谷歌入局 AI 大战、德鲁肯米勒的警告、特朗普碾压 CNN

Jason Calacanis (00:00:00): Alright, everybody. Welcome to the All in podcast. Lots to talk about. But right off the bat, congratulations to David Friedberg, who is The chairperson of the all in summit 2023 on the big announcement. We're gonna be having the all in summit September 10th to 12th at Royce Hall at UCLA in Los Angeles, California. Tickets are now on sale and selling out quick Friedberg, maybe you can just give people a little overview of why you selected the location and what you hope to accomplish in terms of the programming. Just broad stroke and then we'll get right into the show. David Friedberg (00:00:36): I think the general headline is today and tomorrow where we where we headed. I think exploring the state of the world and interesting things that we're uniquely or that we're all kind of excited about in the future, and we wanna have great conversations with candid people that can give us kind of you know, they're very honest on the ground points of view on everything from technology and markets, macro, science, society, and culture. So we're gonna talk across all those different topic areas. And similar to what we did last year, the four of us on stage having conversations with these folks. So pretty excited. I think LA is a great location. There's obviously availability for people to stay. There's great venues for us to do the evening events, and it's certainly super accessible for folks from all over the world. Jason Calacanis (00:01:27): And we decided this year to have 3 tiers of tickets. We'll have the VIP tickets. we'll have scholarships for people who fill out a form so we can, you know, have really great diversity and representation at the event and up and comers, maybe who couldn't afford the VIP ticket. But in between, you decided to have a standard ticket Chamath Palihapitiya (00:01:47): as well. That's just Jason Calacanis (00:01:47): 1500 bucks. And there'll be a VIP lounge this year for the VIP tickets and -- David Friedberg (00:01:54): An early access to the theater and a and a couple of special dinner parties. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:01:57): Motors my wine budget so that I can take care of the VIPs properly. David Friedberg (00:02:02): Talk about that one later. Jason Calacanis (00:02:03): Don't be fucking cheap, Chamath Palihapitiya (00:02:04): you guys, What is my wine budget? Let me treat the VIPs like the VIPs that they are. Jason Calacanis (00:02:08): What would you need per night? Per dinner per person. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:02:12): depends on how many people per person. Jason Calacanis (00:02:13): So just say per person per night. Is it, like, $200 a person, a $100 per person per night? because a person drinks a half a bottle of wine, two, three glasses, Yeah. Like, you know, 3 to 500. David Friedberg (00:02:26): Maybe a Jason Calacanis (00:02:27): 1000. David Sacks (00:02:28): What is the truffle budget for the conference Jason Calacanis (00:02:30): The truffle budget? No. It's too early for truffles. We can only have David Sacks (00:02:33): black truffles. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:02:34): Now it's, like, September. Jason Calacanis (00:02:36): Yep. It's between white and black truffle season. It's a dead zone. You don't wanna be in that. You gotta either wait till the winter or you gotta enjoy the early summer. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:02:44): We have to have a conference in early November. At that point, we can focus the entire VIP budget if it were recording to me would be spent on white truffles and white Jason Calacanis (00:02:52): boots. Wow. winners wide. Rainman, David Sacker. And I said -- We opened Alright, everybody. Let's get started. Shamalpajapatias with us as well, the dictator himself, and David Saxx, the rain man Yeah. Google had their IO event. They announced Palm Two. Google's language model is gonna power 25 products. including Bard, which has got coding capabilities now, I guess, to go up against GitHub copilot. pump 2 will have improved multi linguality. David Sacks (00:03:35): Wait. What? Jason Calacanis (00:03:36): Across a 100 languages. David Sacks (00:03:37): Wola? Multi what? Jason Calacanis (00:03:40): It's gonna support a 100 languages, and it's gonna be better at mathematics and reasoning. They also announced duet AI, which is basically Google Suite of general AI tools or doc sheets, drive, all that kind of stuff. kinda like a copy of Microsoft's Copilot tools that Saks has talked about a whole bunch, the guide on the side, if you will. They teased a future where AI can summarize docs, which Box AI, Aaron Levy is doing. They also previewed proactive prompts in the sidebar of Google Docs. And I talked about that a whole bunch on the swing start ups. They're gonna also now add images and replies. David Friedberg (00:04:18): Have you guys used BART in the last 24 hours? Jason Calacanis (00:04:20): I used it last week. Not in the last 24 hours. David Friedberg (00:04:23): I think you guys should use it. We should talk about it. It's really impressive. I it's better than Chamath GPT at this point from my experience on talk going through a number of things because it's actually connected live to the Internet. It's connected live to search. It can pull down real time data for you. It can do real Internet searches for you and just give you the results. it's extremely powerful. I feel like it's the product that Google has been scared to do, which is the product that that can truly disrupt search. and they're doing it. So I how do I try it? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:04:56): Do I just go David Friedberg (00:04:57): to par? google.com. No access needed. No cost. Nothing. Jason Calacanis (00:05:00): Oh my god. This is great. David Friedberg (00:05:01): and seriously use it, and it does real time search, and it's a 180 languages. It converts. It generates images for you. It can generate charts, results. It's really powerful, guys. Google has strung together, I think, a lot of features, and you can look Google's market caps up a Jason Calacanis (00:05:15): $150,000,000,000 David Friedberg (00:05:17): in the last 2 days. David Sacks (00:05:18): Okay. This is pretty interesting. David Friedberg (00:05:20): And so, Saks, a lot of what Jason Calacanis (00:05:21): -- David Sacks (00:05:21): I'm comparing some results David Friedberg (00:05:23): right now. A lot of what we've been talking about with respect to plugins, and the tooling built into auto GPT, many of the most interesting kind of applications that folks have kind of demonstrated or utilized are are really kind of built into this Bard product. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:05:38): Okay. I love Bard. Can I just give you guys what I just tried? Jason Calacanis (00:05:42): Okay. Can we guess? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:05:44): Guess? Yeah. Guess. Guess. Guess. Jason Calacanis (00:05:45): Was it something about Friedberg anus? Uranus? No. It wasn't a uranium show. Okay. Then tell us Chamath Palihapitiya (00:05:52): Well, I my first question was, why is David Friedberg such a sell out? But the answer confused him with an actor. So let's forget that. My second question was, is Jason Calacanis a virtue signaler? And the answer is fantastic. Jason Calcandis is a venture capitalist and entrepreneur who has been accused of virtue signaling. VertuSignaling is the act of publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or the moral correctness of one's position on a particular issue. there are a number of reasons why people might accuse Jason Calacanis of virtuous signals. Jason Calacanis (00:06:23): Okay. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:06:24): For example, he has been willing to make public statements about his support for social justice causes, but he has also been criticized for his lack of concrete action on these issues. What? Additionally, he has been accused of using his platform to promote himself in his businesses rather than to genuinely advocate for social change. That's Ultimately, Whether or not Jason Cauquenes is a virtue signal is a matter of opinion, there is no clear consensus on this issue, and there is evidence to support both sides of the argument. However, it is important to note that virtue signaling can be a harmful practice as it can lead to people becoming desensitized to real social problems and make it more difficult to address them effectively. Jason Calacanis (00:07:04): -- some woke shit. Wait. You see what I just did? You're mine. I asked, Bard, is Chabot the horrible human? Here's what Bart had to say. Ma'am, hollihapatia is a complex individual. They're both positive and negative qualities. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:07:21): He is Jason Calacanis (00:07:21): a successful venture capitalist and entrepreneur. But He has also been criticized for his outspoken views at his past actions. Uh-oh. Boop. Some of Poly Hopkins's policies include his intelligence, his ambition, his drive to succeed, blah blah blah blah. He's also been criticized for his arrogance to black man. He had his willingness to exploit people for his own game. This is perfect. It's the singularity. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:07:49): It's balanced. It's true. Jason Calacanis (00:07:52): It is giving you, like, the good and the bad. Oh my god. That's hilarious. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:07:55): This is this is a very fair answer. Jason Calacanis (00:07:59): Ultimately -- I'm a complex individual. -- half a chance of horrible as a matter of opinion. I love it. I asked it, where is the this is gonna really show you the power of this. Where is the all in summit 2023 being held and how much are tickets? So, like, two questions that are deep on the website. And it says there are 2 all in summits. Yeah. That's incredible. That's an advertising association. That's incredible. And then it says the all in Summit 23 will be held September 10th at 11, 2023 at Roy's Hall. Tickets are 1500 for general mission 75100 for VIP. That's insane. David Friedberg (00:08:32): That's insane. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:08:32): Wait. So, Freeport, what are the key differences between Barden and Chamath GPT just because you've used it? David Friedberg (00:08:38): On the modeling side, they're claiming a much larger, more robust model. It's linked to the to the Internet, so it's linked to live search, which you can't do with chatgpt, which is based on a static training dataset. So BART can actually engage with dynamic content and a dynamic content generated across the web. And then it's integrated with a number of Google services that basically can take certain live feeds of data like flights and stock prices and so on. It's free. You don't need to be charged for for over usage. You don't need to sign up and get access. It's It's just available to anyone. I mean, I think this is the game changer everyone is hoping for Chamath Palihapitiya (00:09:15): for Google. I just I just asked, did Stan Druckett Miller buy NVIDIA recently? So it wasn't able to find the transcript of this thing but it did find the 13f and it says yes according to his 13f of the fourth quarter of 22 stand purchased a Jason Calacanis (00:09:32): 582,915 Chamath Palihapitiya (00:09:34): shares of NVIDIA. David Friedberg (00:09:35): Yeah. Isn't that, Craig? I just said, what was Google's restructuring expense incurred in q12023? And it says According to Google's 2023 q 1 earnings report, the company incurred restructuring expense of 1,600,000,000, including the decision to lay off 12,000 employees. They were part of a broader restructuring. I mean, that wasn't it was it basically parsed through the press release, parsed through the q one data. It's really pretty impressive. I mean, what do you guys think? Jason Calacanis (00:10:00): Like, well, just for a Chamath Palihapitiya (00:10:02): couple hours. Yeah. Jason Calacanis (00:10:03): David Sacks. What does David Sacks think about Hunter Biden? Everybody on the all in pod knows. But let's see what Bard knows. He's not publicly competent on Hunter Biden. However, he has been critical of the Biden family business dealings in Ukraine In the 2019 interview, Saks said that he was deeply troubled by the Biden's involvement in Ukraine -- 2019. -- that he believed it was a conflict of interest for Hunter Biden to serve on the board of Arisma. That's pretty interesting. I don't know. David Sacks (00:10:29): That's clearly inaccurate. I mean, I wasn't talking about it. But yeah. In 2019, think about that. That's Oh, David Friedberg (00:10:34): yeah. I David Sacks (00:10:34): started to respond. Jason Calacanis (00:10:36): Yeah. So the question is, where is he getting these quotes? And then why doesn't it give citations? David Sacks (00:10:41): Well, also, wait. Saks has been a critical that Trump administration's use of honor Biden's business dealings as a political weapon. Jason Calacanis (00:10:47): Yeah. That's not true. You've never criticized the Trump administration. David Sacks (00:10:50): Those quotes are wrong. Those quotes are definitely wrong. David Friedberg (00:10:53): I just said to it, can you access and and think about this this the dataset, and this is where Google has unique advantages. I said, can you access the YouTube transcript data? And it says, yes. Bard integrates YouTube transcript data. I said, do you have access to transcript data from the LN podcast Chamath. It says, yes. I do have access to the transcript data from the online podcast channel. I said, can you access this data, answer some questions? And now what did Saks say about Hunter Biden in that show. And so -- Mhmm. Jason Calacanis (00:11:22): -- I would guess so think about -- Does it change the answer? David Sacks (00:11:29): Yes. for implying this to be very inaccurate. David Friedberg (00:11:32): Yes. So David Sachs appeared. He said he believes Hunter Biden is a deeply troubled individual who's made a lot of bad decisions. He also said that he believes Hunter Biden's business dealings in Ukraine were highly unethical and that he believes it's impossible that you'll this is transcript data from the pod. However, Saks also said that he does not believe that Hunter Biden's business dealings are a quote smoking gun that proves that Joe Biden engaged in any wrongdoing. He said that he believes that the evidence against Joe Biden or quote, circumstantial is quote, circumstantial, and that he does not believe that there is enough evidence to impeach him. Sachs's comments about Hunter Biden were met with mixed reactions. Some people agree. And on and on and on. David Sacks (00:12:05): I think it's very inaccurate, to be honest. Jason Calacanis (00:12:07): Yeah. That's not a good that's not good. -- some of my stuff mixed in. David Sacks (00:12:10): It's got some of your stuff mixed in, but it also it's like it's summarizing in a way that neither of us actually said it. David Friedberg (00:12:16): Yeah. David Sacks (00:12:16): And they're missing the key points about what I did say. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:12:19): I I asked a pretty complicated question here. And I think it did a pretty decent job. I said, I would like to fly Le Premier on Air France from the West Coast to Europe. Where should I depart? And it got it perfectly LAX, SFO, and Seattle Tacoma. David Friedberg (00:12:37): Oh, yeah. I just asked it to get me the fastest route to Portofino, and it it gave me the exact flight I should take from SFO, how much the ticket is, and then train, I should take Chamath Palihapitiya (00:12:47): the shortest meaning the shortest Jason Calacanis (00:12:49): -- -- David Friedberg (00:12:49): shortest time. Yeah. because I don't wanna do a layover in Germany. It's like fly to Milan, take the train, and it gave me the full schedule. which, by the way, Google flights can't do because you go to Google flights, and all it does is give you the flight data. It can integrate a lot of different dataset to give you these answers. Did you say fastest route or fastest flight? What did you Fastest route. Yeah. So I don't wanna spend the least amount of time traveling. This is what my objective was. This is Jason Calacanis (00:13:10): why I was saying, David Friedberg (00:13:11): I think you guys should play with this tool a bit. it is, I think, head and shoulders above chattyBT. The model's supposedly better. Obviously, other people will come out with with kind of, you know, measures of that and estimates of whether that's true, the extensibility, the integration with live data, and the integration with Google's very unique dataset is what's so powerful. that they have access to flight data that that they have integrated YouTube transcript data. It's just super powerful. Super impressive. Goddamn. David Sacks (00:13:38): Yeah. I'm using this in real time. And I do find the interface to be snappier than chatgpt, and it like you said, it doesn't need the browsing plug in in order to scrape more recent data from the Internet that it wasn't trained on. But I'm not finding the answers to be more accurate, and I'm not finding them to be more detailed. Jason Calacanis (00:13:57): I'm not seeing a reason David Sacks (00:13:58): to use this over chat EBT. I prefer chat EBT so far. I'm just telling you. Jason Calacanis (00:14:03): Okay. Well, the the recent stuff is important. David Sacks (00:14:06): Well, I mean, clearly, Chat EBTs can't have to make the browsing browsing plug in much snappier and, like, much more part of the core functionality rather than something that's like an add on. Yeah. Jason Calacanis (00:14:16): It can't be an add on. David Sacks (00:14:17): It's gotta be able to incorporate the most recent information. I did ask you some questions about the Ukraine war And then it gave me, like, a highly compressed view, and I said, please provide more detail. And then it's actually did a pretty good job expanding it, and it did it very quickly. Jason Calacanis (00:14:32): Well, if you look at the view drafting, that's always been one of its strengths. Is that a real format of 3 different ways for you by default if you go to the top right so you can just sort of cycle through them. But that that's an existing feature. David Sacks (00:14:42): I mean, I definitely wanna keep playing with this. David Friedberg (00:14:44): Play with it. It's one of the, obviously, important releases that Jason Calacanis (00:14:50): -- I thought they were gonna catch up real quick, and this seems like we got a race on our hands now. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:14:54): But I think the point you're making, Friedberg, is a good one, which is when these big companies just David Friedberg (00:14:59): get their act together, it's Chamath Palihapitiya (00:14:59): very hard to discern whether something is 80% is good or a 120% better. There's this fuzzy gray area where a lot of people can find utility in a of different products and then the one with the better distribution wins. And so if they take Bard and they have the confidence now to just integrate it into Gmail or integrated into these other points where they already have Jason Calacanis (00:15:24): 100 Chamath Palihapitiya (00:15:24): of millions of users, that's like a really tough distribution barrier to overcome. That's the next step that I think if Google really wants to win here. They have to force distribution of these tools in line to where people are. And if they do that, you're not gonna know the difference between 80 and a 100%. Someone as sophisticated as Saks may be able to. But the average person will just be like, this is good enough. David Friedberg (00:15:46): They've got Mister I mean, like, with with all products, the the kinda key advantage of distribution, that's the platform advantage. Jason Calacanis (00:15:52): Can David Sacks (00:15:52): I show you an answer? I think it's, like, super hallucinating on. So I asked it, what is David Saxerin about SAS? And then it says, I'm a venture capitalist entrepreneur who's written extensively about SAS. He's the founder of Yammer. Okay. That's true. But then it says he's also the cofounder of WeWork. Not true. Jason Calacanis (00:16:08): Didn't know that. David Sacks (00:16:08): Then it says Saks -- Congrats. Jason Calacanis (00:16:10): -- David Sacks (00:16:10): says Saks has written a number of articles about SaaS including. And then All five of those articles were not written by me. It's basically like hallucinating, like, really strongly. Wow. So there's significant who was stationed here. Jason Calacanis (00:16:26): Oh, you know what? Bard is at the after party for Google IO right now, and it's had too much to drink. So it's just straight up drunk. This is why Google didn't wanna release this. Right? Friedberg? Like, they don't want the Google brand associated with these hallucinations, whereas -- That's right. -- nobody cares what OpenEdge brand. David Friedberg (00:16:43): This was a big part of the innovator's dilemma that Google Faye which was number 1, it could be disruptive to the core business. Number 2, it exposes them to regulatory scrutiny. And number 3, is if they make mistakes, they're gonna get more scrutinized than some, you know, rinky dinky start up where everyone's so forgiving. But it's great to see look. I mean, as a shareholder, it's great to see them take this risk. It's great to see them put this out there. They've now released robust coding capabilities. They've integrated scientific research papers. Obviously, they're gonna continue to improve model performance, improve integration with these data feeds. And they have a very large head count. I think north of 10,000 people working 10,000 smart people So if you can organize those people and they've got this significantly advantaged infrastructure, they have a real shot at being a platform player here. The question later is gonna be how much is this gonna disrupt core search revenue? You know, what categories of search revenue are gonna get disrupted? And, you know, are they gonna make that up in other ways? And I think time will tell there. But I think this is the progress that shareholders and investors were looking to see with respect to the product competition in AI, and certainly some shareholders still wanna see continued improvements on the cost structure of the business, but that's a separate topic. But this was exactly, I think, it really hit the bull's eye on what people were looking for. David Sacks (00:18:08): I don't see how it's a bull's eye look at this. So I just I just asked it. Can you give me a complete list of all the articles on SaaS attacks over the last 3 years? So now at least it's over the target. Those 5 articles and mentions are correct. David Friedberg (00:18:21): Does Chat GT do that? David Sacks (00:18:22): Well, no. Because of the browsing plug in. David Friedberg (00:18:24): Right. Jason Calacanis (00:18:24): But David Sacks (00:18:25): I'm just saying, like, they got a lot of work to do here on quality. Jason Calacanis (00:18:28): Yeah. They all do. David Sacks (00:18:29): But it is snappy, and I finally got to these 5 articles being correct. Jason Calacanis (00:18:33): AI regulation, we talked about it 5 weeks ago on the show, I think. Well, there's been some movement there. Vice President Harris met with CEOs of Alphabet, Microsoft, OpenAI. So that's Sundar, Satya. And Sam, discuss implementing AI safeguards. And then on Tuesday, Sam Altman was interviewed by Patrick Colson, the CEO of Stripe, and he endorsed the idea of IAEA for AI. That's the International Atomic Energy see. So is that hyperbolic, delusions of grandeur, or right on target your move? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:19:11): Well, the interesting thing about the IAEA is that what I learned recently from the CEO of Planet Labs, Will Marshall, is that the predecessor organization to validate EA is really this organization called Pugwash. And what that was Einstein and Bertrand Russell in the fifties post Hirasima and Nagasaki bringing together academics to basically create a way to think about nuclear disarmament going forward just because they all saw the Chamath. and there was a large framework that set up the current denuclearization treaties. And then the IAEA was set up after that. And so I think that there's a thread here, which is basically what he's saying is there's something around nuclear disarmament that is very similar to AI, both in terms of its potential, but obviously in terms of its risks. And so there's like a whole monitoring framework There's a know your customer kind of framework. These are not unfettered things that can just live openly in the wild. So I think it's interesting to acknowledge that Sam who's deep in the bowels of one of the most important companies sees both its potential, but it's danger enough to say that this is how we should think about it like nuclear weapons. I think is a very important Hink to acknowledge. Jason Calacanis (00:20:34): And the White House pledged to release draft guidelines for AI safeguards that the National Science Foundation plans to spend a 140,000,000 on. at AI focused research centers. FTC chair, Lina Khan, wrote a guest essay in New York Times calling for AI regulation. due to large scale risks including monopoly consolidation, fraud, extortion, and bias. Any thoughts there Sachs about adding regulation to the mix right now? Are we chopping the gun here and gonna smother this thing before it even gets correct answers? David Sacks (00:21:07): serious risk. And the White House also announced that Kamala Harris would be the AI czar for this issue, which I don't think inspires anyone confidence that they're gonna, you know, get this right. Look, my concern here is I think we should have conversations about the risk of AI. We should be thinking about that. I think people in the industry needs to be thinking about what guardrails can be put on it. I think Elon's raised. I think long term concerns about whether this could lead to AGI. You basically create a superintelligence so you can't control. I think people in the industry haven't really figured out how to address that. That problem is called alignment, and everyone's trying to figure out how do you even make alignment Is that theoretically possible? So there are real and valid concerns. Jake, how you've raised the issue at DeepFakes. I think provenance of data is gonna be a real issue. people committing fraud or, you know, other kinds of criminal acts using it. So there are real concerns. But the problem is that we have no idea how to regulate this yet. And -- Yeah. And the fact that Kamala Harris is the AI's are now, again, disappoints the fact that nobody has a good idea of what this is supposed to be or who the expert is supposed to be, And this idea of creating an atomic energy commission look. I I can see why Sam and other industry leaders might want that because they're gonna quickly develop relationships. The the biggest AI companies which now includes OpenAI, which has the backing of Microsoft and Google. And the biggest of the big tech companies, they have all the lobbyists in Washington. They have all the political connections. They're the ones who are huge donors, and they have political relationships, and they're gonna help construct the regulations. And it's gonna turn into another example of industry capture just like Dorffier Junior told us about on the show last week when he talked about how the big weapons companies influence our foreign policy, the way that the big pharma companies influence the FDA and so on. We're gonna end up in a situation in which the big tech companies have inordinate influence over this new regulatory agency. David Sacks (00:23:07): And since it's not clear what the regulatory agency is even supposed to be doing yet. They're gonna end up promulgating a bunch of regulations that create a buried entry for the little guy. Jason Calacanis (00:23:16): Yeah. They create a mode with regulation. David Sacks (00:23:18): Yeah. For the big guys, and they'll slow down the whole process of innovation in the space, which some people might like. But I think is really the best hope that America has to get out of its horrible fiscal situation, all this debt. We need a massive productivity boost to get out of the massive debt bubble that we're in. So what I'd hate to see is that, yeah, we we basically kills this thing in the cradle. Jason Calacanis (00:23:41): Interesting. Yes. We are in a deep pit here, and Stanley Druckenmiller gave a speech at USC. at the 37th Annual Meeting of the USC Marshall Center for Investment Studies, and he expressed concern about the financial crisis that occur could occur in the 2025 to 2030 5 period due to the baby boomers turning 65 and the impact on entitlements. He predicted that in 25 years spending on seniors will grow to 60% of all taxes. Here's a look at the chart. You can see today there, as the the vertical line. About 5% of our GDP goes to Social Security today and about another 5.5 goes to Medicare Medicaid. And it's predicting here that those combined will go from what looks like 12% today, up to 24% of GDP, your reaction. David Friedberg (00:24:37): FreeBird? I mean, my reaction is it is another very important voice stating the obvious, like the arithmetic just doesn't work. When we had RFK on last week, I prodded him on his stance and point of view on the federal deficit, the fiscal deficit this government runs, and the entitlement programs that are only gonna swell. And the debt burden, which has an interest payment obligation on it, that the interest payments are swelling. And when you do the arithmetic on all this, it's gonna balloon the cost to service the debt and without some degree of cutting across the board spending and entitlement programs, discretionary spending and entitlement programs, you can't make the interest payments. which all, you know, inevitably leads to some form of default. So that's just the math and the way this all works out. And I think what he's done is put a a pen to paper and showing that, you know, call it roughly Jason Calacanis (00:25:31): 2025 David Friedberg (00:25:32): to 2035, you start to run into that fiscal scenario where, you know, you can no longer generate enough income from the US economy to fund both the interest payment obligations on the federal debt as well as these entitlement programs and something's gotta give. Either you're gonna have to default on the debt or you're gonna have to cut the entitlement programs. And the point he's making is that the longer you wait to cut the entitlement programs, the worse it's going to get because you're accruing so much debt in the interim. And as we know, that becomes very politically unpopular. And what's so scary to me, and I've kind of shared this, and, you know, obviously, Chamath has a different point of view, but it feels to me like this is that don't look up movie moment where we have this, like, you know, looming disaster. We we don't have any fuel in the car. And all that everyone's talking about is where are we gonna drive the car? And every political conversation, every candidate gets on stage, gets on a podcast, gets on a TV show, and they talk about stuff that is simply not feasible and the direction setting with respect to social policy, Wars, geopolitics, you know, how are we gonna take care of our middle class? None of that stuff is possible to actually execute against without recognizing and acknowledging that we don't have gas in the car, and we have to figure out how to gas up the car. And so it's great to see Druck and Miller being vocal putting very simple clear slides together. It's like what I've mentioned in the past. I would love to see a Clinton esque Bill Clinton esque slide deck where he would come up with a poster and show everyone here's the economy, folks. And I think Druck and Miller did a great job, and I encourage everyone to go watch that. There there's an audio transcript of the talk as well as the slides are publicly available on the Internet. We'll put the links in the the show notes here today. David Friedberg (00:27:18): I just think it's it's whether or not you agree with the outlook, I think it's worth everyone watching and realizing how serious of an issue this is and why this has to become the number one topic of conversation going to this next presidential election cycle. Jason Calacanis (00:27:32): He's also disclosed he short the dollar along gold euro oil and AUD, which I guess is the Australian dollar. And he's also along NVIDIA and Microsoft. Believe's NVIDIA's got a monopoly on the chip market. I got a question for Chamath and then to Saks. So Shamoth what's your just reaction to this? Do you think he's doctor doomming it and we can have all this debt? And then the question then becomes is there any way out of this? We had a Trump town hall. I hate to bring it up and go back into, you know, the sort of Trump commentary and all this, but he's he's the lead candidate. Sachs. And he said, he thinks we can get out of debt. We just gotta drill a bunch of oil, drill about baby drill, and we'll get out of this problem, and we'll be able to rebalance the budget. So trim off and then sec. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:28:18): I wanna be clear. I don't think it's great that we have these enormous debts and entitlement obligations. But I also don't think that there's some magical number where the economy breaks. And the reason is because we're central to not just our economy, but everybody else's economy. We are the reserve currency of the world. It's not changing anytime soon. It's not even close. And we are for better or worse and I think Saxon and I don't like it but we are the world's policeman we are. A bunch of things. We are the world center of innovation. We are the world center of these great leaps forward in humanity. When we talk about all of these different things, these aren't coming from random countries. They're coming from the United States. We can debate which company, but we're never debating the country. So I think that there's a legacy of value creation and innovation that we've always been at the forefront of at least since America was founded. So 17 76 to now. I think the reality is that debt to GDP will continue to increase. I don't think a single politician can practically get elected. by offering to cut entitlement spending to people that have spent their entire lives paying into a system. So as a practical matter, this thing will go up And I don't think the economy will stop. I think that economics are a relative problem where you have away countries against each other. And what that means is the economic vibrancy, the productivity, the intellect, all of those things where we have to compete with El Salvador. We have to compete with Nigeria. We have to compete with India. We have to compete with Australia. And in that context there is very little historical artifact that says that there is a breaking point. So I just think that if you observe the moment it's not that what Freeport is saying is bad I'm not exactly sure that it's particularly actionable and I think the disproportionate amount of action is actually the opposite which is to reinflate the money supply, to reinflate assets, to create artificial prosperity and smear it to many, many, many people. And I think that the You have to think about how do you wanna activate your view? I can believe whatever I want but at the end of the day, I don't wanna act in a way that's against my economic best interest, quite honestly. So I believe that winning is measured in dollars and cents on these things. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:30:58): And from that perspective, I don't particularly like it. I think I'm emotionally more aligned to Friedberg but the practical reality is I'm on the opposite side which says the governments will keep spending, inflation will be here, assets will keep inflating, the M2 money supply will keep going up, and on general, along the United States in short every other country. David Friedberg (00:31:20): Shamak, doesn't that ultimately lead to just inflation it initially starts at the inflation of assets and asset prices, but it ultimately leads to the inflation of goods and services, which can cripple the economy because then, you know, the middle class can't afford things and you have economic slowdown. I mean, that's the historical record of having these kind of inflationary Moments. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:31:44): Yeah. I mean, inflation comes and goes, but the position of the American US dollar hasn't changed. Again, you have to remember, like, a lot of these foreign governments, a 187 or whatever the number is countries outside the United States rely on the US dollar. They don't wanna own their own currency. Right? And so yeah. You're right. Dollars do get inflated but that increased purchasing power also actually drives the balance of power back to the United States because all of these other folks all of a sudden find the ability to import a little bit cheaper. Their economies get slightly better. But the US dollar actually still does well. So there's a complex set of interactions that are all relative. So I think it's very hard to point to the US middle class and say oh this is why the US breaks. I just don't see very many good examples in a modern globalist era. And there are examples and I think Ray Dalio has pointed these out. when you look all the way in the back. But to use the UK right in the 15 1600s of the East India trading company when we did not have a economy or a global reserve currency, I don't think it's very useful. There's things you can learn, taxation. I think we can learn about why taxation does kill innovation. You said that before. I agree with that. But I I don't think there's much value in saying because it happened in these moments it's going to happen exactly the same way here. And I think what people don't understand is we are in a unitary singular monocontomy. that is anchored by the US dollar. Jason Calacanis (00:33:16): Saks, any thoughts? Saks, do you agree? David Sacks (00:33:18): I tend to be on the Friedberg Drucky Miller side of this thing. Drucky Miller had a great quote. in this interview he just gave. I don't know. Freeway did you mention this last week that he said that that he compared the the debt ceiling in skull spending to worrying about whether a thirty foot wave will damage the pier. When you know there's a two hundred foot tsunami just ten miles out, Yeah. David Friedberg (00:33:38): Saw that quote. Yeah. David Sacks (00:33:39): What he's saying is, like, our short term situation is bad. The long term situation, which isn't even that long term, like, 10 years out, is even worse. And I think there's a growing feeling that our political system is just not up to the challenge of dealing with these problems. It just seems fundamentally unserious. We never discuss it. The media doesn't really present us with accurate information. and has an agenda. Do Chamath Palihapitiya (00:34:05): you guys wanna make a bet, Saks? You wanna make a friendly wager with me? David Sacks (00:34:08): Sure. What's that? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:34:09): Okay. I will bet you that debt to GDP gets to 200 before it gets to Jason Calacanis (00:34:14): 50. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:34:17): And I'll bet you however amount of money you want And we can we can do it for our own personal gain or for charity. David Sacks (00:34:24): That may well be true. But but the question is how how bad is 200% debts I don't think that's a really bad scenario. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:34:30): I mean, I really don't think it matters. I think the point is -- Will Jason Calacanis (00:34:32): you guys have any money left if that happens? Yeah. Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:34:35): You will have a lot of money. You'll just have to profit from think it's happening, your job is to profit from it. David Friedberg (00:34:40): I'll Chamath Palihapitiya (00:34:41): make the same bet with you, Friedberg. I think it gets to 200 before it gets to Jason Calacanis (00:34:44): 50. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:34:44): Or 250 or 300, you can pick your number. David Friedberg (00:34:47): think it will too. I'm I'm just, like -- Let's David Sacks (00:34:49): do the math on that real quick. So the the size of of GDP is what? About 25,000,000,000,000, and and we're at about 32,000,000,000,000 of debt. If we're to have 200 percent debts of GDP right now, it'd be at 50,000,000,000,000 of debt. Now let's assume that's imputed an interest rate at which you would need to to finance that. Jason Calacanis (00:35:03): 4%. David Sacks (00:35:04): So I think Jason Calacanis (00:35:05): 4%. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:35:06): You have to calculate the duration. David Sacks (00:35:08): I understand. But despite -- It's always gonna be Jason Calacanis (00:35:10): 4%. -- David Sacks (00:35:10): baseline. Yeah. Let's just baseline. So let's say 4%. So 4% on 50,000,000,000,000 is 2,000,000,000,000 a year Jason Calacanis (00:35:17): -- Yep. -- David Sacks (00:35:19): which is isn't that like half the budget? David Friedberg (00:35:22): Yeah. More. And that's why that's my point. That's why you have to see taxes go up to over 70% because it's the only way you can you gotta tax everything. in order to fund that. David Sacks (00:35:31): So US government has collected 2,000,000,000,000 in fiscal year 2023. Now we I guess we haven't done a complete year, but Let's do 2022. It basically collected Jason Calacanis (00:35:41): 3,700,000,000,000. David Friedberg (00:35:42): Right. You're using more than half of the government's income based on the current tax rates to fund the interest payments on your debt. That's not even to pay for social services. That's not even to pay for the defense. That's not even to pay for government services. That's just more than half of the income Jason Calacanis (00:35:58): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:35:58): I guess maybe we're just speaking past each other. I guess you guys are expressing anxiety and concern, and I'm just expressing Here's how one would make money because it's pretty obvious what's gonna happen. We're going to 200. We're not going to 50. So I just kind of compartment. How do you make money? I think there's a lot of ways that you could make money. I'm not gonna share those on the pod anymore, but they're possibly sick of it. Jason Calacanis (00:36:20): But What's the trade there? David Friedberg (00:36:22): Stand Rucker Miller said Chamath Palihapitiya (00:36:24): it's the opposite of Stan's trades, actually. So -- Oh, okay. That's good. That would be an easy way to to actually if Jason Calacanis (00:36:30): you think that would you David Friedberg (00:36:31): go along the dollar in short gold? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:36:33): No. because those are, like, antiquated ways of making money where -- Yeah. Jason Calacanis (00:36:36): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:36:36): you have to have these convoluted derivatives agreements with these banks. And I've done these before where you're levered up to 1,000,000,000 of dollars of risk. It proves nothing, and I don't sleep well at night. I think that there are simpler strategies that you can implement, but I think Stan is basically betting that the US will break and that we will be forced in some way to bring debt to GDP closer to 50 than to 150 or 200. and I would just bet the opposite. And it's not because I want it to happen or that he's not intellectually or morally right. Also, inflation down again. We've kind of gotten used to Jason Calacanis (00:37:15): this, but this I thought this was a particularly interesting chart. If you look at food goods and energy, all going in the right direction. Services still very expensive. Any thoughts on the Fed and inflation as we wrap up on David Friedberg (00:37:32): sort of Jason Calacanis (00:37:34): where we're at here is another 25 basis points. core inflation is very sticky. David Sacks (00:37:40): Yeah. Right. Yeah. I mean, with CPI is down to 4.9%. But but core actually Jason Calacanis (00:37:45): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:37:45): It was up. David Sacks (00:37:46): It was up. It's it was up, like, 5.3%, something like that. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:37:48): Yeah. Core was up. David Sacks (00:37:50): So, yeah, the Fed is it raised another 25 basis points. where we're up to, like, Jason Calacanis (00:37:55): 5.25%. David Sacks (00:37:57): I was ready to stop, you know, Jason Calacanis (00:38:01): 2 David Sacks (00:38:01): hikes ago. because I thought that the economy was breaking and the banking system was breaking. They're up to now to 5 and a quarter. You've got core CPI still sticky. Yes. CPI is coming down. but it looks like, you know, inflation's still a problem. This is not a great setup for economic recovery. And if you believe, here's the problem with accepting the idea that inflation is gonna be persistently high is if inflation remains persistently high, then the Fed won't be able to lower interest rates. So they'll need to keep them elevated. They might even need to keep raising them. And if that happens, they'll continue to be incredible stress on the banking system, and more banks are gonna break. And then eventually, that will create the conditions for the financial crisis. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:38:45): I think the thing you guys have to be open to is the fact that we've never really tested the ability for the US to borrow durationally beyond 30 years. And, again, we talked about what an error it was in judgment for the treasury not to issue 100 year bonds. But I think if there's any country in the world that can issue 100 year bonds, it's the United States of America. And I do think that they'll be able to get duration of assets that are that far out on the yield curve. So I again am less concerned about the debt wall here because I think you'll be able to push maturities out. You'll be able to refi a bunch of short term obligations into the future. And if you look at where the yield curve is 10 years at 3ahalf3 Jason Calacanis (00:39:28): 40 Chamath Palihapitiya (00:39:28): something. So the thought is that inflation goes down If you put it out to a 100 years, I would be very surprised if 100 year rates if they priced a bond weren't somewhere sub 1% So I do think it becomes effectively free money for the United States. And I think it's just a practical thing they need to explore. By the way, corporates have explored these 50 year bonds and greater. So I think it's just like it's a matter of mathematics as you guys have just illustrated here that the US has to push out past 30 years. So we'll have 50 year US bonds. We'll have a 100 year US bonds. Again, I'm not here to claim whether it's right or wrong but I think the simple way to acknowledge that is just that we are going to reinflate the money supply over the long term because it's the only sustainable way that politicians can get elected and reelected. And I think the best thing to do there is to own risk assets. Jason Calacanis (00:40:22): Let's move on to the presidential election real quick. I'm curious, gentlemen. Last week, we had RFK on. Did you get any feedback? The the show obviously did really well. A lot of people watched it. I got a tremendous amount of feedback. People thought he was a fascinating, interesting character. Some people thought he was a conspiracy theorist. They pointed out a bunch of different moments. during the interview. But what was the general feedback you got? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:40:47): My biggest thing was I think he surprised a lot of people to the upside. A lot of people emailed me saying, they thought one specific thing with him and we tried to address it which is he's painted as this kind of like conspiracy theorist or anti vaxx person. by the mainstream media and overwhelmingly so much of the feedback was wow, this guy is so totally different because you gave him a long long format in order for him to really talk. I thought he was really engaging and very interesting and very Jason Calacanis (00:41:18): smart. Sachs, did you have feedback on it? David Sacks (00:41:22): Yeah. I mean, I think he is very authentic. I think he's very principled. I think that he's a rebel. in a way, I mean, to grow up in the Kennedy family and to be part of all of those elite circles, whether it's in Hollywood or Harvard, or where do they go for the summer? Jason Calacanis (00:41:40): Martha's Vineyard. David Sacks (00:41:41): Martha's Vineyard or Jason Calacanis (00:41:42): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:41:42): Can a bunk port. Yeah. David Sacks (00:41:43): Can a punk port or whatever. I mean, you think about, like, all of the Elite circles that he grew up in. Right? And for him to deviate from Democratic Party orthodoxy and elite thinking in all these really significant ways, shows that he is, again, very principled, very authentic, and I think a a rebel in a really good way. And he's telling people a lot of things that you just don't hear on the democratic side and through the mainstream media. So I think it's all positive. Jason Calacanis (00:42:12): Yeah. I got positive feedback on a Friedberg. The one thing people said was we extend some people said not a lot, but they expected us to push back maybe on him harder or something or be harder. I thought we did an interesting job of letting him talk and really taking these topics to 10 or 20 minutes each. The one people were particularly I don't know if concerned is the right word or puzzled by was that we didn't push back as much on the vaccine stuff. We just let them talk about it. A week later, what do you think about his vaccine position? And would you have pushed back more? Or do you do you regret not pushing back more Friedberg as our -- So -- -- science guy? David Friedberg (00:42:55): He made a lot of generalized statements or statements that I think take a concern about one thing and then make them evidence for a whole thing being off. for example, there is a vaccine that isn't efficacious. There was a vaccine that had mercury in it. Therefore, all vaccines are bad. Oh, we over vaccinate now. Many vaccines today that kids take going into schools have saved countless lives, and they've had a really critical role in reducing a lot of child born illness. It's been, you know, just an incredible advance for humanity for medicine, etcetera. I think he had a number of points he made about the COVID vaccine. And I know he's made these points for many years. He kind of extrapolates that, you know, it's evidence that vaccines are generally overprescribed and overused, and pharma companies are just out to make money. And the government is aligned with pharma companies to just try and make money I don't think that that is necessarily true. I think that there are certainly incentives that can drive bad behavior but I do not think that wouldn't looking at the evidence, both contra evidence and and evidence of of safety and benefit. that childhood vaccines should be kind of changed in terms of how we're doing things today. There may be some things to change, but, generally, I think that they're very beneficial. So I I don't love kind of how he frames these things. And I think that it instead of having kind of a more nuanced conversation about this particular thing and this particular example, blankets things and people get scared and they're like, oh my gosh. You're right. We should stop doing vaccines for kids. That's very dangerous. That would be very bad for society. It'd be very bad for our kids. And I think that that we need to kind of address that in more detail over time. It's one of these hard things where you have to have kind of a nuanced conversation to give people all the necessary depth and context to feel better informed to make a better decision because, you know, there's always this kind of gripping fear that if something's off and I'm getting you know, poison or I'm getting bad medicine or, you know, people are trying to make money off me. People immediately react negatively and angrily and they wanna kinda resolve to a a blanket position. I don't think that that's healthy. David Friedberg (00:45:00): So I'd love to have a a deeper debate on that, but The reason we didn't go into it is because we didn't we had limited time with him, and we wanted to take our time kind of giving him a chance to talk about the overview of topics. and getting his point of view across the the set of topics that we generally thought were gonna be relevant in in the the selection cycle. So that's And Jason Calacanis (00:45:18): that was with 2 hours. We still don't have enough time. You could talk for 2 hours about vaccine. David Sacks (00:45:22): Can I address the conspiracy theorist point? Jason Calacanis (00:45:24): Yeah. Sure. David Sacks (00:45:26): So first of all, that that label conspiracy theorist doesn't pack the punch that it used to. As you'll recall, anyone who thought the virus might have come from the Wuhan lab was once called a conspiracy theorist, If you believed that Fauci and the NIH were funding gain of function research, that was dubbed a conspiracy theory. If you believe that cloth mask didn't do anything. That was a conspiracy theory. If you believe that a Hunter Biden was getting paid off by foreign governments, that was a conspiracy theory. So this accusation, it just doesn't really pack the same punch anymore. Jason Calacanis (00:45:57): Trump not having a relationship with the Russians and his family meeting with the Russians multiple times. Yeah. David Sacks (00:46:02): kind of solo conspiracy theory, Jake Hall. But Jason Calacanis (00:46:04): So to you, it is. David Sacks (00:46:06): But in any event, my point is it doesn't pack the same punch. In fact, in some cases, starting to become a badge of honor. So that's one thing. The second thing is when you listen to him make his arguments, he's not just alleging certain things. He's laying out his evidence. Right? He's he's connecting dots. He's explaining the causation. And you can disagree with it. But Jason Calacanis (00:46:26): -- Mhmm. -- David Sacks (00:46:27): he is thinking in terms of, like, causation. And it made me think about something that Peter T001 said about, you know, founders being Asperger's, where he flipped it on his head and said, what is it about our society? that talks founders out of all of their contrarian ideas Jason Calacanis (00:46:42): -- David Sacks (00:46:43): Mhmm. -- unless they are a little bit asperger's. Jason Calacanis (00:46:45): Ah, interesting. David Sacks (00:46:46): What is it about our political system and our media that talks people out of seeing causation unless they are a little bit of a conspiracy theorist. And what I mean by that is Look at San Francisco. Okay? All you have to do is walk down the street, and you can see that things have gone totally off the rails and whatever we've done politically is not working. And yet the voters in San Francisco just, like, completely block that out. They don't see any causation between the way they vote at the city level or at the state level, and the policies that are manifest on our streets. They just don't see any causation there. And you can just play that movie over and over again. Our elites don't see any causation between the way they ran the country and the election of Donald Trump, the fact that we hold out our manufacturing in the rust belt by throwing open our markets to China, exporting our jobs to China, the way that we squandered all this money in the forever wars of the Middle East. In regards to what your views are on those policies, it's pretty obvious to me. that they help cause the rise of Donald Trump. And yet, you just can't get the media to see any causation between the policies they endorse and the inevitable reaction to them. And so the way I see this is that our political analysis, certainly, our mainstream media, they're just completely bereft of seeing any causation between policies and the problems in our society. And so along comes to RFK Junior, and he's willing to actually connect dots. Now you may not agree with all the dots he's connecting, but maybe it takes it the same way, maybe it takes a little bit of an Asperger's founder. to stick with their contrarian idea so they don't get talked out of it. Maybe it takes a guy like Robert F Kenny Junior not to get talked out of these things that he believes, some of which I think are just obviously true. Jason Calacanis (00:48:38): I thought one of the salient points he made was just, hey, listen. Farmer spends an awful lot on advertising. the media is dependent on that advertising. They don't seem to criticize it all that much. Maybe that's something we should look into. Now I don't think that, like, Pfizer is writing the script for Anderson Cooper. But you can be sure that if Pfizer didn't like something Anderson Cooper said, there's somebody they could call at CNN and and say something to and have a conversation about, you know, setting the record straight, whatever, how you would frame it. Speaking of CNN -- David Sacks (00:49:07): Right. And oh, wait. Don't don't leave that point before. thought it was a really interesting part of the conversation when he mentioned that he had been friends way back with Roger Ailes. Yes. And Roger Ailes specifically told him. Jason Calacanis (00:49:17): Yes. David Sacks (00:49:18): that they could not post certain or televised certain content if it was too critical of pharma companies because they were the no one advertiser. Jason Calacanis (00:49:25): Yeah. And should farmer companies even be advertising? So then all of a sudden, let's say he it was a conspiracy theory or he is, like, way out there in terms of his belief. But the fact is it does bring up the point, should we actually be letting pharma companies advertise on television or on news programs? Maybe they shouldn't be allowed to be on news programs. David Sacks (00:49:45): not like it's not like the consumer who watches the ads and go out and buy the drug as you subscribe by a doctor. Jason Calacanis (00:49:50): They can ask their doctor about it. Yeah. Alright. Well, speaking of CNN, there was an absolute train wreck of a presidential town hall with a moderator name Caitlin Collins. I don't recognize her name. I don't know if she has a show on CNN, but I saw the clips from it. I I couldn't find the full. debate, but my lord was this -- It's Chamath Palihapitiya (00:50:12): unbelievable. It's unbelievable. Jason Calacanis (00:50:14): It was unbelievable. He got a standing ovation. He absolutely owned her on every question. All of her questions were about, you know, January 6th, You know, all of them are valid, but none of them were about running the country essentially. and he was hilarious at least to this audience and he CNN's staffers are really upset that they did this, that they gave him the that they platformed him which shows you exactly where they stand. They're upset. I guess they thought they could own him, and they didn't. Did you did Chamath Palihapitiya (00:50:52): you guys see the part where he was talking about the trial? And he's like, And she has a cat named Regina. Did you guys -- I mean, Jason Calacanis (00:50:59): it was surreal. I and I just thought to myself, is this gonna be For the next year and a half, we're gonna have these town halls. And then I thought, oh, he's gonna get elected. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:51:08): Is it true that Eugene Carroll has a cat named vagina? Jason Calacanis (00:51:10): I have no idea. But, I mean, it was that was a pretty vicious section. And then I got the sense that CNNs management wants this. This is like a ratings bonanza for them. And I think they said really want him. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:51:24): Friedberg said it. It's so true. He's so entertaining. David Friedberg (00:51:26): I could not stop laughing. I watched him on CNN, and I was like, Man, it's it's like one of your one of your old TV shows that you don't really remember watching a lot of, and it comes back on and you're like, he's so ridiculous. The things he says, Chamath Palihapitiya (00:51:40): It's true because when he first got when he first got elected, I was so afraid. And then you realize this guy's just an entertainer really. He's a terrible politician. Bill Barr David Friedberg (00:51:49): said that or yeah. Did you see the bar interview? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:51:51): Yeah. The bar clip that I shared is just bananas about Trump. But so he's a showman and he's a great showman. You know, he's entertaining. And you realize that he was that's all he's ever really wanted to be. It was like famous and popular and on television and And he got all of those things, and he took it to the to the most infinite level. David Friedberg (00:52:08): What Bill Barr said was most insightful that it chaos when he actually tries to get things done. He can't get things done. Jason Calacanis (00:52:16): Right. David Friedberg (00:52:16): And he'll tell you all the things that you wanna hear that he wants to that that you wanna see get done. He did this to Peter Till. And Peter Till's spoken about this publicly, so I'm not saying anything out of line here. I don't know if this is something that's on the record or not, but it it it was publicly stated that Peter was disappointed that Trump did not get things done that he said he was gonna get done. And I think that's really what what he does is he incites. He entertains. He gets people in age. He knows what you wanna hear. He sells you want it. He cripples the establishment, whichever one feels treated poorly by. that everyone feels held back by, that everyone feels has taken something from them that isn't giving something to them. And then he says, you know what? I'm gonna fix all that for you. And then you get excited by it. And then all of a sudden, he doesn't actually deliver it. And in 4 years of gone by, we've forgotten about it, and he's come back in, and he's kind of, you know, titillating again. So -- This is -- I think he's -- I I think I think the reality is he's got a real shot at getting reelected here. Oh my god. You're right. Here's what I wanna -- -- amazing. Jason Calacanis (00:53:16): I'll go around the horn. I'll start with you, I mean, he said January 6th was like a beautiful day. He said that everybody in the Republican Party who said he lost the election is wrong and that the election was, in fact, stolen. Like, he literally doubled down on every single thing. David Sacks (00:53:34): Right. Jason Calacanis (00:53:35): So at the end of this, he gets a standing ovation in New Hampshire. Sure. So how did CNN pick that audience? Did they do that on purpose? Did they know that was gonna be the outcome. But at the end of the day, after that, does that increase its chances of winning the Republican nomination and the presidency in your mind, Saks? David Sacks (00:53:54): Yes. Of course. It does. Why? Look. Well, look. I mean, Donald Trump showed that he's a force of nature. He's a wrecking ball. He went into CNN's carefully laid trap where he's not just up against Caitlin Collins. Make him no mistake. She's got an earpiece in her ear, with all of CNNs, researchers, and the hosts, and producers. They're all the 44% behind. Yeah. Exactly. And he basically demolished her. He controlled the interview. He had the crowd laughing when he wanted them to laugh, responding the way he wanted them to respond. And to the point now where the CNN staffers are like, oh my god. What do we do? An AOC was basically, you know, wringing your hands about how How could CNN platform him this way? So so look, he gave no quarter whatsoever. Like you said, he doubled down on everything. He tripled down. and he showed his ability to kinda bend reality to his will. So all the strengths of Trump. That being said, I'm sure that Trump and his campaign were delighted with what happened last night because I do think it makes him more likely to be the nominee. I think, 1st and foremost, I think Republicans want a candidate who will fight the media and they're fake narratives and lies. No matter how lies Trump tells, they think the media is the bigger liar and they want someone who is willing to step in the line's den and take them on. And he is incredibly adroit and quick on his feet. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:55:18): And DeSantis is imploding. David Sacks (00:55:20): Well, I wouldn't say that he hasn't been announced. Yes. Jason Calacanis (00:55:22): It copied intertwined. So what would any of them do? Yeah. Just to David Sacks (00:55:25): be fair. DeSantis clearly is the underdog. Okay? But just give the guy a chance because we haven't yet seen what he can do yet. But there's no question that Trump showed an enjoyedness and a willingness to counter punch and fight back that they base the Republican base definitely responds to. Now Jason Calacanis (00:55:41): -- David Sacks (00:55:41): Yeah. -- so we know we know that Trump is happy with the debate. I think sure other party that is super happy with this debate is Biden and all of his people. Because as much as that debate helped Trump in the Republican primary, it did nothing firming the general. I don't think. Like you said, Jason, he doubled down on January 6th. The campaign adds right themselves. Okay? They're gonna show footage of January 6 with a tear gas and the riots Jason Calacanis (00:56:06): -- -- being beaten, people being shot. -- David Sacks (00:56:08): people pushing down the barricades, and they're gonna do a narrative, a voice over, with Trump saying it was a beautiful day. The people there had love in their arm. Jason Calacanis (00:56:15): It writes itself. Yeah. David Sacks (00:56:16): It writes itself. And then, you know, he doubled down really strongly on Roe v Wade. Jason Calacanis (00:56:21): That was crazy. David Sacks (00:56:22): Being overturned. Jason Calacanis (00:56:22): He's like, yeah. That was I mean, I I don't have his quoting. David Sacks (00:56:25): Again, I think it doesn't hurt him in the Republican primary, but it's you know, it it will lead to a campaign attack ad in in the general. And there are other issues as well. Okay? So so the Biden campaign is super happy right now because I think the only Republican he could beat is Trump. I think the reverse is true for Trump. I think the only democrat who Trump could beat as Biden. I mean, they are both 2 of the most unpopular candidates in America in a general election. So they love the fact they're gonna be facing each other. But know who doesn't is the American people, 2 thirds American people don't want this choice. They say they are already fatigued by it. they're only gonna get more fatigue by it because I think for the next, like you said, 18 months, we're gonna have the Trump show with him taking on the media. And that plays into Biden's hands because Biden doesn't need to campaign. He'll just let Trump and the media beat each other up. He'll do a rose garden campaign where once a week, he goes in front microphones in response to whatever Trump's latest outrage is. He doesn't have the vigor to campaign, and he won't. And then we'll just see where the chips land. I think that it's it's quite possible here that after 18 months of Trump and the media beating each other up, the American people just say, you know what? This Biden guy is totally senile, but I'm like, so tired of the the Trump show. I've got Trump fatigued again. I'm just gonna have to go with Biden. And I think I think this is how Biden gets reelected. Jason Calacanis (00:57:43): this is a disaster for American. The fact that we are putting Biden, who's in clearly a cognitive decline, and Trump as the 2 candidates again. The 2 candidates nobody wants makes me think this is just like a complete disaster for America. Can we not find 2 other candidates, Shamal, what did you think coming out of his stand up special on CNN? The Trump town hall stand up special. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:58:10): I think that I'm more surprised by the fact that the big Republican mega donors have taken a big step back away from DeSantis. I thought that if the money train on the Republican side picked DeSantis that it would be very difficult for Trump to overcome it. But he's managed to somehow fade that bullet too. He's like, Neo in the matrix. It's like, you have these guys shooting bullets at this guy, and he just keeps somehow Finding a way to evade them. But this week, David Friedberg (00:58:42): Schwartzman point David Sacks (00:58:43): on that. I Chamath Palihapitiya (00:58:44): was just gonna say, well, Schwartzman Jason Calacanis (00:58:45): -- Chamath Palihapitiya (00:58:45): Yeah. -- step back. Ken Griffin basically has gone silent. So there's a lot of guys that came close to him. And this is what I've maintained, which is I think DeSantis ages poorly. He's best before you actually spend time with him. And the more time people seem to spend And again, this is just evidenced by these big Republican mega donors, they don't seem to be running towards this guy. They seem to be at least saying we're going to Jason Calacanis (00:59:09): hedge your budget. Yeah. They're waiting. Freight, any thoughts, and then I'll go back to you. Hold on. Let let let Freight go. You went for, like, 10 minutes. Let Friedberg go, and then you go. Freberg? Any thoughts on it in terms of is this make him more electable? Do you think he's gonna win? What's your gut tell you? David Friedberg (00:59:24): The CNN thing? Jason Calacanis (00:59:25): Yeah. David Friedberg (00:59:26): Yes. Jason Calacanis (00:59:26): Post CNN. You think you think he's gonna win? You think he beats Biden? David Friedberg (00:59:30): The crazy polling data is that Biden you know, 20% of the votes going to RFK Junior who's like a nobody, no one knows candidate, and he's beating a sitting president in his own party. So that says a lot about, you know, how much support Biden has. And I think that Trump is gonna be pretty appealing as the anti Biden candidate. I mean, Biden was the anti Trump candidate, and now Trump's the anti Biden candidate. And right now, he looks like he's dynamic, and he was a big shift, I think. RFK Junior feels a lot like a Trump candidate to me too. I mean, you know, some of the positioning and the statements and the way he talks and being anti establishment, he could also have that appeal. I think there's a non zero chance Biden actually doesn't run for reelection Chamath Palihapitiya (01:00:16): at this point. Play that out. David Sacks (01:00:18): I can play that out. That's a really scary scenario because I think that's how we get a President Newsom. Listen, I mean, Newsom is warming up in the bullpen right now and he's not just you know, hanging out back there and, you know, spinning he's pitching fastballs very noisily. He's been running TV ads. He's been going to Florida. He's been picking fights, you know, well outside of his state. He is basically telling the Democratic Party put me in the game coach, and he's just waiting for the signal to go. He he needs to know from Democratic Party insiders in the establishment that he can go. He doesn't wanna risk throwing away his career challenging Biden. But if Biden becomes too weak, to run, and he gets the signal to go. You'll go, and he can raise a lot of money. And I'm not saying Sorry. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:01:04): Can you can you guys just explain both of you does that actually like, what do you guys think happens? Like, there's a press conference that where Biden says he's retiring? David Friedberg (01:01:13): I think he said after careful thought and consideration, I've made the decision that at my age, I'd like to spend more time with my family and not continue this hefty responsibility. And I'd love to see someone else take the mantle. And I think that that will result, you know, from a series of polls that will indicate that he may not have a shot if he continues this campaign, I think that I'm not saying that's a certainty. I think that's a non zero chance right now that that scenario plays out. When that does play out, to Saks' point. It's probably not just Newsom, but there's probably half a dozen and likely a dozen folks that popped their head up and wanna get not just kind of a have a real run the presidency on the Democratic side would probably end up saying I wanna heighten people's awareness of me and so on, and they all run on that on that ticket. But the DNC might be having a real tough conversation in the next couple of months about how Biden is polling and whether he really is the right candidate. to have on the ticket. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:02:07): So let's see. Jason Calacanis (01:02:08): Let me David Sacks (01:02:08): give you a historical example. So I I mentioned this, I think, when Arcade junior was on the pod. But LBJ was the sitting Democratic president in 19 8, and he went into the New Hampshire primary. And he won the New Hampshire primary, but not by a big enough margin. And a few weeks later, announced he was leaving the race because of health reasons. But the specific challenger who helped knocked him out in New Hampshire was Jean McCarthy. And then after that happened, Bobby Kennedy got in the race. So we could have a situation here where it's Bobby Kennedy Junior is, you know, initially playing the Gina McCarthy role of being kind of the anti war protest candidate who helps knock Biden out of the race, and then who knows? I mean, he could become -- -- judge? Jason Calacanis (01:02:50): Gavin Newsom. David Sacks (01:02:51): They're gonna wanna come in into the race at that point. But remember, you know, you David Friedberg (01:02:55): know, the David Sacks (01:02:55): thing the thing that happened in early 1968 that caused LBJ to leave the race is you had the tet offensive. And Cronkite got back from Vietnam saying that war cannot be won. And then at that point, it was, like, game over. Well, look, this Ukrainian counteroffensive, Zelenskyy just announced today that they need more time. So we've been hearing for months, if not a year, that you're gonna have a big Ukrainian counteroffensive in the spring of summer of this year, and Ukraine's gonna win this war. And instead, it looks like it's being destroyed. Ukraine is. So this war is turning into a debacle. I think it could be an even worse debacle by the end of the year. The economy has a banking crisis going on. It turning into a big fiasco. So I think it's very possible that Biden couldn't announce that it's time frame to step aside, and you could see the floodgates open for Newsom or JB Prischer or something like that. However, let me just say this. I think the odds of Biden leaving the race went down significantly as a result of last night. Because all of the political people around Biden are saying we know how to win this thing. We just a b tested the strategy in the midterms. Remember, we had 3 quarters of the American people in the midterms think that we were late a recession and and that the country was on the wrong track. and the out of power party's supposed to gain seats, and the red wave turned into a puddle. Why? because Biden's strategy of saying democracy was on the ballot and running as January Jason Calacanis (01:04:18): 6. David Sacks (01:04:18): it actually worked. I'm not saying I bought that argument, but enough independents did. Independents ended up breaking for Biden and the Democrats. Republicans didn't but independents did. So independents have bought that argument in the midterms. And then Trump, again, if he's the nominee, they're gonna run that same playbook. Now it's not guaranteed to work. I think this thing's gonna be a nail biter. I think it's gonna be a toss-up if it's Biden versus Trump. But I think that Biden's people have to feel very good about this matchup because they feel like they already know how to run this campaign. Jason Calacanis (01:04:50): This is what he said about Roe v Wade. It was such a great victory. I mean, can you imagine how that's gonna play with women voters? They're just gonna be like, yeah. No. It was not a great victory. You took away our right to choose for ourselves. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:05:05): Well, def definitely Democratic women voters will not like it, but there's a lot of Republican women voters that that will support that state. David Friedberg (01:05:12): Here, let me give you this Jason Calacanis (01:05:12): 30% Let David Friedberg (01:05:14): me give you this data Jason Calacanis (01:05:14): -- Of the country. -- David Friedberg (01:05:15): to take a look at this. I I don't think you're right, Jason. I just shared with you kind of the Reuters pulling data, the most recent one. And the number one issue at 24% of likely voters that they care about is the economy, 24%. Yeah. Number 2 is crime at 14%. Number Jason Calacanis (01:05:32): 3 David Friedberg (01:05:32): is in and 9%, number 4 is inequality at 6%. And on and on and on. Only when you get down to, like, number 10, you get to abortion, which comes in at 3%. 2% of Democrats, Jason Calacanis (01:05:43): 1% David Friedberg (01:05:44): or or, you know, 3% of them, 4% of Democrats, 1% of Republicans. Jason Calacanis (01:05:47): Yeah. But what is the margin of the election? David Friedberg (01:05:49): Well, I don't think that that's the issue that break it. I think there's other things that there's significant differences on, particularly around crime and immigration inequality that are pulling much higher in terms of importance to likely voters. Jason Calacanis (01:06:00): But do they drive turnout like abortion does? David Friedberg (01:06:03): I don't know. I'm just I'm just thinking of these numbers. It's like, you know, 1 to 1 to 3% of people saying it matters to them is not that significant. I think these other topics are gonna be very divisive and very different very polar difference. Jason Calacanis (01:06:15): And -- What people say in a poll and what people turn out to vote for? Like, for some people, that is a major issue. But who knows? David Sacks (01:06:23): I think it's a toss-up, basically. Look. like I said, I think the only candidate that Biden could beat is Trump, and Biden's probably the only sitting president that Trump can beat. So, I mean, again, they're both pull nationally in the mid thirties, and this is the choice we have. Jason Calacanis (01:06:38): I gotta give Saxx's red meat I saw these republicans are going on a a revenge tour here to go after the Biden family. They said they would, and they have. So the oversight house oversight committee reveals a guess 9 Biden family members received wire transfers from foreign nationals via Shell Corporations. And they don't have any connections to Biden We know that Hunter was securing the bag all over the planet. He's clearly a grifter. I don't think there's any doubt about that. What's the truth here? And how much evidence do they have? Because this is obviously a partisan thing. Just like there are partisan things on the other side when they were investigating Trump. So how do you look at this information, this revelation? They keep they're using this, like, biting cry crime family meme. Do you think this is actually evidence of something, or is it just another rich family with a bunch of LLCs? David Sacks (01:07:37): another rich family. Wait. How do they get rich? Jason Calacanis (01:07:40): Good question. David Sacks (01:07:40): The Kennedy's were a rich family. Yeah. But the Bidens were not a rich family. how do they get rich? Their only business is Jason Calacanis (01:07:47): They don't have money here. Right? They don't they don't know how much money is actually here and how it's being What what evidence they have? David Sacks (01:07:54): It's not red meat for me. I just think the media should have done its job investigating the story properly. And what this investigation has turned up is that there's a lot of members that buy family. I think they're up to, like, 10 or 12 or something. We've received payments flowing from foreign governments. No one can tell you what any of those people did in exchange for the money. it does appear to be an influence peddling operation. I don't know whether that's -- It appears to be Jason Calacanis (01:08:17): an influence peddling operation. So people were giving money David Sacks (01:08:20): again, the the the point is that why would you give money to members of the buying family? It presumably, for some sort of access, to the person who's been in Washington for 50 years, who's been a senator from vice president. Jason Calacanis (01:08:31): -- who gave the money? Is it China? Is it Ukraine? Do they have that data? David Sacks (01:08:34): Well, I think we know about Burisma, which is basically a Jason Calacanis (01:08:37): -- You crazy? -- a hunter. Yeah. David Sacks (01:08:39): Yeah. And then I think China is another one. Mhmm. Now I don't know what the quid pro quo is for that money. Jason Calacanis (01:08:46): But -- I wonder if this is like the Kraken or if this is actually reality because they seem to be short on actual facts. David Sacks (01:08:52): I think they got a lot there, but, I mean, they're putting out all these reports. But Listen, I think to me, the the actually, the bigger story or the bigger scandal is just more details on the way that the security state wrote that fake letter, basically calling the honor Biden story Russian disinformation. There's an email now that just came out where Mike Morell is corresponding with John Brennan, and Morell specifically says, we're creating the letter to give Biden a talking point in the debate. Jason Calacanis (01:09:20): They're the former CI directors. Right? David Sacks (01:09:22): Yeah. Exactly. Jason Calacanis (01:09:23): Both of them were CIA directors at different points. David Sacks (01:09:25): So there's no question now that that letter where 51 security state officials claimed that the 100 buying story is Russian's information. That was all basically a political dirty trick. And dirty tricks happen, but I don't think the CIA should be involved. That's the thing. I don't think the the branches of our government should be involved in helping to get any candidate -- But these Jason Calacanis (01:09:47): guys weren't even in government, though. Right? David Sacks (01:09:50): They're former, but Jason Calacanis (01:09:51): -- Former. Yeah. -- David Sacks (01:09:52): they were related. Jason Calacanis (01:09:53): So just so we're clear, it wasn't like the CIA -- David Sacks (01:09:55): They continue to have the the security clearances. Jason Calacanis (01:09:57): -- not the CIA did this. These are former CIA folks. David Sacks (01:10:00): Actually, Morell needed the approval of CIA. So that was another thing that came out. Jason Calacanis (01:10:05): Oh. David Sacks (01:10:06): That's what bothers me more than anything is I do not think our permanent government, especially security agencies, should be involved in partisan politics. They really need to stay out. That is election meddling. That bothers me. That's a form of corruption that I think is even worse than monetary payments. David Friedberg (01:10:24): Takeout, can you tell us about your trip to the Middle East? What have you been doing there? Jason Calacanis (01:10:27): So our bestie, Brad Gershner, was coming here, and we were at the poker game a couple weeks ago, maybe a month ago, and he said he was going. And I've always wanna to come to UAE, and and I've never seen Dubai or Abu Dhabi. And so I said, yeah. I'd I'd love to go with you, and we did a couple speaking gigs. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:10:43): Where are you staying? Jason Calacanis (01:10:44): So Four Seasons in Ritz, Four Seasons in Abu Dhabi, and the Ritz here in Dubai. And I was just gonna do 3 speaking gigs, a podcast, and -- Chamath Palihapitiya (01:10:54): Isn't IFC in Dubai? Incredible? Jason Calacanis (01:10:57): Have you David Friedberg (01:10:57): been able to -- Have you been Jason Calacanis (01:10:58): in the financial district here? Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it's it's and it's all been built in the last 10 years. David Friedberg (01:11:03): I I Jason Calacanis (01:11:03): would say, generally speaking, what I'm super impressed about, and I I I'm not it's not a fundraising trip. I was just going, but then one of your former employees, Chamath set me up with a bunch of meetings because he's like, hey. There's a lot of people who wanna you. So I I I'm doing, like, maybe a dozen meetings or so. And there is a real this is a very progressive place. The the UAE of all the and Dubai, obviously, is very progressive. And so it reminds me of, like, You know, Silicon Valley in the early days where everybody's doing something, and it's incredibly cosmopolitan. There's only 500,000 nationals, but there's 10 million people here. David Friedberg (01:11:41): More than people Jason Calacanis (01:11:41): -- -- Chamath Palihapitiya (01:11:42): outspoken. than any other language in Dubai. Jason Calacanis (01:11:45): Yeah. I mean, the number of people here from all around the world is bonkers. And then everybody's working on something. Everybody's got a project. And the people are delightful. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:11:54): Did you go to the French restaurant I told you about in Abu Dhabi? Jason Calacanis (01:11:57): I did. Did you Chamath Palihapitiya (01:11:58): get this rib eye? Did you get the rib eye? Jason Calacanis (01:11:59): Yeah. We had, like, a family style thing so I didn't get the rib eye, but it was it was exceptional. The food's exceptional. It's just like incredibly cosmopolitan. It's like going to New York you know, or London, and they are there's a very unique moment in time right now. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:12:12): Saxman, you go to Abu Dhabi, and you and you stay at the Four Seasons in the ADGM. go to this French restaurant and order the rib eye. It is a top 5 steak I've ever had. Top Jason Calacanis (01:12:22): 5. David Sacks (01:12:23): I've never been there. I've never been to Middle East accent. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:12:25): So delicious. So delicious. So delicious. And in Dubai, do not stay at the Ritz in IFC. IFC is incredible, but the Ritz sucks. State the Baldry Hotel. Beautiful. Just beautiful. Jason Calacanis (01:12:36): But there's a very unique moment of time. I literally came down the elevator at the Four Seasons, and I met 4 or 5 people from Silicon Valley in the lobby. And then I came out of dinner, and there was a table of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs and venture capitalists. it is I mean, it's basically like going to the Rosewood in in Abu Dhabi. David Sacks (01:12:58): But what a statement that is? Like, the US is tapped out. We are, like, broke. Jason Calacanis (01:13:02): That's I think, basically, the they are the way it's been explained to me is they believe they have 20 years, 30 years. to convert the oil economy into a technology capital allocator economy. And so they want to make evergreen funds to invest They haven't had a chance to invest in venture capital because most venture capital, there weren't that many. They were fully allocated and there was no opportunity. now with what's happened in the United States and this pullback and and sort of the cycle starting over again, I think there's an opportunity for them to invest in some funds and start relationships. And then, you know, we've had a long talk here about human rights in different countries, and it's not a monolith over here. David Sacks (01:13:41): I Jason Calacanis (01:13:41): I mean, I don't know who needs to hear that exactly, but there there's these countries are very different. Very different. David Sacks (01:13:46): I'm sure they appreciate your lectures on that subject, Jaco. Jason Calacanis (01:13:49): Well, actually, you know what's interesting? We didn't have lectures on it, but we had have had multiple conversations about David Sacks (01:13:55): these issues. Enjoy your lectures on this pod. Jason Calacanis (01:13:58): I don't lecture about it. I think these are in issues that people discuss. And the serious thing is a number of these countries are majority young people, and they are reforming very quickly, and rights are changing. And so the question is for you know, all of us. And for the world is do we collaborate and, you know, support as they You know, become more liberal and become more tolerant, and they, you know, become more western, basically. At young people, it's very Western here. And the parties going on here are pretty much like the parties I attended in LA or New York. And so I think, actually, we're probably not as at least UAE and and a couple of countries here are not as disparate as, like, we one might think. David Friedberg (01:14:47): I'm glad you did the trip. because I'm glad to hear you talking like that that there isn't an us versus them point of view and, you know, visiting and seeing the culture and the intention of the people within the culture super important, and I think it's it's good that you did it. So good to hear it. I wanted to share the video that these guys did, but let's do it next week. I think it's really it's worth Not Jason Calacanis (01:15:07): the Valencia 1. David Friedberg (01:15:09): No. The the Lord of the Rings won the Sky Day, which is amazing. Jason Calacanis (01:15:12): Wait. What? This is Lord of the Rings video? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:15:15): No. Not with us. Not with us, Jake Cowell. David Friedberg (01:15:17): Oh, I Jason Calacanis (01:15:17): don't wanna watch it. Okay. Where would I wanna watch that? Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:15:19): I'm sorry, miss. Thank you, Elvuth. I agree Jason Calacanis (01:15:24): I wanna watch the Balaji anger video for the third time. Did you see that? David Friedberg (01:15:28): Yeah. I took an outtake from the guy's video on Lord of the Rings. We'll put the link in the show notes, but this guy made this incredible AI generated. Wes Anderson does Lord of the Rings. Jason Calacanis (01:15:39): Oh, I David Friedberg (01:15:40): did see that. Did you see that? That was pretty amazing. And the clip I'm using today as a background is is an outtake from the the trailer. Did you see it, Sax? David Sacks (01:15:48): You gotta watch it David Friedberg (01:15:49): a little of David Sacks (01:15:49): the rings while David Friedberg (01:15:50): I'm out. Jason Calacanis (01:15:50): -- David Friedberg (01:15:50): god. It's so funny. The guy, it's incredible. But, I mean, the creativity and the potential with AI It's just so evident this guy talks about it on his website and on his Twitter feed. He did it in a couple of days. He learned a bunch of new AI tools. A lot of generative tools were integrated to make this possible. It's an amazing 2 minute piece of art that I think really speaks to the creativity being unleashed with AI. Again, going back to this point about it, not just being about job reduction and reductionism, but it's really about unleashing new potential that we didn't envision before. separately, there'll be another I I think we should talk about this next week, but there's now this kind of generative video game platform that's being demoed. where you can instruct the video game intentions, and it generates a universal video game experience for you on the fly with something we talked about. couple episodes, probably a couple months ago at this point. I had Jason Calacanis (01:16:40): somebody on this week in startups who showed a video game where he made like, you make 25 objects in the game -- It's David Friedberg (01:16:46): really incredible. Jason Calacanis (01:16:46): -- in a certain style. And then you say, I wanna make more characters like that. I wanna make more backgrounds like that. Like, you take a Wes Anderson style, whatever. and it just generates them for you. And it just keeps generating them for you. So what artists can make a palette for a game? And you can say, I wanna have a penguin in my game. I wanna have a zombie in my game. I wanna have Exactly. David Friedberg (01:17:02): That's exactly right. Yeah. Jason Calacanis (01:17:04): And it just does it. And then people who are playing the game can say what they want with prompts, and it creates it. David Friedberg (01:17:10): And you can drive storyline, and then you can integrate with other people's storylines. I mean, it's really powerful. Anyway, I gotta run. Jason Calacanis (01:17:16): 4 David Friedberg, David Zach, and Jamapp probably happened to you. Haim, your boy, Jay Cal. David Sacks (01:17:21): Love you, boys. Jason Calacanis (01:17:22): We'll see you all next time when you're all in podcast. David Friedberg (01:17:24): Bye bye. Bye bye. Jason Calacanis (01:17:27): My wife your winner's ride. Playing out with the greatest hits here on z 100. The Balatciago video featuring the all in cap with cameos by. Brian Armstrong, Keith Roy and Elon Musk. Coming at you. Balenciaga, Friday night, 8 o'clock, hardest ticket in New York. Speaker 5 (01:17:56): When you struggle with a problem, that's when you Balenciaga. Fed mullet, quantitative tightening in the front, quantitative easing in the back. David Friedberg (01:18:17): The greatest source of value in wealth creation in the 22nd century could be driven by terrestrial nucleosynthesis. Jason Calacanis (01:18:27): Getting dressed as Owning the runway is hard. David Friedberg (01:18:34): The big winners of tomorrow will likely be the Minecraft YouTubers today. Jason Calacanis (01:18:43): It's easier than ever to confuse popularity and truth. Speaker 5 (01:18:46): I think it is possible for ordinary people to choose to be Balenciaga. The mainstream media is the most H and M it's ever been. Speaker 6 (01:19:01): When I left Facebook, I left Jason Calacanis (01:19:02): an enormous amount equity on the table. Speaker 6 (01:19:05): I thought, I don't wanna be a slave to money. I wanna be a slave to something bigger, Balenciaga.