OpenAI 未达目标、Codex 对决 Claude、马斯克与奥特曼对簿公堂、超大规模厂商财报大胜、肽类热潮

David Friedberg (00:00:00): Jason, do you wanna tell us about your new favorite podcast? Jason Calacanis (00:00:03): Oh, it's so good. My feed is now because, you know, since cancel culture ended, Zach's, everybody uses the r word and the f word right now, my entire feed on Instagram is either gay or Down syndrome or bulldogs. It's one of those three. And then I stumbled upon the miss thing pod, miss thing, and they do a bit called gay name straight name. Here's gay name or straight name for David. This is good news and bad news, Freebird. Speaker 3 (00:00:34): Here we go. Jason Calacanis (00:00:35): Gay name or straight name? David. David to me is straight. Speaker 3 (00:00:42): Okay. But Jason Calacanis (00:00:43): he has my perfect body. It can be confusing because I'm kind of, like, are you gay? And it's like, no. I just wanna be you, David. Totally. Well, it's so, like, the Michelangelo's David, the male ideal. It's like incredible body. Yeah. Kinda small. Sorry. Speaker 3 (00:00:59): Yeah. Oh. Jason Calacanis (00:01:00): It's a little rough. Speaker 3 (00:01:03): What are David Sacks (00:01:03): watching there, J Cal? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:01:04): They basically nailed these two. But okay. Keep going. I don't think Chamath is Jason Calacanis (00:01:08): on their shortlist, but I know Jason will come up at some point. Gay name or straight this is it. Chamath. What went on the count of three? Yeah. Three two one. Gay. I think, like, Italian sweater, like, really Speaker 3 (00:01:25): kinda, like, a Jason Calacanis (00:01:25): loud, vibrant sweater. He, like, wears into, like, poker night with his, like, his boys. And, like, not I'm not talking, like, straight poker. I'm talking, like, gay poker nights, like, at the bar. Yeah. Always talking about wine. Talks about wine. Always sort of, like, swishes. Yeah. Exactly. Yep. Also, it's so like the guy at the gym taking off his shirt, taking selfies. Mhmm. Yeah. And everyone else is kinda like, excuse me, Chamath. I'd like to use the mirror. Yeah. I'd like to see myself. See you at the next day, poker night. Totally. If you bring the wine, we'll bring the sweater. Speaker 3 (00:02:04): Yeah. Jason Calacanis (00:02:04): There is. Wow. Speaker 3 (00:02:05): They did Jason Calacanis (00:02:06): do a. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:02:07): Is fantastic. Jason Calacanis (00:02:08): That is fantastic. A shout out to my guys at the Miss Thing podcast. David Friedberg (00:02:12): Wow. That was awesome. I think I'm gay. Never Speaker 3 (00:02:17): knew. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:02:35): What did you do? A cameo? Did you Speaker 3 (00:02:37): pay them to do that? Jason Calacanis (00:02:37): Did it for me as a favor. So I Chamath Palihapitiya (00:02:39): did a That's awesome. Well, thanks to those guys. Thanks guys. Jason Calacanis (00:02:42): To the Mist thing pop. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:02:43): I've seen those guys before in clips. I find them very funny. Speaker 3 (00:02:46): It's so great. Shout out to my guys. David Friedberg (00:02:49): That was awesome. Jason Calacanis (00:02:50): Alright, everybody. Seriously, welcome back to the number one podcast in the world. It's the all in podcast. With me again, David Freiberg, Jamal Podcastia, David Sachs. And, of course, I'm Jason Kalakanish. You can call me Jay Kal if you're here for the first time. Topic one, OpenAI. They missed their targets for chat GPT, Friedberg, both on users and revenue. Let's talk about it. The Wall Street Journal says in a a breaking investigative report on Tuesday that OpenAI expected to hit 1,000,000,000 WOWs, weekly active users before the 2025. They missed that, and they still haven't hit the milestone four months into 2026. Also, Chamath, they missed their 2025 revenue target for ChatGPT. Exact number wasn't specified, but as we've talked about here, they're at a $2,030,000,000,000 dollar run rate. There's a little bit of accounting nuance that is yet to be worked out in the industry. Two reasons why this matters, Saxe, OpenAI has $600,000,000,000 in spending commitments for compute. Just to put that in perspective, that's about what they're trading for on secondary markets. In other words, the entire value of the OpenAI enterprise equals their spend commitments in the coming year. CFO Sarah Fryer, is coming to liquidity, is reportedly worried, hey. That revenue isn't growing fast enough to keep up with expense, and OpenAI wants to IPO later this year. This has put Fryer and Altman in conflict or, maybe there's some natural tension there. Fryer doesn't think OpenAI is ready for public reporting standards according to the Wall Street Journal. Altman obviously wants to move faster. So they released a joint statement. This is ridiculous. Yada yada yada. Let's go to you, Sax. What do you think is going on here? Are these major headwinds, or is this just managing expectations as the leader of the pack in the most important race of our lifetimes, the race towards super intelligence? David Sacks (00:04:49): Well, I actually have a little bit of a contrarian take on this. I know that OpenAI had a really bad week. Like you said, had that Wall Street Journal article which said that they've missed their numbers, they've missed their 1,000,000,000 user growth target, They missed their revenue numbers. That's called into question whether they can afford the data center commitments that they've made. And then in addition to that, they've also had the lawsuit with Elon happening this week. So in the press, it ended up being, I think, pretty bad week for them. But I have a contrarian take on this, which is I think that over the past week or two, if you look at kind of what's happening at the product level, it's been a pretty good couple of weeks for them. They released ChatGPT 5.5 and the reviews from, you know, people I talk to in Silicon Valley have been really strong. You talk to developers, coders, they're very happy with it. At the same time, Opus 4.7, which is the latest Anthropic release, appears to be a bust. People are complaining about it. They're, in a lot of cases, rolling back to 4.6. They're saying that OPUS 4.7 is rationing compute. It's reducing thinking time, not as good. There were some bugs in Claude. So if you just compare ChatGPT 5.5 to OPUS 4.7, it does appear that OpenAI has had a better couple of weeks at a product level. And I think there's reason to believe that the product improvements will continue. GPT 5.5 is based on a new base model called SPUD, which is the first base model upgrade they've done in, I don't know, over a year. And having a new base model will pave the way for future improvements as well. So I think OpenAI is feeling pretty optimistic about their product right now. And I think you're starting to see on X that some of the developer mojo is shifting. I'm seeing a lot of people saying that they are shifting their their coding usage from Opus to GPT 5.5. So I think that SAM may end up being right, but for the wrong reason. And what I mean by that is that when he made these big compute commitments, it was based on those estimates of hitting the billion users on the consumer side and hitting those revenue targets. The consumer business ended up being weak. David Sacks (00:07:00): So they missed those targets. But in the meantime, coding has become the all important sector of AI. And because they made all these compute commitments and they built out these data centers, they have more compute than Anthropic right now. Anthropic is token constrained. It's reducing their ability to serve Mythos, for example. It's causing them to engage in compute gating with OPUS 4.7. And I understand why Dario made that decision. I'm not saying I mean, it was a prudent business decision. I'm not criticizing him for it. But I think, again, I think Sam may end up being right here for the wrong reason, which is he missed on consumer, but enterprise is going gangbusters and is giving him the ability now, I think, to catch up on Kurzor. Jason Calacanis (00:07:44): Your Polymarket. Which is the all important market right now. Of course. And we talked about Grok and Kurzor teaming up last week. Elon and the team over there. Polymarket showing now a 32% chance that OpenAI goes public by the 2026. This is down from 60% in December. And, Shammoth, you gave a bit of a warning. Hey. There's only so many dollars to go around. SpaceX IPO is obviously getting out first. And now if OpenAI doesn't go out this year, and Anthropic does, this sets up an interesting dynamic. What are your thoughts here, generally speaking, about the massive commitment that OpenAI has made? Are they gonna run off the cliff, or will it wind up being brilliant, even if it wasn't strategically for the exact reasons? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:08:29): I think they're gonna be fine. I think this is a multitrillion dollar company. I think Anthropic is a multitrillion dollar company. I think the thing that's happening right now is a complete misunderstanding of what's actually happening inside of the world of AI. And there is one very specific choke point that is constraining everything, which is access to the power that's necessary to drive these tokens. To the extent that OpenAI missed, I think what that is is an insight to not enough compute capacity today. And that problem is only getting worse. You've already seen that with Anthropic as well, where they just found a way to economically induce Amazon to give them enough capacity so that you don't have to route through bedrock to get to the anthropic models. You're also seeing them do differentiated deals now with economic participation on top of what they already had from folks like Google to give them more capacity. What is my point? Everything in this market is power constrained. The reason that these folks may miss a number or a forecast have nothing to do with demand. It is entirely 100% due to the supply of the power necessary to generate the output token. There was a really interesting thing that was just announced today that will make this problem even worse, which is what you're starting to see now is backlogs build up of not just the access to the power, but then the componentry that's actually necessary. Not just RESIPs and not just nat gas turbines, but now you're talking about transformers and all the actual tactical grid infrastructure. Why is this important? If you look at the actual amount of gigawatts that are under construction, we have a huge mismatch now. People have announced all these projects, Jason, but less than half of it is actually being built, less than half. Most of it is stuck in red tape. Most of that is because there are these supply chain delays. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:10:35): So there's no credible strategy to turn any of this stuff on. Who will this hurt? It will hurt Anthropic and OpenAI the most. Who will this benefit? It will benefit the hyperscalers, specifically Oracle, Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, and Google. And now what you're going to see is a negotiation and a trade back and forth. How much equity do I have to give up? How much control do I have to give up to get access to the compute versus how badly will I miss my growth forecasts if I don't? And now what that means is, and we spoke about this last week, that's a huge lane for Grok to just run through and SpaceX to run through because they have a ton of excess capacity. And so I think the cursor deal was the appetizer. But if I were Elon now, I'd be running all over this market because if the models catch up in quality, I think he could also do something really crazy with Anthropic or OpenAI right now. Maybe not OpenAI because of the Jason Calacanis (00:11:35): We'll get into the lawsuit in Chamath Palihapitiya (00:11:36): a moment. Baggage? Yeah. But, man, he and Dario should do a deal tomorrow. Jason Calacanis (00:11:41): So you're framing, hey. The the limited resource here is compute. The demand is off the charts. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:11:48): No. The limiting resource is power. Jason Calacanis (00:11:50): Power, which then powers compute, which then provides tokens, which then services the massive developer and co work and all these other projects that consumers and enterprises can't get enough of. Got it. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:12:03): And, Jason, the other factor that complicates that for Anthropic and OpenAI is all the stuff that's sort of sitting around thumb twiddling, 40% of that is gonna get canceled because they've done such a poor job of creating a good positive halo around AI that 40% of all the announced projects get canceled because 40% of all projects in the last four years have been canceled. Jason Calacanis (00:12:28): Yeah. And there's there there are some bad feelings about data centers, AI jobs, etcetera, and that's causing some headwind. People are literally doing violent things in society and blaming data centers and AI for it. I don't wanna give it too much airtime. Freiburg, what's your take on the chessboard we're looking at here either through compute energy or through going public on a business level, you know, the strategic nature of capital, compute, and energy now playing a role in this massive amount of demand. David Friedberg (00:13:02): Still a ball in the air kinda game. BCG had this theory, I think I talked about this once before, called the rule of three, where they've shown time and again that any stable, mature, competitive market evolves to a four to two to one ratio of market share for basically 90% of the market. So there's a market leader that has four times the market share of the second place. That's two times the market share of the third place. This is the case in pretty much every mature kind of competitive market. So you can kind of think about AI probably evolving into a consumer market and an enterprise market. OpenAI, even if they're not at a billion, they're still at 900,000,000 weekly users, which is well ahead of whatever Claude is at. I think Claude is, like, probably sub a 100,000,000. Sax, you may know. And then Gemini is probably closer to them at 700 to a billion, somewhere in that range. Probably pretty neck and neck with OpenAI. So, you know, the consumer market looks like it's trending towards a chat GPT slash Google fight for first place and second place and then probably anthropic in third place, and maybe Elon emerges and takes off enabled by his compute capacity. And then the enterprise market is a little bit of a different story, and that's its own market, which is kind of anthropic or probably Google in the lead, actually, if you look at all the Vertex use. Google claims that 75% of GCP customers are active users of Vertex. So there's probably a pretty sizable market share that Google's captured on the enterprise side as well. This is also probably why Google stock has absolutely ripped over the last couple of months is they're literally in first place or fighting for first place in enterprise and consumer. But I still think that there's a lot of opportunity to Chamath's point about the compute and energy capacity constraints in improving how we actually scale and deploy models in both the enterprise and the consumer setting, and it is such early days. And I just wanna highlight this paper that came out from MIT from these two scientists. And these guys published a paper on pruning techniques in neural networks. This paper showed that you could actually reduce the size of these networks by 90% and get the same accuracy out by pruning very large models down to smaller models, and then you can make a selection on which model to run for inference. David Friedberg (00:15:23): And by doing this, you can actually reduce inference costs by 10 x. You can get 10 x the output per energy unit that goes into the data center with no loss of accuracy. And so it's a really interesting, call it, algorithmic technique that can be applied to the existing large models to actually make them much lower energy use. So if you think about it, you're firing up a very large model to answer a very simple question. You can actually prune away that model. Now this is probably going to be the case in AI applications as it is in traditional Google search. There's a long tail of searches, but there's a few searches that account for a large percentage of search volume. It's like, what is the weather? What are the movies, times? You know? What's the stock price? Like, there's a certain set of things that make up the bulk of consumer energy, and there's probably a certain set of things that probably make up the bulk of coding output as well. And so if you can get that 80% of searches or chat interfaces or coding requests reduced down through pruning techniques to smaller models, and then you have a whole set of smaller models that can be called dynamically and you reduce inference cost by 90%, you can make much more use, call it 10 times the use on data center and energy capacity than we can today. So I would argue that we're still in the very early days of getting efficiency in terms of output and tokens, and we're just in the very kind of early stage of that, Jason Calacanis (00:16:43): which also David Friedberg (00:16:44): unlocks the opportunity for guys like Elon to reinvent how this is done and potentially compete pretty aggressively. Jason Calacanis (00:16:50): There are two ways to win. You could throw compute at it, or you can do SLMs, small language models, and VSLMs, verticalized small language model. So if you had a verticalized small language model for the weather, let's say, that doesn't exist, but you can you can use it as an example. They will have one for travel as an example. When you hit Google for flight information, it's obviously going to route you to something lighter and faster that uses Google Flights, and Google Flights has been incorporated into Gemini. Gemini now is right behind 700, seven hundred fifty David Friedberg (00:17:23): Fifty million. Users, Yeah. Jason Calacanis (00:17:25): And it's exactly what we discussed, I don't know, eighteen months ago on this podcast, Freiberg, that what if they put it at the top? And what would that do to their search revenue? Search revenue is surging, and they are also surging. So they figured out a way to balance those two competing forces, having search results that are AI enabled, and still getting people to click on links. They've done it brilliantly, apparently, and the stock is rewarding them. David Friedberg (00:17:50): I'll just add one statement to what you said, J. Cal, which is like you're using what I would call a human heuristic on smaller models. And I think what we're evolving to is humans don't intuitively know what this model is. It's not just a verticalized model, but there are going to be models that will be discovered through automated pruning techniques that will then be working in concert. So lots of small models that link together, and we don't define each model by some human heuristic, like this is a surgical model. Jason Calacanis (00:18:18): Yeah. This is a maps model. David Friedberg (00:18:19): And so we don't we don't know why these models work the way they do when they get broken down, but I do think that that's really where the evolution is happening. So effectively, a model becomes a macro model. It's got lots of smaller models underneath it that can be dynamically called, and that allows you to have 10x the inference for the same unit of energy. Jason Calacanis (00:18:36): Sax. David Sacks (00:18:37): Let me just build on your point about Google, Jaycal. I would say that if there's a single reason why OpenAI did not hit its user targets and its revenue targets, certainly around consumer, you'd have to say it's because Google managed to take meaningful share. You know, they were basically nowhere a year or so ago. Sergei came out of retirement to help focus the company. And like you said, they did a brilliant job improving Gemini and putting it at the top of search, incorporating it. Now that being said, again, I don't think the news is all bad for OpenAI because I do think that the 5.5 release was great. We're hearing really good things about Codex. I do think that Codex is taking share in coding tokens right now. And I just think we're in a really interesting place where these companies are constantly one upping each other. I mean, two weeks ago, it looked like Anthropic was gonna be completely dominant. Right? I mean, Anthropic was growing at 10 x. OpenAI was growing at three x, and it looked like Jason Calacanis (00:19:37): Anthropic was running Did you see that this week, Sax? The servers were going down. People were Speaker 3 (00:19:42): in my office were complaining we can't get on Claude. David Sacks (00:19:45): Listen, competition brings out the best in everyone. Anthropic forced OpenAI to compete. Google's forced OpenAI to compete in consumer. I just hope the market stays competitive for as long as possible. I do think that's what's best for consumers, our economy, and for our country overall. Let me just say one other area where I think OpenAI had a good week is in this red hot area of cyber. Obviously Anthropic made a huge splash with Mythos. It hasn't been commercially released. They're compute constrained. But as a proof of concept or training model, it hit a new level of capabilities with cyber. But now OpenAI has released a new model called GPT 5.5 Cyber, which has just been through a bunch of tests, they've shown, this was testing done by the AI Security Institute, that GPT 5.5 is the second model to complete one of their multi step cyber attack simulations end to end. So it has the same level of capability as Mythos, And it does appear to be commercially ready. You know, they've got the compute to serve it. So I do think that that's a big accomplishment. I mean, look, we knew that other cyber models were coming. It wasn't just gonna be Mythos. In fact, within six months or so, all the frontier models are gonna have Mythos level cyber capability. But it's impressive that OpenAI got this GBT 5.5 cyber out so quickly. And I think 5.5 might be the first cyber model that cyber defenders actually get to use because, again, I don't think they're as compute constrained as Anthropic is. Jason Calacanis (00:21:20): And this is an incredible opportunity, you know, for the CrowdStrike and Palo Alto Networks of the world, both of which have been on the program. They come out and they start attacking this space. Man, you could really see everything get tightened up. And this could be an incredible revenue stream for everybody who's got, whether it's Cursor, Claude, or OpenAI or Gemini, this is an amazing opportunity to tighten up as much as it is to get attacked. David Sacks (00:21:48): Can I make a point about that? Because, yes, there is so much fear right now, almost a level of panic about mythos. People are treating it like a doomsday weapon or something like that. It's not. It's simply that the frontier models have reached the point where they're capable of automating cyber activities, just like they're capable of automating coding. But that means that a model could power up a cyber attacker or cyber defender the same way they can power up a coder and allow them to discover a lot more vulnerabilities. So there is obviously a risk there. But I think it's important to understand that Mythos or GPT 5.5, it doesn't create the vulnerabilities. It just discovers them. The bugs were already in the code. They were sitting there waiting for some hacker to discover. If we can now use AI to find these bugs in advance, these vulnerabilities, and patch them, then you actually harden our infrastructure I and you harden our also believe that this leap from, let's call it pre AI cyber to post AI cyber, it's gonna be, I think, a big one time upgrade cycle because again, you're gonna find all these dormant bugs and vulnerabilities. But I think that once we get past that upgrade cycle, you're going to reach a new equilibrium between AI powered cyber offense and AI powered cyber defense. It's going to become a lot more normal. It's not going to feel like this huge disruption, which is to say, I think, you know, people are treating this as like some existential threat. I don't think it is as long as everyone does what they're supposed to do, which is use the new capabilities to harden their code bases and infrastructure and security before the hackers get ahold of these capabilities. Jason Calacanis (00:23:27): Yeah. And if, Chamath, if you were to look at this to build on Sax's point, there are about 5,000,000 or so security experts in the world. And we talked about token cost. Forty hours of tokens just pounding it, you know, a week. You could create another 5,000,000 for a $100 per chief security officer per security expert. So it's the volume of security expert agent sacks to your point. Yeah. You could have fifty fifty million of them, a 100,000,000 of them. They're not finding David Sacks (00:23:58): Right. Jason Calacanis (00:23:58): Something need. David Sacks (00:24:00): They're just Yeah. Jason Calacanis (00:24:00): They never sleep. They're relentless in their pursuit of these problems. It's a really great point. David Sacks (00:24:05): Just kinda just refine that. So, yeah, there's probably 5,000,000 people in the cyber industry, but there's probably only a few thousand really elite hackers. Sure. Those hackers didn't have the time to go after the entire surface area of every possible attack vector out there. And so if you train a model to do what they do, obviously, like you said, it can operate with a scale and speed that a human hacker can't. So obviously, you know, what you need to do is get these tools in the hands of the white hats, let them do the cyber attacks themselves to then find the vulnerabilities and patch them before the blackhats get ahold of these capabilities. But I think it's just just one last point on this, I'll stop. It's just it's really important to understand that the Chinese models are gonna have these capabilities within approximately six months. Jason Calacanis (00:24:49): Oh, they have them now in Deepsea four, for sure. They've got some level. David Sacks (00:24:52): Deep sea four I mean, deep sea four is impressive in a lot of ways, but its capability is not at the frontier. It's maybe eighty eighty, 85% of, let's call it, the American frontier. Jason Calacanis (00:25:02): Chamath, you wanted to get in on this. Let's get Chamath in. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:25:04): Two things. The reason that this is even possible is because humans are error prone. And when humans code, they create holes. And so humans exploiting humans is where we've been for a long time. Now we have computers exploiting humans because the computers go and seek out all these bugs that humans wrote. In the next phase, it'll be machines versus machines. And so I think the nature of cyber is gonna completely change. Probably in the next five or six years, there'll be so much reason to rewrite all of the software that runs the world in one part because you're gonna be asked to show more operating leverage and revenue growth, but in another part because everything else that was handmade in the past is just fundamentally insecure. Either way, all roads will lead to all the operational software that runs the world will get rewritten. More and more of it will be written by machines. More and more of it will be impregnable as a result. But then the cyber threat actually will only increase because then you're gonna try to figure out how to use a machine to inject something into another machine so that some agentic loop injects some malware or injects a bad token. And I think that's a very complicated thing. What I will tell you is I'm not even sure if I'm allowed to say this, but a very good, probably the best cybersecurity company in the world run by one of the very best CEOs in the world, who may or may not be speaking at liquidity, would tell you that they have penetrated and can essentially manipulate every model. Let me just let me just say it roughly that way. Jason Calacanis (00:26:43): Okay. Perfect. Yeah. And I'm, at the Breakthrough Prize, which three of the four of us were at, I talked to George Kurtz. The other person you were kind Chamath Palihapitiya (00:26:51): of describing was not that beside Nikesh. Yeah. I'm talking about Nikesh Jason Calacanis (00:26:54): and and George are the two guys leading this. Palo Alto Networks, CrowdStrike. And they understand what George told me was there is just a line out the door of people who want this product or service. And if you look at it, Freiburg, like the murder rate, like, we're sitting here with the lowest murder rate in the history of humanity. It has gone down massively in our lifetimes, but massively over the arc of history. I think that's what's gonna happen with cyber. There is only so many attack vectors, and the remaining attack vectors are just gonna be human factors. Right? Freeberg, that's always been the case. And as we make the software more resilient, then the the weak link is, you know, the secretary who puts her Post it note, you know, with the password there or the accountant who, you know, uses their dog's name Plus123 for their password. Right? That's the the historic one. Okay. Let's any anything you wanna add, Freiberg, as we wrap there? Oh, that's bit of Chamath Palihapitiya (00:27:49): bed so messy, by the way? Why can't you just ask the room service to come in and clean Jason Calacanis (00:27:52): your I could tell you what happened. Listen. I'm here in Atlanta. And, also, why don't Chamath Palihapitiya (00:27:56): you have a suite, like, where there's two rooms? Like, is it just one room? Jason Calacanis (00:27:59): This hotel only has one room. Yes. Yes. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:28:01): You know? Either you're cheap or poor. Which one is it? Speaker 3 (00:28:04): I'm cheap. I'm cheap. Jason Calacanis (00:28:05): Here's what I'll tell you what here's the situation. I'm in Atlanta for the Knicks game tonight. David Friedberg (00:28:09): You're in one Jason Calacanis (00:28:10): room. Here's what I do. I just wanna explain to you value for value. Some people spend their money on private jets, and they spend $30,000 flying to Atlanta. I spent 30,000 Speaker 3 (00:28:18): on courtside seats. I don't want the suite. Jason Calacanis (00:28:21): I wanna put it into the seat. Wanna do both. David Friedberg (00:28:23): Can do both. Jason Calacanis (00:28:24): I guess I could do both too. I don't I'm I'm in the process of becoming Chamath Palihapitiya (00:28:27): I don't understand. Jason Calacanis (00:28:29): Of embracing my richness. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:28:30): Okay? If you've already convinced yourself that you should spend $30,000 for port side tickets, which I think is outrageous, but okay. You've already convinced yourself Jason Calacanis (00:28:39): 10 k each, but yeah. Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:28:40): A hotel room that has two rooms. Okay? Jason Calacanis (00:28:43): I'm taking Chamath Palihapitiya (00:28:43): it to cost 15 percent more than what you're paying. Jason Calacanis (00:28:46): It's two x, but, yes, you're right. I'll get the I'll get the hotel room. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:28:49): 20 or 20% more, but you David Friedberg (00:28:51): did just room like like $200 a night? So you pay 400 a night. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:28:54): You get a Speaker 3 (00:28:55): more room. I mean, Jason Calacanis (00:28:55): it's it's Atlanta. The most I'm in the best hotel. The most expensive hotel is 500 a night in Atlanta. It's no big deal. But everything's sold out because all the Knicks people are coming. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:29:03): So you're selling me double that would have been a thousand, and you couldn't spend a thousand? Jason Calacanis (00:29:06): Is sold out because the Knicks are here. David Friedberg (00:29:08): So we have to look at your dirty bed. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:29:10): It's gross. Jason Calacanis (00:29:11): The pet's not that dirty. Speaker 3 (00:29:12): Come on. Jason Calacanis (00:29:12): Oh, just deal with it. Okay? Let's take I it out of David Sacks (00:29:15): have a private jet story about flying to Atlanta. Speaker 3 (00:29:18): Oh, tell us something. Here we go. David Sacks (00:29:20): You reminded me. Okay. So, yeah, there was some event there. So I I flew my team there. You know, there was a few people on my plane and it's kind of a long flight. It was like four hours or something. Jason Calacanis (00:29:30): From the back, yeah. David Sacks (00:29:31): Yeah, so I went in the back to sleep. Well first, you know, we started the flight and I had a few bottles of Pappy Van Winkle on the plane. And so we started off with like a drink and then I went in the back and fell asleep and I woke up basically when we landed. So I come out and like all three bottles are basically cashed of Speaker 3 (00:29:49): like Pappy Van Winkle. Oops. Those were like $2 a bottle. David Sacks (00:29:53): No, no, there are more. These were like antique bottles. Like one of them was Yeah. Jason Calacanis (00:29:56): Have one of those from your plane. I have one of those from the old Falcon. David Sacks (00:29:58): Yeah. Yeah. They were like these vintage Jason Calacanis (00:30:01): bottles of I remember you. David Sacks (00:30:03): Anyway, you can't even find this anymore. So these guys, they asked me, like, when we landed, it's like, hey, Saks, how much did it cost for you to fly us to this event? And I said, well, about $8,000 in jet fuel and about $12,000 of Pappy Van Winkle. Speaker 3 (00:30:20): What do Jason Calacanis (00:30:20): you think? You gotta you gotta fuel the the vibes as well as the plane. It's Chamath Palihapitiya (00:30:25): Is Atlanta nice? I've never really seen anything in still work Jason Calacanis (00:30:28): for you, or are they are they Yeah. They they called in Atlanta. Is Atlanta nice? Listen. Last year, went to the Detroit games, and that city was on the rebound. Atlanta has an incredible opportunity to rebound. I'll say it that way. Speaker 3 (00:30:40): There's a great opportunity for them Jason Calacanis (00:30:42): to upgrade the city. I went to Waffle House at midnight last night. There were no shootings. Okay. Let's keep moving. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:30:48): By the way, do you get loyalty points at the Best Western Atlanta or no? Jason Calacanis (00:30:52): I get double points because I use my Best Western, Visa card. Yeah. It's everywhere you want it to be. Alright. Use the promo code JCAL and get a thousand extra points. In other open AI news, Musk versus Altman, the trial of the century, maybe the decade, has started. Elon is, of course, accusing OpenAI of breach of charitable trust, unjust enrichment. He's accusing OpenAI of essentially flipping a nonprofit into a for profit. He's seeking a 150,000,000,000 in damages that they revert back to a nonprofit, that Altman and Brockman be removed. And there were some fireworks between Elon and the OpenAI lawyers. Elon kind of leveled up the discussion. He said, quote, if we make it okay to loot a charity, the entire foundation of charitable giving in America will be destroyed. That's my concern. Obviously, there's a ton of interesting nuances here, specifically Greg Brockman keeping a diary where he was journal maxing his plans like a Bond villain here. And the excerpts from his diary include conclusion. We truly want the b corp. The true answer is that we want Elon out. If three months later we're doing b corp, then it was a lie. Can't see us turning this into a for profit without a nasty fight. I'm just thinking about the office, and we're in the office, and this story will correctly be that we weren't honest with him. In the end, it's still about wanting a for profit just without him, yada yada yada. Freiberg, your thoughts on this case. Is Elon gonna win? David Friedberg (00:32:27): I just don't know why Greg Brockman's got a freaking diary where he's, like, literally documenting. I mean, I love the guy, but what the fuck is he thinking? Like, you're just sitting here at home and, like, let me write about the the crime I'm committing or let me write it, like, and let me record it. And by the way, let me never delete it. I don't understand this. David Sacks (00:32:45): It's not just journal maxing. It's discovery maxing. Jason Calacanis (00:32:48): It's discovery maxing. David Sacks (00:32:49): It's a smoking gun maxing. David Friedberg (00:32:51): I don't get it. Speaker 3 (00:32:52): I don't get it. Mean, did you guys remember from The Wire in that scene where the guy's like, is you taking notes on a criminal conspiracy? I know. This has got everybody in the Can we play that clip? It's like Yeah. David Friedberg (00:33:07): What the Speaker 3 (00:33:08): are you doing, Greg? Speaker 6 (00:33:09): Nick, is you taking notes on a criminal conspiracy? What the fuck is you thinking, man? Speaker 3 (00:33:16): If you're going to commit a crime, you do not write down the date and time of the crime in your journal. David Sacks (00:33:23): Well, look. We don't know it's a crime. Let's not Jason Calacanis (00:33:25): Okay. Sure. David Friedberg (00:33:26): Text, do you write David Sacks (00:33:27): a a crime, but what? Jason Calacanis (00:33:28): Well, yes. No. You're keeping shenanigans. David Friedberg (00:33:30): Chamath, do you keep a diary? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:33:32): What do you think? Speaker 3 (00:33:33): JKL, do you keep a diary? I Jason Calacanis (00:33:36): I believe ruminate no. I'll tell you right now. Rumination is the path to unhappiness. Nobody gives a about your feelings. Writing your feelings down is only gonna make you miserable talking to your spouse about your feelings. Just go to a beautiful dinner, sit courtside at the next, and do what I've been doing for thirty years. Retard maxing. Retard maxing. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:33:58): Retard maxing. Speaker 3 (00:33:58): And the Jason Calacanis (00:33:59): register goes up. All you have to do is work. Start new projects, nine out of 10 foul, place nine out of 10 bets, one wins, and you're golden. Go sit courtside at the next game. David Friedberg (00:34:09): Going. Life's too short. Jason Calacanis (00:34:10): Just keep moving forward. Don't write anything down, period. Full stop. David Friedberg (00:34:14): That's good advice. Yeah. I just the the biggest surprise to me was this guy's got a diary. I just I I don't know anyone that has a diary. I've never heard of this. So, anyway, that was shocking. Besides that, I've I've no view on what's gonna happen with the case or what the judge will do. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:34:28): I have no comment on the case either. I think it's weird that Polymarket hasn't budged even as all of this discovery has been published. It's effectively at 42 or 43% that Elon wins. So one of the friends in our group chat said, what may just happen is that Elon technically wins, and he's just credited back the $40,000,000. And so maybe that's what this poll is front running. But on a totally separate note, I think, Jason, I know you say it as a joke, but this idea of just keep moving forward, don't ruminate, I think is very good general life advice for everybody to follow. Jason Calacanis (00:35:06): The modern day therapy industrial complex and the medication industrial complex, I believe, is It pivots around rumination. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:35:15): Well, it does pivot around rumination. Yes. That is the gateway drug to all these things. Jason Calacanis (00:35:19): Yep. Talk about your problems. Hey. You know, when these people go to therapy, you ever hear these people? Howard Stern's like, I've been in therapy with the same person two or three days a week for forty years. I'm like, okay. What's the incentive for the therapist to stop charging you $1,200 an hour? There is none. Then they lose a revenue stream. They lose a customer. It's all a giant fucking fraud. Sax, in terms of this case Chamath Palihapitiya (00:35:38): I wouldn't go that far. I do think that there's a lot of value in kind of untying some of these Gordian knots that people have because of how they grew up. But there's a difference between that and being specific and just randomly ruminating because I don't think there's a lot Jason Calacanis (00:35:53): of productive You've got an acute issue, like, in trauma in your life? Yeah. Sure. Unpack it. Figure it out. I'm just talking about this never ending self improvement, you know, ruminating thing. But getting back on topic here, Saxx, what's the and we're we're talking about a jury, I believe, in Oakland. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:36:13): No. But it's a bench trial. This is important. It's a bench trial where the jury is advisory in capacity. But, ultimately, that judge, she will make the final call. Jason Calacanis (00:36:22): And she'll do the damages. And so is this a KSACS of, like, we've got a Bay Area jury judge, and we've got Elon who's considered, you know, a bit right wing and people don't all agree in that area in terms of his politics. And then you have this Sam Altman New Yorker story and people finding out that so many different people feel he they got screwed by him. You put these two things together, it's impossible to handicap where this turns out. Sax, your thoughts. David Sacks (00:36:53): Well, yeah, I don't think this is about politics. I mean, I guess you could argue that what Elon is seeking, which is to protect the charity, is, if anything, a left coated sort of principle. Sure. Although I don't really think it's left versus right. Look, I don't wanna take sides on this trial. I'm just watching like everyone else. The last time I weighed in on some Elon litigation, I got deposed for six hours. Remember that? Because they just assumed that somehow I know something. Right. I've never talked to Elon about the case. I don't know anything about it. Yeah. I'm gonna see what happens like everyone else. Now one thing I I will say, having just read some of the coverage, is that apparently the company at some point did offer Elon shares in the company, but he thought that there was something kind of icky about it. Do you remember this? Jason Calacanis (00:37:44): The Yes. David Sacks (00:37:45): Because at one point, I said on our show, when this dispute started happening before it became a court case, I said, look. If OpenAI at a certain point decided they had the wrong structure, they should have just gone and done a make right with Elon, and he should have been a shareholder on the cap table. What I didn't know is that apparently they did try to do something like that, but Elon turned it down because he did want the entity to remain a charitable entity. In other see what I mean? Jason Calacanis (00:38:13): Had a principled view of it according to the reports and was like, no. We're trying to save humanity, and then you're giving this keys to the kingdom to Microsoft. That's all come out. And I also have not talked to Yulan about any of this. But my guess is, like most of these things, there'll be some sort of settlement or something here, but maybe he takes it to the mat. Who knows? Judge Rogers, who's doing this 61 year old Obama appointee, politics has played a role, Sachs. They have had to tell the jury, like, however you feel about these individuals, politically, whatever, please put that aside. But of note is that she oversaw the Epic Games versus Apple trial over apps were exclusively ruled in favor of Apple with some caveats, that they don't have a monopoly, etcetera, etcetera. So this is gonna be a really interesting one. I think the worst case scenario is OpenAI for for OpenAI is they have to unravel this somehow, and that would double delay the IPO. That would cause chaos in shareholders. And I guess the best case is some sort of settlement. And if Elon put the first 40 or $50,000,000 in, he's he's due ten, twenty, 30% of the company after dilution. Alright. Let's keep moving through the docket. Lots more to discuss, and, good luck to everybody in their lawsuit and those of you betting on the market. All in Summit, selling up fast. Our fifth edition, Los Angeles, September. Go to allin.com/events, and, speakers are gonna be top tier. Apparently, Freiberg is having this as his major creative outlet. I heard some back channel Chamath today that he's gonna be doing Broadway musical illusionist. David Friedberg (00:39:56): I got a tap dancing situation. Jason Calacanis (00:39:59): He's literally going full on entertainer. This is gonna be vaudeville sax wrapped up. He's just gonna take it to a whole new level. Musical numbers. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:40:10): Like Nathan Lane? Jason Calacanis (00:40:12): I think if you're coding that it's gonna be his big gay summit, yes. It could be a big gay summit. David Friedberg (00:40:19): Might be our last year in LA, guys. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:40:22): Wow. Might be. Is. Might be. Jason Calacanis (00:40:24): Is. Oh, everybody wants to go to Vegas apparently. We got roll. We're gonna Speaker 3 (00:40:28): bones, baby. Speaker 6 (00:40:30): Can you Speaker 3 (00:40:30): imagine leaving the summit for lunch and going and playing craps, Jamov? We get a fresh shower Chamath Palihapitiya (00:40:36): in there. Yes. I can. Yes. I can imagine. Jason Calacanis (00:40:39): I got some bricks. Oh, I got some bricks right here. Let's go. Yum. Yum. David Friedberg (00:40:44): That way Saks can come. Yeah. Saks is like, I'm Speaker 3 (00:40:48): never setting foot in California, Jason Calacanis (00:40:49): but I will. David Friedberg (00:40:50): So are you coming to our You know, Chamath Palihapitiya (00:40:52): we're doing David Friedberg (00:40:52): a couple live events. Are you coming to them? David Sacks (00:40:54): Liquidity or something different? David Friedberg (00:40:56): Liquidity, and then there's the the all in summit happens in September. David Sacks (00:40:59): Yeah. I'm gonna do those too. Jason Calacanis (00:41:00): Alright. Big tech smashed their earnings on Thursday. Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and Meta all reported. I don't know why they do this on the same night, folks, but they do. And performance was spectacular. It was great. However, the capex announcements were really the story here. Let me just queue this up and show the chart. $725,000,000,000 in CapEx guidance in 2026 from but four companies, Amazon, Microsoft, Google, and Meta. Amazon leading the pack with 200,000,000,000, 190,000,000,000 each for Microsoft and Google, a 145,000,000,000 for Meta. You add Grok, you add OpenAI, and some other players to these plans, and we haven't heard from the new Apple CEO yet, but he's gonna be taking over, and he's gonna have some plans here, I'm sure. We are going to see the $1,000,000,000,000 a trillion dollars in build out over the next year. I don't know if this is even possible, but this is all being driven by AI and cloud computing. Google Cloud, which includes the Google Suite, that grew 63% year on year. Let that number sink in. 63% on 20,000,000,000 in revenue. That's in a quarter. Microsoft Cloud, that includes Azure, Windows Server, SQL Server. They bundled some things together there to get the number to go up. That grew 30% on 34,700,000,000 in revenue. Amazon Web Services, the original cloud, that grew 28% on 37,600,000,000 in revenue. That's a bit of a pure play. Just counts Amazon's web services. Obviously, these are all moving to neo clouds. These are all serving AI jobs and tokens now. They have a massive customer base, and the customers from the smallest startups all the way to the biggest frontier models cannot get enough compute, and it is going to the bottom line. But this is shrinking Chamath cash flow massively. These were free cash flow machines, the largest money printing machines in the history of humanity, but they are giving up on free cash flow, stock buybacks, and dividends, and the focus on those three to invest in infrastructure. Amazon's free cash flow down 97%. Google, Microsoft, and Meta down twelve, twelve, and 8% respectively. Jason Calacanis (00:43:20): Your thoughts on this free cash flow, the end of the free cash flow deluge, and the massive, massive investment we're seeing in CapEx, Shavon? I think we're seeing a very important structural shift in the capital markets. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:43:36): I think the last twenty or thirty years well, twenty years, it's been that the Mag seven just kinda ran away with it, that these big companies got bigger and bigger, and it absorbed all of these investment dollars. And the biggest reason was that it had these very asset light business models. Right? You just built some more software, and it just has all this leverage, and it all just kind of worked, except maybe for Amazon because they needed physical infrastructure for warehouses and delivery and whatnot. But by and large, it was a very asset light investment cycle. Now all of a sudden, the pendulum is swinging violently in the other direction. And there's something that I think people misunderstand, which is as it moves back to these asset heavy infrastructure investments, The hyperscalers are signing checks that, I mean, I suspect their body can cash, but there's a world in which they can't. I'll give you an example. You know, when Microsoft convinced the owners of 3 Mile Island to turn their nuclear sight back on? Yeah. Do you know what their forward purchase agreement was? It was for more than two x to prevailing spot rate for energy. More than two x. The problem is that's not for an enormous percentage of their overall energy needs. So if you play that out and you think these five or six companies all of a sudden are not just spending, Jason, 700,000,000,000 a year of capex, which they are, but then from an operating cash flow, they're gonna be spending two x the prevailing spot rate because they just want guaranteed demand into the future. Where's all this cash gonna go? It's not gonna go to the shareholder, and it's not gonna stay on the balance sheet. These companies will now get levered. They're gonna get highly sophisticated around the financial engineering. They'll have more debt. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:45:32): They'll have all kinds of different vehicles and term loans and revolvers and all of this stuff. And so they're gonna look like this big bulky industrial business in five years. And I'm not sure that there's a good valuation case to be made at that point. And so I think it may be simpler, and this is what I tweeted, to just follow the dollars. Like, a trillion dollars a year going out of the hyperscalers. Where is it going? Just follow those dollars and buy those companies because those companies are already underpriced. Jason Calacanis (00:46:03): This is, obviously reminiscent of something we all experienced. Nick, can you pull up the Cisco chart I just sent you and put it at max? We had a massive build out of the infrastructure of the Internet in the late nineteen nineties and into 2000. And what that caused was a lot of aggressive companies to do massive amounts of spending, a lot of retail investors to embrace these stocks like we're seeing with people trying to get into these private companies. And, Saxe, look at the 2000 peak of Cisco. This is the most extraordinary chart ever. It took them twenty five years to get back to that peak, and they had a lost two decades. And we had a massive amount of fiber that wound up getting bought. We talked about that a couple years ago on the program. But there's something for you to build off of here when you look at this massive infrastructure. You think it's gonna be Cisco Systems all over again, WorldCom, etcetera? David Sacks (00:46:55): No, I really don't. The issue we had in 2000 was dark fiber. You had all this infrastructure being built out and it wasn't being used. There's no dark GPUs today, as you know, Brad Gerstner likes to say. So what's driving the CapEx now is the voracious demand for compute, for tokens. And the demand is now pulling forward this additional investment in infrastructure. So I think what's happened here is that the bull thesis for AI just got validated in a single afternoon. I mean, again, you got Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud, Amazon AWS, Meta, they're all basically exceeding expectations, exceeding guidance in terms of where their cloud revenue would be, and therefore how much they're gonna reinvest in CapEx. This year, I think we were supposed to have $660,000,000,000 of hyperscaler CapEx, up from $3.50 last year. I think there's now, the new estimate is gonna be over 700. So this is, you know, again, it's more than 2% of GDP. This is a huge tailwind to GDP. There's another article saying that I think in the last quarter, AI was 75% of GDP growth. And by the way, this is just the CapEx part. This is the physical infrastructure. This is not the economic impact of the tokens that are generated inside the token factory. This is the building of the factories. How do those tokens get used? Like we're seeing, they're being used not just to do research or to answer questions, but to create code. And so we're seeing this explosion of productivity in software development. And we're seeing an explosion of bespoke software being created. And that's going to accelerate every part of the economy. Every business that now wants to get code will be able to get code for the first time. Before they couldn't even hire the engineers. They needed to generate it. Now they will be able to. So that is a huge unlock of productivity across the economy. Then you're getting into these new use cases like the co working use cases and agents, right? So the workflow automations that are happening. It's still early. David Sacks (00:49:03): I don't believe that this is gonna replace humans. We had that in the past week, we had that crazy case of an agent deleting a production database in nine seconds Speaker 3 (00:49:11): because Look, a David Sacks (00:49:13): what that said to me is that it's not that agents aren't valuable. They are valuable, but they have to be supervised. You know, this idea that you're just gonna be able to, like, automate all the jobs away, it is a massive amount of hand waving over the real technical problems and issues. The agents have to be supervised. Someone has to be accountable. It's not gonna be the CEO. The CEO doesn't wanna be accountable for thousands of agents. You need people Speaker 3 (00:49:38): Despite what Jack Chad Block said. David Sacks (00:49:40): Yeah. You're Speaker 3 (00:49:41): so 6,000 direct reports is a great, like, goal, but it's not realistic. Yeah. David Sacks (00:49:46): You need IT people who are savvy, who can supervise this and make sure it's working. Speaker 3 (00:49:50): They have David Sacks (00:49:51): to be accountable to the CEO. Someone has to drive the productivity. It's like Balaji always said, AI is not end to end. It's middle to middle. You have to have someone to do the prompting, you and have to have someone do the validating, and I would add the supervision and accountability. So anyway, the larger point, though, is I'm speaking to the fact that I don't think there's gonna be this huge job loss associated with this productivity boom that we're gonna get. And in fact, I think what's actually happening now is that AI is becoming synonymous with the American economy. I mean, the fact that it's generating 75% of GDP, you have this CapEx explosion, this energy explosion that feeds it. And again, just the beginning of the applications that are being unleashed by these new token factories, I think it's all a very, very positive thing. And all these doomers who are trying to throw a wet blanket on it or constantly scaring the daylights out of people, I mean, what do they want the American economy to do? Just to stop? I mean, they just don't want any progress? I mean, like, again, you know, when you talk about stopping AI or halting AI progress, what you're really doing is stopping the American economy now. You're basically saying you don't want economic growth. AI is now synonymous with the growth of the American economy. And if there's no economic growth, there's not gonna be money to pay for all the social programs. There's not gonna be money to pay down the national debt. There's not gonna be money to basically build up our national defense, all these things we wanna spend money on. We have to have a vibrant economy, and that is now synonymous with AI. So I know that AI may not be popular. I see those polls, but having a strong economy is popular. And I believe that those things are now synonymous. Jason Calacanis (00:51:29): It's almost like there was some architect or czar who set up the chessboard in the first year of this to make sure that it was ultra competitive. David Sacks (00:51:37): Know, president Trump set the table on Chamath Palihapitiya (00:51:39): this. Jason Calacanis (00:51:39): Absolutely. With some good advice, I think, maybe. Friedberg, your thoughts? David Sacks (00:51:43): It's always good to have good advisers. Jason Calacanis (00:51:45): Always good to have good advisers. Absolutely. Absolutely. David Sacks (00:51:47): No. But look. I've said it before. The president just wants America to win. Jason Calacanis (00:51:50): Literally, there are people who if we were looking at this, you know, I don't know, a hundred years ago, it'd be like people were like, yeah. You know what? We shouldn't build the highway system where we've half built the highway system. Let's stop. Let's stop building the highways. David Friedberg (00:52:02): No. The highway system was funded by the federal government. There was no competition. It was the most expensive on a on a inflation adjusted basis. I think it was the most expensive project in US history. Jason Calacanis (00:52:13): Yeah. And the railroads before that. Like, you can't stop these things. They have to keep going. It's interesting point. You know? There is so much demand for the resource of tokens of intelligence, Friedberg, and it's quite different than the fiber situation as Zach correctly points out where we built all this, but we didn't actually have an application. Here, the application is pretty pretty well known, and you've got a large number of people in businesses who are trying to vibe code their way to success, trying to push this stuff. And we had an interesting story referenced earlier in the show where Claude ate somebody's homework. This is the nightmare of all nightmares. Somebody was vibe coding. It was the founder of Pocket OS, apparently. They make software for rental car companies. He was using Opus 4.6 through Cursor's AI platform, their coding platform, you know, which is like the most expensive tier. And he said he configured it with enough safety rules, but the agent was working on a routine task. They saw some sort of credentialing mismatch, and they decided to fix the mismatch by deleting a railway volume without user confirmation. And they pushed the code from a repo to a live app, and they deleted everything, including the backups, literally a scene from Silicon Valley's HBO clip of son of Anton. Hilarious. You gave your AI permission to overwrite code in the internal file system? Were you gonna tell me about this? Speaker 6 (00:53:43): No. I thought that was the company policy these days. Jason Calacanis (00:53:47): Okay. Well, your AI just failed, epically. Speaker 6 (00:53:51): That's unclear. It's possible that Son of Anton decided that the most efficient way to get rid of all the bugs was to get rid of all software, which is technically and statistically correct. But artificial neural nets are sort of a black box, so we'll never know for sure. Jason Calacanis (00:54:06): How did they get that Speaker 3 (00:54:07): so right, Sax? Five or six years ago, art and neural networks are a black box, so I guess we'll never know. Jason Calacanis (00:54:13): But, technically, it was correct. Friedberg, when you blow up a hollow system with your vibe coding, which you were absolutely showing off in front of Jensen a couple of weeks ago about how much code you're pushing, who are you gonna blame? Are you gonna take responsibility yourself? Are you gonna blame Claude or Kerstor? Who are you gonna blame when you blow up the entire stack over at Ohalo? David Friedberg (00:54:36): Who are you Dario. I blame Dario. You blame Dario. Okay. Jason Calacanis (00:54:40): That's what I thought. That's correct answer. Correct answer. Blame Dario. He's the one who says it's a doomsday machine. Come on the prod anytime, Dario. Seventeenth invite you. David Friedberg (00:54:48): I'm Dario. Speaker 3 (00:54:50): I would have invited a guy, like, 17 times. He is totally going to be he wants nothing to do with his podcast. David Sacks (00:54:57): Actually, let me speak to that. I think I think that there's maybe a misperception that this error occurred because of, you know, quote unquote AI scheming. Like kind of in that video that the AI decided that the best way to get rid of bugs is to basically eliminate the code base. This is kind of like the, you know, AI is going to turn the world into paper clips type thing where somehow it'll like miss scheme. That's not really what happened here. This is a case of just a of old fashioned bugs occurring at an edge case. You know, you've got the fact that this API was not designed for permissioned usage. You've got the fact that a credential was left kind of lying around. Probably it should not be. There's kind of like a perfect storm that caused the AI to do something or the agent to do something I didn't quite understand what it was doing. I think that if there's a systemic problem here rather than just kind of like a random edge case, it's that AI still doesn't know what it doesn't know. You know, like a human would stop before deleting a production database and just say, oh, I'm about to do something like really serious, really destructive. Am I sure I wanna do this? You know? And a human would have stopped and said, oh, wait a second. Like, I need to be more confident in what I'm doing before I take that action. And AI still has this issue where, again, it can be kind of overconfident. This is where, like, the hallucinations come from is it doesn't know when it should have a low confidence in its output, right? But this is why it has to be supervised. Know, the longer the time horizon for a task, the more likely it is to go off the rails. It'll drift. Adrift, exactly. And this is why I think people are starting to realize that this idea of eliminating all software developers was the peak of inflated expectations. Jason Calacanis (00:56:45): Yes. David Sacks (00:56:45): Right? There was actually a really good tweet David Friedberg (00:56:49): on David Sacks (00:56:49): this by Aaron Levy who's got the right take on this. Aaron retweeted Matthew Iglesias, who sort of sardonically tweeted that five months in, I think I've decided I don't wanna vibe code. I want professionally managed software companies to use AI coding assistance to make more, better, cheaper software products that they sell to me for money. Jason Calacanis (00:57:08): Just lower your prices. Don't make me vibe code is the translation. David Sacks (00:57:13): Yeah. I mean, I think like a rare win for for Mataglasius there. Anyway, Aaron Levy then says, Agenta coding is a huge boon for software developers that wanna get more done, and it's fantastic for anyone curious to learn how to start coding. What it's less great for is casually building complex software that you have to maintain on an ongoing basis and take all the risk for. Upgrades, maintenance, keeping up to date with latest security issues, you know, the bugs, cyber. Those are taxes on most knowledge workers who aren't familiar with the system. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:57:45): It's not a tax. It's a huge risk. David Sacks (00:57:47): Yes. It's a risk that has to be managed. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:57:49): It's a risk. People will get fired because there will be some public companies where some goofball tries to vibe code their way out of something, and they're gonna torch the enterprise value. It's gonna be glorious to watch because we're all gonna laugh and realize that was stupid and should never have happened in the first place. Jason Calacanis (00:58:04): Yeah. I mean, it's there is a chance that this improves to the point, passes trial of disillusionment, and becomes super productive, and you'll be able to get an agent to do reasonable things without deleting your dataset. But we have a way to go. Here is your you know, this is the tech adoption chart. Basically, you got a technology gets triggered. You have the trial. You have this peak of inflated expectations. You're going through the trial of disillusionment, and then the slope of enlightenment invest and eventually becomes de rigueur, and it's an opportunity. Hey, Friedberg. You have become reta trutide curious. You have And also Tell Chamath Palihapitiya (00:58:43): me tell me about Retta, Friedberg, because I want it. I wanna get on it. Mm-mm. I wanna use it, and I need you to tell Nat that it's okay for me to take it. Jason Calacanis (00:58:52): I I have a friend who has some advice as Chamath Palihapitiya (00:58:54): well. Friedberg. David Friedberg (00:58:55): The coverage is coming out of this phase three clinical trial data release that Lilly put out last month. So everyone's going crazy over the data, which continues to show pretty amazing results. So unlike tirzepatide, which is kind of Lilly's main product today, it's a which is a dual agonist. It's got two peptides in it that that bind to different receptors, the GLP one, the GIP receptor. This other one now also binds to glucagon, which is a third receptor. And that glucagon receptor binding peptide causes the cells to increase their metabolism, which actually accelerates fat energy consumption over what would typically be muscle energy consumption. It's more likely to burn up fat early on, which causes more quick fat loss, but also reduces muscle loss. And some of the other data that's now coming out shows non HDL cholesterol down 27%, triglycerides down 41%. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:59:57): Liver fat down 80%? David Friedberg (01:00:00): To 80% reduction of liver fat. A one c drops from 7.9% to 6% in forty weeks, which is amazing, by the way, if you're diabetic and your A one c drops that much in a couple of months. It's literally a life saving product. The average user Speaker 3 (01:00:17): in David Friedberg (01:00:17): this phase three trial saw their weight decline from two fourteen pounds. They lost 37 pounds. That's compared to six pounds on placebo in forty weeks. And, you know, modest side effects, twenty percent people felt more nauseous than the people that were on the placebo. There's a lot of other separate studies that are being done now that are showing significant reductions in inflammatory signaling molecules. So systemic signaling of like, hey. Cells are in distress triggers this kind of inflammatory process that can have a lot of other damage to your body. It can accelerate aging. And so one of the other conversations is that retitrutide might actually be kind of a de aging drug as well. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:01:01): Hercules. Hercules. Hercules. You know? David Friedberg (01:01:05): And a lot of the studies, by the way, are done on the the the very high dose, twelve milligram dose, but you could probably get this thing dosed down to two milligrams and still see a lot of the anti inflammatory maintenance and other benefits. I'm no doctor, but people are going nuts over this being more widely useful than just for clinical obesity or type Jason Calacanis (01:01:24): one diabetes. When's the projected date for Chamath Palihapitiya (01:01:27): 2027. Mid twenty seven. David Friedberg (01:01:28): That's what they're saying. Could happen sooner. I mean, the data's in. The, you know, the FDA will take their time to evaluate it. But I think given the way this is all looking, could happen sooner, could happen sometime later this year. Jason Calacanis (01:01:42): Swim, Chamath Swim, said it's incredible and that, it's living up to the hype in their experience. Speaker 3 (01:01:50): Who? Jason Calacanis (01:01:50): Swim. David Friedberg (01:01:51): What is that? Jason Calacanis (01:01:52): What is that? Someone who isn't me. Swim. Oh. This is a Reddit term. Someone who isn't me said who Chamath Palihapitiya (01:01:59): has a guy. Swim has Jason Calacanis (01:02:00): a guy and has cycled, on Reddit fruitide and does push ups and says muscle gain has been spectacular. No muscle loss and a lowering of fat. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:02:13): If you go on x and you just search up Retta Mhmm. It's, like, incredible. You see these, like, 65 year old guys that go from a dad bod to looking like an incredibly ripped athlete in weeks. And and I I mean, I'm shocked. And then for me, I don't need that help per se, but my liver health is important to me, my cardiac health because I'm a South Asian, and it just looks like a wonder drug. I can't wait. David Friedberg (01:02:41): When you starve your body, when you turn off the the appetite, which is the GLP one agonist function, normally, body goes into this kind of mode of starvation, and you have this process by which your body tries to generate energy from your existing cells. And because muscle is much denser than fat, you can have a favoring of muscle tissue being kind of broken up over fat tissue. But what this new agonist, this glucagon agonist they put into this retreutide is it favors fat burning over muscle burning. And so that actually can drive short term use at low dose for people to cut weight and maintain muscle and get ripped. And so that's why a lot of people in the kind of fitness community are talking about, hey. I wanna get access to this and get on it for a while. So you'll see a lot more hype probably in that community as well as the all the health effects. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:03:31): It just feels like we're about to have an absolute avalanche of peptides to choose from. David Friedberg (01:03:36): On November 2025, Lilly cut a deal with the Trump administration. I saw this to drop the price on tirzepatide pretty significantly. I think it's, like, $50 on Medicare. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:03:45): Bucks from Medicare. Yeah. David Friedberg (01:03:47): Yeah. Which is a pretty cheap price point. But it starts to make sense. As you think about the portfolio of Lilly products, you get tirzepatide for $50. But if you wanna upgrade, get the retrotrutide. That's the high premium product, and that's where they're gonna start to make all Jason Calacanis (01:03:59): the money. Mercedes to the Hyundai. David Friedberg (01:04:00): And I'm sure if I'm Lily and I'm sitting there and I'm looking at this data coming out, I'm like, my god. People will pay for this. And that starts to become sort of like the upgrade to the BMW or the Model S Plaid, if you will. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:04:10): Yeah. The Trazepatide is like the one bedroom messy bed hotel room. Jason Calacanis (01:04:15): And the other one's the suite. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:04:16): Yeah. Retirzepatide is like the two bedroom suite. Jason Calacanis (01:04:20): You can also by the way, you guys know I'm a spokesman for Roe, They also have the Wegovy pill, roe.co/twist, to get your Chamath Palihapitiya (01:04:31): Wait. Are you a paid spokesman? Are you are you a paid Jason Calacanis (01:04:34): what are you talking Speaker 3 (01:04:35): about? Me me Charles Barkley, and David Friedberg (01:04:38): we're not having Speaker 3 (01:04:39): your Cereno Williams sales. Sales person per row. David Friedberg (01:04:42): And then you come over on All In, and Speaker 3 (01:04:44): you start promoting it. Jason Calacanis (01:04:44): No. No. No. They're not happening. Trust me. We'll get one of those as well. We'll get a roe.co sponsorship here. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:04:49): What was the Roe pill that you had me get? What was it called? Oh, Sparks. Sparks. Sparks. Speaker 3 (01:04:53): Can you have take it? I Chamath Palihapitiya (01:04:55): have taken it, and now Amore, please. No. No. No. Jason Calacanis (01:04:58): Or maybe just a half of it, Lazy. David Friedberg (01:05:00): Hey. I wanna hear the story. I wanna hear the story. Go. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:05:02): It's so out of control. Speaker 3 (01:05:03): It is out control. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:05:04): Told you. So then what happens is Nat and I are like, you can't you can't just randomly use it. It's scheduled. We discuss it. We put it on the calendar. You need a plan. You need plan. Jason Calacanis (01:05:14): You need a plan. You can't go Chamath Palihapitiya (01:05:15): away with what's the worst. Otherwise, it's too much. You just can't randomly take it. David Friedberg (01:05:19): What do you mean? Jason Calacanis (01:05:20): It's gonna be a sesh. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:05:22): It's a sesh. Gonna be a whole thing, man. It's like, I don't have the energy for Jason Calacanis (01:05:25): that anymore. Extended session. You you have to be well rested. This don't do this at 1AM. This is like a 10PM No. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:05:31): This is like a no. This is more like a Jason Calacanis (01:05:32): The afternoon? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:05:33): On vacation. You know, like, 10AM to twelve p you know, to noon. You know? Yes. You gotta really you gotta really schedule it. Schedule it. Because otherwise Jason Calacanis (01:05:43): No kids around. Otherwise, unfair to her. Be empty. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:05:46): Otherwise, it's unfair to her, and it's just a it's a lot. It's for Jason Calacanis (01:05:49): the It's a it's a big commitment, literally. David Friedberg (01:05:52): You you look embarrassed, Chamath. Do you feel embarrassed talking about it? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:05:55): It's just a lot, man. It's like it's a lot to handle. It's a lot. It's Jason Calacanis (01:06:00): if you wanna get the extra 20% in your performance Chamath Palihapitiya (01:06:03): It's a lot, bro. Speaker 3 (01:06:04): It's a lot. It's basically going to overtime. David Friedberg (01:06:06): It's double Chamath Palihapitiya (01:06:07): overtime. What happened was I was like, oh, what is this thing? Jason's like, dude, you must get it. You must get it. So we got it. We tried it. And we were like, what the was that? And so then I've been trying to bleed the pills out, so I gave some to Stan Tang. I'm like, Stanley, you try it. Jason Calacanis (01:06:22): Literally, he's dealing them like cards. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:06:25): At but when we're having poker dinner, I'm like, does anybody wanna try these things? But these roast like the What is it? Rose sparks? Is that it's Rocalois. Jason Calacanis (01:06:31): Shout out to my friends at Rocalois. Alright. Let's keep moving here. Friedberg guys, Friedberg had his own personal Super Bowl. You see me getting ready for Knicks playoff season. I get my courtside. Friedberg had the equivalent sacks. He went to the Supreme Court in order to hear them talk about chemicals. This was a big deal for him. The Supreme Court coming together Oh, Monsanto. The Monsanto trial happened in the Supreme Court, and he went. He got courtside. He went to the Supreme Court and listened in the building. David Friedberg (01:07:03): Have you guys ever seen a live Supreme Court hearing? No. We love to. Sax, have you been? David Sacks (01:07:08): No. I haven't actually. David Friedberg (01:07:09): I mean, honest honestly, I think it was one of the most amazing experiences I've ever had. There was a massive protest out front. We went through the marshal's office to get in. And that building, you walk in, it's, like, sacred. It's all marble. It's you're not allowed to talk. You have to be super quiet when you're in the building. Like, they keep going like you're in some quiet library. Speaker 6 (01:07:28): I'm David Friedberg (01:07:28): out. It's like people treat it with this level of kind of sanctity that that and respect. And they're like, there is no politics here. There is no bull There is no freedom of speech. This is the court. When you come into this court, the justices tell you how you will speak, how you will behave, what you will do, and you will not speak unless spoken to. You put all your stuff in a locker. You go up the stairs. You go into the the courtroom. And the courtroom, it's just so amazing being in there. They have this amazing marble frieze above the justices that had some of the great people of human history, Moses and these kind of amazing historical figures. And then below them are the nine justices. And the court case, if you guys haven't watched the case, you can listen to them, I think, online. Speaker 3 (01:08:08): Yeah. So, hold on. You said worth listening to. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:08:10): Hold on. Wait. Wait. Wait. I have a question. So does Robert sit in the middle because he's the chief? Speaker 3 (01:08:14): Yes. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:08:15): And then do all of the right justices sit on the right? David Friedberg (01:08:18): No. They're mixed. So they're I think I don't know I don't know the exact seating, but they're mixed. David Sacks (01:08:22): In terms of on appointments of the court. Is that Yeah. Sitting on the Chamath Palihapitiya (01:08:26): Sitting on David Friedberg (01:08:26): I think that's right. And then so yeah. That's right. And then it kind of goes out from the middle with Roberts in the middle. Roberts occasionally will name the justices and say, hey. Do you have a question? Do you have a question? If no one's talking. But otherwise, the justices will jump in with their questions when they want, and they'll ask. Now honest to God, watching this is like watching LeBron James play basketball. These lawyers are so mind blowingly impressive on both sides that you would just, like, sit there, and I was, like, in awe. It was so I I felt like my energy was completely sapped for me at the end of this process because you were just so engaged and so caught into the way that these guys are thinking and talking. Jason Calacanis (01:09:04): Did you take a rose sparks? Did you take a rose sparks when you were there? David Friedberg (01:09:06): No. And if you're familiar if you're familiar enough with the case or the case history or the law that's being debated because, when when you get to the supreme court, you never debate the case. What you're debating is the legal interpretation of the decisions that were made on the case. And so is this constitutional? How do you interpret this particular act, this law, this federal law? What's the right way to think about it? So you don't actually talk about the case. You talk about the interpretation of American law, of our laws, of what was Constitution. Constitution David Sacks (01:09:36): You're saying the facts have already been determined. David Friedberg (01:09:38): That's right. David Sacks (01:09:39): Right? At a lower court. There's questions of fact and questions of law. The facts have already been determined by the lower court. It's just Supreme Court is ruling on questions of law. David Friedberg (01:09:47): That's right. And so they have a full briefing with the full history of the case. And remember, they only hear two cases a day. So they're one hour each for each hearing. So you go in, and they only do it Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday on the last two weeks, and they only hear cases from October to April. There's only a handful of cases that are selected. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:10:03): Wow. So you're really on a shot clock then to make David Friedberg (01:10:05): You're on a shot clock, and you only have and it's thirty minutes aside, and then the justices will ask question. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:10:09): So this was Monsanto and Roundup. Right? So what was the law that was being debated? David Friedberg (01:10:14): For yours, the regulatory body, the EPA, sets the label for pesticides. Does this cause cancer or not? What are the warnings? This can be damaging for birth defects, pregnancy, all the things that we're all used to seeing on labels when you buy a product, a chemical product. And the EPA and their regulatory authority determined that Roundup does not cause cancer. When you sell a pesticide, you first have to register it with the EPA, get it approved, and then the EPA gives you a label. And the label is written by the EPA. Says exactly what you're supposed to say. And in this case, it said all this stuff, doesn't say cancer because they determined it does not cause cancer. And I'm not gonna debate whether or not it causes cancer, but that's the case that was made is that the EPA is the regulatory body under a federal act called FIFRA, Fungicide Insecticide Rodenticide Act. And that's where the EPA is given the regulatory authority to put the label on these products. And all of the cases that have been lost have been state failure to warn cases. To date, Bayer, which now owns Monsanto, has paid out $10,000,000,000 in these lawsuits, and they have reserved 10,000,000,000 on their balance sheet. They have 90,000 cases still outstanding in the courts. Wow. 90,000. Wow. And so this one case got kind of appealed up to the Supreme Court. Last year, the White House solicitor general and if the solicitor general steps up and asks the Supreme Court to take a case, it's more likely the case gets taken. So the White House said, please take this case. We need to have federal preemption, meaning the federal government has the right to set the label because all of the cases that have been lost and that are being adjudicated are in state courts where the state has a law like in California called a failure to warn law, which means if a manufacturer knows that a product carries a risk, you have to warn the consumer. And so the the lawyers have been arguing that Monsanto or Bayer knew that this product caused cancer and didn't warn the consumer. And they've been winning cases, they've been losing cases, but they've won enough cases that this has now become a multi deca billion dollar problem. And so the argument is that the EPA says it doesn't cause cancer and they have federal preemption. So the EPA has the right to determine. David Friedberg (01:12:22): So that's the one argument. But then when the other attorney came up, this guy was, like, literally, like, watching LeBron James. And so going in, we're like, oh, six three, Bayard's gonna win. And then the other guy comes up, and he was like, well, hey. You guys overturned the Chevron doctrine last year. You guys remember that case? Yeah. Where basically when the Chevron doctrine got overturned, it basically said that no longer does the federal agency get to decide. It has to be a direct reading Chamath Palihapitiya (01:12:48): of the law. It's not. David Friedberg (01:12:50): So now so he's saying, like, the states should have a right to read the law themselves. They shouldn't have to just defer to the EPA. And that's what this will come down to. So at the end of it, were like, oh my god. This could be a $50.50 coin flip, $5.04 either way. And going into it, we were kind of like trying to say, hey. Maybe this could be $6.03. So, honestly, the whole experience was incredible. The case is interesting. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:13:11): These are very complicated matters. How are these people able to make a fulsome argument in, like, one side gets thirty minutes, the other side gets thirty minutes, there's a little q and a, and then you're done in an hour? David Friedberg (01:13:22): There's this whole art and science. And, Sax, you're probably familiar with this on how do you distill down a supreme court case in the briefing doc. Like, what is it you're petitioning around the court? And you try and distill it down to the exact legal interpretation you want the judges to rule on. Not all the other bull Jason Calacanis (01:13:37): And this is oral arguments. Yes. David Friedberg (01:13:39): Oral arguments. Just a discussion. And then the judges jump in, and all they're doing is asking the lawyer questions. One lawyer at a time. The one side and then the other side. And by the way, the solicitor general came up in the middle and kind of made a few comments and asked her some questions from the White House, and she sat down. And then the two sides kinda went back and forth, and and they just it's, thirty minutes q and a each on that one specific legal question. And Ketanji Brown Jackson said, but what if after the EPA issued the label, they found out information that it does cause cancer? Shouldn't they update the label? And he's saying, well, no, they're not allowed to. They could only issue the label the EPA says. And he says also and it's it's a criminal case if they find out that it does cause cancer and they don't report it to the EPA. And then she's saying, well, what if the EPA doesn't act? And shouldn't the states have a right to protect their people? So those are the legal arguments, the discussions that are going on in all of this. And there's interesting implications, which is fundamentally if the states get to interpret federal law and ignore federal regulatory bodies, it opens up a whole new can of worms in terms of, like, all the states can start to ignore federal regulate regulatory bodies like the EPA or the FDA or the USDA or and on and on and on. So the whole case has a whole bunch of really interesting implications wound up in it. When you hear these guys and they're just talking Chamath about that exact, like, interpretation of the law, and that's what this comes down to. It's not the actual case that matters. Jason Calacanis (01:14:58): And after the Sacks, they go to oral arguments, and then they have, like, a private conference where they'll write their papers and give their final judgment. Yeah. Sacks? David Sacks (01:15:07): Yeah. I think what happens is that so I guess there's some discussion that happens behind closed doors, and they figure out where the majority is, and then the chief gets to assign who writes the opinion for the majority. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:15:19): In that meeting, nobody is allowed in. And in fact, you have a double door system where, like, if anything needs to come David Friedberg (01:15:25): in and out, you have Chamath Palihapitiya (01:15:26): to, like, kinda, like, knock on the door. You're led into this antechamber. Then Speaker 3 (01:15:29): Oh, is it an airlock? It's an airlock. It's a Chamath Palihapitiya (01:15:32): fact that we I had I don't know if you were there, Jason, but we had Ted Cruz come to play in the poker game. Jason Calacanis (01:15:37): Wasn't Chamath Palihapitiya (01:15:37): that Ted Cruz clerked for William Rehnquist. And if you wanna have an incredible dinner, ask him about the Supreme Court and Bill Rehnquist. He's a real student of the Supreme Court, and it just makes the Supreme Court, Friedberg, to your point, sound like the most incredible body that's ever been created anywhere. David Friedberg (01:15:58): By the way, more than the White House, more than the Capitol Building, more than any of these other big agencies, this place has it's almost like being in England. It has these kind of ways that people operate. The the the security is so different. They kind of stand there in the court, and they all exchange places every twenty minutes. It's very coordinated. They're dressed Jason Calacanis (01:16:17): very differently than any other courtroom listening? David Friedberg (01:16:20): Maybe, like, a 150, I would say. Jason Calacanis (01:16:22): How do you tickets? Are they on David Friedberg (01:16:24): So I think I actually think everyone is a guest of a clerk or someone that works at the court. I don't think that it's, like, very publicly available to get in there. Jason Calacanis (01:16:30): You can't line up? There's no lineup? David Friedberg (01:16:32): There's I don't know if there's a lineup. This was a connection through the case. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:16:36): We got David Friedberg (01:16:36): in through the chief justice. He gave us the pass, but I think it was, like, very Jason Calacanis (01:16:42): I think at the Elon versus OpenAI case, there's you can line up, and then the judge gave, like, 30 tickets to the press. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:16:49): But that's the Supreme Court. Jason Calacanis (01:16:51): That's the issue. Speaker 3 (01:16:51): But I Jason Calacanis (01:16:52): think there's a lineup for the Supreme Court as well. There's some public access that there David Friedberg (01:16:55): It did not look like anyone from the public was in this court. Everyone is is dressed respectfully. I mean, court has an incredible amount of, like, Chamath Palihapitiya (01:17:04): know, kind of super cool experience. David Sacks (01:17:07): It's a great job. Would I say enjoy it while you I mean, I think the Supreme Court is one of the last highly functional institutions in The United States. David Friedberg (01:17:15): 100%. David Sacks (01:17:16): You know, at some point, we're gonna have, like, 13 or 21 or some crazy number of justices up there. They should put Speaker 3 (01:17:22): in another arena sack and get David Sacks (01:17:23): jerseys get everybody show up with their jerseys. Of justices there. And so enjoy it while it's still in the current Can you imagine? Form it's in. Speaker 3 (01:17:32): Sacks, you imagine showing up with jerseys with the justices' names on them and, like, having sections and, like, somebody selling cracker jacks. They get this David Friedberg (01:17:40): The idiocracy version of the Supreme Court. Exactly. David Sacks (01:17:45): Popularity of the court really depends on whether it's issuing decisions that people agree with. That's what it comes down to. If like, if you ask people whether they like this from court or not, it really just depends on whether they agree with the decisions that are Jason Calacanis (01:18:00): coming Sure, recency. David Sacks (01:18:00): As opposed to the process of the decisions and how well argued it is and all these things that you're pointing to. And actually, court I mean, I just checked the numbers. The court is relatively popular right now. I think that it got as low as 35% in the 2024 Gallup survey, but I think it's back up to, you know, like 44 to 50% favorability, which for something that's involved in politics is relatively high, right? Like you look at Congress or any particular politician, they're gonna be lower than that typically. David Friedberg (01:18:35): I just felt so assured of, like, the institution when I visited and saw these guys interact and behave and how they behave, the process. It was like, man, this is what what an amazing country. David Sacks (01:18:48): Yeah. Well, the reason I say what I say is there was an interview with James Carville recently. Did you guys see this? Saw that. David Friedberg (01:18:53): I saw that. David Sacks (01:18:53): He said, look. When we get power, we're packing the court. So we're not even gonna we're not gonna worry about it. David Friedberg (01:18:59): And we're to 13. Right? He said we're gonna David Sacks (01:19:01): make Yeah. They're gonna go from nine to 13. And then they're gonna create some new states and all the rest of it. So that'll be that. Enjoy enjoy a David Friedberg (01:19:09): while a laughs. Speaker 3 (01:19:09): Enjoy a while a laughs. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:19:12): The way end on a high note. Jason Calacanis (01:19:13): Wait a yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:19:14): It's the Jason Calacanis (01:19:14): end of the empire. David Friedberg (01:19:15): That'll be that. Jason Calacanis (01:19:16): By the way, there is a supreme court I was correct. There is an online ticketing lottery. So we can all sign up, and you can get a four pack of tickets. I think they should make this I we should talk to Howard Lutnick. Maybe he can make this an auction. We get a revenue stream from The US. Speaker 3 (01:19:32): We could sell, like, 10 of the tickets as courtside seats for $20. David Friedberg (01:19:35): Jason, you're exactly what they're trying to protect against halfway through. Speaker 3 (01:19:38): Like, how can we how can we monetize Jason Calacanis (01:19:41): the supreme court? Alright, everybody. That's it. That's the world's greatest podcast for you. For Chamath Palihapitiya, David Friedberg, and David Sachs, I am the world's greatest moderator. We'll see you time. Justice. I'm like the chief justice of the all in vodkas. Speaker 6 (01:19:58): We'll let your winners ride. David Friedberg (01:20:01): Rain man gave it to us. Speaker 6 (01:20:04): I'm going home. And it said We open source David Friedberg (01:20:23): We Jason Calacanis (01:20:29): should all just get a room and just have one big huge orgy because they're all just useless. It's like it's like sexual tension, and they just need to release somehow.