特朗普 AI 演讲与行动计划、华盛顿峰会回顾、GDP 超预期、贸易协议、奥尔特曼警告隐私消亡

David Sacks (00:00:00): How much founder mode did you do? Jason Calacanis (00:00:01): Are you saying that I popped an Alp? I need an Alp right now. David Friedberg (00:00:04): Hold on. You don't need anything right now. Are you chewing it? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:06): What are you doing? Jason Calacanis (00:00:07): No. You put this nicotine pouch, you upper deck it, releases it, and then you become a god. David Sacks (00:00:12): Is that the Alp that Tucker sent you? Jason Calacanis (00:00:14): Yeah. Tucker and I are gonna do a crossover. Wait. David Sacks (00:00:16): Did you work out a side hustle here? Jason Calacanis (00:00:18): I haven't presented it to the group for a vote yet. David Sacks (00:00:20): You're Wait a second. Are you being paid for this plug right now? Jason Calacanis (00:00:23): Yes. I'm just saying. You use David Sacks (00:00:26): the promo David Friedberg (00:00:26): code j cal. David Sacks (00:00:27): Wait a second. Jason Calacanis (00:00:29): Promo code j 15. David Sacks (00:00:32): Okay. He broke up, which is good. Jason Calacanis (00:00:33): Is he on drugs? Is he taking drugs? He's on drugs. I'm on drugs. David Friedberg (00:00:37): And he's doing a deal with David Sacks (00:00:38): This is like a PSA for not taking this stuff. You're so out of control. Donald Trump (00:00:42): Did you take two of them? Jason Calacanis (00:00:43): What are you doing? David Sacks (00:00:44): I thought this stuff relaxes you. What the hell is going on? Your Internet's on the fritz too. Jason Calacanis (00:00:50): No. I fixed it. I fixed it. I fixed it. That was Putin. Putin got my Internet. Putin's got my Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:56): god. What flavor are you eating or using? Jason Calacanis (00:00:59): Today's chilled mint. Today's chilled mint. David Sacks (00:01:01): Ugh. You don't seem very chill. You seem David Friedberg (00:01:04): This is the first one I Chamath Palihapitiya (00:01:04): want. Agitated and angry. No. Jason Calacanis (00:01:07): I'm trying to get us back to that original all in energy where we laughed and we had fun and we enjoyed each other's company. David Sacks (00:01:14): Yeah. But, Jake, Al, seriously, do you have a side deal going on with Alp right now? Jason Calacanis (00:01:18): No. I don't have a deal yet. I don't know if I have a deal. There's no deal. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:01:23): I'm texting Tucker now just David Sacks (00:01:25): to cut Jason Calacanis (00:01:44): Alright, everybody. Welcome back to what Jensen from NVIDIA has confirmed is the number one podcast in the world. Yes. The all in podcast is here. We had an amazing time in DC last week, and we'll get into that. But, hey, Freiberg, you crushed it on all those incredible speakers last week. Ten days you had to pull off that event, Friedberg, and you did it. Chamath and I just parachuted in to DC last week for the AI summit. Sachs was busy working with POTUS to get all those executive orders done. Take us behind the scenes, Freeburg. All of these incredible speakers. You got Lisa from AMD. You had Lutnick. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:02:27): I liked David Friedberg (00:02:28): him. Besant. I liked him. We had to say no to a lot of tech company CEOs that found out about the event and wanted to speak on stage. So there was a big kind of cutoff that we had to make around making sure that we got our message across. I think if you watch the content, we talked briefly about it at the beginning, but the focus was really on trying to dispel the negative AI narrative and myth that AI is just here to destroy jobs because there's this big economic boom that's happening both with respect to new industries that are emerging, which is why we showcased Hadrian and others, but then also the infrastructure needed to support the AI race with data centers, chips, mining, and energy. And so we highlighted each of those four industries. And then the cabinet people found out about it and wanted to get involved. So we were, unfortunately, squeezing people on and off stage. It's kinda crazy to tell the secretary of treasury he has to get off the stage because he's passed his twenty minute allocation, but we had to line everything up so that the president could get his secret service detail to clear the stage and get set up in time. That's why we were rushing everyone. But, man, what a week. What a rush. It was awesome. Thanks to David Sachs for the leadership and pulling it all together, bringing those folks to the table. And, Sachs, congrats on getting your EO signed and your action plan published. That was pretty cool. Pretty awesome to meet the president and meet all those cabinet members and have all of this day come together because of the work you've been doing. How does it feel? Jason Calacanis (00:03:55): Sax, how are you doing in the afterglow there? I could see that you're in the afterglow. You sent me a picture of the four besties with our incredible forty seventh president. How are feeling right now? Are you David Sacks (00:04:06): gonna put that on the screen? Jason Calacanis (00:04:08): I mean Later. We have it. I don't, yeah, I don't know if that's allowed. Are we allowed to put that on the screen? I don't know what the protocol is. David Sacks (00:04:14): Yeah. I think we can. Jason Calacanis (00:04:15): Yeah. I mean, I haven't gotten my picture. I did notice that I was unfortunately, when they took the picture of the four of us with the president, somehow I got cropped out by accident. I think maybe they weren't using a wide lens. David Friedberg (00:04:26): Wait, Jason. What was it like for you to meet the president? Because just for the audience, we all stood in line, and then we took a photo with the president backstage, and then we did a photo with the four of us. But, Jason, when you had your moment with the president, what did you say? Did you ask him about immigration? Did you ask David Sacks (00:04:40): have your him about photo with the president. Oh, for sure. Saw my phone. David Friedberg (00:04:44): Did you did you bring up solar panels with him? Like, what Jason Calacanis (00:04:46): was your big moment all about? I didn't know we were taking a picture. That was like sprung on me. So I was like, oh, we're taking a picture. So my brother Josh, who runs security for us, was like, they need you in the back to take a picture with the president. And I was like, yeah, I'm good. I I gotta I gotta prepare for, you know, some Oh, you were gonna pass? Well, I thought he was joking with me. So I was like, yeah. Yeah. I'm good. I'm good. He's like, no. No. I'm serious. They're they're taking pictures with the president. I was like, we are? Okay. I ran back and they put us in line. And then I was like, I think I'm getting punked here because they kept repeating to me, okay, Jason, you're last. You're last. And they know, and I know you guys like to put in a joke or two. Donald Trump (00:05:29): I, you know, I just got Jason Calacanis (00:05:30): in line last. And it's obviously you know, it's it's a big deal to take a picture with the president. So I didn't want to, you know, use that time inappropriately or anything. So I just said it's a pleasure to meet you. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:05:41): Just say it already. You like him. Just say it. Jason Calacanis (00:05:43): Just let's get him over Chamath Palihapitiya (00:05:44): the way. Just get it get to the end. You like him. You tried not to. You know, you're all mister big shot, mister big talk, and then you got in front of him, and you like him. Just say it. Jason Calacanis (00:05:56): What I will say is Chamath Palihapitiya (00:05:57): Jesus Christ. I like him. Jason Calacanis (00:05:59): I dislike him. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:06:00): What a joke. You're such a goon. David Friedberg (00:06:02): I had a great time. Jason Calacanis (00:06:02): I had a great time in DC. You're a predictable goon. David Friedberg (00:06:07): You know what you're like? Jason Calacanis (00:06:08): A goon is. Okay? Stop Riz. Stop Aura farming. You don't know what gooning is. Okay? Aura farming. I had a great time meeting him. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:06:14): It was a great event. Jason Calacanis (00:06:15): Aura farming, obviously. He's trying to get his Riz up to impress his kids. But it was great, and I didn't know what to do. Was pictures David Friedberg (00:06:24): so he could end Chamath Palihapitiya (00:06:24): up not move on. I David Friedberg (00:06:29): what do think of his speech, Jason? David Sacks (00:06:30): I thought he gave Jason Calacanis (00:06:31): you a shout out. David Sacks (00:06:32): Jason won't even ignore after the president gave you a shout out. Jason Calacanis (00:06:34): I don't know about love. David Friedberg (00:06:35): He said even Jason. How many times have Chamath Palihapitiya (00:06:38): you listened to that clip over and over? How Donald Trump (00:06:39): many times? David Friedberg (00:06:41): Many people have you shared that with? How many Play the clip. Donald Trump (00:06:44): Play the clip. I wanna also Oh, no. Say hello and thanks to Jamath and his wonderful wife, Nat. Thank you very much for being here. Thank you very much. It was great seeing Great you Jason Calacanis (00:06:59): couple. Donald Trump (00:07:00): David Friedberg and even as we know, Jason Gallican. I say even. Thank you, Jason. That's great. Jason Calacanis (00:07:12): Thank Jason. Donald Trump (00:07:13): I appreciate that. Yeah. He's a good person. Jason Calacanis (00:07:16): I mean, he could call David Sacks (00:07:17): you a good person. David Friedberg (00:07:18): Called you a good person. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:07:19): I think Jason Calacanis (00:07:19): so. Here we are. David Friedberg (00:07:20): What president what president's ever called you a good person this way? Come on. Jason Calacanis (00:07:23): I mean, it's it's obviously, like, surreal for all of us, I think, to be this close to the administration and then for Sacks to be part of it. What I will say is you have to give a lot of credit to this administration for the velocity they're going, what they're accomplishing, even if you disagree with certain items on the margins, and their ability to engage with leaders doing important work. And if we compare that to Biden and Kamala, like, they weren't even letting people come to White House. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:07:53): Is it is this Jason Calacanis (00:07:54): like I love this administration. I love the administration. I I like Trump. David Friedberg (00:07:58): This is a cabinet of CEOs. Let me just Jason Calacanis (00:08:00): say this. I'm not in love with Trump. I'm in like with Trump. That's where I'm at. I'm not in love with Trump. I'm in like with Trump. David Friedberg (00:08:08): But what better team has ever been put together? It is a cabinet of CEOs. It is a cabinet of managers. It's a cabinet of people who know how to get done. And every time I go there, I'm impressed by this cabinet. I pull my hair out when I'm Jason Calacanis (00:08:19): leaving You're pro Trump. Finally, Friedberg, you've been splitting it. You've been dancing around the issue. Are you full 100% in support of Trump? You want to sit here and put me on the spot? I put you on the spot. David Friedberg (00:08:30): I support my president. I support the president. Okay. So you voted for him, Jason Calacanis (00:08:34): and you love Trump. You voted for him, and you love Trump. David Friedberg (00:08:37): I love what he's doing. And you voted for him. And I have issues with the spending, and that's not been resolved. So Jason Calacanis (00:08:43): like I said before, here we are, folks. David Friedberg (00:08:45): My full throated endorsement will come around when Doge actions are taken seriously and or the White House puts pressure on congress to take action on spending on the budget. What is everybody's favorite moment? Jason Calacanis (00:08:56): Favorite other than Trump, you know, being absolutely amazing, great speech, he's hilarious, whatever, but put POTUS outside that because it's hard to compete with the president of The United States. Saks, did you have a couple of favorite moments? Give us a couple of favorite moments. David Sacks (00:09:10): First of all, I think we should talk about the substance of the speech because I think this was the first speech that president Trump has given on AI since the AI boom began. He's he's spoken about it before, but this was a full length policy speech. And he declared that The United States was in an AI race. It's a global competition. I think the the language that he used was reminiscent of how president John F. Kennedy declared that America was in a space race. And in a similar way, president Trump declared that we had to win the AI race. I think you could argue that the AI race is more important than the space race. It's gonna reshape the global economy. It's gonna determine who the superpowers are of the twenty first century. And president Trump was really clear that we had to win it and that he was going to support a strategy for winning it. And then he laid out what some of those key pillars are. Number one was was innovation. We have to get the red tape out of the way and let our geniuses cook, and clearly was very supportive to a lot of the CEOs and entrepreneurs in the crowd. Number two is infrastructure. He touted the hundreds of billions of dollars of investments in energy and power generation and grid upgrades and data centers that he's supporting. And then he also supported AI exports. He said that we have to make America's tech stack the global standard. So I think those were really important messages. And then on top of that, I think there was also some parts of the speech that maybe have gotten less attention, but are also important, where he said that it's not only important that we win, he said it's important how we win, and he sort of mentioned three non negotiables here. Number one was that American workers have to be at the center of the prosperity that we create. Number two is that the AI models that the government procures and buys must be free of ideological bias, so no woke AI. And he also signed an executive order to prohibit woke AI in the federal government. We can talk about that in a second. That probably was my favorite moment. Jason Calacanis (00:11:10): Was your favorite moment? David Sacks (00:11:11): Okay. Was my favorite moment. And then the Jason Calacanis (00:11:13): third red meat moment. I thought that David Sacks (00:11:14): was That was like the red meat. Yeah. Yeah. That was the Jason Calacanis (00:11:15): red meat for the base. Yeah. David Sacks (00:11:16): Yeah. The third thing is he he did say that we do wanna prevent our technologies from being misused or stolen by malicious actors. And look, we we are gonna monitor for emerging and unforeseen risks. So, you know, we're not gonna disregard the risk. But he had this really good line in the speech about how even though AI look. It's it's a daunting technology because it's so powerful. And like any revolutionary technology like that, it can be used for bad as well as good. But the daunting nature of it is all the more reason why we have to do it in The United States. Why The United States has to be the pioneer and the leader is because we don't want the power of that technology being developed in other parts of the world. At least other parts of world are gonna have it, but we wanna be the ones on the cutting edge who are defining it and leading it. Jason Calacanis (00:12:01): Fantastic. Okay. David Sacks (00:12:02): I think it was a it was a really important speech, I think. This idea of an AI race that is similar to the space race, I think, is gonna be the dominant frame on AI policy for years to come. Jason Calacanis (00:12:14): Well, it's pretty clear, you know, this presidency, this term is gonna be earmarked, I think, by four key initiatives, AI, crypto, immigration, and tariffs. And I think that feels like what they're locking into as what's important for the next three and a half years. I think you would agree with that. And it's just great that you're spearheading and helping the president with two of those four. And just the velocity to me is what's super impressive. Any way you could take us behind the the scenes of how this stuff is getting done so quickly? It feels like there's some operational cadence here that we didn't see in his first term, certainly didn't see in the Biden term, but there's a there's a cadence here that's different. Yeah? Start up speed? How is that Well, yeah, we David Sacks (00:13:02): call it he's working at tech speed. I just think that the president's constantly working. I mean, he's just so energetic. I mean, he basically works, like, two full workdays. I think it's well known that he doesn't need a lot of sleep, and he's continues to work late into the night. And I just think his energy propels everything forward. I also think that there's a very cohesive team at the White House under the chief of staff, Susie Wiles. I think it's very important. I think she runs a tight ship, and then you've got the deputy chief of staffs under her. And I think most of these people have been working together for a long time, and it's a team that works well together. And it just feels very coherent and cohesive to me. I think it's a very effective team. Jason Calacanis (00:13:48): Does feel like that. The pace is great. It means you're gonna get more shots on goal. You'll be able to try more things and and get more accomplished, like just like we see in startups. Chamath, outside of the president's talk, we'll go around the horn here. Top two or three moments from the discussions, just lightning round here, rapid fire. What do you got? Top two or three moments for you, Chamath, just in the discussions that were enlightening to you, inspiring to you, notable to you? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:14:11): I came out of it very motivated. I think that the combination of the speech, the executive orders, and the clarity of the big beautiful bill now give those of us that are in these markets a ton of runway to go and execute. And so those things reinforced by the various members of the cabinet, I think were very important. That was one. And then the second thing were the market commentary from both Lisa Hsu and Jensen, I thought was really valuable. And then the third was Chris Wright and Doug Bergman talking about energy, and I tweeted this yesterday, but we are sort of back to basics almost in a sense where in the absence of power, I think AI is is not going to be the thing that we think it can be. So that's gonna create an enormous amount of appetite by the federal government to do deals and get players on the field, and that's to me very exciting. So, yeah, I came away really really risk on, I guess, the best way to say it. Jason Calacanis (00:15:22): I love it. Friedrich, you have two or three moments outside of the president's speech. Obviously, that's the pinnacle there. So let's just go below the pinnacle. What were the other two or three moments for you that were salient, inspiring, notable? David Friedberg (00:15:35): I thought Jensen did a great job. I don't know what you guys thought, but he is very compelling and has a incredible vision and view on where AI is taking us, where it's headed, and what the challenges are. So I really appreciated him taking the time to come and join us. Last minute, he rearranged his schedule to come out for it, and it was great. By the way, on the point on energy, which I still think is the biggest unsolved issue right now in America besides the the federal deficit and the debt problem. Chris Wright agreed to rearrange his schedule to come and join us at the all in summit in September Jason Calacanis (00:16:11): Oh, great. David Friedberg (00:16:11): To continue the conversation. We didn't get enough time to talk about it, so we are gonna hear more from Chris, particularly with a particular focus, which is what I wanted to time on. We didn't get a chance last week on nuclear and where are we? Because he actually is very passionate. Like he said at the thing, it's where he's spending most of his time right now. And I think it's very good to hear the deep dive on where we are in the cycle on trying to accelerate nuclear energy deployment in The United States. Jason Calacanis (00:16:34): Zach, same question to you. After POTUS, you got two or three moments that stood out. David Sacks (00:16:39): Let's just talk about the executive orders for a second because I think it's pretty cool that the president of The United States signed three executive orders at the summit that we just hosted. I mean, that was pretty amazing. One of them was to promote AI exports because we want the American tech stack to become the global standard. The second was around AI infrastructure to make permitting easier so we can help solve those energy problems you're talking about, Freeburg. And then the third one was on preventing woke AI in the federal government. And that to me is probably my personal favorite because we spent a couple years on the show talking about how when we're talking about woke, you're really talking about censorship. Right? We were talking about censoring people's views based on Jason Calacanis (00:17:21): Bias. David Sacks (00:17:22): Ideological bias, ideological dogmas. We saw what was happening in social media before Elon bought X that helped bring things back. But we were on a track, I think, before president Trump's election to repeat that whole social media censorship apparatus in the form of AI bias or AI censorship. And we saw this with the whole black George Washington and where some AI models were saying it was worse to misgender someone than to have a global thermonuclear war. Yeah. And this wasn't an accident because if you go back to the Biden executive order on AI, was there something like 20 pages of language on there encouraging DEI values to be infused into AI models. So again, we were on track to repeat all the social media censorship, all the trust and safety stuff in this new world of AI, but it would have been even more insidious because at least when someone gets censored, you kinda find out about it. Jason Calacanis (00:18:20): It's explicit. It's not David Sacks (00:18:21): It's explicit. Yeah. But with AI, it would have been worse because you wouldn't have even known. It would just be there rewriting history in real time to serve a current political agenda. It would have been brainwashing our kids. Jason Calacanis (00:18:32): Oh, and people trust these AIs more than they should. I mean, these things are making a prediction of the next word coming. This is not like God given truth here. And so, Friedrich, you wanted to interject that about this one? Because this is the actually, I'll be honest, Saxe. I'm surprised you're saying this was the most important one to you. I like that you clarified it because it was the one that was mocked or kinda like people were like, what? Why is this important? I think you made a good case for why it's important. Friedberg, your response? David Friedberg (00:18:59): Yep. But, Saxe, this is not about broadly making, quote, AI non ideological. Private companies should still have the right through freedom of speech or freedom of expression or freedom to operate to make AI that does whatever they want it to do. What the EO was was that the federal government would not procure ideologically biased AI. Is that correct? David Sacks (00:19:20): So exactly. No, we're aware. David Friedberg (00:19:21): Just to make sure that the federal government is not trying to instruct private companies how to operate. Simply saying if you wanna sell to us, these are the rules of the road. David Sacks (00:19:29): Yes, that's true. So we were very careful about the First Amendment issues. And you're right that if a private company wants to put out a biased AI product, we're not gonna tell people they can't use it. David Friedberg (00:19:41): Right. And it could work. It could be successful. People might like it, yada yada. David Sacks (00:19:44): Right? Just saying that the federal government is not gonna spend taxpayer money buying AI models that have compromised their accuracy and quality because they're beholden to some, you know, ideological agenda. Jason Calacanis (00:19:58): Which is similar to the approach with the universities. Right? Hey. Listen. You could have a biased university. We're just not gonna fund it. We're not participating. I think it's it's quite reasonable in that way. David Sacks (00:20:08): By the And I would just say that, you know, we were a lot more careful about this than the Biden administration was when they required that DEI be inserted into all these models. They didn't distinguish between public and private money or government procurement versus private models. So they just they were trying to suffuse DEI into everything. And what we're looking for here is just neutrality. Right? We're looking for a lack of ideological bias. The first step was to get rid of that Biden EO, which the president did his first week in office. This goes a little bit further, and it's a little bit of a shot across the bow of these Silicon Valley companies saying, look, you need to play it straight. You need to be ideologically unbiased. Jason Calacanis (00:20:45): As the default. David Sacks (00:20:46): As the default, when you sell to the government, you can't insert your values at the expense of accuracy. Look, at the end of the day, accuracy and truth seeking is the standard, right? That's the goal. That's the goal. We don't want the quality, accuracy, and truth seeking to be sacrificed because of these ideological Are David Friedberg (00:21:07): seeing you that? Or, like, when you say these Silicon Valley companies, I mean, is this still kind of a widespread concern or widespread deployment from your point of view where you're sitting? Like, are you still seeing a lot of the models being trained on ideological systems that, you know, are preferential to one group and not to another? David Sacks (00:21:24): I think it was a much bigger concern six months ago. I don't think there's been such a huge vibe shift since president Trump's election and taking office that, like, the work stuff is sort of going away on its own. But I and I think that's the trajectory we're headed, but it was But you David Friedberg (00:21:37): still think it's important enough to make sure that there's an ELO. David Sacks (00:21:40): Yeah. It's like, look, this is make sure this thing doesn't come back from the dead. I think there's just been a huge vibe shift since president Trump's election, and woke has definitely fallen out of favor, and it seems to be going away on its own. But we could still get, you know, Orwellian outcomes with AI. And I do think it's very important to just keep underscoring that what AI models should be focused on is the truth, is on accuracy, and we don't want ideological agendas to sacrifice that. And I think I think that even though this is a less salient issue now than six months ago, precisely because of the vibe shift, I still think it's important to underscore this point that we don't want David Friedberg (00:22:20): Would you go so far We David Sacks (00:22:21): don't want AI taking an Orwellian direction. David Friedberg (00:22:24): Yeah. Would you go so far as to limit free speech and and make it non ideologically biased? Like, would you make that law if you could? Because No. Again, the the the decision about the federal government procuring versus what these private companies can choose to reflect as their, quote, values in their systems. No. Jason Calacanis (00:22:42): He just you already answered it. He would not. David Sacks (00:22:44): Yeah. No. Look. I we understand the difference between public procurement and private speech. And, in in a way that the Biden administration did not because they were saying that all AI models Yes. Jason Calacanis (00:22:53): Had to be superior to a specific ideology. David Sacks (00:22:55): To CEI stuff. Jason Calacanis (00:22:57): Yes. Was an ideology they wanted embedded in it. You're saying don't put it in ideology, but just to be clear here, I wanna make one point. This is the defaults. Anybody who wants to, when they start their prompt or they set up their preferred language model, could say, I'm an atheist, here's what I believe, Please speak to me with this in mind. Or I'm a Catholic. You know? I'm a prostitute. Whatever you want. Here's my belief system. Please never reference these three subject matters in this way. So this is the default. I think it's a great thing to explain to I David Friedberg (00:23:29): think that's a great example, J Cal. I do think we'll end up seeing religious AI. I think we'll see AI that's tuned to people's religious beliefs and other ideological. But I think yeah. Jason Calacanis (00:23:37): Have one of the startups we did was doing a learning app, and they were struggling, and they just made a prayer app. And their prayer app went parabolic, and now they're just, like, printing money. So there is definitely a huge market here. David Sacks (00:23:51): Jay Kal, what were your highlights? Jason Calacanis (00:23:53): It was great to be, you know, included in everything, so I appreciate that. We had a No. I'm being David Friedberg (00:23:59): dead serious. David Sacks (00:23:59): The conversation finally didn't get lost in the mail. Jason Calacanis (00:24:02): No. But here's the thing. I think this could have been a non all in thing. It could have just been, you know, you could have done it and just invited who you wanted to. So I like that it was under the all in umbrella and that we didn't censor anything. And we went right at hard topics. I'm a moderate. I know people wanna make me into, like, a stupid lib, but I am an independent moderate. And there were moments in time when we had great debate too. This wasn't just a love letter to the administration. One of the great moments was JD Vance. It was just great that he wanted to come chop it up and just hang with the besties. And he came out and he went right at me. He was like, Hey, You treated me like a beep at the thing. We had a big debate. And, you know, he went right at me. And then I was like, okay. It's on. Wanna talk about stuff? And he said, yeah. Let's get into it. And that's what I love about JD. JD to me seems like the politician of the future. I know this is like the Trump's Chamath Palihapitiya (00:24:51): administration, So but like him? Jason Calacanis (00:24:53): No, I'm in like with Trump, I'm in love with JD because he's young, he's opinionated, and he likes to mix it up. He's on Twitter all day long, he engages people on Twitter, He engages people in other groups. I'll leave it at that. And we had a really, I think, honest discussion about immigration, and we got back to the high skilled immigration question. That's the third rail for MAGA and for the country right now, immigration, recruiting. David Sacks (00:25:19): You mean you brought it up right off the bat? Jason Calacanis (00:25:21): No, no. He said he wanted talk about no, you brought it up. No, no, no, no. David Sacks (00:25:25): It's your hobby horse, David Friedberg (00:25:26): very good. Jason Calacanis (00:25:26): He said, I wanna continue the debate. And I said, okay, let's continue the debate. So here we go. He was super spicy, and he made a great super spicy point that I wanna point out here on Amplify. If companies are gonna be laying people off, and there was an incredible chart that came out, it was in the Financial Times, and they showed male college graduates versus non college graduate males. And there was usually a huge gap in unemployment between those two. In other words, if you had the college degree, you had a much better chance than the non college degree male. And now those two things have flipped or they're neck and neck. If you have a college degree, you have no advantage as a man coming out in this twenty to twenty seven year old range. This is men. Women are actually doing better, more women in college than men, yada yada. But he's very attuned to this. And he says he's got big concerns right now. So this is, again, why I love JD, because JD is very tuned into the fact that people are asking for more H-1B visas and that typically is to save money and supposed to be very skill people. But why is Microsoft laying off 9,000 people then asking for more H-1B visas? This is a really honest, truth seeking question. And it's hard for this administration to talk about this issue because I know you got Steve Miller, Batten, whatever people, all the way on one side who wanted to deport twenty, thirty million people, Tucker, and then you have other people who are more moderate. And I thought that was a really great moment in time for America and for us as a podcast to challenge and have a really important discussion. And he made some great points there. Number two, we had a great debate, I think, about energy. David Friedberg (00:27:02): No. Disagree. You disagree? Okay. I disagree with the because I think you challenged him with I I think you challenged him with things that were not facts and not true, and I'm happy to debate that with you offline. I think he was caught off guard, but I think it was pretty, like Jason Calacanis (00:27:15): Well, no. David Friedberg (00:27:16): Rough and inappropriate. 100 p if you Jason Calacanis (00:27:18): think it's inappropriate, that's fine. Walked through favorite David Sacks (00:27:20): moments were all the ones where he got No. No. Bad. Jason Calacanis (00:27:22): Was the ones where we had debate. David Sacks (00:27:23): That's what you're describing. Jason Calacanis (00:27:24): No. No. Where there were debates. David Sacks (00:27:26): When you got into it with the vice president, you got into it with the secretary of energy. Those were your favorite moments when you got to Jason Calacanis (00:27:33): Okay. Great. So okay. Fine. I like when there's a little conflict, a little debate about an important issue. And when I walk the audience, which was, you know, 90% Republican, GOP, MAGA, etcetera, people said, that was a great moment. I really liked that debate. Because he kept saying, like, nonreliable energy or whatever. I was like, are you talking about solar? And I think there was a little misinformation reliable. David Friedberg (00:27:55): No. It's not misinformation. Battery. Jason Calacanis (00:27:57): Right now, Texas is 30% some days, wind and energy. You know? Like, I can tell you, I David Friedberg (00:28:02): live in the great state Donald Trump (00:28:03): of Texas. David Friedberg (00:28:03): Texas is Texas is roughly 5% solar, just so you know. Jason Calacanis (00:28:06): What's that? David Friedberg (00:28:07): Texas is roughly 5% solar. Jason Calacanis (00:28:10): Right. And wind puts it up to 25 to 30% on the top days. It's coming from that. My point about that is and it's cheaper to put in a solar and battery farm than a new coal plant. It is a 100%. We can pull up the stats. David Friedberg (00:28:22): It is twice the cost to do solar than it is to do nat gas. It takes 4,000 acres, whereas nat gas said coal. Nat gas takes 20 acres. Jason Calacanis (00:28:28): I said coal. David Friedberg (00:28:29): No one said coal. The the big advocacy with these guys is to use nat to use methane. Oh, no. He was saying methane Jason Calacanis (00:28:35): coal, clean coal, clean coal. He said it 50 times. David Friedberg (00:28:38): These methane plants are half the cost of solar. They can get stood up in less than two years to generate a gigawatt. And instead of being 4,000 acres of solar, you can get it done for, you know, call it 20 acres. Now talk a little bit about pollution. And that's a big part of why they're doing this. Well, a big part of methane is that it's actually cleaner than coal, which is why they're using it cleaner than oil. Jason Calacanis (00:28:59): And nuclear. David Friedberg (00:28:59): Cleaner than oil. And The two dirtiest ways of getting energy. Jason Calacanis (00:29:03): Now science guy. Now do solar. I'm trying to you a fact David Friedberg (00:29:08): about why about why it is cheaper and faster, which is what he was making an advocacy for. Right? It's not about like, solar, Yes, you're right. It has a lower carbon footprint when you're running it. But at the end of the day, what these guys are focused on and a big challenge for America is how do we scale energy production in The States? And scaling energy production, I personally think we need to fix the regulatory roadblocks in nuclear, and Chris Wright's been very vocal on Jason Calacanis (00:29:30): all agree on that. David Friedberg (00:29:31): But the fact is this nat gas supply that we have in The United States and the fact that we can deploy nat gas energy production very quickly is what makes it such a reliable source right now if The US wants to have a chance at scaling from one terawatt to two faster than we And currently projected think we do need reason. You know? It's not it's not about, like, solar is being bad. Solar is bad. Like, that's not the the argument. It's just like, dude, we gotta get moving fast and we gotta have reliable energy if we're gonna beat the demand. I debates just wanna point in Jason Calacanis (00:29:59): when there's bad faith moments. I think it's a bad faith moment for when I say coal versus solar, and then you say, no, you're wrong. It's solar versus nat gas. And that's what he was doing. This is what politicians do. Here on All In, we like to do, you know, fact based, truth first stuff, not biased stuff. And so solar, you're comparing, you know, solar and how fast it is versus how fast it is to go to gas. Of course, it's faster to go to nat gas if we have those available. Let's put that aside. It's an important debate. The fact that you and I are debating it is important. And I also thought Lisa from AMD was fantastic. I haven't heard from her. David Sacks (00:30:35): By the way, just wanna point out that when I got back to the conference, so I I left for a time to go back to the White House and then came back. The first thing everyone said to me when I got back was, Did you see Jay Cal being a jerk to Chris Wright? Everyone was like all a jizzy Yeah, about a jerk. Jason Calacanis (00:30:54): He's a civil servant. He has to answer hard questions. David Friedberg (00:30:57): You didn't talk to him in a way that you would. David Sacks (00:31:00): Basically, everyone thought you were a jerk to Chris Wright, and you were kinda a jerk to JD. And what are your favorite moments? Jason Calacanis (00:31:06): You called me an asshole. David Sacks (00:31:07): Are your favorite moments from the conference you're reminiscing about? Jason Calacanis (00:31:10): Said you were an asshole to me. Anyway, the point is, one thing you're gonna get here at the all in time. David Sacks (00:31:19): I'm alright. This is what David Friedberg (00:31:20): I'm say. David Sacks (00:31:22): I'm gonna say this. Jason Calacanis (00:31:22): Two out of three with a mix David Sacks (00:31:24): saying this. You almost derailed the whole thing. Jason Calacanis (00:31:26): No. Wait. I derailed it. You're a silver servant, mister Sachs. You're a silver servant. You're all civil servants. David Sacks (00:31:32): You've been putting up with you for five years of this podcast. Jason Calacanis (00:31:34): The hard questions. David Sacks (00:31:35): Was perfect training for government services beyond the podcast being interrupted by you for five years. Jason Calacanis (00:31:41): Yes. David Sacks (00:31:42): That's why I'm so ready. Jason Calacanis (00:31:43): Dwell. You learn about you work for David Sacks (00:31:45): us, Jason Calacanis (00:31:46): all of you, and you're all gonna take hard questions and you're all gonna take hard questions on September when we have the all in summit in Los Angeles. David Sacks (00:31:56): By the way, thing I'll say is Yes. Chris Wright's chief of staff care to me afterwards, and I said, oh, I'm sorry. I heard Jay Cal was a jerk to to secretary Wright. And he's like, oh, no. Chris loved it. He loves mixing it up. Jason Calacanis (00:32:08): Okay. David Sacks (00:32:08): Of And he's coming to he's coming to Olin Summit on September 8. Jason Calacanis (00:32:12): So Can't wait to debate him more. David Sacks (00:32:13): So Can't Jason Calacanis (00:32:14): wait to mix it up more. David Sacks (00:32:15): So he he likes mixing it up. So kudos Jason Calacanis (00:32:17): to Okay. And and so did David Sacks (00:32:19): so did JD Vance, the vice president to you. Stop calling JD, by the way. Jason Calacanis (00:32:25): Well, I mean, listen. I just wanna say, vice president JD Vance and I have been directly communicating. Have a we yes. David Friedberg (00:32:33): No. You haven't. Jason Calacanis (00:32:34): David Sacks, your worst nightmare. David Friedberg (00:32:36): Oh my god. Your worst is ruined. What the fuck? David Sacks (00:32:40): We let Jay Kalin to Washington and now look what's happening. Jason Calacanis (00:32:43): Yeah. Listen, I wanna level set with everybody. I am gonna ask whatever fucking question I want to whatever guest we have and nobody's stopping The only way you're gonna stop me is by writing me a huge fucking check to buy me out of this podcast and replacing me with some mid. David Friedberg (00:33:00): Until I'm not keeps you off stage, which might be an option. Jason Calacanis (00:33:03): Or secret service keeps you off stage. But the truth is this is one of the great things about this administration sex is that they love to mix it up. They like great debate. You know who didn't like great debate and ran from it? Kama Lama Ding Dong. She wouldn't even come on this fucking podcast. You know who doesn't like debate? Ding Dong. Weekend at Bernie's Biden who didn't even know what a podcast fucking is. Yep. Tim Waltz who doesn't own David Friedberg (00:33:27): You you definitely you definitely have your moments, bro. You definitely have Jason Calacanis (00:33:30): But Tim Waltz doesn't own an equity. He clearly doesn't own one share of any company. He doesn't own his fucking home. And Kimmel is on there giving a hard time about the Trump savings accounts. Wait. I mean, I don't even know if that's on David Sacks (00:33:43): the Yeah. It a Camaro hat, though, which you love. You thought that was going in the election. Jason Calacanis (00:33:47): Thought he might be able to speak to, like, the middle of America. And then I find out, like, when they do the the deep oppo research that the guy doesn't own one stock. The guy doesn't own his home. He's financially illiterate, and we're making David Friedberg (00:34:01): him He's employed by the government. He's been employed by the government his whole life. Jason Calacanis (00:34:05): I mean, have you David Sacks (00:34:06): There it is. Jason Calacanis (00:34:07): There it is. David Sacks (00:34:08): That's what Jake Al thought would win them the election. You're never gonna live that down. I remember when you tweeted. You thought that was it. You thought that was the masterstroke. Jason Calacanis (00:34:16): I thought it might stroke David Sacks (00:34:18): that was gonna win them the election. Jason Calacanis (00:34:19): Hey. Listen. Nostracanis does not bat a thousand. No Even nostracanis cannot bat a thousand, but it did come out, by the way, that Nancy Pelosi wanted to do the speedrun primary. I don't if you saw that just not to rehash too much stuff. Saxe, I wanna say there was one point of difference if you wanna get into it around the content part of it where and this is something that the press was having a field day with and they really keyed on, which was, hey, respecting IP, respecting copyright. What's the feedback been so far on that, which was a pretty spicy part of president Trump's speech? David Sacks (00:34:57): Well, I think what the president said was just very pragmatic. He said we had to have a common sense approach towards intellectual property. And he said if you have to make a deal with every single article on the Internet, every single website, every single book, every piece of IP in order to train an AI model, it wasn't feasible. He said, look, I appreciate the work that went into people creating these works, but you're not gonna be able to negotiate a deal for every single one of them. And if we require our AI models to do that, and China doesn't, and they won't, they're just training on everything, whether it's, you know, pirated or not, then we're gonna lose the AI race. So I think he took the side of a fair use definition. I don't know if he used the term fair use, but effectively, he was taking the side of a reasonable fair use. Jason Calacanis (00:35:45): What did you think of that part, Dave? Freiber? You have any thoughts or Jamarth on that part? David Friedberg (00:35:49): I think he's absolutely right. I've said this before. If something's in the Internet, if something's in the open domain, and I strongly disagree with the idea that AI getting trained is the same as AI replicating copyright material. If AI outputs text or outputs audio or outputs video that contains copyright material, it is a 100% in violation of copyright. David Sacks (00:36:13): And he said that, by the way. David Friedberg (00:36:14): Yes. And if the AI is learning, it is understanding patterns. It is understanding reasoning. It is understanding concepts by reading copyright material just like humans do. A writer, an author reads a bunch of fiction, learns good techniques, learns good concepts, learns good theory from reading all those books, and then goes and writes his or her own book. They are not violating copyright material in the same way that the FBI Jason Calacanis (00:36:38): wall, Friedberg. What if it's all the New York Times content? If it's behind the open Internet? David Friedberg (00:36:43): 100%. You're you're a 100% correct. That should be paid for or licensed. I'm talking about the open Internet. I'm talking about open material. Common I'm talking about stuff that's in the open domain. David Sacks (00:36:52): Wait. Common crawl. There's a thing called Jason Calacanis (00:36:54): common crawl. There was if somebody stole a 100 books, let's say, and put them on their website, and it was a pirated Russian website with a thousand books on it and you accidentally crawled it, you would be obligated to take that out then. David Friedberg (00:37:08): Think we all agree. Correct. Okay. Correct. Jason Calacanis (00:37:10): Because that's what a lot of the lawsuits around. So I think we're reaching something. I just wanna say, this is such an important point, especially to me as a content creator and somebody who spent his career in this. I've been thinking about the end game and I'm here in Park City, was just giving this a keynote and I wanted to show you something I made, Saxx, because I think we have to get to the end game here. So in my talk, I talked a little bit about how can we get through this fight and then maybe getting to a solution. So I had my team mock up the New York Times website here and ChatGPT doing a deal with them. So here you see you're on the New York Times website and you ask it a question powered by GPT, you ask it, Hey, you might ask this question. In fact, you log in with your ChatGPT credentials, your and it could be Grok, it could be Gemini. Give me the earliest mentions of Putin, you know, if you were a fan of Putin or something, and it would then go through that and give you your your Putin references. And then I made another one and then, obviously, this would be an exclusive to Chet GPT. It would be one of those things where, you know, they get an exclusive. And then here on the Disney plus channel, imagine you could make yourself into a Jedi Knight and you could then upload your photo. You know, kids might really get into this. You upload your photo. You can make you talked about this, Freiberg, a couple of times of the future of narrative storytelling. You up your photo and then it makes you into a Jedi Knight. There's there's Darth Kallikanis. So David Sacks (00:38:32): looks to me like you're infringing on their trademark. Jason Calacanis (00:38:35): What's that? David Sacks (00:38:36): Are you infringing on their their copyright? Jason Calacanis (00:38:38): This is fair use. This is fair use. This is a perfect example of fair use for editorial. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:38:42): You're also infringing on some Ozempic. That's a Absolutely. Trust Jason Calacanis (00:38:46): me. I am definitely infringing on some Ozempic here. Guys, I'm I'm past those epic. I'm on to peptides now, man. I'm on the Wolverine protocol. So look at Yeah. I started doing the I mean, I I don't take pod What could go wrong? Don't take a podcaster's advice. Please don't take a podcaster's advice on your health care. Rule number one, take Chamot's advice because he's got 6% body fat, which I think attributes to much of your pomp and circumstance around your privates. I think it has to do with the lack of fat, but I'm gonna leave it at that. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:39:19): First of all, it's 11, but, you know, it it that's that's like that right that's like right before I go on summer vacation, then it then it ends up at twelve or thirteen. Jason Calacanis (00:39:27): Did you go get that did you go get that gelato? What was that place we went that we loved? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:39:31): L'Olumi. I've gone there every day. Every day so far. Jason Calacanis (00:39:34): Did you do two or one? Be honest. Two or one. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:39:36): Bro, I've had I've had I've been doing No. No. Per session. Do you do two or one? Be honest. Per session, I start with the medium, and then I and I finish with the small. Jason Calacanis (00:39:44): Yeah. Exactly. You this stuff is so good. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:39:47): I've never tasted any gelato like this. It's incredible. Jason Calacanis (00:39:49): It's unbelievable. We have to license it for The United States. It's pretty all in brand. We have to license it from them. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:39:54): It's really incredible. Jason Calacanis (00:39:54): But, Chamath, just generally speaking or anybody who wants to have at it, Friedberg, Saks, what do we think about the endgame here? Because there's some major lawsuits here. They're gonna get settled in the next year or two. What what do we think about sort of the future I've shown here today? David Friedberg (00:40:09): I think what Sachs just highlighted is exactly right. David Sacks (00:40:12): Look. We gotta have a common sense approach here or we're gonna lose the AI race. Mean, of the But how about Hold on. One the key determinants of AI quality is the amount of data that you have. It's very simple, right? It's there's a few building blocks. There's energy, there's chips, and there's data, and there's algorithms. And if you lose on any one of those dimensions, then you're in trouble. Right. So, look, you just can't have a situation where China can train on the entire Internet and RAI models are hamstrung by needing to contract. Totally agree. Contracts with every single website. David Friedberg (00:40:45): But right now like Europe. Elon owns x. Jason Calacanis (00:40:47): Right? He owns Twitter for now x. Does Sam Altman have the right to use x in his corpus? David Friedberg (00:40:54): It's publicly available? Jason Calacanis (00:40:56): No. It's not. No. It is not publicly available. Endpoint. It's not a public endpoint. David Sacks (00:41:00): Honestly, don't I don't know. There's I don't know the answer to that. There's some edge cases here. We're gonna Jason Calacanis (00:41:04): have to come up with Chamath Palihapitiya (00:41:04): a very use not about whether it's behind a a paywall or not. It's whether these APIs exist and whether you're you're actually contractually allowed to use them or not. Jason Calacanis (00:41:12): The terms of service. David Friedberg (00:41:13): Correct. The terms of service. It's published on every website what the terms of service are with respect to the content. David Sacks (00:41:17): I think it would be okay to let people opt out. You know? So we already have this with common crawl. You could put in the footer of the website, you put in robots.txt and you opt out of Common Crawl. Common Crawl is like this nonprofit organization that basically archives the entire web every few months. David Friedberg (00:41:35): Funded by Gil Elbaz, Formerly Chamath Palihapitiya (00:41:38): Google. Yeah. David Friedberg (00:41:39): Formerly of Google. Great fan of the pod. Shows up to our summit. It's great guy. And all of OpenAI was built off of Common Crawl originally. Jason Calacanis (00:41:46): The first training. And he but they're very clear, by the way. They say you have to clear copyrights, you don't get to just use Open Chrome. David Friedberg (00:41:52): Can I Chamath Palihapitiya (00:41:52): go out on a limb? David Friedberg (00:41:53): I don't know if Chamath Palihapitiya (00:41:54): you guys saw this Amazon deal with the New York Times for $25,000,000, did you see that today? David Friedberg (00:42:00): No. I didn't see today, explain it please. I think that the New Chamath Palihapitiya (00:42:04): York Times licensed Amazon all of their content, including The Athletic and a bunch of other things for training. 20,000,000. Sorry. 20,000,000 a year. Jason Calacanis (00:42:13): Okay. Here we go. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:42:13): I read that and I thought this is the peak of these deals. These deals will only go down in terms of dollar value from here. And it actually brought me to this point where I was thinking to myself, is it even realistic to believe that patents and copyrights actually exist in five years? And I went through this exercise of like, if a computer studies the periodic table and also understands the laws of physics, laws of biology, the laws of chemistry, and then independently derives some material that is otherwise patented, what will happen? And then separately, if two competing AIs invent a new material from scratch, how will the international courts deal with this? And if you take all of these examples to the limit, at the limit, the idea that there are copyrights, enforceable copyrights, I think is a very fragile assumption. So I'm actually thinking more that we have to spend some time understanding the landscape of a world that doesn't have copyrights and patent protections. And instead, what is the surface area in which you compete? What is trade secret? What does that mean in a world of AI? And I think it's quite an interesting thing to think about. Jason Calacanis (00:43:43): Patents are a totally different beast. I think that's a fascinating string to pull on. I will tell you, I will take the other side of the bet. If we wanna make a poly market on this, I will guarantee that this will be the beginning of the deals, and the deals will go up from here. I'll tell you why. The reason the New York Times made that deal is to make it apparent that what OpenAI has done has damaged their business, because now they have a customer, and their customer is Jeff Bezos at Amazon and and Jassy, and now they can show damages. Because and they now those damages could give them an injunction against OpenAI, and OpenAI's gotta take it out of their crawl, of their, you know, construct, and that's gonna be really expensive for them. It's not not doable, but it's gonna be expensive. And let's think on a societal basis of what we want as a society. Do we want a society in which journalists, writers, artists, musicians, filmmakers, actors cannot make a living, podcasters, or do we want a world in which they can? And I think technologists Hold on. Let me finish. David Sacks (00:44:41): But you're Jason Calacanis (00:44:41): assuming Hold on. If it's technologist as a technologist, we typically think if we can crawl it, it's ours. What I can tell you as an artist is if I make it, it's mine. And you need my permission because it's my art. And I think it the industry will do better if they respect them because now the New York Times can hire more fact checkers. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:44:58): But can I just ask you a question? Jason Calacanis (00:45:00): Yeah. Go ahead. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:45:00): Sure. But why do you have to connect the two as immutable things? Meaning, why can't somebody make something still let's just say it's a song, but that song can now be made by multiple AI models. But if they make the song, there's a reasonable claim that even if they don't have the copyright, more people will want them to perform the song than some random AI. So can't you make a living without having the copyright? Jason Calacanis (00:45:31): Which is the choice of the artist. Some artists are were very well known for not wanting their art to exist in some mediums. As a perfect example, the Rolling Stones for a long time thought they would be sellouts if they had their music used in commercials. When they did start me up with Windows, that was a really big concession from them. And that's up to the artist to make that decision. You make a a valid claim. Hey. Yeah. You go on tour. You make more money. But that's the artist decision, not the technologists or the people stealing their content. And by the way, $20,000,000 a year is a $102,100,000 dollar highly paid journalist, fact checkers at the New York Times. They're gonna get 10 of those deals, and it's going to create a golden age of journalism and content. And we should be happy to Chamath Palihapitiya (00:46:11): I told you this example, Jason, but at Beast, we did a licensing deal of our content to allow OpenAI to learn to run training runs on our videos. And at the board, the thing that we kept talking about was I was really concerned, like, let's just do a couple year deal max. And the reason is we have no idea what this looks in five or ten years and there's just as much chance to your point that we get it wrong as right. Now that was about six months ago and so the intuition that I had back then was maybe we should keep the deal term as short as possible. But now when I see how important AI is in the global landscape and what China is doing, I think on the margins that this idea that these copyrights will mean something, in my mind, I am underwriting the value of these things going to zero. And I'm asking myself instead for my businesses, how are we actually building a real defensible moat and not a piece of paper that we can use to sue somebody? Jason Calacanis (00:47:14): Okay. Friedberg, you want the last word here? We gotta move on to some other topics. David Sacks (00:47:17): Just wanna be Right. Donald Trump (00:47:18): Actually the last word. David Sacks (00:47:19): Yeah. I just wanna be clear that nobody is losing their copyright. Copyright is the right not to have your work copied. And if an AI model produces outputs that copy or plagiarize your work, then that's a violation of the law. And I think the president specifically said that. We're not allowing copying or plagiarizing. The question is whether AI models are allowed to do math on the internet. Know? David Friedberg (00:47:46): Pattern recognition. Pattern recognition. Basically, that's what it is. And JKL, I think you're conflating the two, and I I No. No. I don't wanna interrupt it. I just I understand the I understand the And and I think that this idea that, like, I can't, for example, go to the library, rent a book, read it, and then learn some of the good techniques on how to write a good book should be restricted to humans in this AI context. Like, this is exactly what they're doing. They're identifying patterns, and then they're building predictive algorithms that allow them to output stuff that starts to fit within different kind of, you know, variable settings. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:48:17): Do you guys think it's possible that if you allocated enough compute at the problem, you could write Michael Crichton's Jurassic Park de novo without ever having read it? David Friedberg (00:48:30): Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:48:31): Me too. Me too. Jason Calacanis (00:48:33): I I think David Sacks (00:48:33): I don't know what that would mean. Like Well, David Friedberg (00:48:36): this is my point. David Sacks (00:48:36): I don't I think I think humanity needs to this issue. I don't know what it means to say can AI write that? Like David Friedberg (00:48:43): But you guys remember the Ed Sheeran lawsuit? Do you remember that lawsuit? Jason Calacanis (00:48:47): I did. But let me just make one point here on this because you're you're saying I don't understand it. I spent my career in it. I understand it much better than you do, and I understand it from lawsuits and being in the weeds on it. Like, I understand it from first principles, which you do not. And I will say this is what we're talking about here is the definition. It's the definition of a derivative work, and the output matters. So if you were to take my knowledge and then create a derivative work from it and you used a percentage of my work, and that's where this will get into the nuance, is what percentage of the original work is used in the derivative work and under what context? A commercial context or a noncommercial? This is clearly a commercial one. If OpenAI was a nonprofit right now, we'd be having a distinctly different discussion because it would there would be you wouldn't be competing with me as the copyright holder to use this new medium and create the derivative works. And it has to change substantially. So if it's a if it's a cliff notes David Sacks (00:49:40): When China has the only models that are able to meet your stringent definitions of copyright. Jason Calacanis (00:49:45): Well, here's the thing. I think the China fear shit is bullshit, and I'll be totally honest here. Just because China steals IP does not mean you get to steal from Americans. In America, we have rules. And when you go to China and by the we've spent the last thirty years the major issue with China is not Taiwan. It has been re backframing. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:50:03): Let me reframe this situation. Jason Calacanis (00:50:04): Itself. Let me finish. The technology industry itself has leaned on our government for thirty, forty years, including Microsoft, including Google, to make sure our trade secrets are not stolen, our IP is not stolen, our movies are not stolen. That is the key issue with China. So just because China's a thief You David Friedberg (00:50:19): don't know Jason Calacanis (00:50:19): it. Does not mean American companies get to Have use David Sacks (00:50:21): you have you seen the latest batch of Chinese open source models or open web They Jason Calacanis (00:50:27): they steal everything. Does that mean you should be able to steal Windows? Should you be able to Chamath Palihapitiya (00:50:31): steal mac.com? Jason, let David Sacks (00:50:32): me be able to steal anything. It's stealing. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:50:35): Elon has said this pretty clearly, Grok five and for sure Grok six will not use Common Crawl, it will not use the Internet. Okay? It'll just be an enormous amount of synthetic data. And back to what Freiberg and I just agreed upon, if you synthetically go and try to generate all this content to learn across, you're invariably going to produce something that's already been created. Jason Calacanis (00:50:57): And so like some sci fi level world. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:51:00): I understand. But that's what's happening now. It's it's happening now. Jason Calacanis (00:51:04): If somebody happens to to Grok David Friedberg (00:51:07): five or Grok six? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:51:07): Is that violating copyright? It didn't even know that it existed. Jason Calacanis (00:51:11): On the output yeah. That's fine. If it on the output created a similar work, they would need to then take it down. And so that that would be a a really interesting new that's a new space we're gonna have to contend with. So Can I just give you an example? Does happen is a new concept that we would have to address in a new way. David Friedberg (00:51:31): I'll give you I'll give you a science corner example. There's this EVO two model that they published at the ARC Institute, which Patrick Collison, you know, the the main partner of John Sherman. So that EVO two model, they just ingested all the DNA data they could find in the world, trillions and trillions of base pair of data that they ingested. And then they looked at patterns in DNA, and that's it. They had no context for what the DNA represented. They had no context for the concept of genes. None of the structured understanding of what that DNA does, what it is. And you know what it did? They fed in the BRCA gene variant, and the thing output a warning saying, I think that this is a pathogenic variant to DNA without having any context. This is the breast cancer allele. And it didn't have any knowledge and it wasn't trained on that at all. It had no knowledge that there are pathogenic variants for cancer, and it identified that this was a genetic variant that can cause some sort of pathogenic outcome in the organism. So that was that's a great example where there's a lack of understanding at the human level on what really drives some of the patterns in nature, the patterns in society, the patterns in behavior that are kind of emergent phenomena perhaps that these AI models are starting to identify. And I think to Jamal's point, we may end up seeing this in things like entertainment as well. Jason Calacanis (00:52:43): Alright. This has been an amazing debate. We gotta move on. And you know what? We're gonna have more amazing debates September in Los Angeles at the All In Summit. The lineup is stacked. Alibaba's cofounder Josiah, Toma Bravo cofounder, ARK Invest Cathie Wood, Uber CEO, Dara, Sequoia's Roloff Botha, YouTuber, Cleo Abram, and many, many more coming. Saks, you get the last word here. Go. David Sacks (00:53:05): The last word is Saks. Was just highlighting this tweet that I saw where talking about Chinese open wave models or basically open source models. So, basically, all the leading American models are closed source, and all the leading Chinese models are open source. This is kind Jason Calacanis (00:53:20): They're behind. David Sacks (00:53:20): Have played out. Yeah. It's a pretty good technique for catching up is to Yeah. They're behind. Because then you get the larger open source developer community helping you out. That's great. But the point is just that these open source models are catching up pretty fast. We're ahead in many other aspects. Our chips are a lot better. Our data centers are better and so on. And I'd say our closed source models are better, but they have this one area of open source models. So again, if you hamstring our AI model's access to data by creating a whole bunch of new requirements for contract negotiations, like, we could really lose the AI race. This is a really big deal. It's not a made up concern. I don't know why you think it's made up. Jason Calacanis (00:53:56): I never said that it's made up. I think it's an opportunity for America to actually have a distinct advantage, which is that $20,000,000 from Amazon alone is 1% of the New York Times revenue, and that's gonna go directly to the bottom line. It's gonna allow them to hire more journalists. Then that protected site will have be giving in real time something these language models are gonna have to go hack and steal. That real time data is gonna be a distinct advantage for Gemini, OpenAI, Amazon, whoever chooses to do it, and we can create David Sacks (00:54:24): You have this, a like, nostalgic of quasi romantic notions about, like, journalism and the need to save It's the New York Times also art. All this stuff. Jason Calacanis (00:54:33): It's like, I mean, you can say all the derogatory things you want about me personally, Sax. David Sacks (00:54:37): That argument doesn't work. No. Jason Calacanis (00:54:39): No. You just said I have this whole nostalgia, whatever. David Sacks (00:54:41): When you Yeah. You do. You're nostalgic for journalism as it used to exist. David Friedberg (00:54:44): When I Jason Calacanis (00:54:44): know I've beat you in the debate is when you make it personal like that. It's not personal. I'm not being nostalgic. I'm trying to create a sustainable a sustainable advantage for America, and you are our public servant, and you're what saying. You will take my feedback. You will take David Sacks (00:54:59): my feedback. We're gonna ignore your feedback. We're gonna ignore your feedback. We're throwing in the fucking trash. Jason Calacanis (00:55:05): No. You take it, and I will be showing up at the White House for my tour. David Sacks (00:55:10): You have this crazy idea that we're gonna win the AI race by tying one hand behind our back so that you can subsidize journalists. No. You can subsidize the New York Jason Calacanis (00:55:18): Times broker business law. More You said before you want more training data? David Sacks (00:55:22): It's insane. Jason Calacanis (00:55:22): Pay for Pay for more training data. You're the czar. Take it back to POTUS. Alright. Let's keep moving here. We have to keep moving. We have a David Friedberg (00:55:31): great this is great debate. Jason Calacanis (00:55:32): Great debate here on the All In podcast. It's not gonna stop, folks. David Friedberg (00:55:35): It's just you yelling. It's just you yelling saying Jason Calacanis (00:55:37): things that don't make sense. But yes. Okay. You can say that. Can't You only have, David Sacks (00:55:41): like, three topics to your account. I don't Jason Calacanis (00:55:42): know what's going on. You can you can personally attack people. David Sacks (00:55:45): Know what it is? It's like we gotta let in more immigrants, number one. Jason Calacanis (00:55:49): High skilled high skilled immigrants. David Sacks (00:55:50): AI is gonna put everyone out of work. By the way, no sense of perceived contradiction between those two things. Number three, we need to, like, summarize You gross Jason Calacanis (00:55:59): know, the audience says No. It's the same topic every guys attack David Friedberg (00:56:02): me No. Jason, he's only he's the when the audience Jason Calacanis (00:56:05): I can create an AI video problem. From me like this and the three of you gang up on this and you personally attack me, the audience comes up to me and they say, wow. You really nailed and beat them. Done that today? No. Not yet. Not yet. A little bit of the Ozempic. David Sacks (00:56:17): But He's just been eating. Jason Calacanis (00:56:19): Yeah. That's true. David Sacks (00:56:20): Let him eat. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:56:20): That's actually David Sacks (00:56:20): on the heat. He's eating. Jason Calacanis (00:56:22): He's emaciated. He's 11% body fat. Let him eat. Let him cook. Alright. Listen. You and I, Saxe, will do more debate, and it's gonna be amazing. Allin.com/yadayadayada for tickets. Get in there, folks. We have to get to the docket. We're an hour in, and we still have all the news. David Sacks (00:56:38): We should talk about this this AI privacy issue that Sam Altman mentioned. Jason Calacanis (00:56:41): Alright. That's a great segue because I saw that as well, David Sachs. And as our civil servant working on AI, this is something where you could have an additional contribution. There's more work we can give you. Alright. Listen. Here it is. AI user privacy is becoming an issue because friend of the pod, Sam Altman, says there is no legal confidentiality when using his product, ChatGPT. Here's a thirty second clip. Again, friend of the pod, FOP, Sam Altman, on Theo Von. Sam Altman (00:57:11): People talk about the most personal shit in their lives to chat GPT. Young people especially, like, use it as a therapist, a life coach, having these relationship problems. What should I do? And right now, if you talk to a therapist or a lawyer or a doctor about those problems, there's, like, legal privilege for it. We haven't figured that out yet for when you talk to ChatGPT. So if you go talk to ChatGPT about your most sensitive stuff and then there's, a lawsuit or whatever, like, we could be required to produce that. And I think that's very screwed up. I think we should have, like, the same concept of privacy for your conversations with AI that we do with a therapist or whatever. Jason Calacanis (00:57:45): Okay. Sacks, this is bringing up something super important. What's your take on? David Sacks (00:57:50): Okay. Well, I think this is an interesting topic because like copyright, this is an area where we have existing law, but it does make you rethink whether those laws are truly applicable or make as much sense in this new world. So the existing law, the existing example is search history. You know, the government can get a copy of your search history. They can subpoena it. Jason Calacanis (00:58:14): Yeah. Every true crime story starts with the person searched for how do I kill my husband slowly with, you know, poison, and then they yeah. David Sacks (00:58:21): That's not catch. Exactly. The point is though that I think Sam is right about the legal treatment right now, which is that your chat history isn't any different than the search history in the eyes of the law, but it is much more personal. It's much more interactive than your search history. You are using it, like you said, you could use it as your doctor. You could use it as your therapist. You could use it as your lawyer. And so the ability for the federal government to be intrusive is so much greater than with your search history. So I don't know what, like, the right policy should be yet, but I will say it does make me uncomfortable. Jason Calacanis (00:59:02): Yeah. There's a market Can David Friedberg (00:59:04): can I make a recommendation to my AI guard? Yeah. Jason Calacanis (00:59:06): Yes, please. He's our certified. Please. David Friedberg (00:59:08): Why don't we let AI models get bar certified and get medically certified. So if the AI models, it turns out, are actually proving to be more accurate, more thoughtful, more responsive, more reasonable, whatever it is, whatever metric we're using, and they pass the same criteria as one would need to pass to qualify for the bar or to qualify for a doctor certificate, why don't we do that for the AI? If that then happens, then the same privilege accrues to the AI as it does to the individual human that does it. And now if you extrapolate from where that takes us, if we're suddenly giving AI the same sort of privileged rights that we give to privileged humans, where is that gonna take us ultimately with respect to the overall rights for AI? Jason Calacanis (00:59:52): Well, they have responsibility. Hold on a second. I just wanna point out here once again, you have a mind blowing concept here. I've never heard anybody vocalize that. Could they actually be certified in that knowledge? And if they pass the test, makes sense they would, but then you also get responsibility. So with great power comes great responsibility. I will tell you this. You can turn this stuff off, but this is an opportunity. I'm gonna send a note to Elon. David Friedberg (01:00:14): Sounds crazy today, but I guarantee if you put it on Polymarket, there will be a date when this happens. Jason Calacanis (01:00:17): Let's do That's great. Polymarket. Shout out to Shane. Let's get that up there. I just wanna point out, and I'm gonna email Elon about this when I get off the pod. This is an opportunity to create the signal of the signal equivalent of an LLM. All of your chat should be encrypted. All of it should be by by default. Encrypted by default on Grok. Make it so that Grok can't even see it. They don't have it. So when you try to subpoena it, you can do what Tim Cook does, which he says, like, I don't have it. You you if you wanna try to backdoor it, you can. That's a market opportunity. I can tell you, I only use the Brave browser and Brave search for this reason. I don't want my search history, like, saved somewhere or whatever. Fuck that. You can take control of this as an individual, but the defaults matter, and you have to then do the work. It's a great market opportunity, Chamop. I don't even wanna know what you're talking to ChatGPT about. What are you what's in your ChatGPT logs? What's in there, Chamop? How to extend? How to get the extra centimeter? What's in there? I'm trying to What's in there? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:01:13): I keep asking it to find me a moderator. Jason Calacanis (01:01:16): Oh, great. I keep asking it to find me a participant who's not a douche. Oh my god. You are so deep in your villain era, and you're leaning into it, and I'm so here for it, Tremont. I love your villain era. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:01:31): You know why? I am so Why are Jason Calacanis (01:01:33): you going into your villain era? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:01:34): I am so risk on right now. Jason Calacanis (01:01:36): It's like, Chamath Palihapitiya (01:01:37): it's liberating, actually. It's amazing. It's really amazing. Jason Calacanis (01:01:42): Is there any blowback to how outlandish you've become this year? Any blowback at all? Has it had any negative consequence on business or hiring or anything? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:01:51): No. But out but outlandish, how? How have I been outlandish? Jason Calacanis (01:01:54): You're you're you're just filter off. You're filter off. And I think it's great. I think they're over two windows back. It's absolutely fantastic we're seeing here. David Friedberg (01:02:01): I asked ChatGPT about my future and, my IQ. It's very interesting when you ask ChatGPT to analyze you. I suggest everyone do it. David Sacks (01:02:08): Well, actually, yeah, when you just ask ChatGPT or whatever, what do you know about me? And it's scary how much it already knows. David Friedberg (01:02:16): It's scary. Jason Calacanis (01:02:16): There's this great personality test. You can put this personality test into Grok, and this guy, like, made this prompt, and it goes and it tells you all your personality based on your Twitter ex history. It is wild how accurate it is. What does David Friedberg (01:02:29): it say about you, TKal? I'm I'm actually curious. Jason Calacanis (01:02:31): It says the same thing about all of us. We're all, like, networked, narcissist, ENTJ. You can literally run the Myers Briggs against your David Friedberg (01:02:40): Yeah. Jason Calacanis (01:02:41): Your chat history. It's actually but I I like your mind blowing concept there, by the way, of, like, them becoming certified in some way. Okay. Fresh economic news. It's time for the administration to take their victory lap. GDP growth was 50% higher than expectations in q two as the Fed held rates at 4.25%. In q one, GDP declined 50 basis points. That's probably due to the imports. People were stockpiling goods. David Sacks (01:03:07): That's the most pointless chart ever. Jason Calacanis (01:03:09): Okay. And then yeah. It is. I agree. It's a little bit David Sacks (01:03:11): yeah. That's distorted. That's I wanted that. Jason Calacanis (01:03:13): I wanted to have both. Yeah. I wanted to have both as bar charts. This one You're Chamath Palihapitiya (01:03:16): totally on drugs. Just say it. It's okay. David Friedberg (01:03:18): What drugs are you on? Jason Calacanis (01:03:19): I'm not. I had coffee at an Alp. David Sacks (01:03:22): Out I'm out. David Friedberg (01:03:22): We're all friends. You can tell us. Is it really just Alp? Alright. Jason Calacanis (01:03:26): That's it. I'm taking it out. David Sacks (01:03:27): Oh my god. Jason Calacanis (01:03:28): I took it out, and now let's get back to the in here. Okay. The Fed kept rates unchanged for the fifth straight meeting. This time, two out of 11 Fed governors dissented from Powell's decision. Two of the dissenters were both Republicans nominated by Trump, so it seems like the Fed is becoming a little polarized now too. First time in thirty two years that more than one governor dissented and, yeah, even one person dissenting is rare. Here's a twenty five second clip of Powell explaining how GDP factored into the cut decision. Nick, please play the clip. Jerome Powell (01:04:00): Recent indicators suggest that growth of economic activity has moderated. GDP rose at a 1.2% pace in the first half of this year, down from 2.5% last year. Although the increase in the second quarter was stronger at 3%, focusing on the first half of the year helps smooth through the volatility in the quarterly figures related to the unusual swings in net exports. Jason Calacanis (01:04:25): The PCE index, and then I'll throw this over to you, Sax, for for the official position here, for June dropped on Thursday. PCE is the Fed's preferred gauge of inflation over CPI. PCE rose 30 bps in June in line with estimates. And if you remember, we talked about it in a previous episode, CPI rose a bit 13% or 30 bps from May to June. So we're not any we're not close to the 2% target, and that's what the Fed keeps saying. We're not there yet, and the economy is El Fuego. Sachs, you note I don't know if you noticed this, Sachs, but people are talking about the q d p the second quarter print, which was amazing for GDP. You were talking about it a bunch, Shammoth, on the socials. He keeps referencing the first half. So he's trying to blend those two together, I think, because of the the tariff differences or, you know, maybe to to smooth it out as he said. What's your take on this? The GDP boomed in, you know, 3%, which is pretty great. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:05:20): But is that no, the problem that Jerome Powell has is that he's trying to smooth it because it allows him to justify his political decision. Jason Calacanis (01:05:30): Okay. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:05:31): But the reason why you have to segregate q one and q two, Q1 was before tariffs and Q2 was after tariffs. So I think you have to segregate these two things. And if you look at the run rate from Q2, what you're probably gonna see in Q3 and beyond is more similar to Q2, which is to say a large surplus, good GDP expansion, and moderating inflation. So why does the Fed not cut? Because at this point, not cutting is the only thing that you can do to slow the Trump administration down going into the midterms if you wanted to politicize the job. If however, on the other hand, you just take the data as is and you ignore Q1 because it was pre tariff and you start to look at q two and you project forward, if you inject a 100 basis point cut into the economy, this thing is gonna go gangbusters and Trump is gonna look like an economic genius going into 2026. So I think that, again, in the absence of politics, you cut. Jason Calacanis (01:06:32): Okay. Sachs, what's to take from inside the administration and around it? I know you're you're not speaking for the president on this issue, but you're you're in the administration, so I'm assuming you're David Sacks (01:06:40): Yeah. Look. I'm not speaking for anyone, but obviously, the 3% number is way ahead of expectations. It's a fantastic number. It just feels like, you know, everything's humming on all cylinders here. One thing you didn't mention, but I think is relevant, is the new trade deal with the EU. We're about Jason Calacanis (01:06:56): to get to that, by way. That's our next story. David Sacks (01:06:58): Oh, okay. Well, I mean, I would include that because Okay. Donald Trump (01:07:01): That's included. Yeah. David Sacks (01:07:02): I mean, I think it was a deal that just got announced where the EU is gonna open its markets to US products. No tariff on US products, but they will pay a 15% tariff coming into The US. They're gonna be investing 600,000,000,000 in The US. They're gonna be buying 750,000,000,000 of US energy and then some very large number, I guess they didn't specify a number on defense products, basically American military products, hundreds of millions, which is the follow-up to their commitment to raise their contribution to NATO to 5% of GDP up from, I guess, was sort like 2% before. So, I mean, this is a huge deal for The United States. I think it's a huge win for the Trump administration. And the deal is so good that what I'm seeing from European sources on X, European publications, just commenters, is that they were like outraged. They felt like they got taken to the cleaners here. Good. And you see a lot Jason Calacanis (01:08:02): of that David Sacks (01:08:02): on X by European side. A lot of the European leaders are saying that Ursula chickened out. So, you know, all those stupid taco memes are going away now because people are realizing that Trump's willingness to raise tariffs on these countries as a threat to renegotiate better trade deals is working. Jason Calacanis (01:08:23): It's working. David Sacks (01:08:24): It's working extraordinarily well. Just this EU deal, only to think about it is you add it all up. It's about $2,000,000,000,000. It's effectively $2,000,000,000,000 of stimulus into The US, but without money printing. Jason Calacanis (01:08:36): Yeah. Over the next three years. David Sacks (01:08:37): So it's not inflationary. Jason Calacanis (01:08:38): It's not insignificant. Friedberg, your thoughts on the Fed, the GDP print, and then maybe you could get into the granular details of that print. David Friedberg (01:08:50): If you pull up the schedule of data so this is the national income and product accounts data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. So this is where the inflation print comes from. I think there are two lines worth taking significant note of. The first is the furnishings and durable household equipment line. So in June, the cost for furnishings and household stuff jumped 1.3% month over month on an annualized basis. Right? That's almost 15% year over year if it were to continue at that level. And then the second one Is this recreational goods and vehicles that jump point nine percent month over month. Neither of those categories have jumped that much in kind of recent history. So part of the argument that's being made is that what we are seeing in these jumps is actually some of the first effects of the tariffs and the cost of goods that are being imported because these are largely imports having an adverse effect on the consumer. And so I think this is kind of a wait and see moment on some of these categories that are predicted to have a tariff price effect starting to show through. So I think this is where a lot of folks are keeping a close eye on, and it kind of provides a little bit of the support for the economists that are saying we should keep rates steady. Because if we are seeing a significant inflationary effect here, it's worth noting that there's something that we need to be thoughtful about in rate policy. Jason Calacanis (01:10:13): I think this is, a really good point. If you look at in this debate, which is obviously highly political, we're at inflation 2.567%. Spending is increasing, obviously. Stock market at an all time high. Unemployment trending down again, so we're at, like, 4.1%. And people are just YOLO ing into crypto when they're doing sports betting. Bitcoin at an all time high. I think the Fed now is in a position where cutting rates seems like putting kerosene on the fire. If Trump tanked the economy in q two, he probably would have gotten the rates. But now I don't think it's reasonable, as you're saying, Dave, that the the reasons to not cut are building because the economy's on fire. So maybe the shock and bore approach to tariffs, which is now becoming a playbook. I had a nice talk with Lutnick about this, who I love, by the way. He really described to me how they're doing this. And the shock and bore playbook is basically Trump says something completely outrageous, shocking. Everybody goes crazy. The media loses their mind. Business leaders lose their mind. Lutnick told me that what he does is he sets the table and proposes something reasonable because, you know, now I'm a big, you know, direct contact with all the administration sacks. Thank you for that. Lutnick. And he described it. Trump comes in, sees all the stuff, and then he starts making his micro tweaks. So it's on the finish line. It's in the red zone, five yard line. Trump comes in, and then he sticks it to them again with three or four extra asks, and then they wrap it up. And that this is becoming really effective. So it was chaotic at first. It seemed nonsensical, but they've put the fed in a really bad position because they've never seen this before. They've never seen this before. So now they're gonna be in this defensive position of what if we cut it and the market rips to your point, Shermaph. Jason Calacanis (01:12:03): You just said the market will rip the second they cut that. And the cynical view of this is the market rips as we go into the midterms, which is the same claim the Republicans made about the cuts that Biden did in September right before the election. So there is some level of politics and gamesmanship going on here, but you have to hand it to the Trump administration for what they're doing with this sort of two point o playbook. If this was Saxx premeditated and we all just didn't understand it, fine. The outcome here is this administration has to live or die by the results of these. 600,000,000,000 from the EU, 550,000,000,000 in investment from Japan. You put those two together, IS Lutnick, is that at the event, is that going into the sovereign wealth fund, and how does that get, you know, spent? And he said, at the discretion of the president, and he's advising him to spend it on putting more nukes in. So that's fascinating. We have a trillion dollars now that we can put into nuclear power plants and these small modular reactors, and that's what Lutnick said he wanted to spend it on. He's gonna advise the president to spend it on. But now we've got them investing in our country. It's absolutely brilliant if it works out. David Sacks (01:13:16): Look. But we'll see if it works out. April 2 was liberation day, and the media went crazy. They were predicting a Black Monday. The market crashed. They basically tried to spook the markets and create fear. They said that we're gonna go into a recession or depression. And now look at where we are. Just a few months later, all the markets are at all time highs. Trump has extracted trillions of dollars in these trade deals that people didn't Jason Calacanis (01:13:40): even know premeditated? Tell us the truth. Was this premeditated? David Sacks (01:13:44): Hold on. President Trump has extracted trillions of dollars from other countries using powers that other presidents didn't even know they had. Jason Calacanis (01:13:53): 100%. 100%. Was it premeditated? Because it was chaotic. Market didn't make those moves because of the media, by the way. We just had those moves because they were scared. David Sacks (01:14:02): And we just had a 3% GDP growth print. Jason Calacanis (01:14:06): Okay. Well, don't see how David Sacks (01:14:07): things could be what I think happened is that President Trump saw an opportunity here that other people ignored. It's like when a CEO comes into a company, a new CEO comes in, and that company's been mismanaged for a decade, but it's got wonderful assets on its balance sheet. It's got a market position that's still very strong. This has been underutilized. And he came in and understood that The United States had tremendous leverage in all these trade negotiations. Actually, they weren't even trade negotiations then, in all these trade relationships. And he was able to essentially renegotiate all of them. And look at the results. I mean, they're just staggering. And, you know, everyone said that, oh, Trump's gonna chicken out. He's not gonna hang tough. It's all these other countries that have folded, I don't know, lawn chairs. I mean, they have all capitulated. Jason Calacanis (01:14:55): Yeah. They folded like remarkable. But you're not answering my question. Was this premeditated? Give us some insight here. David Sacks (01:15:01): I don't know what this what are you talking about? Jason Calacanis (01:15:03): When they came out and they was like, oh, a 100% tariff, 200% tariff. The market was not making that reaction based upon the media. They were making it based on Trump was saying. So was it premeditated, this shock and bore, shock and reasonable negotiating strategy, or do you not know? Well, you're not privy to it. David Sacks (01:15:20): Look. I'm not speaking as an insider here, but we said at the time that all of that was happening and Larry Summers was on the pod preaching doom, is that all of that was an opening bid. It was all a start to a negotiation, and we had to see where it ended up and that the administration still had to stick the landing. Jason Calacanis (01:15:38): Okay. David Sacks (01:15:39): But I gotta say, based on EU, Japan, and South Korea, I mean, this is looking really good right now. Jason Calacanis (01:15:45): Well, listen. It's the top five that are, like, 90% of the negotiation. As Trump said, there was another little note he did in the keynote when he kinda drifted into his, you know, different things he wanted to talk about where he said, I don't even need to know about the bottom countries. I've never even heard the names of some of these countries. He just gotta nail the, what, the top five, the top 10, and we're done. And this administration has to stick to landing as well because these are handshake deals right now. They have to be inked. They have to be approved. So there's there's a lot more work left to be done, but I am cautiously optimistic. David Sacks (01:16:14): Yeah. There's one other piece of it. So we talked about the, you know, the fact that Europe has 0% tariffs on American products, but but even after this deal that the European products coming into The US will have a 15% tariff, and we're not including the $600,000,000,000 of European investment in The US, we're not including the $750,000,000,000 of sales of American energy to Europe. K. Just talk about the tariff, that 15%, and what we're seeing now across the board is generating about 300,000,000,000 a year of additional tariff revenue that goes to help balancing the budget. Yeah. So 300,000,000,000 a year over ten years is 3,000,000,000,000. That is a big number. Jason Calacanis (01:16:52): It's incredible. Yeah. David Sacks (01:16:54): It's got us So don't know if that that completely satisfies Freiburg, but that's a big help. Jason Calacanis (01:16:58): Freiburg, do you think that there is a chance that inflation is gonna tick up because of all this? Like, it is a lot of money being pushed into the system again. So could we see a three handle on inflation in the next six months, or what's the probability of that in your mind? That's the big concern everybody has. David Friedberg (01:17:15): I don't I don't I don't know. I I don't know. I think the the big question, if you look at each of these categories, one way to think about it is how much margin is the seller making. If they're making 30% margin and we charge a 15% tariff, does their margin go down to 15%? Or do they take their margin down to 20% and raise the price by 5%? What's the right balance? And what will happen is that now with this effective, you know, tariff, which is a sort of tax on the system, a tax on the market, market will find its kind of new equilibrium where the buyers are willing to pay x and the sellers are willing to sell it y. And I think every market's gonna be a bit different. So I think in some of these categories, we will see significant inflation where there is a very thin margin that the seller has in selling. And in some of the categories where there's a monopoly and they have a big margin, they're gonna eat it because they don't wanna have competition, and they don't wanna see pricing competition emerge. So I think we'll see it vary by category and, you know, we'll see how it goes. Jason Calacanis (01:18:14): Alright. Listen. This has been another amazing, amazing episode of the number one podcast in the world according to Jensen Huang from NVIDIA and me. And great job, everybody. Great job, everybody. It's a David Sacks (01:18:25): classic Great job, everyone. Even J Cal. Even j even Jason Kopkins. Great job. And, actually, I wanna thank Friedberg because Friedberg did most of the work to organize the AI summit. A big shout out. Oh, very good. Great job. Jason Calacanis (01:18:39): I mean guys, can we just make a note here? One of us can run for Manchurian candidate president in eight years, And look at me and the president. I put on the red tie out of respect. I put my blue suit on out of respect for the president. Does it not look like I'm running? Presidentjason.com. Alright. David Sacks (01:19:00): Listen. Photo could be like, you know, that famous photo of, Bill Clinton meeting JFK. You know? That could be something that that could be the thing that Jason Calacanis (01:19:08): I'm in like David Sacks (01:19:08): the president Trump. That propels you to the presidency. Jason Calacanis (01:19:12): Hyman Like, thank you for giving me that and and for putting me in touch with each member of the administration directly. Thank you for that. And we had a wonderful tour of the White House the next day. What a wonderful tour some of us had at the White House the next day. But in all honesty no. Was Did you? No. I was taking the pictures. That was my joke. Because it was all of you guys were there. David Sacks (01:19:31): We would've given you a tour. We could've gotten you Jason Calacanis (01:19:33): a tour. I mean, listen. I love JT. David Friedberg (01:19:34): Ask for a tour? Jason Calacanis (01:19:35): I did ask for a I'm I'm not the kind of guy to ask. I'm the guy to David Friedberg (01:19:38): Some of us have actual meetings to do, bro. Donald Trump (01:19:40): Mean I It's all good. It's all good. Jason Calacanis (01:19:41): I got a lot going on. I got a lot to announce and happen in the coming weeks. But, Sacks, do do take us behind the scene here. And I think it was hilarious, so I don't mind getting trolled by the president. It was great. But how did you how did that go about behind the scenes that he David Friedberg (01:19:53): now Don't him. Don't tell him. Leave it. Leave it. Jason Calacanis (01:19:56): What did you do? I mean, because that looked like it was workshopped, or is he just naturally I mean, he's obviously naturally comedic, but did you put that in with him? Did you have to clear that with him? Hey, Duncan, J Cal, whatever. David Sacks (01:20:06): Well, they asked me for the names of, you know, my cohosts and Okay. So they could do shout outs. So I gave them the list. Jason Calacanis (01:20:14): Oh, no. David Sacks (01:20:14): And I just and I said and I put even J Cal. Jason Calacanis (01:20:18): Didn't tell a problem. Said it. But, I mean, he went for it. David Sacks (01:20:23): No. He he he got we went through it. So Jason Calacanis (01:20:25): He got the joke. Okay. David Sacks (01:20:26): He got the joke. We went through it before. David Friedberg (01:20:27): He got the laugh. He got it. He heard the laugh. David Sacks (01:20:29): Oh, yeah. Jason Calacanis (01:20:29): He heard the laugh and he doubled down. David Sacks (01:20:31): I thought it'd be funny. But, no, we went through everyone's names beforehand. And Jason Calacanis (01:20:36): I mean, talk about EQ. The guy's EQ is off the charts, man. He just David Friedberg (01:20:41): he's I David Sacks (01:20:41): see the timing is great. I suggested I suggested the name J Cal. And he's like, no, no, give me his full name. He thought it was more courteous. Ah. He's actually a very Yeah. He could. Man. Yeah. Guy. Wanted to wanted to use your full name, not just your nickname. Jason Calacanis (01:20:55): I think what he probably realized was for my parents who were just over the moon. So thank you for that. It meant a lot to my dad who's That's lovely. Yeah. He's been struggling a bit, and it it really I mean, I a little choked up here, but my dad's been struggling a bit. And, I got to see him in Brooklyn after that, and then we we were on a text stream. And it meant a lot, you know, because for a kid from Brooklyn to get a shout out from the president of The United States is You made it. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:21:17): I mean, it's just Whatever you say. Father your father should be really proud of you, bro. Jason Calacanis (01:21:21): Thanks, man. Appreciate it. Appreciate it, boys. Alright. Listen. Four, you're a sultan of science. Be amazing, Dave Freiberg. We put that event together in ten days and then jumped right in. He's gotta run a hollow at the same time. So I just wanna give our MVP of the week. David Sacks (01:21:33): We should give a shout out to the Hillen Valley guys for partnering Jason Calacanis (01:21:35): with us. Yes. Jacob. David Sacks (01:21:36): Jacob Jacob Helberg did a great job. Jason Calacanis (01:21:38): I love Jacob. I love Jacob. David Friedberg (01:21:39): And Delian and Delian and Chris Craig. Thank you guys. They were our partners on the event. Jason Calacanis (01:21:44): Hillen Valley did a great job. Yeah. Love those guys. But, yeah, just I'm giving the MVP of the week for of the besties to you, David Friedberg. You put a lot of work into this. So and we appreciate it. You're running a hollow, and then you went right into working on the all in summit, which will be out in a couple weeks. Shamat, thank you for buttoning up. We're getting a little complaints from the HR department about the, the buttons, and so we've we've now renegotiated that. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:22:05): I'm gonna I'm gonna unbutton three buttons now and walk around Fortin. Jason Calacanis (01:22:09): Perfect. And, Sachs, I will see you at the White House. JD and I will be in the commissary, so we'll invite you to lunch with us. Hi, sassy JD. David Sacks (01:22:16): It's called the Navy mess. Jason Calacanis (01:22:17): Actually, in the mess. Yeah. And and you know what? Lutnick's joining us as well. And who's our energy guy? Chris? Chris said he wanted to jump in on that, so maybe you could join us. I'll invite you now that I am deep into the administration. Thank you for tuning in, everybody. Allin.com events. Scholarship tickets are up. So if you wanna try to get one of the very few scholarship tickets, we always like our up and comers. Please, if you're if you're of means, don't apply for the scholarship. You won't get it in. But if you're up and coming and you're part of the audience and you wanna get one of those discounted tickets, have a limited number of those available allin.com/events. Love you, besties. Bye bye. Love you, guys. Bye bye. David Sacks (01:22:52): We'll let your winners ride. Love you, Jason Calacanis (01:23:23): We should Donald Trump (01:23:23): all just get a room and just have one big huge orgy because they're all just useless. It's like this, like, sexual tension that they just need to release somehow.