trump, what do you vote for? David Sacks (01:14:09): Well, I'm gonna I'm gonna reserve Speaker 1 (01:14:10): -- -- Jason Calacanis (01:14:11): k versus from sex. David Sacks (01:14:13): I'm not gonna pay position on the general yet, but but in in the democratic primary, I'm definitely endorsing RfK Junior in the Democratic primary. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:14:22): Okay. I voted the Democratic primary. David Sacks (01:14:24): I will. Jason Calacanis (01:14:25): I I David Sacks (01:14:25): would if I could. I'll do an event frame. Jason Calacanis (01:14:27): Alright, everybody. And to all the amazing people who got together for the episode Speaker 1 (01:14:31): 125. Jason Calacanis (01:14:32): Unbelievable. Over 40 or 50 of them, Ray. Great job. David Friedberg (01:14:36): Shout out to Ray. Jason Calacanis (01:14:37): Shout out to Ray. David Friedberg (01:14:38): I dialed into a bunch of them in, I think Jason Calacanis (01:14:41): Oh, it's great. David Friedberg (01:14:42): Europe and don't know, all over the place. David Sacks (01:14:44): No one got robbed or mugged or bear spray. David Friedberg (01:14:46): Hopefully, I Jason Calacanis (01:14:47): don't know if they did any in San Francisco. There's no bear spraying since that's good. David Friedberg (01:14:51): Made a big turn up. Speaker 1 (01:14:52): 27 Jason Calacanis (01:14:52): Marina. Alright. 4 of the Sultan of Science, the dictator himself, and the David Friedberg (01:15:01): Mowth field. Mowth field. Jason Calacanis (01:15:04): And -- Rain now. I am the world's greatest moderator see you next time, everybody. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:15:09): Love you boys. Bye bye. Jason Calacanis (01:15:10): Bye bye. David Sacks (01:15:12): We'll let your winners ride. Rainman Chamath Palihapitiya (01:15:16): David Saxon. David Sacks (01:15:19): And I said -- We open source it Chamath Palihapitiya (01:15:21): to the fans, and they've just gone crazy like that. Love you. besties David Sacks (01:15:28): are Chamath Palihapitiya (01:15:30): gone. my dog taking it. I was in your driveway. We should all just get a room and just have one big huge ordeal because they're all just useless. It's like it's like sexual tension that they just need to release that mountain. What? David Friedberg (01:15:51): You're a thief. David Sacks (01:15:53): What? Where did Jason Calacanis (01:15:56): you get Murphy's r